US linked to terrorism

[The once and future king]

No, you listen you tool.

Yes North Vietnamese forces were allied with the Khmer rouge, against a common foe, the USA. However if the USA wasn’t in the theatre these forces would never have united as they hated each other. The USA was about the only thing they were more opposed to than each other.

Who was it that ended the reign of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia? The Vietnamese you utter tool. On December 25, 1978 - Christmas Day - 100,000 Vietnamese troops poured across the Cambodian border, quickly gaining a foothold in Cambodia's northeast. The Vietnamese intended to create a secure buffer zone between Vietnam proper and Khmer Rouge forces. The military encroachment went so well, though, Vietnam quickly realized that they could even seize Phnom Penh and knock out the Khmer Rouge in a matter of weeks. By January 7, 1979, less than two weeks after their initial attack, Vietnamese forces successfully occupied Phnom Penh, forcing the Khmer Rouge to flee into the wilderness. Pol Pot himself escaped by helicopter as the city fell, ironically mirroring the U.S. ambassador's departure in April 1975.

If there was a dominoe effect it was brought about by the USA's presence in the theatre in the first place, not its retreat from it.

[bobman0330]

Nice unattributed cut-and-paste job.

Do you think what you're saying makes any sense? If unopposed, the North Vietnamese would have purged any US influence from the region. That's what they did. US-supported government in Cambodia and Laos were replaced with communist governments with North Vietnamese help. What do you think a domino effect is? The fact that they didn't like each other and eventually fell out is of no importance. Even if the US hadn't been in Vietnam, we would have been pushed out of the area by a bunch of communists and genocidal maniacs.

[The once and future king]

LOL you even agreed with me and didnt realize it.

Yes the North Vietnamese did purge American influence from the region. The Vietnamese and the Khmer rouge hated and mis trusted each other over ethical grounds a mis trust that had gone on for centuries. The only reason relations were able to be formed between the Khmer Rouge and the North Vietnamese was due to the necesity of removing the hated American presence from the region. If the Americans had not been present the North Vietnamese would not have had the stratgic need/will or even the ability to meddle in the affairs of Cambodia.

[bobman0330]

The problem is that you don't understand the point that's in contention. Chris stated that there was no domino effect and no mass murders. Bruce pointed out the case of Cambodia, where the NV ousted a US-friendly government and supported a group that committed mass murders. You made some arrogant posts about how they were different countries. I pointed out how they were connected.

I certainly agree that the NV only ousted US-friendly governments because they were around. It would have been very difficult otherwise. This doesn't change the fact that the Vietnamese communists were a threat outside the borders of Vietnam. That's the point.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
If you knew your history, you would know that the US also fought in Cambodia and Laos.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if you knew your History, you would know that the United States opposed the victorious Vietnamese from stopping the murderous faction of Khmer that took over Cambodia. In fact, the United States supported the murderous Khmer Rouge numerous times in the United Nations, when the Vietnamese tried to have them ousted from the organisation and have the UN recognize instead the anti-Khmer Rouge government of Pnom Penh. (Which, yes, was installed with the help of the Vietnamese.)

To put it bluntly, even after the massacres became known, the United States actively supported along with Red China the claims of the murderous Khmer Rouge that they were the rightful government of Cambodia !

But perhaps you did not know that. Perhaps you are content only with what was emanating from Washington at the time of the Vietnam war. Perhaps you can educate yourself from this page.

[ QUOTE ]
He stated there were "no post war massacres", not "no post war massacres in Viet Nam". So besides being false, your comment is also irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, in your opinion, the comment "no post-war massacres", when the discussion is about Vietnam, refers to the whole of South East Asia, is that what you are saying?

Wow. I can only repeat what you wrote: Next time think before you make an ass of yourself.

Yours, as ever,

--Cyrus

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
If unopposed, the North Vietnamese would have purged any US influence from the region.

[/ QUOTE ]

This easily qualifies as the most ignorant post in the thread, yet. (But BruceZ will be allowed one last effort.)

