Did the US support Pol Pot?

[Matteo Martini]

Did the US support Pol Pot, one of the worst criminals in human history?
I thought the US already did a bad job ( i.e. crime ) in funneling Vietnam war in the Sixties and Seventies, but I did not expect that the supported one of the worst genocide in recent human history

The Times editorial of June 24 recognizes a small problem in pursuing Pol Pot, arising from the fact that after he was forced out of Cambodia by Vietnam, "From 1979 to 1991, Washington indirectly backed the Khmer Rouge, then a component of the guerrilla coalition fighting the Vietnamese installed Government [in Phnom Penh]." This does seem awkward: the United States and its allies giving economic, military, and political support to Pol Pot, and voting for over a decade to have his government retain Cambodia’s UN seat, but now urging his trial for war crimes. The Times misstates and understates the case: the United States gave direct as well as indirect aid to Pol Pot—in one estimate, $85 million in direct support—and it "pressured UN agencies to supply the Khmer Rouge," which "rapidly improved" the health and capability of Pol Pot’s forces after 1979 (Ben Kiernan, "Cambodia’s Missed Chance," Indochina Newsletter, Nov.-Dec. 1991). U.S. ally China was a very large arms supplier to Pol Pot, with no penalty from the U.S. and in fact U.S. connivance—Carter’s National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski stated that in 1979 "I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot...Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him but China could."

http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/hermansept97.htm

This is quite a different story than the one told by the more conscientious historians at Covert Action Quarterly, also published in DC. In the fall 1997 issue, John Pilger writes that the US funneled $86 million in support of Pol Pot and his followers from 1980 to 1986. In addition, the Reagan administration schemed and plotted to have Khmer Rouge representatives occupy Cambodia's UN seat, even though the Khmer Rouge government ceased to exist in 1979. This was a sad effort to grant Pol Pot's followers international legitimacy.

http://www.media-criticism.com/Washi..._Pot_1998.html

[WildCat]

No.

[Oliver]

Wouldn't surprise me in regard to what the American elite calls
"foreign policy" -aka- sponsoring Dictatorships and Terror - and
condemning it at the same time. LOL.

[WildCat]

Oliver, perhaps you or MM could actually provide evidence? MM's links do not do so, and you're just trolling anyway.

[Matteo Martini]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Oliver, perhaps you or MM could actually provide evidence? MM's links do not do so, and you're just trolling anyway.

With the support of Australia as well as the United States and China, the Khmer Rouge held on to Cambodia's U.N. seat

http://www.historyplace.com/pointsofview/kiernan.htm

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Te...am_PolPot.html

[UnrepentantSinner]

Here's what I posted in the other thread.

Quote:

Thank you, that link helped me crystalize my objection to your assertion that the U.S. supported Pol Pot. The problem is that you're engaging in fallacious equivocation.

What happened was the U.S. continued to recognize the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government of Cambodia rather than recognize the Vietnamese installed puppet government. That is a far cry from supporting Pol Pot. The situation, if you took off your hatred blinders, and read the whole frontline article, was complex. Vietnam as still very much our enemy, and China was opposed to (and would eventually invade VietNam itself) their incursion into Cambodia. We were trying to continue with reprochment efforts with China and wanted to hurt VietNam as much as possible. That's why we supported the Khmer/Sihanouk rebels and supported the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government - not the Vietnamese puppets.

That is not the same as supporting Pol Pot.

[Matteo Martini]

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

Here's what I posted in the other thread.

" That is not the same as supporting Pol Pot. "
Well, I think it is supporting the KR.
Hoever, I have still to see evidence that in Communist Vietnam happened half of the killings that the KR did, so I can safely argue that what the Nobel Prize for Peace ( eh! eh! ) Kissinger did was more or less a huge crime.
Anyway..

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Oliver, perhaps you or MM could actually provide evidence? MM's links do not do so, and you're just trolling anyway.

It's just scratching the surface - but I looked up all the points
being raised here:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Maybe you take the time to understand the facts about US-foreign
policies sponsoring "terrorists" as well?

[timhau]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Oliver, perhaps you or MM could actually provide evidence? MM's links do not do so, and you're just trolling anyway.

