thoughts on Afghanistan

[joecoolfrog]

There is absolutely no evidence that the Taliban ever skinned any of our troops alive.

Unfortunately there are some things that just do not get released for whatever reason. Go chat with an SF soldier sometime and I bet he might after 4 drinks or 5 might tell you if he has seen such a thing. Hell in Vietnam the cong use to cut our balls and more off and stuff them in our mouths.

Why bother disputing something over and over when the fact remains you don't know. My sons (9 tours between them) have told me some stories that brought tears to their eyes and mine over a bottle of scotch. You sir have never been to war I am certain.

...and to put my 3 cents in... I absolutely think we should have went in to Dafour as any sane person but then again there is no exit strategy there either, nor ever could be.

Oh and there were no attrocities commited by US soldiers against the Vietnamese ( military and civilian ) I suppose Im pretty sure that there are more Americans ( including vets ) who are more ashamed than proud of what happened in Indochina during the war. The secret ( and totaly illegal ) carpet bombing of Laos and Cambodia was a war crime of epic proportions and in the later case directly led to a decade of genocide....nice work

[Napoleon Ier]

What? I'm sorry, hang on, what? The US caused the Cambodian Khmer Rouge genocide by bombing the HCM Trail?

Have you been doing crack, boy?

[Juan_Bottom]

The secret ( and totaly illegal ) carpet bombing of Laos and Cambodia was a war crime of epic proportions and in the later case directly led to a decade of genocide....nice work

Really, the extra special award goes to the fact that our government supported the genocide. Pisses me off everytime I think about that. Anyone ever see a Cambodien torture chair? Or the mass graves of children?

What? I'm sorry, hang on, what? The US caused the Cambodian Khmer Rouge genocide by bombing the HCM Trail?

Have you been doing crack, boy?

It's historically excepted that the US was directly responsible for Pol Pot coming to power. And after he did our government, the British, and I believe the French too, all supported him because he was against the Vietnamese.
Henry Kissenger is a real devil. That's his legacy.

[Pedronicus]

back on topic

A top Nato commander has described Western efforts in Afghanistan as "disjointed" and warned that the battle cannot be won by military means alone

[Napoleon Ier]

Actually, er... the US fought against the Khmer Rouge who were supporting the NVA and VC along HCM trail until 1973, it was only well after Democratic Kampuchea was established in 1975 that the NVA started fighting them and the Chinese.

The US did fund Khmer liberation groups to the tune of $5 million after Pol Pot was ousted by the Vietnamese, but explicitly not the ex-Khmer Rouge insurgents (i.e, Pol Pot's lot).

Sorry, that's the accepted historical fact, this sounds like one of your dodgier NWO conspiracy lizardmen hypotheses I'm afraid.

[mpjh]

back on topic

A top Nato commander has described Western efforts in Afghanistan as "disjointed" and warned that the battle cannot be won by military means alone

Yes, it appears we have left the enemy on the field in Afghanistan. Damn sure looks like Pakistan if more the problem than the Taliban.

[Johnny Rockets]

What's scary as hell is that Pakistan has nuclear capabilities.

J

[mccallan25]

[quote="joecoolfrog

Oh and there were no attrocities commited by US soldiers against the Vietnamese ( military and civilian ) I suppose Im pretty sure that there are more Americans ( including vets ) who are more ashamed than proud of what happened in Indochina during the war. The secret ( and totaly illegal ) carpet bombing of Laos and Cambodia was a war crime of epic proportions and in the later case directly led to a decade of genocide....nice work [/quote]


This was a topic discussion on Afgan. I brought up my experience in Vietnam to point out that attrocities have occured in other wars, why not afgan. The Taliban have done nothing new that has not been done before. All countries have for the most part dark histories of things that would like to be forgotten. Heck, Joecool...the brits once did some real nasty things here in the south of the usa a couple hundred years ago. War has never been civil.

