Who Lost Cambodia

The impact of this bombing, the subject of much debate for the past three decades, is now clearer than ever. Civilian casualties in Cambodia drove an enraged populace into the arms of an insurgency that had enjoyed relatively little support until the bombing began, setting in motion the expansion of the Vietnam War deeper into Cambodia, a coup d’état in 1970, the rapid rise of the Khmer Rouge, and ultimately the Cambodian genocide.

America did it! We caused the genocide!

Gee, nobody could ever have predicted a leftist would blame America...

One more instance where the Right Wing's rationale is "it must be so since it feels like it's so".

Gee, nobody could ever have predicted a leftist would blame America...

As opposed to someone like, say Hugh Hewitt, who blames...Americans.

Well done Al.

"But, then again, you knew that already, didn't you?"

I doubt that many do. In an intellectually healthy society--where it is well known that we bombed hundreds of thousands of Cambodians to death, gave diplomatic and material support to the Khmer Rouge during its war with unified Vietnam, and turned the Plain of Jars into an utter wasteland--Hewitt would be roundly condemned as something akin to a holocaust denier, which he is, objectively speaking. But we live in a land of sick, cultivated ignorance, and so Hewitt is a well-rewarded commentator with a large platform and an enormous, dedicated audience.

There is nothing else really to say, only that we shouldn't be so quick to marvel at official holocaust denial Iran when essentially similar positions are loudly championed here.

Al, how do you know Kiernan is a "leftist"? Is anybody who believes his quote above, automatically a leftist?

If he thinks x, then he's a leftist.
Then:
How predictable that a leftist would think x!

By that logic it's not only predictable a leftist would think x, it's a tautology.

Al, how do you know Kiernan is a "leftist"?

He's on the social science faculty at Yale.

Also, re Eric Martin above: so this Kiernan sounds like a left-wing version of Hewitt? I'd agree!

Just over 10 percent of this bombing was indiscriminate, with 3,580 of the sites listed as having “unknown” targets and another 8,238 sites having no target listed at all. The database also shows that the bombing began four years earlier than is widely believed—not under Nixon, but under Lyndon Johnson.

Yes. Specifically, I keep hearing references to the point in time (the 1964 presidential campaign) where the R's proposed expanding the war to Cambodia to cope with the Ho Chi Minh trail and Lyndon Johnson referred to them as insane or something like that while the US was carrying out that exact action.

Civilian casualties in Cambodia drove an enraged populace into the arms of an insurgency that had enjoyed relatively little support until the bombing began, setting in motion the expansion of the Vietnam War deeper into Cambodia, a coup d’état in 1970, the rapid rise of the Khmer Rouge, and ultimately the Cambodian genocide.

I would very much like to see where he discusses the Eastern zone massacres, before I would accept his conclusion. Chomsky there claimed that the bombing caused the starvation, excepting, again, that the US was operating against the non-agricultural easten areas bordering Vietnam. I know that ain't true, so I'm not inclined to automatically accept his conclusion above.

m, but I'm not coming down agin it, either

America did it! We caused the genocide!

And no one could predict that a wingnut would misread the portion he quoted to attribute as malevolent a general intent as possible to a specific academic and the Left in general. Whether the overreaching interpretation is intended or simply a byproduct of Red acculturation I, sadly, can't even pretend to know.

Down with the internet! Abandon blogs! Everyone embrace teh no-fault Friedmanite talking point of the Camodian genocide was the Khner Rouge's Fault before it is that of Richard Nixon. Anyway, I do not pretend to know whether or not the American bombing of Cambodia did indirectly lend significant support to the Khmer Rouge, one should not forget the war between communist Vietnam and Pol Pot's communist Cambodia. Of course, many Americans had a rough time in the Vietnam War (and many more Cambodians, Laotians, Vietnamese) and their sacrifice should be treated with the greatest respect.

Al,
Know your history. The bombing of Cambodia clearly destabilized Prince Sihnouk, which led to his fall and the rise of the Khymer Rouge. Check out William Shawcross' Sideshow.

