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/Washington_Post_Pol_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]

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/Terrorism/UncleSam_PolPot.html

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Here's what I posted in the other thread.

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]

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]

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:



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

 

[timhau]

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]

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:

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

" 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.

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]

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;

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.

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 )

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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:

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

[Origin: 1885–90; shortened form]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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?