[brooksieb]

[quote="joecoolfrog

Oh and there were no attrocities commited by US soldiers against the Vietnamese ( military and civilian ) I suppose Im pretty sure that there are more Americans ( including vets ) who are more ashamed than proud of what happened in Indochina during the war. The secret ( and totaly illegal ) carpet bombing of Laos and Cambodia was a war crime of epic proportions and in the later case directly led to a decade of genocide....nice work

This was a topic discussion on Afgan. I brought up my experience in Vietnam to point out that attrocities have occured in other wars, why not afgan. The Taliban have done nothing new that has not been done before. All countries have for the most part dark histories of things that would like to be forgotten. Heck, Joecool...the brits once did some real nasty things here in the south of the usa a couple hundred years ago. War has never been civil.[/quote]

And so have the KKK, or the American police, whatever tickles your fancy really.

[joecoolfrog]

What? I'm sorry, hang on, what? The US caused the Cambodian Khmer Rouge genocide by bombing the HCM Trail?

Have you been doing crack, boy?

Nobody ( apart apparently for spotty 16 year old virgins ) is in any doubt that the American carpet bombing set in motion the events that followed. Ive visited the country,talked to the people and am thoroughly apraised of the recent history, try for once putting fact before dogma little boy.

[joecoolfrog]

[quote="joecoolfrog

Oh and there were no attrocities commited by US soldiers against the Vietnamese ( military and civilian ) I suppose Im pretty sure that there are more Americans ( including vets ) who are more ashamed than proud of what happened in Indochina during the war. The secret ( and totaly illegal ) carpet bombing of Laos and Cambodia was a war crime of epic proportions and in the later case directly led to a decade of genocide....nice work

This was a topic discussion on Afgan. I brought up my experience in Vietnam to point out that attrocities have occured in other wars, why not afgan. The Taliban have done nothing new that has not been done before. All countries have for the most part dark histories of things that would like to be forgotten. Heck, Joecool...the brits once did some real nasty things here in the south of the usa a couple hundred years ago. War has never been civil.[/quote]

I actually agree with you and in fact made the same point earlier that it is nonsense to single out the Taliban, war situations lead to attrocities and no side is immune.

[mpjh]

As another veteran, I do agree with you entirely.

[Juan_Bottom]

Actually, er... the US fought against the Khmer Rouge who were supporting the NVA and VC along HCM trail until 1973, it was only well after Democratic Kampuchea was established in 1975 that the NVA started fighting them and the Chinese.

The US did fund Khmer liberation groups to the tune of $5 million after Pol Pot was ousted by the Vietnamese, but explicitly not the ex-Khmer Rouge insurgents (i.e, Pol Pot's lot).

Sorry, that's the accepted historical fact, this sounds like one of your dodgier NWO conspiracy lizardmen hypotheses I'm afraid.

What the crack are you smoking?
After the US policy of carpet-bombing lead to Pol Pot's coming to power, the US and British openly supported Pol Pot because he was fighting the VC. They ignored the mass genocides and migrations of fleeing Cambodians.
AFTER Pol Pot was removed by the VC the US and British refused to recognize any other government except Pol Pot's.
And they sent Pol Pot aid directly.
And after the world pressured America and the UK enough; these two nations sent aid to the Cambodian people directly... In the form of basic necessities and food. But they sent it by truck through areas controlled by Pol Pot.
Go to your library and rent
CAMBODIA: YEAR ZERO &
CAMBODIA: YEAR ONE
These are two news peices/documenteries that appeared on British television. They won all kinds of awards. They're world famous.
My favorite part was in CAMBODIA YEAR ONE where the Red Cross sent trucks loaded with rice straight to Pol Pot's crew instead of the village it was promised to. And the Truck drivers were all like "well it sucks but maybe we're doing some good here."

Basically, they supported Pol Pot all along. I'm amazed how you can know everything about everything yet no one ever agrees with you.

