Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
59. where is it that i make the claim that walmart's spy practices are the equivalent of the KGB?
Fri Feb 15, 2013, 10:25 AM
Feb 2013

try to pay attention. *you* claimed walmart didn't have spies.

i said that indeed they did.


as for pol pot, once again i remind you:

* the US war in vietnam created the conditions that brought someone like pol pot to power
* for 15 years the US supported Pol Pot (as a tool against the Vietnamese communists, who were more communists than Pol Pot ever was).
* the us bombing of cambodia killed more cambodians than pol pot.


The US not only helped create conditions that 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). When copies of his letter were circulated, the Reagan administration was furious. Then, without adequately explaining why, Winer repudiated the statistics, while not disputing that they had come from the CRS. In a second letter to Noam Chomsky, however, Winer repeated the original charge, which, he confirmed to me, was "absolutely correct.''

Washington also backed the Khmer Rouge through the United Nations, which provided Pol Pot's vehicle of return. Although the Khmer Rouge government ceased to exist in January 1979, when the Vietnamese army drove it out, its representatives continued to occupy Cambodia's UN seat. Their right to do so was defended and promoted by Washington as an extension of the Cold War, as a mechanism for US revenge on Vietnam, and as part of its new alliance with China (Pol Pot's principal underwriter and Vietnam's ancient foe). In 1981, President Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, said, "I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot." The US, he added, "winked publicly" as China sent arms to the Khmer Rouge through Thailand.

As a cover for its secret war against Cambodia, Washington set up the Kampuchean Emergency Group (KEG) in the US embassy in Bangkok and on the Thai-Cambodian border. KEG's job was to "monitor" the distribution of Western humanitarian supplies sent to the refugee camps in Thai land and to ensure that Khmer Rouge bases were fed. Working through "Task Force 80" of the Thai Army, which had liaison officers with the Khmer Rouge, the Americans ensured a constant flow of UN supplies. Two US relief aid workers, Linda Mason and Roger Brown, later wrote, "The US Government insisted that the Khmer Rouge be fed ... the US preferred that the Khmer Rouge operation benefit from the credibility of an internationally known relief operation."

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Terrorism/UncleSam_PolPot.html


Even CBS news says something similar --- now.

However, the truth could be uncomfortable for a lot of people outside Cambodia. A lawyer for Ta Mok, a Khmer Rouge military leader who could be tried for war crimes, has threatened to subpoena Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Henry Kissinger and three former United Nations secretary generals to answer questions about their countries' support for the KR insurgency.

After the Vietnamese invaded and threw out the Khmer Rouge, the U.S. government supported the non-communist partners in a coalition army of which the Khmer Rouge was part. And world powers allowed the Khmer Rouge's delegate to occupy Cambodia's United Nations seat even after the Khmer Rouge were overthrown. Because Vietnam was America's enemy, critics say, the Khmer Rouge were treated as friends.

"There's a lot of embarrassment to go around," says Sydney Schanberg, who covered the Cambodian civil war for The New York Times."We haven't learned that the truth is the cleansing thing."

The truth is that U.S bombing of Cambodia killed many thousands, long before the Khmer Rouge had a chance to.

"The first phase of the genocide, from 1969 to 1975, was pretty brutal," said Noam Chomsky, an MIT professor and longtime critic of the role of U.S. policy in the Cambodian tragedy. "By mid-1975, when the Khmer Rouge took over, most of the country was pretty much a wreck."

"That is true evil," says Schanberg, but adds, "we didn't commit it but we, all the gret powers, provided the engine that helped create it."

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-184477.html


The US carpet-bombed Cambodia for four years.



On March 18, 1969, the United States began a four year long carpet-bombing campaign in the skies of Cambodia, devastating the countryside and causing socio-political upheaval that eventually led to the installation of the Pol Pot regime.

The United States dropped upwards of 2.7 million tons of bombs on Cambodia, exceeding the amount it had dropped on Japan during WWII (including Hiroshima and Nagasaki) by almost a million tons. During this time, about 30 per cent of the country's population was internally displaced.

Estimates vary widely on the number of civilian casualites inflicted by the campaign; however,as many as 500,000 people died as a direct result of the bombings while perhaps hundreds of thousands more died from the effects of displacement, disease or starvation during this period.