Just because a fact supported an argument held by people holding a specific ideological orientation, does not mean that that fact is not a fact.

Max Weber said the best thing a teacher can do is to introduce inconvenient facts. From your mentality, this is impossible, because if a fact doesn't conform to your preconceived ideology, it obviously is a construction of the opposing ideology, and intellectually worthless.

Open your fucking mind.

Also, ironically, it was the Communist Vietnamese who forced the Khmer Rouge from power.

And no one could predict that a wingnut would misread the portion he quoted to attribute as malevolent a general intent as possible to a specific academic and the Left in general.

Of COURSE we attribute malevolent intents to statements by the other side. That's what the blogosphere is all about! Don't tell me you don't attribute malevolent intent to everything the Bushies do.

Whether the overreaching interpretation is intended or simply a byproduct of Red acculturation I, sadly, can't even pretend to know.

I don't think it can be Red acculturation; I live in the bluest of blue areas. Unless you mean by "Red acculturation" my Weekly Standard subscription and Powerline on my Favorites list.

Wouldn't Hewitt's response be something like: "Okay, so it was our activities that pushed Cambodians towards genocide. Having started that chain of events, it was morally wrong for us to quit the theater of war and leave them to doom rather than staying and doing more to prevent it." That seems to be his Iraq analogy.

rickm - I take no position on whether America actually did cause the genocide. Maybe we did! I just commented on how unsurprising it was to see a lefty academic (redundant, I know) say we did.

Chuckle...so, Al. It's not that you disagree with the conclusion drawn from the facts of Cambodia, but rather, the speaker of the conclusion. So, if Hewitt had made the same conclusion, you would agree with it? Does that strike you as particularly logical? Rather, doesn't that mean your worldview and moral structure is ENTIRELY subjective, as conclusions are not tethered to an objective standard, but rather, to a subjective condition?

Matt, my sense is that the notion that anti-war movement is responsible for the Cambodian genocide is more than simply "in the spirit of 'no talking point left behind.'" It's actually pretty central to the conservative revisionist history of the Vietnam War. David Horowitz, for one, never misses an opportunity to make the argument. It's also precisely the kind of argument that can, because of its relative complexity, bamboozle journalists who don't know much of the history.

Also, ironically, it was the Communist Vietnamese who forced the Khmer Rouge from power.
To add to the irony, it was the moral visionaries in the Reagan administration that then decided to support the Khmer Rouge after the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia.

"Having started that chain of events, it was morally wrong for us to quit the theater of war and leave them to doom rather than staying and doing more to prevent it."

How? We tried sending more than 600,000 troops to Vietnam; it didn't help; what do you thin we could have done that would have made the situation in Cambodia better? Apart from not messing with Cambodia in the first place . . .

The analogy to Iraq is rather obvious . . .

Currently there are chiefly two completing historical narratives for the rise of the Khmer Rouge. Greatly simplified, everyone agrees that:
Cambodia's ruler Prince Sihanouk was deposed by his Prime Minister Lon Nol (much disliked by the Cambodians) who then requested US intervention (a widened campaign of bombing and incursions) against a Vietnamese presence and a Cambodian insurgency. This led to broad support from the public (and from Sihanouk in exile in China) for the Khmer Rouge who then defeated Lon Nol. Then came the Killing Fields.
The Left argues that Sihanouk, who was very widely loved and supported by the Cambodians, was the force which had held Cambodia's Communist revolutionaries at bay. Further, Sihanouk had maintained a tenuous Cambodian neutrality by co-opting and playing off the various factions and powers but this neutrality was seen as a major insult and impediment to US power by Nixon and Kissinger. The US engineered rise of Lon Nol was hated by the people and brought increased bombing and incursions by America which further drove public support for the revolutionaries and eventual victory for the Khmer Rouge.
The Right argues that the US had nothing to do with Sihanouk's overthrow, that US intervention in Cambodia was a SEATO obligation, and that it was Congress, pushed by the Left to deny funding for US operations in Cambodia and military support for Lon Nol, which guaranteed the Khmer Rouge victory.
I think that the Left underplays their support for the Khmer Rouge especially in the initial stages of the revolution. The Left tended to view them as they did the North Vietnamese, as a nationalist resistance to US hegemony in Asia. Much of the Left also supported Mao and the Cultural Revolution; of course almost nobody outside China knew the horrors of that movement at the time. So it was with the Khmer Rouge, though once they began fighting with the Vietnamese the Left's support waned.
The Right refuses to accept US involvement in the overthrow of Sihanouk and downplays the role that US incursions and support for the hated Lon Nol played in public support for the revolution. And then after the Khmer Rouge won and began seriously clashing with the North Vietnamese the US actually found themselves in an alliance with the Khmer. Beyond material aid, US air attacks often softened up Vietnamese positions for Khmer Rouge ground forces.
The head spins.