[Napoleon Ier]

What the crack are you smoking?
After the US policy of carpet-bombing lead to Pol Pot's coming to power, the US and British openly supported Pol Pot because he was fighting the VC. They ignored the mass genocides and migrations of fleeing Cambodians.
AFTER Pol Pot was removed by the VC the US and British refused to recognize any other government except Pol Pot's.
And they sent Pol Pot aid directly.
And after the world pressured America and the UK enough; these two nations sent aid to the Cambodian people directly... In the form of basic necessities and food. But they sent it by truck through areas controlled by Pol Pot.
Go to your library and rent
CAMBODIA: YEAR ZERO &
CAMBODIA: YEAR ONE
These are two news peices/documenteries that appeared on British television. They won all kinds of awards. They're world famous.
My favorite part was in CAMBODIA YEAR ONE where the Red Cross sent trucks loaded with rice straight to Pol Pot's crew instead of the village it was promised to. And the Truck drivers were all like "well it sucks but maybe we're doing some good here."

Right. The fact the US bombed parts of Cambodia could be said to be a plausible factor in driving people to fight for the Khmer, but there's a clear difference between openly supporting a dictator and failing to have won military campaigns against his army.

Now, OK, you've probably watched your dodgy Loose-Change type documentaries about Cambodia, which cite a few low-level government officials that have some concocted story about a vast conspiracy to support the Khmer, but you clearly don't have any grasp of the historical fact behind the situation. The US were fighting the Khmer, who were the VC's allies. It was only well after the US left the region that in-fighting occured according to Sino-Soviet split lines.

The Khmer Rouge were fighting against the US during the Cambodian Campaign, and were openly supported by Hanoi: the Khmer had a government in-exile in Beijing, and were provided with weapons and bases along the HCMT by the VC/NVA.

The Khmer never fought against the VC, at any point in history. They fought the NVA well after the US had left the region, but then, the US had lost interest in the situation. I challenge you to find me a single quote, from a US government source, State Dept., White House, whatever, that would lead you to qualify this (mythical) support of the US as open.

It's one thing to accuse them of a conspiracy in which they brought the Khmer to power, quite another to say they openly supported Pol Pot. It's just demonstrably and verifiably wrong. They refused to acknowledge the Vietnamese puppet government in the UN that succeeded him, but I'm sure you'll agree that's a quite a different thing.

US involvement in Vietnam all but ended in 1973. In 1975, American soldiers were killed in a set-piece battle against the Khmer. This hardly sounds to me like "openly supporting" them. Now, it's true to say that when the NVA overthrew Pol Pot, the US funded the KNLF, with $5 million. They did not fund Pol Pot's insurgents, at any point, ever.

Basically, they supported Pol Pot all along. I'm amazed how you can know everything about everything yet no one ever agrees with you.

The US were engaged in a number of military engagements with Pol Pot's insurgency, and US Marines were killed by his forces. There is not a single shred of evidence, anywhere, to suggest they supported Pol Pot in any way, shape or form. The worst thing they ever did was back separate groups of insurgents fighting against the same enemy as Pol Pot and refuse to allow the (just as brutal) government that succeeded him to take a seat in the UN (along with an overwhelming majority of other nations).

I'm sorry, but everyone with a basic understanding of this period in history agree with me here. I doubt even mpjh will come along and support a unsubstantiated and plain incorrect version of history.

[mpjh]

In 1990 Jack Colhoun wrote:

For the last eleven years the United States government, in a covert operation born of cynicism and hypocrisy, has collaborated with the genocidal Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. More specifically, Washington has covertly aided and abetted the Pol Potists' guerrilla war to overthrow the Vietnamese backed government of Prime Minister Hun Sen, which replaced the Khmer Rouge regime.

and also

But there are indications of direct U.S. Iinks to the Khmer Rouge. Former Deputy Director of the CIA, Ray Cline, visited a Khmer Rouge camp inside Cambodia in November 1980. When asked about the visit, the Thai Foreign Ministry denied that Cline had illegally crossed into Cambodian territory. However, privately, the Thai government admitted that the trip had occurred. Cline's trip to the Pol Pot camp was originally revealed in a press statement released by Khmer Rouge diplomats at the United Nations.

there is more, but this is a good start.