Was Pol Pot evil? -- Yes.
So, logically, the US must have supported him.

Q.E.D.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by timhau

Was Pol Pot evil? -- Yes.
So, logically, the US must have supported him.

Q.E.D.

No. That wasn't the point. The point was: It wouldn't
surprise me after the US did support or even installed
dictators in place of democratically elected leaders.
If you fail to accept those facts, an Skeptics forum
might be the wrong place for you.

ETA: Google it up:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

" That is not the same as supporting Pol Pot. "
Well, I think it is supporting the KR.
Hoever, I have still to see evidence that in Communist Vietnam happened half of the killings that the KR did, so I can safely argue that what the Nobel Prize for Peace ( eh! eh! ) Kissinger did was more or less a huge crime.
Anyway..

Yeah, "anyway" is what any non-crackpot has been thinking about your comments in the other thread. I've been ignoring your repeated Kissenger snipes until now, but since we delved into Realpolitik with Allende/Pinochet - and I think you were handed your ass on that claim - I'll add it in with his Nobel and the facts surrounding the KR in the U.N. decision you find so damming.

First off, Kissenger was awarded the Peace Prize for the Paris accords that ended the VietNam war. In your crackpot world, I suppose the U.S. invaded RVN and started an illegal and unethical war, but that just doesn't jive with history. I pointed out to you in the other thread that the Viet Minh had been fighting the Japanese and French long before the first U.S. boot landed on Vietnamese soil. That eventually helped establish communist North Vietnam which not only sent Viet Cong terrorists, political officers and commandos south, but eventually sent NVA troops as well.

The U.S. was helping defend the RVN against an invading terrorist and ultimately army force. I cannot imagine, except in the halls of the most irrational hatred of all things American that one could perceive this as a "crime." The very fact that you think our involvement in South VietNam's war to protect itself from invasion by North VietNam brands you a crackpot on the scale of CTers.

Kissenger negotiated a peace settlement and... a couple of years later the North Vietnamese broke that settlement and invaded the south and conquered it. For that you chastize him? I guess you believe he ordered those NVA armored colums into Saigon Ho Chi Minh City.

About the same time in crackpot history, the U.S. started giving aid to and supporting the Khmer Rouge during the Killing Fields period.

Quote:

Did the US support Pol Pot, one of the worst criminals in human history?
I thought the US already did a bad job ( i.e. crime ) in funneling Vietnam war in the Sixties and Seventies, but I did not expect that the supported one of the worst genocide in recent human history

Meanwhile, in reality history, the U.S. took a hands off approach to SouthEast Asia in response to us being burned in VietNam. You're trying to suggest we were not only complicit, but participatory in the Killing Fields isn't just wrong, it's pathetic.

Let's flash forward to 1979 (in real history). The Vietnamese army invades Cambodia, sets up a puppet government, the Killing Fields stop for all intents and purposes, and the Khmer Rouge is driven into the western jungles. The U.S., wanting to continue the reproachment with China (allied with the KR admittedly) and not wanting to give any legitimacy to the Vietnamese puppet government along with a number of other nations recognizes the KR as the legitimate representative of Cambodia in the U.N. Oh, and to add some Nouc Mam to the stew, Sihanouk had allied with the KR as well in a united opposition to the Vietnamese puppet government.

Somehow in crackpot history though, this translates into the U.S. supporting and being complicit in the Killing Fields period?

I'm sorry but your fallacious equivocation of "the U.S. (and other countries) recognized the KR in 1979 as the legitimate representative of Cambodia in the U.N. because of the Vietnamese invasion" with "the U.S. supported Pol Pot (wink wink, meaning they supported the KR genocide during the Killing Fields)" borders on Infowars.com crazyness.

[Matteo Martini]

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

Yeah, "anyway" is what any non-crackpot has been thinking about your comments in the other thread. I've been ignoring your repeated Kissenger snipes until now, but since we delved into Realpolitik with Allende/Pinochet - and I think you were handed your ass on that claim - I'll add it in with his Nobel and the facts surrounding the KR in the U.N. decision you find so damming.

