27-08-2004 01:06									#481
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Patroklos Molly is flattly saying that we went to Cambodia to kill civilians, not NVA. While I think Ned is definetly minimalizing the collateral damage, it was just that, collateral not intentional. Molly is definetly magnifying the damage out of all rational means. And just so you know B-52's, while not scalples, are not as inaccurate as you think. They do destroy large areas, but almost always the swath they mean to destory.

If you people want to engage in creative writing, or as I like to think of it, churning out b.s., then do so without bringing my name into it.


As I've been at pains to point out, with copious references, with quotes from American pilots' secretly taped cockpit conversations, areas of Laos and Cambodia were bombed without regard to what was below the bombs- why on earth drop a bomb on an existing crater for goodness' sake?


Why drop so many bombs on as you inaccurately describe them ' underpopulated' areas- because you like watching jungle blow up?

(it was U.S. Air Force maps that showed the areas to be or rather have been, heavily populated)


Why drop more bombs during a four year period than were used to destroy heavily urbanized areas of Japan in WWII?

And if you have dropped those bombs, what effect will they have had?


This notion that bombs could have been dropped with 'pinpoint' accuracy has me crying my eyes out laughing- it was a fiction at the time, and to an extent still is now- the next time you're 15 000 feet over dense rainforest or jungle, see how much you can make out through dense canopy, in an area of the world not noted for year round clear blue skies and excellent visibility.


Gosh, wonder why they dropped so much toxic defoliant and herbicide- couldn't be so that that might be able to make out where things were on the ground, and stop people hiding beneath the lush canopies.

And it wasn't me exaggerating the number of casualties- my figures were courtesy the United States' Pentagon, and the United States' Senate Sub Committee on Refugees, those well-known 'Red' fronts.

	27-08-2004 01:12									#482
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Ned They bombed military targets.

Yeah, yeah, just like your uncle carefully avoided killing German civilians in WWII with his kindlier, friendlier intelligent American bombs, that asked nicely for directions to factories that had no people in them, or railway stations that had no workers or refugees in them.


I grew up in a city that had the devastation caused by indiscriminate bombing still visible Ned. I lived in an area where factories were surrounded by densely packed redbrick terraced houses, many of which were gaping open to the sky 25 years after the bombing of Coventry.


When those factories were bombed, houses were hit, Ned. Bombs aren't spitballs, Ned, they kill people when they blow up a house.

	27-08-2004 02:10									#483
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Molly, your quotes are highly selective and biased. Even you will or should admit that. The US targeted NVA military. They sought to avoid civilian casualties, despite what John Kerry or Christopher H says.

Sihanouk said there were no Cambodians in the occuppied areas of Cambodia. He said that no Cambodians were hurt by the bombing. All you offer in rebuttal is speculation.

Now, you are not an American, but you apparently are now an Aussie. Australia was there, with us, in Vietnam. I am sure your fellow citizens who are veterans of that campaign supported going after those bases with B52s and with ground forces. Ask them if you are unsure.

	27-08-2004 02:28									#484
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I just heard the third SBV for Truth ad. It has a member of Kerry's crew saying that Kerry lied about being in Cambodia -- he was not there in December 1968, not in January '69, NEVER.

No crewmember supports Kerry's lies about Cambodia.

	27-08-2004 03:50									#485
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ned Molly, your quotes are highly selective and biased. Even you will or should admit that. The US targeted NVA military. They sought to avoid civilian casualties, despite what John Kerry or Christopher H says. Sihanouk said there were no Cambodians in the occuppied areas of Cambodia. He said that no Cambodians were hurt by the bombing. All you offer in rebuttal is speculation.

My quotes are what?


At least my evidence and quotes exist.

All you have offered so far is wishful thinking, and notions plucked from the fluffy clouds of the Nedaverse, where carpet bombing never kills anyone and American bombs unerringly find only military targets.



So far, I've supplied Kissinger's own words, the transcripts of American pilots flying bombing missions, a link to the Royal Cambodian Embassy's timeline (I suppose they're lying now as well, are they?) the B.B.C., P.B.S., Christopher Hitchens, Salon, and a few others besides.