http://rabble.ca/toolkit/onthisday/secret-cambodian-bombing



Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

all I know is you can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose snooper2 Feb 2013 #1
You can pick your friends and you can pick your nose Warpy Feb 2013 #4
So far is the operative phrase kairos12 Feb 2013 #6
Hell, I have trouble being friends with "Christians" who don't want to help those "takers". gateley Feb 2013 #2
Such people are not Christians. burnsei sensei Feb 2013 #7
This is not news to me. gateley Feb 2013 #9
Friends might be asking if they can be friends with someone... Deep13 Feb 2013 #3
So if your friend is a Nazi? kentuck Feb 2013 #5
NAZI LOVER! snooper2 Feb 2013 #8
Jesus, man. WilliamPitt Feb 2013 #10
None is. nt Deep13 Feb 2013 #14
"no real power", IMO, the problem isn't that there are "ir-reconcilable" "differences" but that for patrice Feb 2013 #80
It kind of depends... Bay Boy Feb 2013 #11
No. Blue_In_AK Feb 2013 #12
Ha, I was just going to post that Corgigal Feb 2013 #36
Do not people have certain responsibilities as a human being? kentuck Feb 2013 #13
Pissed at me, my father once asked me what would I think of him no_hypocrisy Feb 2013 #15
I guess what I was trying to say... kentuck Feb 2013 #16
A bit of background. no_hypocrisy Feb 2013 #19
They may not deserve your friendship, but your responsibility for reality requires that you call patrice Feb 2013 #81
I want you to know that I really, REALLY appreciate your sense of humor!!! MADem Feb 2013 #56
Thank you. Once of my better moments in repartee. no_hypocrisy Feb 2013 #71
Hee hee! MADem Feb 2013 #72
My family's general attitude to my taking a deep breath and letting it go: no_hypocrisy Feb 2013 #75
As long as it isn't an Illinois Nazi Canuckistanian Feb 2013 #17
No. I would cringe every time they opened their mouth. JaneyVee Feb 2013 #18
Imagine the same question concerning communists Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #20
extermination of undesirables was an avowed policy of the nazis. it is not an avowed policy HiPointDem Feb 2013 #21
Your claiming Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, et al Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #22
Nazi policy was explicitly exterminationist in the case of Jews, Gypsies, the handicapped, and HiPointDem Feb 2013 #28
Thanks for these thoughtful points kimbutgar Feb 2013 #69
Or capitalists. EastKYLiberal Feb 2013 #24
Capitalists, by the defintion of capitalism, are not the state Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #25
if capitalists are not the state, who or what is? given that the majority of state policies benefit HiPointDem Feb 2013 #31
"most wars have been waged for the same reasons" Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #32
walmart and target don't have spies? are you *kidding*? they have spies all over the place. HiPointDem Feb 2013 #33
You're seriously claiming that business intel gathered by Wal-Mart Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #35
'business intel'. lol. is spying on worker organizing efforts now considered 'business intel'? HiPointDem Feb 2013 #38
How does that even come close to the KGB and secret police of your beloved mass-murderers? Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #42
oh, first it was 'walmart doesn't have spies,' but now it's 'well, they do, but they're not as bad HiPointDem Feb 2013 #44
I repeat, how does that come close to the KGB? Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #47
where is it that i make the claim that walmart's spy practices are the equivalent of the KGB? HiPointDem Feb 2013 #59
Sorry dude. You can't build a closet big enough to hide 100 million skeletons. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #65
they make a desert and they call it peace. HiPointDem Feb 2013 #67
I think you are conflating theKed Feb 2013 #34
You left out religion and freedom of conscience. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #37
1950 called theKed Feb 2013 #39
"Communism is not inherently anti-democratic." Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #43
when the CP actually was a viable party, that was not the attitude of the US government. HiPointDem Feb 2013 #49
Good! I would want them to do the same thing to fascists Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #51
*sigh* theKed Feb 2013 #54
Calling the USSR theKed Feb 2013 #50
Sounds like the definition of insanity. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #52
Huh? theKed Feb 2013 #53
You wrote Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #57
Tell you what theKed Feb 2013 #58
NO kidding. laundry_queen Feb 2013 #60
"Some edumacation is in order here." Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #62
LOL are you series? laundry_queen Feb 2013 #63
As do OTHER types of regimes, so all such are brothers & sisters in fascism. patrice Feb 2013 #78
I gave up fairy tales as a little girl. It's the real life body counts that concern me now. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #61
Huh? theKed Feb 2013 #66
It seems to me Mosby Feb 2013 #70
On the Side of Pol Pot: U.S. Supports Khmer Rouge HiPointDem Feb 2013 #40
That's a source? Some guy's teal blue website? Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #55
The source is Covert Action Quarterly, 1990. But even CBS says more or less the same -- today. HiPointDem Feb 2013 #64
It is a trait of fascism that the drive toward power for power's sake alone will wear ANY label. patrice Feb 2013 #83
I knew a guy who wanted to limit voting Dirty Socialist Feb 2013 #23
Could you be friends with someone who supports the summary execution, without trial, of US citizens? Nye Bevan Feb 2013 #26
Where I live you don't any choice unless you are a compete hermit n\t doc03 Feb 2013 #27
I'm related to many RWNJ... a la izquierda Feb 2013 #29
Interesting el_bryanto Feb 2013 #30
Just a thought. SQUEE Feb 2013 #41
I smell another "purity thread" derby378 Feb 2013 #45
That depends, by Nazi, do you mean.. Fla_Democrat Feb 2013 #46
If the point every comes in which I deny friendship based merely on American politics... LanternWaste Feb 2013 #48
no samsingh Feb 2013 #68
Once, before the country became this divided nadinbrzezinski Feb 2013 #73
I can be casual "friends" with such people...(the second group, not the Nazis) Bettie Feb 2013 #74
K&R for evergreen personal reality testing! patrice Feb 2013 #76
Your criteria is far too slanted. OceanEcosystem Feb 2013 #77
"She's a Nazi, George. A Nazi!" KamaAina Feb 2013 #79
Say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism; at least it was an Ethos. slackmaster Feb 2013 #82
People praise hit men all the time, along with torturers and civilian killers just1voice Feb 2013 #84
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Could you be friends with...»Reply #59