sad thoughts on poly posters

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger


?

You're being a little muddle-headed. I said that the US forced others to make sacrifices it would never have asked of its own citizens, like putting up with government death squads roaming the street squashing dissent, not that the US never made any sacrifices.

I said that both sides engaged in merely proxy conflict against each other, not that there was no conflict.

Deny what? I do not deny that the USSR was, generally, worse than the US internally (I would rather have the US governing me as a US citizen than the USSR governing me as a Soviet citizen) or that both were similarly distasteful in their dealings with other nations. In fact, the only one engaged in whitewashing here is you.

And I say bull sh!t. The US directly sacrificed a good number of it's citizens on the fields of the Cold War.

And you said... 'It was a state of tension'. Bull sh!t. It was a war with nuclear weapons in the wings.

White washing? Me? I am the one saying what the nature of the conflict was. You are sticking to the party line.

[KrazyHorse]

Source on the Vietnam thing is forgotten, but if GP were here he could testify to it. He made claim, looked up figures and admitted error.

[KrazyHorse]

What party line? I am not, and have never been...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger
The Khmer Rouge was backed by the US and kicked out of power by the Vietnamese.

Bull sh!t sensor goes off the scale.

[KrazyHorse]

And you said... 'It was a state of tension'. Bull sh!t. It was a war with nuclear weapons in the wings

Then every important country has been at war every day since its birth. There's a difference between an actual war and a potential war. You're seeking to eliminate that distinction and thus provide justification for military action anywhere, anytime.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Bull sh!t sensor goes off the scale.

That's a historical fact, NYE. The Vietnamese army crossed into Cambodia and kicked out the Khmer Rouge in 1977 or whenever. US support is more arguable, but there is documentary evidence, IIRC. The Khmer Rouge grew up as a nationalist reaction against Viet Namese infiltration of Cambodia along Ho Chi Minh trail and subsequent US bombing of said trail and surrounding territory (incurring massive civilian casualties, BTW). As the US wasn't kindly disposed to Viet Nam's government at the time, they supported anti-Viet Namese groups everywhere in the region, even if said groups were ultra-Maoist fanatics.

[notyoueither]

No. You are denying that there was a pivoltal conflict of historical significance played out between 1950 and 1990. That conflict was played out without the major protaganists ever coming into direct conflict. Rather, they waged war by proxy. Thank God.

There never has been a war like it, and may there never be again.

[GeneralTacticus]

You want American sacrifice? Korea. Vietnam. The Americans (and others) bled a hell of a lot more than the Russians ever did, until Afghanistan.

Do you think the sacrifices made by the US in Korea and Vietnam was even close to the sacrifices made by the citizens of other Third World nations because of the US?

Pfff. Vietnam, Cambodia, the KGB. Give me a break!

Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, South Africa, Iraq, Iran Greece, Turkey... need I go on?

Bull sh!t sensor goes off the scale.

They were backed by the Chinese and later preserved by the Americans as opposition to the Vietnamese-backed government.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger


That's a historical fact, NYE. The Vietnamese army crossed into Cambodia and kicked out the Khmer Rouge in 1977 or whenever. US support is more arguable, but there is documentary evidence, IIRC. The Khmer Rouge grew up as a nationalist reaction against Viet Namese infiltration of Cambodia along Ho Chi Minh trail and subsequent US bombing of said trail and surrounding territory (incurring massive civilian casualties, BTW). As the US wasn't kindly disposed to Viet Nam's government at the time, they supported anti-Viet Namese groups everywhere in the region, even if said groups were ultra-Maoist fanatics.

US support is more arguable



and I'll let you keep banging that drum.

[KrazyHorse]

Suppoert was most extensive after the Khmer Rouge had managed to prove their self-genocidal tendencies, BTW...

[KrazyHorse]

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/englis...arion0498.html

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus


Do you think the sacrifices made by the US in Korea and Vietnam was even close to the sacrifices made by the citizens of other Third World nations because of the US?



Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, South Africa, Iraq, Iran Greece, Turkey... need I go on?



They were backed by the Chinese and later preserved by the Americans as opposition to the Vietnamese-backed government.

1. It wasn't just the US. It was Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Austrailia, and on and on...

2. Yes, you need to go on if you want to blame the twisted regime of South Africa on the US. Turkey? Are you Greek? Brazil? Are you sane?

3. Cry on. Your side lost.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/englis...arion0498.html

To the Editor:

That has to be a definitive source.

[KrazyHorse]

http://www.edwebproject.org/sideshow...ears/fall.html

[GeneralTacticus]

1. It wasn't just the US. It was Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Austrailia, and on and on...

And your point is... what? The US never had to make sacrifices even close to those it imposed on other nations.

2. Yes, you need to go on if you want to blame the twisted regime of South Africa on the US. Turkey? Are you Greek? Brazil? Are you sane?

1) The US supported the apartheid regime.

2) No, I am not Greek, but Turkey was and is very repressive toward the Kurds.

3) What exactly do you mean? the US supported a Brazilian military coup in 1964, which brought about a dictatorship.

3. Cry on. Your side lost.

Please identify 'my side'.

[KrazyHorse]

That's why I said US support was more arguable. It's on the same level of provability as any other covert contribution of funds and armaments, but there is specific documentary evidence to back it up.