" handed your ass "??
Your friend Patricio has agreed that:
1) Allende was elected in free and fair elections;
2) Allende did not perform any actual major violation of human rights during his staying in power;
3) Pinochet took the power with a coup ( and with the help of the US );
4) Pinochet did perform many actual major violations of human rights during his staying in power;

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

First off, Kissenger was awarded the Peace Prize for the Paris accords that ended the VietNam war. In your crackpot world, I suppose the U.S. invaded RVN and started an illegal and unethical war, but that just doesn't jive with history. I pointed out to you in the other thread that the Viet Minh had been fighting the Japanese and French long before the first U.S. boot landed on Vietnamese soil. That eventually helped establish communist North Vietnam which not only sent Viet Cong terrorists, political officers and commandos south, but eventually sent NVA troops as well.

The big number of deaths in Vietnam did not happen during the time of French and Jap support of South Vietnam, but after and because of the American intervention.

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

The U.S. was helping defend the RVN against an invading terrorist and ultimately army force. I cannot imagine, except in the halls of the most irrational hatred of all things American that one could perceive this as a "crime." The very fact that you think our involvement in South VietNam's war to protect itself from invasion by North VietNam brands you a crackpot on the scale of CTers.

On April 30th, 1975, nord-Vietnam troops entered Saigon, terminating the foreign occupation. But that did not terminate the anguish of the population. During the previous 15 years (from 1961 to 1971), the US aviation pestered the country with Agent Orange, a dioxin-based herbicide and defoliant substance. Still today, the effects of the venomous substance are apparent in the relatives of the four million people who were exposed.

Just a picture to remember the horror, copyright Livio Sengalliesi ( see pic attached )

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

Kissenger negotiated a peace settlement and... a couple of years later the North Vietnamese broke that settlement and invaded the south and conquered it. For that you chastize him? I guess you believe he ordered those NVA armored colums into Saigon Ho Chi Minh City.

Vietnam is not part of the topic.
However Hutchins and other journalists have suggested that Kissinger willingly prolungated the war in Vietnam in order to reach political gains there.
Again, little bit off-topic

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

About the same time in crackpot history, the U.S. started giving aid to and supporting the Khmer Rouge during the Killing Fields period.

I have used the question mark at the end of the sentence " Did the US support Pol Pot ".
Please, read above.

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

Meanwhile, in reality history, the U.S. took a hands off approach to SouthEast Asia in response to us being burned in VietNam. You're trying to suggest we were not only complicit, but participatory in the Killing Fields isn't just wrong, it's pathetic.

What about the US bombing in Cambodia?
How many people were killed there?

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

Let's flash forward to 1979 (in real history). The Vietnamese army invades Cambodia, sets up a puppet government, the Killing Fields stop for all intents and purposes, and the Khmer Rouge is driven into the western jungles. The U.S., wanting to continue the reproachment with China (allied with the KR admittedly) and not wanting to give any legitimacy to the Vietnamese puppet government along with a number of other nations recognizes the KR as the legitimate representative of Cambodia in the U.N. Oh, and to add some Nouc Mam to the stew, Sihanouk had allied with the KR as well in a united opposition to the Vietnamese puppet government.

..therefore helping the KR in Cambodia.
Thanks, exactly my point.

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

Somehow in crackpot history though, this translates into the U.S. supporting and being complicit in the Killing Fields period?

No, I did not say that.
I said that the US had a role in supporting the KR ( in particular, in order to maintain their seat in the UN ).
Please, read above

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

I'm sorry but your fallacious equivocation of "the U.S. (and other countries) recognized the KR in 1979 as the legitimate representative of Cambodia in the U.N. because of the Vietnamese invasion" with "the U.S. supported Pol Pot (wink wink, meaning they supported the KR genocide during the Killing Fields)" borders on Infowars.com crazyness.

Not " meaning they supported the KR genocide during the Killing Fields ".
You are putting words in my mouth

[Elizabeth I]

Matteo, you should know that the word Jap is not generally used in polite conversation:

Quote:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Jap /dʒæp/ –adjective, noun Slang: Disparaging and Offensive. Japanese.

[Origin: 1885–90; shortened form]

Quote:

American Heritage Dictionary Jap (jāp) n. Offensive Slang
Used as a disparaging term for a person of Japanese birth or descent.