I oculd have supplied the testimony of Cambodian and Laotian villagers, but then you'll say they're after
the sympathy vote, or Communist stooges.

Hell, I even supplied statistics from the Pentagon and the United States' Senate, but you ignored the origin of those, and accused me of peddling Communist propaganda.

I even managed to find a United States prosecuting counsel from the Nuremberg War Crimes's Trials, who said that if the same guiding prosecutorial and evidentiary principles were used to judge American conduct in the skies over Laos and Cambodia and North Viet Nam as were used then, then there would be a cast iron case for a prosecution for the commission of war crimes.



And what have you done?


The same tired routine- hands over eyes, fingers in the ears, la, la, la, never ever happened.


Was Sihanouk in the war zone?

Have you, who seem to doubt everything Kerry says, on the slightest of whims, even established that Sihanouk knew how many Cambodians were in those provinces (note- I referenced your own air force's maps, which stated that the areas were, or rather after the bombing, had been, highly populated)?


Have you provided us with this elusive Sihanouk intelligence and given us any reason to believe it, given that it comes from a spoilt princeling who spent his time vacillating between courting Chinese/Soviet support and trying to charm the South Viet Namese and the Americans?

No, you haven't- and yet you claim I'm the one offering speculation as rebuttal!

Of what?

You haven't even built a case, because you've yet to supply any proper arguments- just saying things are 'ludicrous' or I'm 'obtuse' isn't a logical argument or the provision of contradictory evidence- it's simply you pulling the 'don't want to believe it' routine, the way you did over your uncle's bombing missions in WWII.


Bombs kill people, Ned, even American ones.

They aren't food supplies, they aren't propaganda leaflets, they're high explosive, or incendiaries, and they destroy buildings, and people, and crops, and leave very big craters, and have a blast radius.

And don't give me the appeal to Aussie patriotism routine- I'm still British, and even when I take up Australian citizenship, I won't be taking leave of my senses.

	27-08-2004 03:58									#486
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

haha aussie citizenship is taking a leave of senses

	27-08-2004 04:00									#487
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Is there any point to this wrt to the OP?

	27-08-2004 04:37									#488
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe Is there any point to this wrt to the OP?

I think it shows how far Ned is willing to disbelieve any evidence he doesn't like, and conversely, how little credence he would give anything Kerry said, whether or not Kerry was telling the truth.

All I did, originally, was reply to a comment Ned had made, and then we had Ned's 'Indochina Wars', which as far as I can tell seem to come from some alternate reality, or a science fiction novel, but certainly don't appear to be related to any wars that went on in recent Southeast Asian history.

From the New York Times, 1973:

Heavy Bombing by U.S. Continues in Cambodia (Mar 24, 1973)

Richardson Sees Clear Authority To Bomb Cambodia (John W. Finney, Mar 29, 1973)

U.S. Bombing in Cambodia Shakes Phnom Penh (Mar 30, 1973)

3 G.O.P. Senators Criticize Bombing (John W. Finney, Mar 30, 1973

Study For Kennedy Panel Finds Half In Cambodia Are Refugees (Bernard Gwertzman;, Apr 15, 1973

High Civilian Toll Is Seen In Bombing Of Cambodia (Joseph B. Treaster, Apr 16, 1973)

Sweden Says U.S. Bombs Hit Cambodia's Civilian Population (Apr 27, 1973)

Some In B-52 Crews Deplore Raids On Cambodia (May 3, 1973)

Poll Finds Most Oppose Bombing (May 13, 1973)

Group Bids Pilots Refuse To Bomb In Cambodia (May 26, 1973)

A Moonscape In Cambodia (May 27, 1973)

Pentagon's Statistics Underscore Intensity Of Cambodia Bombing (Jun 22, 1973)

U.S. Raids In Cambodia Biggest In Week (Jul 4, 1973)