[Snorri1234]

Right. The fact the US bombed parts of Cambodia could be said to be a plausible factor in driving people to fight for the Khmer, but there's a clear difference between openly supporting a dictator and failing to have won military campaigns against his army.

Not when they don't actually try very hard to win.

[Napoleon Ier]

But as I've pointed out, of the three main guerillas fighting the Vietnamese, only two received US funding: Pol Pot's was the other. So, yes, the US funded Khmer liberation groups, but never the Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge.

We can't say what the CIA was doing in Khmer Rouge camp, but frankly, from having evidence one low level government official (being visited by ex-deputy of an agency isn't exactly the equivalent of diplomatic recognition) went to one of their camps for what could have been any number of reasons (and was furthermore done after their period in power, so, after they posed a threat as a genocidal organization) is very different from the alleged "open support" they received from the UK and the US because they were "fighting the VC" (which they weren't).

Snorri, you realize that when they fought the Khmer, they were fighting against the VC and the NVA with them? So, you're essentially arguing US policy in South-East Asia was not forceful enough, or that the US should have maintained a presence in South Vietnam and Cambodia (I agree, but surprising to hear it from you), and on top of that, that the eventual withdrawal from Vietnam amounted to a tacit support of Pol Pot because the US had a vested interest in seeing him come to power so large as to cause them to make secondary their containment priorities in Vietnam.

Which, quite frankly, is a little absurd.

[Snorri1234]

Snorri, you realize that when they fought the Khmer, they were fighting against the VC and the NVA with them? So, you're essentially arguing US policy in South-East Asia was not forceful enough, or that the US should have maintained a presence in South Vietnam and Cambodia (I agree, but surprising to hear it from you),

While I don't agree with the war itself, I do believe that it would have been better if the US had been more forcefull. It seems to me that the tactics of the US weren't strong enough which resulted in a loss.

But I don't really know much about this, I just think that one should either commit to a war with enough power or not bother going to war at all.

and on top of that, that the eventual withdrawal from Vietnam amounted to a tacit support of Pol Pot because the US had a vested interest in seeing him come to power so large as to cause them to make secondary their containment priorities in Vietnam.

No. The tacit support the US gave to Pol Pot was them not recognizing the Vietnam government as rightfull government of Cambodia and therefore by default supporting Pol Pot.

[Napoleon Ier]

Right. The fact the US bombed parts of Cambodia could be said to be a plausible factor in driving people to fight for the Khmer, but there's a clear difference between openly supporting a dictator and failing to have won military campaigns against his army.

Not when they don't actually try very hard to win.

The fact "the US didn't try very hard to win the Vietnam war" (how many more over 58.000 qualifies as trying, then?) has nothing to do with them not recognizing Soviet puppet governments in Cambodia two decades later. At that time, a number of Khmer liberation armies were fighting against the Indosino-Soviet government, Pol Pot's only one amongst them, and Pol Pot's the only one amongst them not to receive US funding and weaponry.

Analogously, by refusing to acknowledge any puppet government around the world, do the US grant "tacit support" to every single one of its opponents?

I mean, I can see vague snippets of evidence for the US broadly collaborating with Khmer liberation groups after 1979, but to claim that the US were complicit in a. the Khmer Rouge coming to power, b. their genocidal policies, and c. openly supported them "whilst they were fighting the VC", is just nonsense.

And the reason it's nonsense is that the US in fact lost several sailors and marines fighting in a war against the Khmer Rouge during the time frame Juan suggests they were "openly" collaborating with their coup, and that to equate every Khmer resistance movement with Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge is a gross historical inaccuracy.