[bolding mine]

[Matteo Martini]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth I

Matteo, you should know that the word Jap is not generally used in polite conversation:

That was intended as abbreviation, not as insult.

BTW, my gf and one of my best friends are Japanese

[Elizabeth I]

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

That was intended as abbreviation, not as insult.

BTW, my gf and one of my best friends are Japanese

And would you say "Jap" in front of one of them? Refer to either as a "Jap"?

"Gook" is shorter than "Vietnamese" and "N-----" is shorter than "African American," but I don't think anyone would let me get away with that excuse if I used either word.

[Matteo Martini]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth I

And would you say "Jap" in front of one of them? Refer to either as a "Jap"?

No, as I speak in Japanese with them.
Again, I made it quite clear that there was no intention to insult anyone, and that I used that word only as abbreviation, not as insult.
I see no point in keeping on discussing about this.

[Matteo Martini]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth I

"Gook" is shorter than "Vietnamese" and "N-----" is shorter than "African American," but I don't think anyone would let me get away with that excuse if I used either word.

" Gook " is not an abbreviation of Vietnamese.
N******* is not an abbreviation of African American

[Ian Osborne]

It's interesting that in the UK, unlike America, abbreviating 'Japanese' to 'Jap' isn't considered racist at all, no more so than calling a British person a 'Brit'. Yet shortening 'Pakistani' to 'Paki' (or using the term to refer to anyone whose ethnic origins are from the Indian sub-continent) is about as racist as you can get.

[Matteo Martini]

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne

It's interesting that in the UK, unlike America, abbreviating 'Japanese' to 'Jap' isn't considered racist at all, no more so than calling a British person a 'Brit'. [..]

Just talked with my GF.
She does not think that the word " Jap " is offensive at all.
Anyway, thanks to Liz for the info.
Now, I would like to continue the thread on its track ( US and Pol Pot, etc. )

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

On April 30th, 1975, nord-Vietnam troops entered Saigon, terminating the foreign occupation.

I will reply to your other responses when time and bandwidth permit but I want to focus on this crackpot assertion for now.

How, exactly, was the RVN government an "occupation" government when every person in it was a native of the RVN?

[dudalb]

Matteo now joins Oliver in sheer Hatred of the US.

[Matteo Martini]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Matteo now joins Oliver in sheer Hatred of the US.

No.
BTW, Ron Paul ( the guy of my avatar ) is Texan, and Texas is in the US, I assume..

[Matteo Martini]

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

I will reply to your other responses when time and bandwidth permit but I want to focus on this crackpot assertion for now.

How, exactly, was the RVN government an "occupation" government when every person in it was a native of the RVN?

You are right, in that point the post is wrong, you got a point on that.

I think the American intervention may be considered as a crime, but not as a foreign occupation.

[Elizabeth I]

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

No.
BTW, Ron Paul ( the guy of my avatar ) is Texan, and Texas is in the US, I assume..

No, the U.S. is attached to Texas.

ETA:
p.s. I liked your old avatar better.

[Matteo Martini]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth I

No, the U.S. is attached to Texas.

Good to know..

Originally Posted by Elizabeth I

ETA:
p.s. I liked your old avatar better.

You Texans, you are never happy

[Elizabeth I]

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

You Texans, you are never happy

What do you mean? We're always happy. We're in Texas!

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

On April 30th, 1975, nord-Vietnam troops entered Saigon, terminating the foreign occupation. But that did not terminate the anguish of the population. During the previous 15 years (from 1961 to 1971), the US aviation pestered the country with Agent Orange, a dioxin-based herbicide and defoliant substance. Still today, the effects of the venomous substance are apparent in the relatives of the four million people who were exposed.

Ummm no, actually it was the beginning of foreign occupation by the North who annexed the south and promptly murdered far more people in the south than ever died during the time of the US presence there. This prompted the famous exodus of the Boat People a phenomenon not present when US troops were there and supposedly treating the people in some way worse than "evil."

Quote:

What about the US bombing in Cambodia?
How many people were killed there?