U.S. Planes In Cambodia Strike Communist Troops Near Capital (Jul 11, 1973)

One Day On The Front Line In Cambodia: Bombs, Machine-Gun Fire And Exhaustion (Sydney H. Schanberg, Jul 12, 1973)

U.S. Confirms Pre-1970 Raids On Cambodia (Seymour M. Hersh, Jul 17, 1973

Secret Raids On Cambodia Before '70 Totaled 3,500 (Seymour M. Hersh, Jul 18, 1973)

U.S. Officials Said During Bombing Of Cambodia That They Opposed It (Robert D. Mcfadden, Jul 21, 1973

Judge Here Rules Raids On Cambodia Are Illegal (Morris Kaplan, Jul 26, 1973)

B-52 Flier To Cite Religion In Refusal To Bomb Cambodia (Jul 28, 1973)

U.S. Planes Bomb Cambodia Town In Error 100 Die (Aug 7, 1973

Senators Are Told U.S. Bombed Cambodia Secretly After Invasion In 1970 (Seymour M. Hersh, Aug 8, 1973)

http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/nyt73.htm


Just the headlines, unfortunately, but even theytell an interesting story- bomber crews REFUSING to fly missions?

Republican senators opposing the bombing?

Half the country's population refugees?

And note- a moonscape in Cambodia.


As for Laos:

'In March 1964, five months before the first American bombing raid on North Vietnam, the United States organized a secret bombing campaign in Laos. Using unmarked planes, they mainly attacked the Ho Chi Minh Trail, the increasingly important Communist supply route from North to South Vietnam. The air war intensified, hitting Laotian villages and driving a million peasants from their homes. For eight years, Laos was the most bombed country in the world.'

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/109ts.html

Oh but that's all right, you can blame Lyndon Johnson for that....



Oh and Ned- I found my own little quote from Sihanouk for you- I'm sure you'll appreciate it:


'Pursuing their enemy, American and South Vietnamese aircraft often attacked across the Cambodian border. Sihanouk criticized Secretary of State Dean Rusk, who was then trying to repair relations.

PRESS CONFERENCE, November 1967

SIHANOUK: "There is a contradiction between the declaration of friendship and respect from Mr. Dean Rusk on one hand and on the other hand your forces in South Vietnam continue to come into Cambodia and to kill...."

INTERVIEWER: ...what is necessary...

SIHANOUK: "...our peasants and innocent peasants, innocent civilian servants."


In 1969, newly elected President Nixon launched secret B-52 bombing raids over Cambodia against North Vietnamese and Vietcong sanctuaries driving them further into the country. Nixon neither informed Sihanouk, nor sought his approval for this escalation.'


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/109ts.html


That moonscape Ned? This is why:

'
BRIG. GEN. DOUGLAS KINNARD

When we began detailed planning of this operation, it was evident to us, since we'd never operated in Cambodia, that we needed some kind of map or aerial photo, so I dispatched the G-2 down to pick these up at the headquarters in Saigon and he had great difficulty in getting them. And in a few hours he returned with the photographs and then we found out why: the photographs of course disclosed these huge craters; the B-52 bombing had been going on for some time and we weren't aware of it officially, and indeed I wasn't aware of it at all, and most of us weren't.'

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/109ts.html


'
HENRY KISSINGER

No, the President doesn't have the right to bomb a neutral country. '


'Since most of the raids were by giant, eight-engine B-52s, each carrying about twenty-five tons of bombs and thus laying down huge carpets of destruction, the bombing was anything but surgical, and frequently hit civilian villages. The result was thousands of refugees fleeing into Phnom Pehn and the province towns. The capital swelled from a population of 600,000 at the start of the war to 2 million at its end in 1975. The American embassy in Phnom Pehn—and Henry Kissinger’s team in Washington—insisted that the refugees were fleeing only one thing: attacks by the brutal Khmer Rouge. But in fact they were fleeing both the Khmer Rouge and the American bombs. I visited refugee camps regularly and consistently heard both accounts.

