Did the US support Pol Pot?

[Matteo Martini]

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.

I wrote ( replying to Unrepentant Sinner who took up the point of Vietnam ):
" 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. "
Please, tell me exactly where I was wrong.

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).

I take it as an admission of mistake

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.

I see.
Also Osama bin Laden` s tactical use of airplanes was a " strategic mistake with tactical goals in mind ".
He just wanted to give a message to the world.
Too bad he killed almost 3000 innocent people ( including babies and families )

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.

I ignore " RealPolitik " when it comes to support an evil and atrocious regime, I am sorry for that.
Anyway, please give me evidence that the Vietnamese puppet government was worse than the KR.
The US supported the KR only for piolitical reasons, as they wanted to keep Vietnam` s influence on the region down.
It was all a game of power.

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.

Where did I write " before the Vietnamese invasion "?

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?

Where did I write " during the Killing fields "?

 

[Travis]

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?

My guess would be that it was either because the alternative was to allow a puppet government be given the post or that it was to allow for a diplomatic channel with the Khmer Rouge via their UN personnel. The US has a history of conducting diplomacy via UN representatives with countries the US officially has no diplomatic relations with.

Either way the action is not an endorsement of the Khmer Rouges actions or policies by the US and in no way enabled the atrocities committed by said regime.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I wrote ( replying to Unrepentant Sinner who took up the point of Vietnam ):
" 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. "
Please, tell me exactly where I was wrong.

Please read above. If you're just going to quote yourself without bothering to correct a very blatant and obvious error, I'm not going to bother repeating myself.

I see.
Also Osama bin Laden` s tactical use of airplanes was a " strategic mistake with tactical goals in mind ".
He just wanted to give a message to the world.
Too bad he killed almost 3000 innocent people ( including babies and families )
What? You're saying the use of a defoliant with unforseen consequences during a wartime situation is the equivolent of flying airplanes into buildings for the expressed purpose of terrorism? You've got to be kidding me.
You might want to rea this Equivocation, and come back with a more logical response.

I ignore " RealPolitik " when it comes to support an evil and atrocious regime, I am sorry for that.
Anyway, please give me evidence that the Vietnamese puppet government was worse than the KR.
The US supported the KR only for piolitical reasons, as they wanted to keep Vietnam` s influence on the region down.
It was all a game of power.

It was Realpolitik. If you want to live in an Idealistic world feel free, but it won't change what was happing on the grand scale of history in 1979.

Where did I write " before the Vietnamese invasion "?

You insinuated it.

Where did I write " during the Killing fields "?

Please read (immediately) above.

 

[Foolmewunz]

If I'm not mistaken (I can't find records of the actual votes), the US did not vote to give the KR the seat, they voted to NOT SEAT the Viet Nam supported invading power.

This is exactly in line with what Gazpacho and US have been saying.

There was also aid from the US to the KR and allies refugee camps in Thailand, but the US Congress attached the condition to that aid that it was not to be used to support the insurgency, only humanitarian goals. That's, of course, a bit unrealistic knowing that the aid was going to be channeled through the Thai military and thus likely straight to the hands of the fighters, but again, the evidence does not indicate that the US supported Pol Pot.

This, I believe, is the "smoking gun" that most bloggers cite as documented proof of US support to the KR. (That and a report from a guy who knew a guy who heard about a guy who said they were channeling funds through other back-door agencies.)

 

[Matteo Martini]

If I'm not mistaken (I can't find records of the actual votes), the US did not vote to give the KR the seat, they voted to NOT SEAT the Viet Nam supported invading power.

This is exactly in line with what Gazpacho and US have been saying.

After the Vietnamese invaded and threw out the Khmer Rouge, the U.S. government supported the non-communist partners in a coalition army of which the Khmer Rouge was part. And world powers allowed the Khmer Rouge's delegate to occupy Cambodia's United Nations seat even after the Khmer Rouge were overthrown. Because Vietnam was America's enemy, critics say, the Khmer Rouge were treated as friends. ( bold mine )
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/04/15/world/main184477.shtml

 

[Matteo Martini]

Please read above. If you're just going to quote yourself without bothering to correct a very blatant and obvious error, I'm not going to bother repeating myself.

QUOTE=Matteo Martini;3245807
I see.
Also Osama bin Laden` s tactical use of airplanes was a " strategic mistake with tactical goals in mind ".
He just wanted to give a message to the world.
Too bad he killed almost 3000 innocent people ( including babies and families )
What? You're saying the use of a defoliant with unforseen consequences during a wartime situation is the equivolent of flying airplanes into buildings for the expressed purpose of terrorism? You've got to be kidding me.
You might want to rea this Equivocation, and come back with a more logical response.