Cambodia is where the NVA was basing it's support of the insurgency in the South as well as garrison NVA troops to infiltrate and invade. Thus Cambodia was actually a very legitimate target for bombing (and invasion for that matter) no matter what ignorant, irrational and emotional revisionists might insist.

But what does that have to do with systematic slaughter in the Killing Fields?

[Gazpacho]

Here's an article on the subject:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=19063
Yes, I know, WorldNetDaily, but the sources are identified.

Just because the US had lost South Vietnam didn't mean it was obligated to let the Vietnamese army help itself to Indochina. The US administration used the few strategic options it had left. One of those options was supporting Cambodians who resisted the Vietnamese invasion, even if they were supporters of the KR.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

The big number of deaths in Vietnam did not happen during the time of French and Jap support of South Vietnam, but after and because of the American intervention.

French and Japanese support of South VietNam? What are you talking about? French Indochina was a colony of France which was conquered by the Japanese during WWII. The Viet Minh faught against the Japanese and then against the French until the defeat at Dien Bien Phu cause France to abandon it's colony and VietNam was partitioned into the North and South. The North then continued to encourage insurgency in the South. In fact the earliest American involvement was a Joint U.S./RVN effort meant to fight the Viet Cong. The North Continued to escalate even to the point of sending NVA troops south of the DMZ.

By 1973 the U.S. had had enough and negotiated the Paris Peace Accords which should have ened the war with borders at thier 1954 locations. The North continued it's conquest of the South and in 1975 conquered it. As Travis pointed out that was when the rampant killing of civilians began - especially in the South.

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

On April 30th, 1975, nord-Vietnam troops entered Saigon, terminating the foreign occupation. But that did not terminate the anguish of the population. During the previous 15 years (from 1961 to 1971),...

I already corrected you on RVN not being a occupying government. And you need to learn a little more about the history of conflict in VietNam - it began in 1941 with the Viet Minh opposing the Japanese, begain in earnest when they rebelled against the French in 1945 and continued - because of communist activities and polices from the North - until 1975. Even in the U.S. shortly after our involvement, we knew that our participation was part of a larger/longer conflict. The Ten Thousdand Day War.

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

...the US aviation pestered the country with Agent Orange, a dioxin-based herbicide and defoliant substance. Still today, the effects of the venomous substance are apparent in the relatives of the four million people who were exposed.

Just a picture to remember the horror, copyright Livio Sengalliesi ( see pic attached )

Are you actually suggesting that U.S. planes were continuing to drop Agent Orange after 1973?

I'm fully aware of Agent Oranges continued effects on both American veterans and the Vietnamese people, but it was used as a defoliant/deforrestant - not as a chemical weapon.

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

Vietnam is not part of the topic.
However Hutchins and other journalists have suggested that Kissinger willingly prolungated the war in Vietnam in order to reach political gains there.
Again, little bit off-topic

Then why did you spend so much time replying on it with incorrect assertions instead of just snipping my replies and ignoring them?

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

I have used the question mark at the end of the sentence " Did the US support Pol Pot ".
Please, read above.

I did. You're using a weasel word. The U.S. did not "support" Pol Pot. You're trying to insinuate more than what are the facts about what did happen. I've already noted that the U.S. recognized the KR over the Vietnamese installed puppets as the legitimate government of Cambodia in the U.N. That is not the same as "supporting" Pol Pot and Gazpacho gave an excellent explanation of the Realpolitik involved in that decision.

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

What about the US bombing in Cambodia?
How many people were killed there?

Since the raids were on NVA and Viet Cong supply routes/bases, a lot less civilians were killed than in infantry engagements and were killed by the KR during the Killing Fields.

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

..therefore helping the KR in Cambodia.
Thanks, exactly my point.

Using a weasel word is not the same as making a point.

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

No, I did not say that.
I said that the US had a role in supporting the KR ( in particular, in order to maintain their seat in the UN ).
Please, read above

It's the insinuation by your weasel word "support" and you using that weasel wriggle room to equivocate the U.S. recognizing the KR in the U.N. with the U.S. "supporting" Pol Pot. The two are not the same thing.

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

Not " meaning they supported the KR genocide during the Killing Fields ".
You are putting words in my mouth

Please, read abvoe.