Daniel is right, the supposed U.S. left responsibility for the Cambodian genocide is a central right-wing revisionist history talking point. It is all over the net too -- e.g. Tacitus uses it constantly. It is also designed to conflate the Cambodian and Vietnamese communists -- the consequences of the North Vietnamese communist takeover over Vietnam were not particularly bad, so they have to distract attention over to Cambodia. This despite the fact that it was the Vietnamese who finally invaded Cambodia and stopped the genocide there. (And we even supported the Khmer Rouge somewhat against them!)

In the Cambodian drama, the event that foretold the killing fields, that practically guaranteed the massacres committed by the Khmer Rouge, was the rise to power of the weak and widely-despised American puppet Lon Nol. His fall led to a power vacuum into which rushed the chaotic forces of the Khmer Rouge, previously obscure and relatively few in number.

*That* parallel with Iraq would only be more obvious if the current president of Iraq had a palindrome for a name.

Al,
Did you ever think that the reason that 'lefty academics' blame America for many horrible things, is that America may actually be responsible for many horrible things? In other words, did you ever entertain the notion that 'lefty academics' tend to have a certain viewpoint because that is where the evidence leads people who actually look at the evidence?

Are you surprised when a biologist believes in evolution, and when a scientist believes in the big bang?

Uh, having lived through this period, the fact that the Year Zero began simultaneously with the collapse of South Vietnam suggests a lot of special pleading in this argument.

By the way, why was the US bombing neutral Cambodia? Because the North Vietnamese were running the Ho Chi Minh Highway through it to attack South Vietnam.

rickm,

Don't you know the facts are biased. Duh.

The much reviled domino theory turned out to be exactly right in Indochina. When South Vietnam, with Congress refusing to allow American air support, collapsed, the resistance to Communist insurgencies in both Laos and Cambodia gave up, so all three countries fell virtually simultaneously. In Vietnam and Laos, the conquering Communists turned out to about as vicious as you'd expect, but the Cambodian Communists turned out to be insanely murderous.

Did you ever think that the reason that 'lefty academics' blame America for many horrible things, is that America may actually be responsible for many horrible things? In other words, did you ever entertain the notion that 'lefty academics' tend to have a certain viewpoint because that is where the evidence leads people who actually look at the evidence?

Shhhhh. All of Al's moronic bluster is designed to prevent precisely this type of critical thinking in others. When you go and state it explicitly like this, you ruin everything.

Again: shhhhh.

By the way, why was the US bombing neutral Cambodia? Because the North Vietnamese were running the Ho Chi Minh Highway through it to attack South Vietnam.

Maybe you should read the article linked to in the post. In particular, look at the map.

The best test of a theory is what pre-hoc predictions it makes. In the early 1970s, as I recall vividly, conservatives were predicting a "bloodbath" in Indochina if the Communists won, while liberals were pooh-poohing the idea. As it turned out, the Communist regimes in Vietnam and Laos were a little less bloody than the conservatives predicted (although when I met my friend's father-in-law after he got out after 8 years in a Vietnamese re-education camp, the fact that they hadn't murdered him was about all you can say for his treatment.) But the Cambodian Communist regime was much, much worse than conservatives predicted.