[PLAYER57832]

Our fault in Pol Pot was largely in ignoring the evidence. We were, at the time, pretty involved in other issues, pretty tired of war, in general. Also, remember Nixon? That concerned people far more than what some strange dictator was doing to a people across the country who few (at that time) even understood.

Then again, we did much the same in WWII

[Napoleon Ier]

Our fault in Pol Pot was largely in ignoring the evidence. We were, at the time, pretty involved in other issues, pretty tired of war, in general. Also, remember Nixon? That concerned people far more than what some strange dictator was doing to a people across the country who few (at that time) even understood.

Then again, we did much the same in WWII

I appreciate what you're trying to say, but the period of the Watergate scandal was a period during which the US were actively fighting Pol Pot's Khmer, who were then in cahoots with the VC and NVA.

The only period during which you can claim the US may have potentially given the Khmer Rouge some "support" (and you'd still probably be wrong) is after 1979.

[PLAYER57832]

Our fault in Pol Pot was largely in ignoring the evidence. We were, at the time, pretty involved in other issues, pretty tired of war, in general. Also, remember Nixon? That concerned people far more than what some strange dictator was doing to a people across the country who few (at that time) even understood.

Then again, we did much the same in WWII

I appreciate what you're trying to say, but the period of the Watergate scandal was a period during which the US were actively fighting Pol Pot's Khmer, who were then in cahoots with the VC and NVA.

The only period during which you can claim the US may have potentially given the Khmer Rouge some "support" (and you'd still probably be wrong) is after 1979.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant that part of the reason we did not give more support, why the support was mostly covert was Watergate ... but it is not a strongly argued point , at any rate. It is what I have heard some of my political science professors suggest as possibilities, but some years ago. A lot of stuff once classified has since come out into public view (though perhaps not as much as some would like)

[Juan_Bottom]

Right. The fact the US bombed parts of Cambodia could be said to be a plausible factor in driving people to fight for the Khmer, but there's a clear difference between openly supporting a dictator and failing to have won military campaigns against his army.

The Cambodian government fought Pol Pot, but the people actually supported him. At first... Because they were sick of a government which wouldn't, or couldn't, protect them from American bombs.

Now, OK, you've probably watched your dodgy Loose-Change type documentaries about Cambodia, which cite a few low-level government officials that have some concocted story about a vast conspiracy to support the Khmer, but you clearly don't have any grasp of the historical fact behind the situation. The US were fighting the Khmer, who were the VC's allies. It was only well after the US left the region that in-fighting occured according to Sino-Soviet split lines.

The Khmer Rouge were fighting against the US during the Cambodian Campaign, and were openly supported by Hanoi: the Khmer had a government in-exile in Beijing, and were provided with weapons and bases along the HCMT by the VC/NVA.

The Khmer never fought against the VC, at any point in history. They fought the NVA well after the US had left the region, but then, the US had lost interest in the situation. I challenge you to find me a single quote, from a US government source, State Dept., White House, whatever, that would lead you to qualify this (mythical) support of the US as open.

It's one thing to accuse them of a conspiracy in which they brought the Khmer to power, quite another to say they openly supported Pol Pot. It's just demonstrably and verifiably wrong. They refused to acknowledge the Vietnamese puppet government in the UN that succeeded him, but I'm sure you'll agree that's a quite a different thing.

US involvement in Vietnam all but ended in 1973. In 1975, American soldiers were killed in a set-piece battle against the Khmer. This hardly sounds to me like "openly supporting" them. Now, it's true to say that when the NVA overthrew Pol Pot, the US funded the KNLF, with $5 million. They did not fund Pol Pot's insurgents, at any point, ever.

You're wrong.
CAMBODIA: YEAR ZERO &
CAMBODIA: YEAR ONE are BBC pieces. I am not talking about conspiracy anything.