No, I say that using napalm was, probably, maybe, a much bigger crime than what bin Laden did, as this action devastated the lives of a bigger number of people
Get the way out of here about the " unforeseen consequences "

It was Realpolitik. If you want to live in an Idealistic world feel free, but it won't change what was happing on the grand scale of history in 1979.

You call it " RealPolitik ".
I call it " crime "

You insinuated it.
Please read (immediately) above.

Ah, I " insinuated " it..
LOL!!

 

[Matteo Martini]

My guess would be that it was either because the alternative was to allow a puppet government be given the post or that it was to allow for a diplomatic channel with the Khmer Rouge via their UN personnel. The US has a history of conducting diplomacy via UN representatives with countries the US officially has no diplomatic relations with.

Either way the action is not an endorsement of the Khmer Rouges actions or policies by the US and in no way enabled the atrocities committed by said regime.

I do not know if that was an endorsment ( tacit or not ) of the Khmer Rouges, but I severely question the morality of voting in favour of having a representative of the KR to held his seat at the UN, even after the KR were overtrhown.
All this, my opinion, for a game of power ( as Vietnam was the enemy at the time )

 

[Foolmewunz]

After the Vietnamese invaded and threw out the Khmer Rouge, the U.S. government supported the non-communist partners in a coalition army of which the Khmer Rouge was part. And world powers allowed the Khmer Rouge's delegate to occupy Cambodia's United Nations seat even after the Khmer Rouge were overthrown. Because Vietnam was America's enemy, critics say, the Khmer Rouge were treated as friends. ( bold mine )
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/04/15/world/main184477.shtml

I think this is turning into a Politics thread. We're now down to opinions, and the OP, being in a History thread, should pretty much require hard evidence, if you ask me.

Your use of, "critics say..." pretty much tends towards the lack of evidence.

I'm not disputing the enemy of my enemy is my friend syndrome... that's the "real" in "realpolitik". I'm disputing that they voted FOR the KR to take the seat, rather that they voted AGAINST seating the invading power. And by that vote, "critics say" this is tantamount to direct support of Pol Pot and the KR. That may be the result, but it wasn't the intention. The intention was to prevent Viet Nam from having an allied government in Cambodia, thus possibly leading to the same in Laos, and possibly encroaching into Thailand.

Isn't this what the overthrown always wish the USA would do? As an upholder of "democracy" one should always vote against the usurper, shouldn't one?* This, of course, was a mere convenience considering the speed with which the USA recognized the usurpers of (say) Allende. I do not think for a second that "support for democracy" was the USA's motive.

The only references I can find to purported(!) evidence that the US support the KR directly are in Agee's little whistleblowing newsletter, and on blogs which sourced their information from same. And every article cites the Congressional support as I mentioned previously, and then a lot of "well, everybody knows that ...", but no evidence to support said conjecture.

There was no direct aid to the KR by the US at any point; at least not any that's been proven.

If proof was to show up tomorrow? I'd likely accept it without losing my faith in global politics because I have no faith in global politics. I just haven't seen any proof, and if after 35 years there has only been innuendo, then I think it likely that said proof doesn't exist. (Think: Trujillo, Batista, etc... Contrary to the conpiradroid world, if there's a whistle to be blown, someone will blow it.)

The articles cited in the opening page of this thread are all merely scholarly speculation. Normally we do this in A and B and C logic but there are too many letters involved....

A hates B
B hates C (C = C1, C2, C3 - the Cambodian Coalition)
A helps C2
C2 helps C1 and C3
Therefore A helped C1 and C3 although no one can prove it other than with rhetoric.


*I know that it can be argued that the KR were not the legitimate holders of power, but whether they got there by threat, they had the "legal" support of Sihanouk and the semi-elected government, so they certainly had a greater claim to legitimacy than an invading army of Vietnamese.

 

[Father Dagon]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Enter Latin America. Only that the juntas on the ground in Latin America had a radically different world view. A lot of the "communists" would probably in the US be considered as middle-of-the-road democrats.

 

[Matteo Martini]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Enter Latin America. Only that the juntas on the ground in Latin America had a radically different world view. A lot of the "communists" would probably in the US be considered as middle-of-the-road democrats.

I'm not disputing the enemy of my enemy is my friend syndrome... that's the "real" in "realpolitik".

[..]

Isn't this what the overthrown always wish the USA would do? As an upholder of "democracy" one should always vote against the usurper, shouldn't one?* This, of course, was a mere convenience considering the speed with which the USA recognized the usurpers of (say) Allende. I do not think for a second that "support for democracy" was the USA's motive.

I would question the ethics of such a policy.
Or, err., ethics do not matter in politics?

I think this is turning into a Politics thread. We're now down to opinions, and the OP, being in a History thread, should pretty much require hard evidence, if you ask me.

Your use of, "critics say..." pretty much tends towards the lack of evidence.

It is not my use, I quoted.
The important part, however, is the sentence before that.