So, the conservatives turned out to be largely right and the liberals wrong. This inconvenient fact generated a large demand on the left for post-hoc blame-America-for-Pol-Pot rationalizations like William Shawcross's book, but that's what they were.

By the way, I now remember where I heard about this Kiernan fellow before: he's the main proponent of the theory that Cambodian genocide wasn't about ideology, it was about ethnicity. In general, I find that approach quite powerful, so I gave some of his articles a sympathetic reading. Unfortunately, they just don't add up. Sure, the Khmer Rouge wiped out the small Cham minority, but the enormous explanatory problem is what they did to their own people, which was horrific. And to explain the big issue, ideology (extreme leftist version) is the only reasonable explanation.

So, I wouldn't take Kiernan all that seriously.

The removal of Sihanouk was the primary factor in the rise of the Khmer Rouge. After his overthrow, Sihanouk encouraged the soliders still loyal to him to join forces with the Khmer Rouge. This greatly enhanced the power and popularity of the Khmer Rouge. Sihanouk thought he could control the Khmer Rouge and steer it to a more moderate path. This turned out to be a big mistake, but most Cambodians I've talked to forgive him for that. The greater mystery is how Pol Pot became in charge of the Khmer Rough. Prior to the fall of Phnom Penh, Pol Pot was a minor figure and mostly unknown. The actual fall of Phnom Penh was total chaos, with about million refugees having recently poured into the city. For a day or two, nobody was really in control. And then, all of the sudden, Pol Pot was the leader. Nobody expected that to happen. And nobody had any idea what was to come. I've talked to dozens of people in Cambodia about what happened in those few days that allowed Pol Pot to gain power. Not a single person had a theory. He just came out nowhere. Pol Pot ruled for about a year before his parents even knew their son was leading the country. That's how unknown he was.

Steve,
It doesn't matter what emotion propelled Shawcross to write his book. His argument is cogent, and his investigation was proper. None of what you say has any bearing on whether the argument that the bombing of Cambodia ushered in the Khymer Rouge is accurate or not.

Liberals were wrong in saying that a pullout of Vietnam would not encourage the rise of nearby communist movements. But that was a prediction--most are wrong. The argument that bombing Cambodia led to the Khymer Rouge is an argument about the past-not a prediction. It is also probably true. It is supported by a massive amount of documentation and investigation, and on top of that, accepted by many people who sit around all day and study this shit for a living.

But Steve, you like the rest of the Right refuses to admit to the role that US interference and destabilization of Asian nations played in the rise and success of Communist revolutions in Laos and Cambodia and Vietnam.
As an example had Sihanouk not been deposed by the US then the Khmer Rouge would never have been able to topple him.
It was the US which prevented the Vietnamese unification elections scheduled for 1956 and made "permanent" what was designed as a temporary partition.
It was US destabilization in Laos which strengthened the local insurgencies hand and enabled North Vietnamese interference.
And if the Domino Theory was correct what of Thailand and Malaysia? Both worked with Mao's China against North Vietnamese influence and interests.
The fact is that the US policy and theories like the Domino depended upon a black/white good/evil view of the regimes and cultures in Southeast Asia. The Vietnam War was an attempt to impose that world view and it took a generation before the US accepted that the fit was bad and the theories wrong.
Does any of this sound faintly familiar?

I wouldn't take Kiernan all that seriously.

We'd better rush this to Kiernan. The news that he isn't taken seriously by Steve Sailer will surely cause him to reexamine everything!

Steve, you wrote:
"Sure, the Khmer Rouge wiped out the small Cham minority, but the enormous explanatory problem is what they did to their own people, which was horrific. And to explain the big issue, ideology (extreme leftist version) is the only reasonable explanation.

So, I wouldn't take Kiernan all that seriously."

I just wonder, how did you develop such unwavering faith in your own intellectual ability to delude yourself into believing that you are capable of discrediting the foremost authority on a subject in three sentences after perusing a few of his articles.

