Did the US support Pol Pot?

[dudalb]

Matteo now joins Oliver in sheer Hatred of the US.

 

[Matteo Martini]

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]

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]

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]

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

Good to know..

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

You Texans, you are never happy

 

[Elizabeth I]

You Texans, you are never happy

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

 

[Travis]

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."

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/article.asp?ARTICLE_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]

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.

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.

...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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

Please, read abvoe.

 

[Matteo Martini]

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

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?

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]

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?

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

Where did I write " 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.

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

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

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?

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..

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]

Here's an article on the subject:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_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]

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]

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

Maybe they did not need to

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

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

Was this effect known at the time it was used?

 

[Travis]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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).

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.

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.

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?

I can not see so much difference..

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

 

[Matteo Martini]

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]

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

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?