I'm not saying they planned to carpet bomb Cambodia so Pol Pot could come to power. Thats just stupid. But the CIA was aware that the carpet-bombing was helping Pol Pot to find droves of new recruits. And win support from the Cambodian people.

Not only did the US and UK directly support Pol Pot, the SAS trained his men through he 80's. They supported Pol Pot BEFORE he ever took power in Cambodia. They also allowed the Khumer to use camps in Thailand AND supported their government in exile in Thailand. It wasn't until the Vietnamese overthrew the Khumer that the US even considered recognizing another government.
If you knew knothing else, you know that after 1979 the Democratic Kapuchea(sp?) were allowed to hold onto their seat in the UN. That's pretty direct support from China the UK and the USA.
Yes the Vietnamese entered Cambodia and removed Pol Pot's government in 1978(?). BUT they also stopped Pol Pot in 1972... The Khumer Rouge and the VC were friends in the way that Hitler and Stalin were friends. They simply did not want another front... but like WWII, it did happen eventually.
The US and UK mainly supported the Khumer because they were anti-Russian.

And as far as the Chinese-Khumer link, it was Brezinski who said "I encourage China to help Pol Pot."

[Napoleon Ier]

No, I'm very much right. Pol Pot took power in 1975: the same year the US lost servicemen fighting against his forces. To then suggest they were simultaneously training and arming him is ludicrous.

Now, you claim the SAS and the CIA aided the Khmer the 80s. That may be accurate (specifically those agencies/units, I don't know), since the US did fund $5.000.000 to Khmer liberation groups. However, there is no record of them giving any of this money to the Khmer Rouge, i.e, Pol Pot's crew.

Furthermore, this (the 80s) is well after he came to power and well after the killing field/torture camp atrocities (which occurred in the period 1975-79).

So, to review your claims:

P1. US carpet bombing aided the Khmer Rouge
P2. US funded the "Khumer"
P3. The "Khumer" were Sino-aligned and hence supported to combat the Soviets
C. The US "openly [sic]" supported Pol Pot and "turned a blind eye" to his genocide.

P1-is contested (Etcheson, 1984), but certainly wouldn't amount to "open support"-they merely failed to win a war against him. Trying to bomb him and his allies is hardly "tacit support", eh?

P2-Yes. But not Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge, and well after the genocide period.

P3-There is no evidence to suggest this, although it may make sense. The key thing is though, at no point did the US fund Pol Pot or support him, when he was in power, or indeed it seems, after that.

[mpjh]

by John Pilger
The US not only helped create conditions rhat brought Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge to power
in 1975, but actively supported the genocidal force, politically and financially. By January
1980, the US was secretly funding Pol Pots exiled forces on the Thai border. The extent of this
support - $85 million from 1980 to 1986 - was revealed six years later in correspondence between
congressional lawyer Jonathan Winer, then counsel to Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, and the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation. Winer said the information had
come from the Congressional Research Service (CRS)

also

The Times editorial of June 24 recognizes a small problem in pursuing Pol Pot, arising from the fact that after he was forced out of Cambodia by Vietnam, "From 1979 to 1991, Washington indirectly backed the Khmer Rouge, then a component of the guerrilla coalition fighting the Vietnamese installed Government [in Phnom Penh]." This does seem awkward: the United States and its allies giving economic, military, and political support to Pol Pot, and voting for over a decade to have his government retain Cambodia's UN seat, but now urging his trial for war crimes. The Times misstates and understates the case: the United States gave direct as well as indirect aid to Pol Pot-in one estimate, $85 million in direct support-and it "pressured UN agencies to supply the Khmer Rouge," which "rapidly improved" the health and capability of Pol Pot's forces after 1979 (Ben Kiernan, "Cambodia's Missed Chance," Indochina Newsletter, Nov.-Dec. 1991). U.S. ally China was a very large arms supplier to Pol Pot, with no penalty from the U.S. and in fact U.S. connivance-Carter's National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski stated that in 1979 "I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot...Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him but China could.