[Matteo Martini]

Originally Posted by Travis

Ummm no, actually it was the beginning of foreign occupation by the North who annexed the south and promptly murdered far more people in the south than ever died during the time of the US presence there. This prompted the famous exodus of the Boat People a phenomenon not present when US troops were there and supposedly treating the people in some way worse than "evil."

Apparently, before 1975 2 million people ( vietnamese ) got killed.
After, 465000

Originally Posted by Travis

Cambodia is where the NVA was basing it's support of the insurgency in the South as well as garrison NVA troops to infiltrate and invade. Thus Cambodia was actually a very legitimate target for bombing (and invasion for that matter) no matter what ignorant, irrational and emotional revisionists might insist.

Is there any UN resolution about that?

Originally Posted by Travis

But what does that have to do with systematic slaughter in the Killing Fields?

Read the post.
The US voted in favour of the Khmer Rouge Cambodia to retain their seat at the UN

[Matteo Martini]

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

French and Japanese support of South VietNam? What are you talking about? French Indochina was a colony of France which was conquered by the Japanese during WWII. The Viet Minh faught against the Japanese and then against the French until the defeat at Dien Bien Phu cause France to abandon it's colony and VietNam was partitioned into the North and South. The North then continued to encourage insurgency in the South. In fact the earliest American involvement was a Joint U.S./RVN effort meant to fight the Viet Cong. The North Continued to escalate even to the point of sending NVA troops south of the DMZ.

By 1973 the U.S. had had enough and negotiated the Paris Peace Accords which should have ened the war with borders at thier 1954 locations. The North continued it's conquest of the South and in 1975 conquered it. As Travis pointed out that was when the rampant killing of civilians began - especially in the South.

I already corrected you on RVN not being a occupying government. And you need to learn a little more about the history of conflict in VietNam - it began in 1941 with the Viet Minh opposing the Japanese, begain in earnest when they rebelled against the French in 1945 and continued - because of communist activities and polices from the North - until 1975. Even in the U.S. shortly after our involvement, we knew that our participation was part of a larger/longer conflict. The Ten Thousdand Day War.

I do not see how this history lesson is relevant to the points in discussion, maybe, you can tell me precisely where?

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

Are you actually suggesting that U.S. planes were continuing to drop Agent Orange after 1973?

Where did I write " after 1973 "?

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

I'm fully aware of Agent Oranges continued effects on both American veterans and the Vietnamese people, but it was used as a defoliant/deforrestant - not as a chemical weapon.

With anti-aging effects on the skin of old people..

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

Then why did you spend so much time replying on it with incorrect assertions instead of just snipping my replies and ignoring them?

As this thread is about the ( possible ) links about the US and Pol Pot

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

I did. You're using a weasel word. The U.S. did not "support" Pol Pot. You're trying to insinuate more than what are the facts about what did happen. I've already noted that the U.S. recognized the KR over the Vietnamese installed puppets as the legitimate government of Cambodia in the U.N. That is not the same as "supporting" Pol Pot and Gazpacho gave an excellent explanation of the Realpolitik involved in that decision.

I mean, if you support the Khmer Rouge-led Cambodia in the UN, is not it supporting the Khmer Rouges?
And, who was their leader?

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

Since the raids were on NVA and Viet Cong supply routes/bases, a lot less civilians were killed than in infantry engagements and were killed by the KR during the Killing Fields.

OK.
We have found out that the US did kill less people in Cambodia than the Khmer Rouges..

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

It's the insinuation by your weasel word "support" and you using that weasel wriggle room to equivocate the U.S. recognizing the KR in the U.N. with the U.S. "supporting" Pol Pot. The two are not the same thing.

I can not see so much difference..

[Matteo Martini]

Originally Posted by Gazpacho

Here's an article on the subject:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=19063
Yes, I know, WorldNetDaily, but the sources are identified.

Just because the US had lost South Vietnam didn't mean it was obligated to let the Vietnamese army help itself to Indochina. The US administration used the few strategic options it had left. One of those options was supporting Cambodians who resisted the Vietnamese invasion, even if they were supporters of the KR.

Therefore the US did support Pol Pot.
Just my point.