When civilians die in wars, the military calls it unintentional, even though EVERYONE knows civilian deaths are inevitable, especially when the weapons spray their lethality over large spaces. The phrase used by the Pentagon for civilian deaths is "collateral damage"—just as napalm was called "soft ordnance"—the idea being to give war a softer, sanitized sound for the lay public.'


http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/cambodia.html

Everyone but you, Ned.

	27-08-2004 05:25									#489
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The third swiftvet ad is a good one.

www.swiftvets.com

	27-08-2004 05:34									#490
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara We removed our last troops in 1971?

April/May ? of 73.
Just look it up. Cease-fire signed Jan, 1973, starting removal of Combat Troops in Feb.

So we were still bombing until the end of 73?

	27-08-2004 06:13									#491
	Support Apolyton

Ogie -

quote: I beleive the difference you speak to is a definitional problem. For those who worked the border of cambodia they refer to themsleves as in Cambodia (were I to guess). Yet they realize, that they weren't in the legal sovereign territoty of Cambodia proper as that was a legal no-no. When O'Neill speaks of it he speaks towards border patrol. When Kerry spoke of it on the Senate floor he was definitavely speaking towards being inside soveriegn territory to emphasize the illegal actions. One speaks towards illegality of the action the other speaks to general local.

"In" Cambodia, the same language used by Kerry, and Kerry worked along that border too. If I worked the border and did not venture into Cambodia I would not tell the Prez I was "in" Cambodia... O'Neill makes an exception for his contradictory statements but does not allow Kerry the same exception even though both men were in charge of the same boat with Kerry being O'Neill's predecessor.

quote: Subtle distinction. You can fault the poor choice of words, but I think O'Neill has been on message saying that he was never inside Cambodia proper.

He told Nixon he was in Cambodia. Now, it doesn't matter to me whether a guy was in Cambodia or merely on the border, but O'Neill thinks this is a big deal - enough to throw accusations of deceit around - so if he claimed to be in Cambodia and now says he never was, then he shouldn't be accusing Kerry of lying.

	27-08-2004 06:28									#492
	Put an end to popups!

quote: I agree I think it poor choice of words as I indicated. Being near in proximity to Camboida become conflated with being "in" Cambodia. Except, in the context used by Kerry, where it was a definitive, "I was in Cambodia (proper)" to emphasize illegal war times acts. Since it was not illegal to be on the border but was indeed illegal to be "in" Cambodia, the real meaning is clear that Kerry claims to be "in" Cambodia per his Senatorial statements.

When O'Neill said "I was in Cambodia", that was not definitive?

quote: Who has it been thats been breaking the law wrt 527 contacts again?

Remember the source:

quote: The senator was breaking the law and should have immediately ended the call when Brant said he was a member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Fox News Channel's "Fox & Friends" reported this morning.

Fox & Friends is not a news show and I saw that episode and they didn't know the law.

The law says no coordinating between campaigns and 527s, and coordinating means an association of providing assistance. Kerry asking a member why he was doing this is not coordinating... Ginsberg, Bush's lawyer, providing legal help to them may qualify as coordinating but not in my book. Offering legal advice about what can or vannot be said is not the kind of assistance implied by coordinating.

	27-08-2004 07:02									#493
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Berz, it's academic what O'Neill says. Listen to the new ad from the Swiftvets. There one of Kerry's crewmen during December and January '68 call Kerry a liar about Cambodia.

	27-08-2004 07:17									#494
	Got spare money?

Joseph, we were helping the government of Cambodia fight the Khmer Rouge. Rather than use ground forces as in Vietnam, we relied solely on airpower.

It did not work. The commies won anyway.

It is interesting that both Phnom Penh and Saigon fell within days of each other. April 1975 was not a good month for the cause of liberty.

	27-08-2004 07:23									#495
	Got spare money?

Molly, you have a hard time admitting that your sources are biased. Christopher H?

Regardless, all you demonstrate is that we used airpower to help defend Cambodia against the Khmer Rouge, who were unleashed by NV in '70 when Sihanouk was overthrown and sided with the Khmer.