Maybe you should read the article linked to in the post. In particular, look at the map.

Can you summarize it for those of us who don't subscribe to Walrus magazine?

Kiernan is widely considered something of a crank because his theory that the Khmer Rouge genocide was basically a majority vs. minority genocide, like the Nazi's Holocaust, fails the test of simple arithmetic -- most of the victims were Khmers.

Look, the whole Vietnam War was a series of catastrophic mistakes. If you go ask anybody in Vietnam today, they'll tell you that the central twin mistakes were the North Vietnamese Communists binding their nationalism to Communism and the U.S. not recognizing that, in the very long run, Vietnamese nationalism was stronger than Communism.

But, the question here is: in the early 1970s, who more accurately predicted the near term course of events in Indochina? And, history shows that the conservatives' domino and bloodbath theories turned out to be more right than the liberal view.

Steve: "Kiernan is widely considered something of a crank because his theory that the Khmer Rouge genocide was basically a majority vs. minority genocide, like the Nazi's Holocaust, fails the test of simple arithmetic -- most of the victims were Khmers."

Because of his theory, which you disagree with, he "shouldn't be taken seriously" and is a "crank"? Have you EVER entered into an academic study? EVER? people disagree on the minutea and detail of events; it is imprudent and childish to write off those honestly disagree with you as irrelevant.

Kiernan's theory is that the Cambodian genocide was just the big tribe wiping out the little tribes, standard operating procedure from the time of Joshua and the Canaanites. There was some of that, sure, but he's missing the point of how bizarre the Khmer Rouge were in the big tribe wiping out big chunk of itself for ideological reasons.

Rickm, just revel in the comedy of Sailer saying that someone else is "widely considered a crank."

"But, the question here is: in the early 1970s, who more accurately predicted the near term course of events in Indochina? And, history shows that the conservatives' domino and bloodbath theories turned out to be more right than the liberal view.
Posted by: Steve Sailer on February 23, 2007 03:30 PM"

Actually, that is not the question here. If you think the right's prediction turned out to be accurate because they had better prediction and inferential skills, then you are deluding yourself.

We can forgive people for making bad predictions- they, by definition, are not and cannot be based on facts. If one gets it wrong, they are just bad at predicting. Everyone is.

Yet if one whitewashes the historical record, and claims, without evidence, that the left in America is responsible for the Khymer Rouge, then they are on the same moral and intellectual plane of holocaust deniers.

One group made an inaccurate prediction, the other is distorting the historical record and smearing an undeserving group of people. Why the hell are you siding with the latter in this case?

Can you summarize it for those of us who don't subscribe to Walrus magazine?

It appears it's available as a pdf on Kiernan's faculty page. Note in particular the map, which clearly shows how much (meaning, most) of Cambodia was heavily bombed. It wasn't just "the Ho Chi Minh Highway," as Sailer implies and many apologists for the bombing often claim; it was basically the whole country.

At a party near the start of the '03 invasion, I found myself engaged in a conversation with NPR travel "reporter" Peter Greenberg.

PG: "I used to feel like you do, but ever since the Khmer Rouge, I realize the Left has it wrong."

T: "Actually, I wish the Khmer Rouge were here in Malibu."

PG: "Oh, and why is that?"

T: Well, so they could start killing people like you."

PG huffef and he puffed and skedaddled away.

Wherever Al is- he'd deserve the same fate.

At a party near the start of the '03 invasion, I found myself engaged in a conversation with NPR travel "reporter" Peter Greenberg.

PG: "I used to feel like you do, but ever since the Khmer Rouge, I realize the Left has it wrong."

T: "Actually, I wish the Khmer Rouge were here in Malibu."

PG: "Oh, and why is that?"

T: Well, so they could start killing people like you."

PG huffef and he puffed and skedaddled away.

Wherever Al is- he'd deserve the same fate.

