Context Scott. Context.
Also, don't add words. I said blip, not mere blip.
In context, the positioning and strategies pursued by OUR administration from 1973 until 1975 was one of "we lost, now let's make the win hurt for them". Everyone knew that Khmer Rouge was bad news, but in 1975, no one knew they would elimate 25% of their countries population. It was not really figured it out until 1978/79. Even your vaunted Hero, Noam Chomsky argued that the genocide was a fabrication, and is on record doing so. These events occured behind the primacy of the culmination of the Cold War with Russia. Many at the time were wondering if we we just going to throw down and duke it out, or if it would end in a mumble. Not many folks thought along the second lane at that point. Along comes Reagan, the massive US military buildup, the final brinkmanship with the Soviets, where we told them bluntly, hey, you want to fight it out, fine, we will crush you. Probably take few lumps doing it, but we know your stuff is crap, here are your own testing reports, and we know we will win. We can keep rolling, you can not, make a choice. Fortunately, they chose a less violent path. If you can not understand that the Cambodian issue was a blip in comparison with global nuclear war brinkmanship, I just do not know what to say.
Again, I am sorry for the Cambodians, I feel for the drama they lived and died with. But I would also point out, it is something that they did to themselves. The "support" you claim was focused to the period post 1978/79 Vietnamese victory in Cambodia. In 1975, when Kissnger and Ford were making the rounds, the issue discussed was how to contain Vietnam, and also cause pain for the Russians.
Again your argument has no real basis in context. Why not argue that we are more guilty for turning a blind eye to the purges conducted by the Russains post revolution? How coul dwe be allies in WWII where the Russians systematically conducted a campaign plan that resulted in the deaths of <best guess> 26 Million Russian civilians? Or do you think that the Germans killed them all?
The world is not a nice place. It is like a children's playground populated with homicidal power hungry armed kids, and then you mix in a few boy scouts and girl scouts.
The Road To Hell
Ladajo, I have a vested interest when it comes to Cambodia and its people. If I had a vested interest in those who were purged from Russia, I would make such arguments, but I'm picking the topic which most applicably applies to my situation. I'm arguing that looking the other way and pressuring food organizations is a form of support, which occured during the mass killings.
A great injustice was occuring and instead of taking action to stop it, we looked the other way, while giving a thumbs up.
A great injustice was occuring and instead of taking action to stop it, we looked the other way, while giving a thumbs up.
I understand that you have a vested interest. That was clear in your postings.
But this type of argument begs fair treatment across applicable topics. It is not a good debate to say that the argument only applies to one event, when other events are very similar. Thhis actually detracts from the validity of the argument.
In your case, I agree that OUR government turned a blind eye (more or less), I do not agree that we gave it a thumbs up. In fact, the full content of Kissinger's quote is that he detested the Khmer Rouge, but that the Thai's could tell them otherwise, and specifically, don't say that we don't really like them. Kissinger's object was to encourage Chinese support. Also of note, as I have said, these references from State took place prior to genocide. Once our government felt that really bads things were happening, the distancing started. This move enabled us to gain leverage on the Chinese from the issue that is still used today.
I hope you understand that I believe the event a great tradgedy. I hope you also understand that I have been trying to get you to consider that your stated position may be clouded by personal connection. I would argue that while not doing the right thing, does not mean that the wrong thing was automatically done.
But this type of argument begs fair treatment across applicable topics. It is not a good debate to say that the argument only applies to one event, when other events are very similar. Thhis actually detracts from the validity of the argument.
In your case, I agree that OUR government turned a blind eye (more or less), I do not agree that we gave it a thumbs up. In fact, the full content of Kissinger's quote is that he detested the Khmer Rouge, but that the Thai's could tell them otherwise, and specifically, don't say that we don't really like them. Kissinger's object was to encourage Chinese support. Also of note, as I have said, these references from State took place prior to genocide. Once our government felt that really bads things were happening, the distancing started. This move enabled us to gain leverage on the Chinese from the issue that is still used today.
I hope you understand that I believe the event a great tradgedy. I hope you also understand that I have been trying to get you to consider that your stated position may be clouded by personal connection. I would argue that while not doing the right thing, does not mean that the wrong thing was automatically done.
Ladajo, I understand your point, but it wasn't just the blind eye turning that irritates me. It's the pressure on food organizations and other groups that act as indirect support to the KR. I've taken note that our politicians didn't prefer this action, but I do wonder at what cost to our morality did this cause. Essentially where is the line that is action(or inaction) too far.
Well, that is always the question on the global stage. This is something for intance that the Chinese are struggling with greatly these days. The have three disjointed global entities that still do not understand they have global impacts. The Government, The Military, and The Business sector. The other tradgedy for them is that they do not play well together. Thus you see many disjointed and often confusing "messages" and "actions" by the Chinese.
What is a good idea to support one thing, is a really bad idea from another perspective. We also rarely get the opportunity to fully align morals and principle with a given situation. It is rarely clear cut, there is often a competing interest with a valid argument. This is one of the reasons that the diplomatic circles were stressing over wiki-leaks. They were worried that the global public would cherry pick and not get it. In the end they did not anticipate that after the initial excitement, the global public did not really care. No the wiki-leaks stuff has degenerated to a tool to be used by far ends of the spectrum for specific agenda manipulation.
What is a good idea to support one thing, is a really bad idea from another perspective. We also rarely get the opportunity to fully align morals and principle with a given situation. It is rarely clear cut, there is often a competing interest with a valid argument. This is one of the reasons that the diplomatic circles were stressing over wiki-leaks. They were worried that the global public would cherry pick and not get it. In the end they did not anticipate that after the initial excitement, the global public did not really care. No the wiki-leaks stuff has degenerated to a tool to be used by far ends of the spectrum for specific agenda manipulation.
More of the hell our would be masters want to put us in:
http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/2011/09/t ... orced.html
http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/2011/09/t ... orced.html