However, the fact that the Vietnamese were the ones who kicked the Khmer out is not in doubt. It's in Encarta, IIRC. Go find an encyclopedia and look it up.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger
http://www.edwebproject.org/sideshow...ears/fall.html

During the spring of 1978, Vietnam amassed thousands of troops along the Cambodian border. Khmer Rouge forces skirmished with Vietnamese troops in isolated, but recurrent incidents, raising tensions between the two nations even further. Spring also marked the signing of a friendship treaty between Vietnam and the Soviet Union, a direct response to Cambodia's close relationship with China. Cambodia and Vietnam were now the pawns of a Chinese-Soviet rivalry, not unlike when the U.S. and U.S.S.R. took advantage of the regional instability of the Vietnam War to further their own Cold War interests. And just as they had done so against the Americans and South Vietnamese, Vietnam patiently prepared for the right moment to gain an advantage while their enemy faltered.

Good sourse. For what?

[KrazyHorse]

http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/thailand.htm

[KrazyHorse]

For the fact that the vietnames were one of the major (the major?) force which precipitated the fall of the Khmer. They invaded in December 1978.

[KrazyHorse]

And which they then paid for by having the Chinese invade northern Vietnam...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger
That's why I said US support was more arguable. It's on the same level of provability as any other covert contribution of funds and armaments, but there is specific documentary evidence to back it up.

However, the fact that the Vietnamese were the ones who kicked the Khmer out is not in doubt. It's in Encarta, IIRC. Go find an encyclopedia and look it up.

based on your 'sourses'?

Ohhhh Frogger, you're smarter than that!

Do you think the Yankees are the be all of evil? If not, wh[y] do you not place some faith that they may have occassionally done some things of benefit to a great many people, if only in benefitting themselves.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger
For the fact that the vietnames were one of the major (the major?) force which precipitated the fall of the Khmer. They invaded in December 1978.

And what does this have to do with the US?

[KrazyHorse]

Because you quoted me as saying that and scoffed at it. I said it to demonstrate that I find it incredible for you to lump Viet Nam and Cambodia into the same grouping when they fought a war against each other at precisely the same time we are discussing.

[notyoueither]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GeneralTacticus

And your point is... what? The US never had to make sacrifices even close to those it imposed on other nations.

Bull sh!t. They cleaned up after the Euros who couldn't take care of themselves and the Pacific Rim which wasn't ready to yet.

They earned the right to interfere. So might I may add, did Canadians who have been among to first to fight in the rest of your fvcked up world for too long.

1) The US supported the apartheid regime.

2) No, I am not Greek, but Turkey was and is very repressive toward the Kurds.

3) What exactly do you mean? the US supported a Brazilian military coup in 1964, which brought about a dictatorship.



Please identify 'my side'.

1. You are on crack.

2. Turkey has gone it's own way for a long time now, like since 1922. Don't blame anyone else for your inability to break resistance at Galipoli.

3. Can you invent more bogy men for us? Even if the US did this thing (like any military in SA needed it) Brazil is doing quite nicely right at the moment. But thanks for your concern for our hemisphere.

Your side would be any lunatic fringe that wants to jump into a debate on the internet without being equipped for the task. Communists, usually.

[KrazyHorse]

http://www.singapore-window.org/sw00/001002sc.htm

[KrazyHorse]

Really, NYE. You're not having the best of this discussion. When you've been reduced to pointing out the same typo in two separate posts (from a person who I'd hope has been here long enough to prove that it was indeed a typo, and not an indication of the work of an inferior mind) you should just give up...

[notyoueither]

Pfff. Vietnam, Cambodia, the KGB. Give me a break!

These were citations of Communist blood baths, not conflicts within the Communist world.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger


Really, NYE. You're not having the best of this discussion. When you've been reduced to pointing out the same typo in two separate posts (from a person who I'd hope has been here long enough to prove that it was indeed a typo, and not an indication of the work of an inferior mind) you should just give up...

What are you babbling about? Typos?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Pfff. Vietnam, Cambodia, the KGB. Give me a break!

These were citations of Communist blood baths, not conflicts within the Communist world.

Uh huh. So now I can line up everything that's happened in the capitalistic parts of the world and line it up against that stuff? Nazi Germany, Clearances of Native Americans, etc.?

[GeneralTacticus]

Bull sh!t. They cleaned up after the Euros who couldn't take care of themselves and the Pacific Rim which wasn't ready to yet.

They earned the right to interfere. So might I may add, did Canadians who have been among to first to fight in the rest of your fvcked up world for too long.

So you think that spending a few billion dollars and losing a few tens of thousands of troops is equivalent to losing millions of civilians, having your country devasted and being subjected to dictatorship?

1. You are on crack.

Can you find a better means of expressing your disagreement with people than screamin 'BULLSHIT!' or saying 'you are on crack'? btw, having done some further checking, I will withdraw that assertation.

2. Turkey has gone it's own way for a long time now, like since 1922. Don't blame anyone else for your inability to break resistance at Galipoli.

So you think that allowing Turkey to be part of NATO while it is busy trying to destroy Kurdish society doesn't constitute supporting them?

EDIT: Blame the Brits for Gallipoli. It isn't our fault they put an idiot in charge who sent us to occupy the wrong place.

3. Can you invent more bogy men for us? Even if the US did this thing (like any military in SA needed it) Brazil is doing quite nicely right at the moment. But thanks for your concern for our hemisphere.

Did I make any comment about how Brazil was doing right now? No. I said that the US supported a very bloody Brazilian dictatorship.

Your side would be any lunatic fringe that wants to jump into a debate on the internet without being equipped for the task. Communists, usually.

So anybody who objects to the US supporting mass murder and tyranny in the Third World is a member of a lunatic fringe and a communist? Nice logic.