"But, the question here is: in the early 1970s, who more accurately predicted the near term course of events in Indochina? And, history shows that the conservatives' domino and bloodbath theories turned out to be more right than the liberal view.
Posted by: Steve Sailer on February 23, 2007 03:30 PM"

This is flat out ignorant nonsense. The conservative domino theory said that Vietnam would ally with China; Vietnam and China were at war by the late 1970s. Vietnam also went to war with its other Communist neighbor, Cambodia. Vietnam never posed a threat to non-Communist U.S. allies like Thailand or Indonesia.

As for bloodbaths, there was one in Cambodia, but not Vietnam, which was after all the country the Vietnam war was about.

I think relatively few conservatives predicted Nike plants in Vietnam two decades after the close of the war.

"The much reviled domino theory turned out to be exactly right in Indochina. When South Vietnam, with Congress refusing to allow American air support, collapsed, the resistance to Communist insurgencies in both Laos and Cambodia gave up...

Posted by: Steve Sailer on February 23, 2007 02:18 PM"

Retroactively rewriting the domino theory so that it was only about Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia is ridiculous. The theory was of a Chinese/Vietnamese juggernaut rolling through *all of Indochina*, to include Thailand and Burma, down the straits of Malaysia to Singapore, and from there menacing Indonesia. In other words, the whole area between India and China and the chains of islands south of that in the Pacific. This theory was exactly *wrong* in Indochina.

Not to mention that the Communist insurgencies in Laos and Cambodia were at least partially, perhaps completely, results of our intervention in Vietnam in the first place! So in those cases the domino theory was as much a self-fulfilling prophecy as an accurate prediction about the future.

To sum up, all historical events are the products of an endless chain of events going back to whatever arbitrary cutoff point you want to specify in order to make your side look good.

But, the question at hand is what to do in Iraq. Personally, I never thought we should invade Iraq, and I think we should get out now. But, since we are there, the Indochinese analogy of 1972-1975 is relevant ... and not encouraging to people like me who want to get out. The results of America pulling the plug on South Vietnam was bad in Vietnam and Laos (re-education camps, ethnic cleansing of the Chinese, a million or so refugees) and bizarrely horrific in Cambodia. Now, you can take Cambodian history as far back into the past as you want to make whatever point you want, but the _direct_ cause of the Cambodian auto-genocide was the Communist victory in Indochina, which happened immediately following the collapse of South Vietnam. And the genocide began within 24 hours of the Communist entry into the capital of Cambodia. That is as straightforward as history ever gets: no Communist triumph, no Khmer Rouge genocide.

Of course, there are many obvious differences between America's position in Indochina and in Iraq. Probably the most important is that in the Vietnamese civil war, at least we had a side to help. As corrupt and ineffectual as the South Vietnamese state was, at least it existed. During the North Vietnamese army offensive of 1972, the South Vietnamese fought decently in a number of battles, and eventually turned back North Vietnam's tank attack with very little help from American ground forces -- just American air cover. It took North Vietnam almost three years to recover from its 1972 defeat (just as it had taken four years to recover from its Tet Offensive "victory") and North Vietnam didn't start a new offensive until December 1974.

That's remarkably better than anything "our side" in Iraq has accomplished. In fact, nobody seems to know who exactly "our side" is (at least south of Kurdistan). The Iraqi Arabs seem mostly to compete in who hates us the most. Perhaps I don't blame them, but it hardly makes me want to sacrifice more American lives for them.

Sorry I called you ignorant Steve. Your two follow up posts were quite sensible.

Iraq is much more surreal and complex than Vietnam, in that we are fighting a war without (it appears) much of an idea of who or what we are fighting for. It appears that our war goal is simply not to leave Iraq.

but the _direct_ cause of the Cambodian auto-genocide was the Communist victory in Indochina, which happened immediately following the collapse of South Vietnam.

Again you are conflating the two events that aren't necessarily joined.

It took North Vietnam almost three years to recover from its 1972 defeat (just as it had taken four years to recover from its Tet Offensive "victory") and North Vietnam didn't start a new offensive until December 1974.

Maybe they were just waiting until we were gone, which by 1973 was a foregone conclusion. After twenty years of military support the South Vietnamese armed forces collapsed in about a month. How long would it have taken to form a government that would be able to stand with the support of it's own people? 40-80 years?

