There, my Foolish friends, is an example of Democrat foreign policy at its finest--exactly what you will get more of if (heaven forbid) John Kerry gets elected. No, Iraq under Kerry won't become the next Viet Nam--it could become the next Cambodia. Wrong again, Springtex.Actually, the Khmer Rouge were able to come to power because of the decisions of Nixon and Kissinger with regards to SE Asia! Cambodia was a relatively stable country as late as 1969, with Prince Norodm Sihanouk ruling the country, trying to do a tightrope act in maintaining neutrality. At this time, the Khmer Rouge were barely a blip on the radar, numbering between 400-2000 total and relegated to the far reaches of Cambodia.As we all know, the NVA regularly used the areas of Cambodia bordering Vietnam for transit, and the US regularly wound up crossing that border going after the NVA. One should note that US operations across the border were generally small in scale, limited to "hot pursuit" and special ops.When Nixon took over, he didn't like that one whit. So, as we all know (or rather, as anyone commenting on this should know) the US began large scale B-52 raids against areas of Cambodia in 1969 (the "secret bombings", and if you'd like I could go into even greater detail on this topic). Within a year Sihanouk had been removed from power in a coup d'etat, replaced by Lon Nol, who was far more amenable toi US demands. The US began launching large scale operations in Cambodia in 1970 (early May of 1970, that was what they were protesting at Kent State when the students were shot).Not-so-amazingly, greater US involvement in Cambodia didn't make the situation better, it made it worse. From 1970 thru 1973 the US dropped a greater tonnage of bombs on Cambodia than they had in all theaters during all of World War II, and we were sending scads of arms and ammunition to the FANK (That's Cambodia's army). In spite of this, the Khmer Rouge gained strength, and by 1973 controlled over 60% of the country and 25% of the population. By 1975 they had taken over, and had begun emptying the cities in their attempt to create an agrarian utopia under Pol Pot. All they wound up creating were the killing fields, filled with corpses of a quarter of the people in Cambodia, until Vietnam invaded several years later.So, springtex, what was Carter supposed to do in Cambodia. Bomb them back to the stone age? No, wait, we already tried that under Nixon, and it made the Khmer Rouge more powerful, not less? If the Nixon administration had, say, thought through their actions in the first place, maybe the Khmer Rouge would never have come to power!Look, I don't blame Kissinger and Nixon for the Khmer Rouge in the same way that Shawcross does, but fer cryin' out loud, trying to pin the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge on Carter is ludicrous. What, is this the latest game, "blame everythng bad on a Democrat". In addition to the years of blaming everything from sunspots to low-fat cheese on Clinton, I've already read a post blaming Kerry for limiting Bush's options in Iraq, and now Carter's perceived shortcomings fueled the Khmer Rouge.Would you please go back to the alternate universe where you came from?-synchronicity
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Ma