[this charming man]

So you been to school
For a year or two
And you know you've seen it all
In daddy's car
Thinkin' you'll go far
Back east your type don't crawl

[Gazpacho]

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

Therefore the US did support Pol Pot.
Just my point.

There's no evidence that the US had any contacts with Pol Pot at all.

[Matteo Martini]

Originally Posted by Gazpacho

There's no evidence that the US had any contacts with Pol Pot at all.

Maybe they did not need to

[KoihimeNakamura]

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

With anti-aging effects on the skin of old people..

Was this effect known at the time it was used?

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

Apparently, before 1975 2 million people ( vietnamese ) got killed.
After, 465000

I remember reading somewhere that roughly 2 million Vietnamese "disappeared" after the North took over but since I can't bring that reference up at the moment I'll concede this point.

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

Is there any UN resolution about that?

Who cares? The UN is an irrelevant obstinate organization that cares for no one and therefore helps no one. As such I can't wait to see it done away with or at least have the US pull out of it.

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

Read the post.
The US voted in favour of the Khmer Rouge Cambodia to retain their seat at the UN

So the US voted to have a despotic regime, that was already being driven from power and into hiding in the rain forest, retain a post in an irrelevant international clubhouse of pointless bickering and apathy or as most people know it, the United Nations. Did this really help the Khmer Rouge commit atrocities in any way?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

I do not see how this history lesson is relevant to the points in discussion, maybe, you can tell me precisely where?

Because I have only been replying to tangents you yourself brought up either by quoting or mentioning VietNam here. I simply quoted what I did in the other thread and let you take the conversation where you wished.

And as a history major, I must say I'm offended that any history lesson should be shrugged off.

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

Where did I write " after 1973 "?

Somewhere before I noted I work the night shift and my lack of sleep sometimes compromises my reading comprehension (...or not so shortly, i.e. now).

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

With anti-aging effects on the skin of old people..

The use of Agent Orange was a strategic mistake made with tactical goals in mind. As I noted it not only effected Vietnamese civilians (and veterans), but American veterans too. The lack of precience for long term effects on those exposed to it with that in mind does not constitute a "crime" as you're suggesting.

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

As this thread is about the ( possible ) links about the US and Pol Pot

{snip spacer}
I mean, if you support the Khmer Rouge-led Cambodia in the UN, is not it supporting the Khmer Rouges?
And, who was their leader?

Now you're trying to weasel again and move the goalposts. Within the context of Realpolitik which you continue to ignore, the U.S. would rather have supported Sihanouk's claim to the government of Cambodia, refused to support the Vietnamese puppet government and chose to recognize the KR government (in exile) in the U.N. as part of what was going on in SE Asia in 1979.

And again, you seem to be ignoring the period between 1975 and 1979. I've done a lot of searching and maybe I've missed or overlooked it, but I haven't seen any evidence that the U.S. supported the KR before the Vietnamese invasion. Equivocation is a logical fallacy be it semantic or temporally.

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

OK.
We have found out that the US did kill less people in Cambodia than the Khmer Rouges..

So why are you trying to weasel that the U.S. recognizing the KR in the U.N. in 1979 is the same as "supporting Pol Pot" during the Killing fields?

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

I can not see so much difference..

You need to replace "can" with "will" for this statement to be accurate.

[Matteo Martini]

Originally Posted by Tokorona

Was this effect known at the time it was used?

No, as I said, it was thought it had an anti-aging powder which donated beauty to the skin..

[Matteo Martini]

Originally Posted by Travis

I remember reading somewhere that roughly 2 million Vietnamese "disappeared" after the North took over but since I can't bring that reference up at the moment I'll concede this point.

I do not think this info is accurate

Originally Posted by Travis

Who cares? The UN is an irrelevant obstinate organization that cares for no one and therefore helps no one. As such I can't wait to see it done away with or at least have the US pull out of it.



So the US voted to have a despotic regime, that was already being driven from power and into hiding in the rain forest, retain a post in an irrelevant international clubhouse of pointless bickering and apathy or as most people know it, the United Nations. Did this really help the Khmer Rouge commit atrocities in any way?

So, you basically, you do not care a heck about the UN, that is your opinion
Anyway, if there was no point for the US in voting in support of the KR, why did they do that?