I can't believe the nonsense here. The reality of Cambodia was that U.S. bombing drove the populace off the countryside and into the cities. The rice crop was thus not planted, and the cities survived by virtue of massive rice shipments from the U.S. and when Lon Nol fell, the U.S. stopped the rice shipments. Pure and simple: that created a horror situation.

So, once we backed Lon Nol's coup and bombed the hell out of most of Cambodia, how were our Cold War Indochina strategies going to prevent the Killing Fields? By bombing more? Bombing the people we wanted to protect? Supporting Lon Nol, who had no real domestic support? We were opening up to China at the time and the KR were Chinese allies. Now, we could have made the end of support for the KR a condition of good relations, but Nixon and Kissinger would never have done that even if the left had insisted on it short of a major act of Congress. Look at how they supported Yahya Khan during the West Pakistani invasion of East Pakistan. What was our logistical basis of confronting the KR going to be? They were guerrillas. How do you bomb them without destroying the local population and their farmland? The necessary bombing campaign would have possibly killed millions. If anything, we would have had to waited for Cambodia to already collapse to the KR and the KR had set itself up as the central state to actually be confronting the type of enemy Cold Warriors could confront. Vietnam, after all, only beat the KR after the KR was already the de facto Cambodian state.

"That is as straightforward as history ever gets: no Communist triumph, no Khmer Rouge genocide."

That sounds pretty straightforward doesn't it. And it's true. But what would have prevented a Communist victory? By the time of the fall of Phnom Penh, probably nothing. By that time, the majority of Phnom Penh's population of 2 million were refugees that had esacaped the US bombing campaign, which had killed about a quarter million of them. They certainly weren't going to support Lon Nol, who had support the air strikes that killed their families and made them refugees. Most would have supported Sihanouk, but he had already been cut off by the US and marginalized by China. I can only think of one thing that would have prevented these people from backing the communists: the carpet bombing of Phnom Penh and the slaughter of the vast majority of refugees. So, if we are to start history a few days before the fall of Phnom Penh, as Steve suggests, we are left with only the possiblity of preventing the Khmer Rouge genocide by replacing it with a US implemented genocide. But history really didn't start then, and we could have prevented the genocide much earlier by not creating a severe refugee crisis in Phnom Penh with our bombing campaign. Of course, that would have required a little foresight, and we never seem to have that. If we are to learn anything from this experience it is this: when you bomb people, they become your enemies. When you drop bombs on the majority of the population, then the majority becomes your enemy. With our bombing campaign in Cambodia, we reached the point where we had turned the majority of the population against us. I don't think we have reached that point yet in Iraq, but we are certainly determined to get there. We will get there even sooner with our new escalation.

How did an Aryan Nationalist like Steve Sailer wind up reading Matthew Yglesias? At least we know why his arguments seem to mimic Holocaust Deniers.

I simply look at Al's name and spit and move on. A complete obscene degenerate.

Similarly for the morally despiccable Steve S. Disgusting, degeneracy.

I just don't understand how so many people get away with acting surprised when after bombing a nation to bits, the ones who emerge from the rubble to take power tend to be mean people rather than nice people.

And in a further degree of surprise acting, they act shocked, shocked, that anyone would conclude that bombing a nation to bits in any way suggests that the bombers are responsible for the fact that the country gets taken over by lunatics who could not grab power before.

This isn't 'blaming America,' it's once again pointing out how the stupid war hawks cause the most nightmarish results in the most predictable fashion but never, ever learn one thing except how to sell the next war.

pornopornotubeporn
SexGüzel SözlerAcı sözlerDuygusal Sözlersextube89
89comSeks
Amerikan kapıSohbetChat
MobilyaAhşapArkadaşarkadaşlıksikiş
Site EkleAhşap kapıToplistsite EkletoplistTürkçe MircMircsextubeSohbetchatKapıTosya AhşapTOSYATHANK YOU GRUP..