(Later, we did form a quasi aliance with the Khmer against the Vietnamese. But that was really an alliance with Sihanouk who was in alliance with the Khmer against communist Vietnam.)

	27-08-2004 07:29									#496
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

BTW, anyone know how old King (Prince) Sihanouk is? He became King in 1941!

	27-08-2004 07:32									#497
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Berz, it's academic what O'Neill says. Listen to the new ad from the Swiftvets. There one of Kerry's crewmen during December and January '68 call Kerry a liar about Cambodia.

Is O'Neill a liar? He claimed to be in Cambodia too only to deny being there. According to Douglas Brinkley Kerry was in Cambodia in January of '69, a revision of what Brinkley wrote earlier. Maybe Kerry lied, maybe he made the same language mistake O'Neill made, and maybe he was there. I don't know one way or the other, but I will insist on consistency and O'Neill has contradicted himself while accusing Kerry of lying.

quote: Joseph, we were helping the government of Cambodia fight the Khmer Rouge. Rather than use ground forces as in Vietnam, we relied solely on airpower. It did not work. The commies won anyway. It is interesting that both Phnom Penh and Saigon fell within days of each other. April 1975 was not a good month for the cause of liberty.

I can't remember where I read it recently, but I read that after the Khmer Rouge won we were helping them against the Vietnamese and it was the Vietnamese who put an end to their reign of terror and China wasn't all that happy with Vietnam for doing so.

	27-08-2004 07:34									#498
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Answering my own question:

He is 84 years old.

http://angkor1431.tripod.com/index/id27.html

	27-08-2004 07:36									#499
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Molly, you have a hard time admitting that your sources are biased. Christopher H?

I respect Christopher Hitchens, if you have something to back that up, present it.

quote: (Later, we did form a quasi aliance with the Khmer against the Vietnamese. But that was really an alliance with Sihanouk who was in alliance with the Khmer against communist Vietnam.)

Hmm... allied with the perpetrators of genocide!!! Holy Sh!t !!!

	27-08-2004 07:43									#500
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Ned Joseph, we were helping the government of Cambodia fight the Khmer Rouge. Rather than use ground forces as in Vietnam, we relied solely on airpower. It did not work. The commies won anyway. It is interesting that both Phnom Penh and Saigon fell within days of each other. April 1975 was not a good month for the cause of liberty.

Correction: you were helping the army led coup 'government' of Lon Nol fight the Khmer Rouge.

Your air force's bombing campaign provided effective propaganda and recruitment material for the Khmer Rouge.


Your government's support for the corrupt Lon Nol regime which forced Sihanouk into exile, also meant that thousands of Khmer who still worshipped Sihanouk, respected HIS advice to aid the Khmer Rouge guerillas when he allied with them in exile in Beijing.

They then increased their numbers from the insignificant amount they had prior to 1970, when even Sihanouk's doddery forces had kept them under control, to the peasant army that defeated the army officer's government and military of Lon Nol.

Now if you think that's a good way of defeating a common enemy, I think I won't be signing up for Realpolitik and Military Strategy 101, the Ned Way, thanks.




And did you note, or were you too busy ignoring what's in front of your nose?

Several Americans quoted in my links have explicitly stated that American ground forces operated inside Cambodia secretly and openly, as they also did in Laos.

But carry on rewriting history- I'm sure the sorry tale of Smerican intervention in Southeast Asia could do with another coat of whitewash.

By the way- you weren't fighting for democracy- even Eisenhower's government knew that when they 'assisted' the French Colonial regime:

(Dwight Eisenhower)

'We are voting for the cheapest way that we can to prevent the occurrence of something that would be of a most terrible significance to the United States of America, our security, our power and our ability to get certain things we need from the riches of IndoChinese territory and from Southeast Asia.'

President Eisenhower, 4th August 1953


and this from Secretary of State Dulles:

'It (IndoChina) is rich in many raw materials such as tin, rubber, oil and iron ore.... This area has great stratgeic value... It has major naval bases.'

