1975: Saigon surrenders

[Sava]

Keep telling yourself that Sloww...

[TCO]

Originally posted by Sava
Yeah, good idea. Kill more people, have more of our own troops die, and accomplish nothing.

Good idea--have millions of people have to flee their country. Huge numbers of them dying in boats. And those who stay, live as slaves.

[Sava]

This may come to a surprise to you, but America isn't all powerful. Sure, I'd like to see the people of the world free and living in harmony. But in reality, there are dictators, there are bad people, there are brutal regimes. **** happens, deal with it.

[PLATO]

Reading that story brought back many memories. I can still remember watching the news reports on TV. The pictures of the roof of the US embassy will forever be etched in my mind.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Sava
Ahhh yeah, what do I know? I just had 4 family members who saw combat in that conflict. 1 who died. And I've only studied Vietnam for half my life. God forbid I offer an opinion or share the first-hand accounts that were shared with me. After all, it's so easy to fall back to the cowboy mentality and say "If they're not with us, they're against us."

I've never been too impressed by your level of insight/understanding.

[SlowwHand]

Mine too, Plato.

[Ming]

Sava and Slow... just chill...

[Ned]

The question Kennedy should have asked before getting involved is how do we win. The only answer should have been was to conquer the North. But, since that was never on the agenda, we could never have won that "war."

In the book, We Were Soldiers, MacNamara concluded in 1965-6 that the North was mobilizing and that we would have to increase our forces in Vietnam dramatically just to not lose. He estimated that we would have to increase our forces to 450k in the next year just to match the NV, and to 650 to "win." He estimated that if we simply matched the NV, we could expect 1,000 US casualties a month, but many times that for the NV.

Well, we all know the option Johnson chose - the no win, no lose option of a meatgrinder. The more I learn about what Johnson and Kennedy did, the more I am increasingly dismayed.

Contrast the Kennedy/Johnson strategy in Vietnam with the Gulf War, Afghanistan and now Iraq. What a difference.

Hopefully, we never elect such presidents again. NEVER. Beware of peaceniks posing as presidential candidates. They will kill a lot of Americans.

[Sava]

Originally posted by GP


I've never been too impressed by your level of insight/understanding.

You're breaking my heart.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Sava
This may come to a surprise to you, but America isn't all powerful. Sure, I'd like to see the people of the world free and living in harmony. But in reality, there are dictators, there are bad people, there are brutal regimes. **** happens, deal with it.

This is actually a more reasonable argument.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ming
Sava and Slow... just chill...

All righty, I'm done posting here. No sense in wasting keystrokes. I'm going to try and teach my cat how to use the toilet.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Ming
Sava and Slow... just chill...

Not necessary, but thanks for the warning.

I knew when I posted this here, that it was opening the gates to Hell for me, and made the decision to post anyway, and remain unresponsive to taunts.

I've had worse on my eyeball.

[SlowwHand]

Left people like this running the show.
China was a big part of any success the North had in this fiasco.

Khmer Rouge
Related: Southeast Ancient History

(kemer´ roozh) , name given to native Cambodian Communists. Khmer Rouge soldiers, aided by North Vietnamese and Viet Cong troops, began a large-scale insurgency against government forces in 1970, quickly gaining control over more than two thirds of the country. The strength of the Khmer Rouge rose dramatically from around 3,000 in 1970 to more than 30,000 in 1973, enabling most of the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong troops to withdraw. In 1975 the movement, led by Pol Pot , overthrew the Cambodian government, establishing “Democratic Kampuchea.” The new government carried out a radical program of evacuating cities, closing schools and factories, and herding the population into collective farms. Intellectuals and skilled workers were assassinated, and a total of perhaps as many as 1.5 million died, inclusive of starvation and forced marches. In 1979, after increasing tensions with Vietnam, Vietnamese troops invaded, aiding a rival Communist faction to depose the Khmer Rouge government. The Khmer Rouge, however, continued to field an army of c.30,000 near the Thai border and retained UN recognition as the official Cambodian government. In 1982 it formed a coalition with former premier Norodom Sihanouk and non-Communist leader Son Sann. Khieu Samphan officially succeeded Pol Pot as head of the Khmer Rouge in 1985, but Pol Pot was believed to remain the real leader. All Cambodian factions signed (1991) a treaty calling for UN-supervised elections and disarming 70% of all forces. In 1992 the United Nations assumed the government's administrative functions, while the Khmer Rouge withdrew from the peace process and resumed fighting. The following year the Khmer Rouge rejected the results of the UN-run elections that brought a coalition government to Cambodia. The guerrilla force lost about half to three quarters of its strength (3,000-4,000 soldiers) in a mass defection in 1996. Factional fighting within the Khmer Rouge in 1997 led to Pol Pot's ouster, trial, and imprisonment by the Khmer Rouge. The group continued to disintegrate, and factional fighting resumed in 1998. Pol Pot died in April, Khieu Samphan surrendered in Dec., 1998, and by 1999 most members had defected, surrendered, or been captured.

[SlowwHand]

If you think references to Cambodia and/or Laos are not related, think again.

And this is the kind of crap that makes we wild.

30 Apr 2003 04:08:34 GMT
Rights group urges U.N. to block Khmer Rouge trial

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PHNOM PENH, April 30 (Reuters) - Human Rights Watch urged the United Nations on Wednesday not to approve a draft deal with Cambodia to try the leaders of the Khmer Rouge genocide because a planned court did not meet decent standards of justice.

A committee of the U.N. General Assembly is expected later this week to consider the deal which was finally hammered out in March after more than five years of protracted negotiations.

An estimated 1.7 million people died under the ultra-Maoist Khmer Rouge's four-year reign of terror in the 1970s. Most of the victims were executed or died of starvation, overwork or disease as the Khmer Rouge vision of a peasant utopia in the southeast Asian nation turned into the nightmare of the "Killing Fields".

"Cambodians deserve the highest standards of justice to prosecute those responsible. They deserve to know the truth about what happened, and why," said Mike Jendrzejczyk of the rights group's Asia division.

"Instead, this proposal represents the lowest standards yet for a tribunal with U.N. participation."

Chief U.N. negotiator Hans Corell has said the unprecedented joint Cambodian-U.N. format was "cumbersome", but added he hoped the complex checks and balances enshrined within the deal, as well as intense media scrutiny, would ensure a fair trial.

Human Rights Watch said the Cambodian government, which is still littered with former Khmer Rouge officials and soldiers, including Prime Minister Hun Sen, would be able to exert strong influence over proceedings.

The New York-based group also criticised the lack of any serious plans for the protection of witnesses, victims and court personnel.

Amnesty International has voiced similar concerns and urged the U.N. General Assembly not to give the deal the thumbs up.

However, many diplomats in Phnom Penh say that by blocking the deal the U.N. would be depriving ordinary Cambodians of the last chance to see those responsible for one of the 20th century's worst atrocities in the dock.

[Menlas]

Originally posted by Ned
Contrast the Kennedy/Johnson strategy in Vietnam with the Gulf War, Afghanistan and now Iraq. What a difference.

Contrast the North Vietnam army and equipment with the Iraq/Afghanistan ones. What a difference.

(not to speak about the battlefield, which was *slightly* different in Vietnam than in Iraq)