The truth about the Khmer Rouge.

After reading a recent new book about Cambodia, which is totally inacurrate in its analysis of the Khmer Rouge, describing them as inspired by the ideas of Lenin and intent on creating a classless society. I thought that I would put the record straight.

It is often said that Pol Pot's faction of the Khmer Rouge were Marxists, inspired by Mao, and intent on taking Cambodia to a mythical harmonious pre-industrial past. In truth, the Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot were ultra-nationalists who rose in direct response to government confiscation of their food and the dire effects of America's war with the North Vietnamese. Neither were their numbers made up of trained "communist guerrillas". The Khmer Rouge initially consisted of disgruntled peasants and the orphaned of US carpet-bombing who felt they had little to lose.

The mass murder and utter insanity that followed as Pol Pot rose to power was a pathetic attempt to punish those town and city dwellers thought responsible for backing the government that 'invited' the US in and a vain bid to repopulate the countryside and replace the tens of thousands who had fled as refugees.

 

Yawn!:H

Well thanks for that enlightenment, I feel so much more....educated.

 

wow that just makes it so much better.

 

Pol Pot presumably felt a bit stupid as well. He blamed educated people for the country's problems, because educated people are always wrong... and so had anyone with spectacles killed.

 

The man was quite literally insane....

 

He was backed by America too during the 1975 to 1979 war between Cambodia and Vietnam. This was because America was trying to improve relations with China which supported the Khmer Rouge and at the same time try to get back at Vietnam after having lost the Vietnam war. The full story is here : Link to indepth article on Cambodia.

 

Wouldn't be the first tyrannical dictator America has backed, nor the last....

 

Are you thinking of Blair by any chance?

 

the link you give, puts US involvement after 1979 when they were ousted and a vietnam installed government took control

 

Nah of course not, Mr Blair is a self-obsessed tyrannical dictator, far worse....

 

Oh yes it does. But it still shows how stupid the USA and Britain can be. They even had the cheek to call the Khmer Rouge resistance fighters! It is no wonder so many people don't trust them when they actually do something right like take on Saddam Hussein.

 

Essentially that is true. Why take on one dictator, why here, and why now? It's far more to do with economy and hegemony than it is to do with their objections to any specific regime's human rights record. I don't really need to cite Pinnochet in Chile, or Sharon in Israel as examples to show that....

 

I knew this would come up. OK I think Pinochet should have been punished for his crimes and not let go by the British government. I think the British government would have helped to prosecute Pinochet though had he not given Britain help during the Falklands war. They felt embarressed about helping prosecute an old ally.

On the subject of Ariel Sharon, he is an elected prime minister. Israel is hardly a dictatorship either. It has a full reprsentative parliament and an independent judiciary meaning no one is above the law including the government. Israel's population is also 20 per cent arabs and ethnic minorities, Israel gave asylum to Bosnian and Kosovan refugees. Also because it is a democracy it is possible to achieve a Middle East settlement through international negotiation, something which America and Britain are trying to do. Sharon has already agreed to pull out all settlers and military from the Gaza strip for example so negotiation with Israel does bring results. Whatever Ariel Sharon's past crimes because Israel is a democracy, charges of war crimes can be brought against him through the courts.

By the way I don't believe any of the conspiracy theories about Iraq. I really do think that Tony Blair and George Bush was concerned about global security in the wake of September 11th. The secret intellegence that brought us to war turned out to be wrong, but I think it was taken in good faith. For example most people even those in the anti-war movement believed that Saddam was hiding banned weapons before the war.

I don't think the war was about oil as America and Britain have spent many billions of pounds on Iraq so far. Money which will take a very long time to re-coup through oil and business contracts with Iraq.

 

That's based on flawed logic. You're seeing oil as something which you can put a dollar value on. It's much more than that. Strategically, it's importance far outweighs the current price of a barrel of crude. Google 'peak oil' for a bit more insight.

 

I still think that Bush and Blair acted in good faith on the secret intellegence they recieved concerning Iraqs' weapons capabilities. I think they were very worried about the threat that countries such as Iraq, Iran and North Korea posed to western security, especially in the wake of the September 11th attacks.

If it had been just about oil then I think Bush would have launched a war on Iraq years ago. I think the war was related to the sudden fear that was provoked by September 11th and the not knowing of where the next attack was going to come from. America went paronoid with fear after September 11th and so did senoir British politician like Tony Blair, who anounced in Parliament that "I will never allow a terrible atrocity to happen on British soil knowing that I could have done something to prevent, I will not have that on my consience". And "I would never put our troops in danger unless I believed that it was absolutly neccessary". And "When people accuse us of rushing into war with Iraq, I would like to state that we have given Saddam 12 years of chances and even now we are prepared to give him one last chance".

Tony Blair and George Bush were also committed christians they had strong morals and wouldn't go to war just for oil as that would go against their christian faith which they were dedicated to.

 

Or perhaps 9/11 gave him the perfect pretext?

Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!! Hahahahahahahahah!!!!! Hang, you're not joking, are you? Are you actually familiar with the last 2000 years of history?

 

Well why did Tony Blair get a majority vote in Parliament to go to war with Iraq? Were all those MPs who voted for war only concerned about oil? Were all those MPs for voted for war not conerned about Britains' troops? Were those same MPs not concerned about security threats to Britain in the wake of September 11th?

You forget that Britain and America are democracies and everything has to be debated through and through in Parliament and Congess first before it is done. The rights and wrongs of going to war in Iraq were debated and analysised like mad both by Parliament and the media. In no way was the decision to go to war with Iraq taken lightly!

 

Stick to the point. You said that Blair and Bush would never go to war if it wasn't justified due to their christian convictions. This is ridiculous. The world has a 2000 year history of unjust wars being fought by committed christians. If you now feel that you can't defend your position, please say so rather than trying to change the subject.

 

lol! Careful, you might have the SS banging on your door soon...

 

Well they thought it was justified based on the secret service intellegence information on Iraq at the time! They and many other people including many christians believed that if Iraq posessed weapons of mass destruction then war would be justified to prevent those weapons being from ever being used.

Your statement about wars fought by christians over the past 2,000 years is misleading. Apart from the crusades, christians have only ever supported wars which they thought were just such as World War II, The Flaklands and Gulf War I (in the case of Gulf War I, many christians thought that war justified because another sovereign nation had been invaded and felt it was right to come to its aid). The war on Afghanistan which most thought totally jusified due to the September 11th attacks and the fact the man responsible for them and his terror group resided there.

You forget christians have strong morals and weigh up the rights and wrongs of every situation. I once saw a wonderful book on this very subject written by a christian. He stated; "The Bible says turn the other cheek, it does not say allow someone to murder you, to rape and pillage your country, sometimes far more death and destruction results from not going to war."

And isn't this very true, for example the Japanese mass murder and rape of the people of Nanking in China in 1937 before World War II when the allies just stood by, in which hundreds of thousands of Chinese were slaughtered. The Genoicde in Rwanda, etc.