For your information: The North Vietnamese, after they won the war against the United States, were, in fact, unopposed, as you put it.

if they truly intended to "purge any US influence from the region", they would have gone on a invading rampage all over Thailand, Laos and Cambodia. But they did not -- and you are challenged to explain this, please, because it is a true-life refutation of your argument!

Coupla more facts for the ultra slow (and we have a bunch in this thread) :

-- The Chinese supported the Vietnamese in their struggle against the United States but the Vietnamese always took help from the Chinese reluctantly. The reason? The deep historical hostility between China and Vietnam, which showed itself in the Ho Chi Minh City anti-Chinese riots after the Americans left the country and, most notably, in the goddamn invasion of Vietnam by Red China!

-- Equally hostile to each other have been historically the Cambodians and the Vietnamese. Which is why the Vietnamese, when they invaded Cambodia to stop the massacres, were opposed by a crazy alliance that involved the Khmer Rouge and the royalists! And which is why it was paramount for the international community to support the Vietnamese in their effort. But which the United States refused to do, having been recently whipped by Charly.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Bruce pointed out the case of Cambodia, where the NV ousted a US-friendly government and supported a group that committed mass murders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, precisely the opposite happened !

The Vietnamese opposed the murderous Khmer Rouge and went as far as actually invading Cambodia to stop the massacres. They eventually chased off the Khmer Rouge! The United States then started supporting their former enemies the Khmer Rouge in their coalition with other anti-Vietnamese elements.

You are free to check it out. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

And then you can share some of that egg on your face with Bruce. Let him lick it off.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
This doesn't change the fact that the Vietnamese communists were a threat outside the borders of Vietnam.

[/ QUOTE ]
This was never a fact. The Vietnamese did not move beyond their borders, after they won the war.

The only exception was when they invaded Cambodia and upended the murderous and out-of-control Khmer Rouge. Then they left.

The "domino theory" and the threat of "mass murders" never materialized in Vietnam, after Charly won. If anyone invaded anyone else, that was Red China that invaded Vietnam!

Now...

Why don't you study the subject a little more carefully before you embarass yourself further? Friendly advice.

[bobman0330]

If you read the posts, you would realize that I was aware of this. The fact remains that the NV supported the Khmer Rouge before they gained power. They became enemies afterwards, in response to Pol Pot's attacks across the Vietnamese border.

And don't forget the Pathet Lao, which was also supported by NV.

[Chris Alger]

The Cambodians weren't massacred by the Vietnamese. About 1.7 million people perished in the "Cambodian genocide" from 1975-1979. The idea of this number (or the more widely quoted "2 million") being "massacred" is mythic. The 2 million figure received wide currency in the mainstream press during the late 1970' and 1980's as an implied post-hoc justification for "fighting communism in Southeast Asia." As I recall, the figure was obtained by extrapolating refugee reports from one region of Cambodia to the entire country and that no subsequent research -- and there's been a lot -- has substantiated it. But once the propaganda machine had done its job of planting the notion, the press largely ignored Cambodia, including subsequent U.S. support for the Khmer Rouge. None of these MSM reports, of course, attributed any responsibility for the fate of Cambodia to the U.S. A CIA estimate cited in Wikipedia claims that about 150,000 Cambodians were massacred by the Khmer Rouge, a number comparable to the number of Cambodian civilians killed by U.S. bombing.

The vast majority of the mass deaths in Cambodia were attributable to starvation and famine. Whether and to what extent the famine was caused by the U.S. destruction of Cambodia's breadbasket, the incompetence or recklessness of the Khmer Rouge or the deliberate decisons of the Khmer Rouge is speculative. The most recent biography of Pol Pot, while highly damning, argues that "genocide" is the wrong term for what happened in Cambodia.

What is not disputed is that the Khmer Rouge came to power as a result of the U.S. decision to destabilize and overthrow the Sinanouk regime, then supported by North Vietnam. The Khmer Rouge seized power of a country that had been devastated by U.S. bombing (upon seizing Phnom Phen they leared the city a something like a 3-way supply of food). The North Vietnamese communists had generally been hostile toward the Khmer Rouge, an animosity that eventually manifested itself in the Vietnamese communist invasino of Cambodia, leading to the eventual end of the "killing fields."