Dulles, 29th March, 1954

and this from 'U.S. News and World Report', 4th April 1954:

(an article entitled 'Why the U.S. Risks War for IndoChina: It's the Key to Control of All Asia)

'One of the world's richest areas is open to the winner of IndoChina. That's behind the growing U.S. concern.... tin, rubber, rice, key strategic materials are what the war is really about. The U.S. sees it as a place to hold- at any cost.'


Had the U.S. had any sense it would have aided Ho Chi Minh against the French- as was shown in 1979, the enmity between China and Viet Nam is an ancient one, and even now China has designs Viet Nam. Uncle Ho even offered the use of Cam Ranh Bay as a naval base to the Americans, and the U.S. would have had an ally to contain Chinese Communist influence.

The Viet Namese Declaration of Independence even has a very similar ring (when translated into English) to a certain other declaration.

Hardly surpising, because it was modelled on it.

	27-08-2004 07:57									#501
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by DanS The third swiftvet ad is a good one. www.swiftvets.com

Did the first two ads also only discuss the claimed cambodian mission? This ad is the only swiftboat ad i've actually seen. until this one all I had seen were discussions about the ads. Maybe they aren't getting much air time?

	27-08-2004 08:01									#502
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker I respect Christopher Hitchens, if you have something to back that up, present it. Hmm... allied with the perpetrators of genocide!!! Holy Sh!t !!!

I agree, Berz.

All Ned can do is flail uselessly at Hitchens, whose writings about Kissinger's conduct have yet to attract a lawsuit from him- if they are so biased, or untruthful, I'm sure Mr. Kissinger would have no problem proving libel, or slander, since Hitchens has no qualms about repeating the things to Kissinger's doughy face.


And yes, when Viet Nam invaded Kampuchea to put an end to the Year Zero Regime, America supported the Khmer Rouge government.

Not one of the United States' more attractive foreign policy wobbles- to spite Viet Nam and cosy up to China they gave aid and comfort to the begetters of cultural and ethnic genocide.

'Internationally, with strong support from the United States, China and ASEAN, DK continued to retain the Cambodian seat at the United Nations.

As information about DK’s atrocities spread worldwide, the Khmer Rouge became increasingly vilified. In 1982, to restore the credibility of the anti-Vietnamese resistant movements, China, the United States, and ASEAN forced the three movements to form a tri-party coalition government in exile.

The United States, China, and ASEAN did not expect that the resistance movement would be successful in driving the Vietnamese out of Cambodia. However, they were an important instrument for inflicting pressure on Vietnam so that the latter would come to the negotiating table.'


http://www.seasite.niu.edu/khmer/Ledgerwood/Part3.htm


All the way, U. S. A. ......

	27-08-2004 08:07									#503
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker When O'Neill said "I was in Cambodia", that was not definitive?

No and I gave you the rationale to describe it as non definitive. That being, that to say you are in Cambodia and then immediately clarifying to say on the border. Thats a statement of proximity. Says volumes to me. What so difficult to understand?

OTOH contrast to Kerry who has defintively stated in Cambodia with intent to show illegality of action and then further claims of within Cambodia 5 miles deep.

No contest.

quote: Remember the source: Fox & Friends is not a news show and I saw that episode and they didn't know the law. The law says no coordinating between campaigns and 527s, and coordinating means an association of providing assistance. Kerry asking a member why he was doing this is not coordinating... Ginsberg, Bush's lawyer, providing legal help to them may qualify as coordinating but not in my book. Offering legal advice about what can or vannot be said is not the kind of assistance implied by coordinating.

You obviously missed the part where I was using this to provoke. Regardless, I believe the ruling would have to come down to establish exactly what is meant by "coordinating". One could easily construe interrogating 527's or a member once identified member as a means to negotiate a peace treaty if you will to call of the dogs as one needs to understand themotivations, hence coordination.

	27-08-2004 11:02									#504
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Next thread: http://www.apolyton.com/forums/show...threadid=121181