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

porno
sex
hikaye
sex
hikaye
porno
sex
sex shop
seks shop
güzel sözler
mirc
porno
güzel sözler
hikaye
mirc
hikayeler
mirc
kelebek
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
sex
porno
hikaye
sex
porno
mirc
seks shop
hikayeler
hikaye
sex
hikayetube
sex |
porno |
hikaye |
sex hikayeleri |
sex hikaye |
sex porno |
seks shop |
geciktirici |
penis büyütücü |
hikaye |
hikaye |
sex |
videohikaye.com |
sex |
porno |
hikayetube.com |
porno |
mirc |
yüzük |
güzel sözler |
elektronik sigara |
pilli sigara |
elektronik sigara |
elektronik sigara |
elektronik sigara

mirc

Thanks Best Regards
mirc
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirç indir
mirc yükle
mırc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırc turk
mircada
mircturkiye
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
türkçe mirc
turkce mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mırc
oper mirc
sohbet
forum
chat
online sinema
catlak
türk forum
turk forum
kafkas
kafkasya
ders
siyaset

Hello Men
gallery is fantastic "Sunset Waves" very good
I am Blog

Thanks you really perfect one writing.I m always follow you.

Alışveriş indir arkadas driver sohbet sohbet cinsel sohbet cet çet sohbet odalari sohbet cet odasi çet sohbet kelebekfm chat chat web tasarimkelebekfm kelebek fm kelebek radyo cet cinsel cet cet kanallari cet odasi muhabbet izmir sohbet script cet çet mirc chat sohbet sohbet odalari kelebek kelebek sohbet

izmir sohbet cinsel sohbet kelebek mirc operserv chanserv siir botserv zurna mynet ataturk universitesi sohbet chat odalari au sohbet au chat kelebek script kelebek script kelebek mirc kelebek skript mric gazi universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,gazi sohbet,gazi chat,kelebek duzce universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,duzce sohbet,duzce chat ... ege universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,ege sohbet,ege chat,kelebek dumlu pınar universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,dumlupınar sohbet ... memoserv, memo serv,memoserv komutlari mesaj komutlari irc mesaj ... mirc indir kamerali mirc yabanci mirc mirc 6.21
sesli tv seslisesli sesliask sesli fıkra sesliefsane sesliyiz sesli türkiyem seslialem sesli dini sohbet ... erzincan universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,erzincan sohbet ... Yüzük Script mirc yüzük cet yüzük script 4 yuzuk sohbet yüzük chat ankara sohbet ankara chat ankara muhabbet ankara arkadas ankara.net erciyes universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,erciyes sohbet,erciyes ... dicle universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,dicle sohbet,dicle chat ... mirc indir,mirc script,mirc yukle,mirc,script mırç,mrc,kelebek ... kelebek cinsel sohbet cinsel chat kelebek mirc myrc script mirc programi turkçe mirc indir mric mrc ... izmir sohbet izmir chat izmir muhabbet izmir arkadas izmir cet çet kelebek sohbet odalari chat sohpet cet kelebek muhabbet çet ... arkadasbul askim - arkadas bul, arkadas arama, arkadas ara ... kelebek host iletisim bilgileri sitene sohbet ekle sitene chat ekle sitene sohbet odasi koy kelebek sohbet , chat kelebek sohbet , cet kelebek sohbet , canli ... sohbet Kizlarla Sohbet Kızlarla Sohbet, Bedava Sohbet Odası ... kelebek sohbet chat muhabbet amasya uiversitesi sohbet chat odalari au sohbet au chat canakkale onsekiz mart universitesi sohbet chat odalari comu ... istanbul sohbet istanbul chat istanbul muhabbet istanbul arkadas bacanak web tasarimci

Thanks Best Regards
mirc
mırc
mırç
mircturk
mirctürk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirç indir
mirc yükle
mırc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc yukle
mirch
mırch
turk mirc
mircada
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
türkçe mirc
turkce mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mırc
oper mirc
irc forum
Mirc forum
irc forum