Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Pol Pot was a nutjob

13

Comments

  • #62
    Rawr
    Registered Users Posts: 3,744 ✭✭✭Rawr


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    there mut be a whole secret section of boards where they post because i've never seen anybody do that either.

    We once had a North Korea apologist on here trying to peddle his pro-Kim nonsense. The whole thread just became a slanging match against him.

    I think that's the only time I've seen anyone try to be pro-North Korea on here (I could be wrong of course).


  • #63
    Harry Palmr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 40,061 ✭✭✭✭Harry Palmr


    Just a for a few weeks in 1979 I remember the talk was of China reaction to Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia/Kampuchea by invading Vietnam spiralling into an East/West nuclear exchange. Luckily the Sino-Vietnamese War was short and China saw it had little to gain against an opposition that was stronger than expected.


  • #64
    Homelander
    Registered Users Posts: 4,345 ✭✭✭Homelander


    OP



  • #65
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,223 ✭✭✭✭biko


    Sure, Russia and US have been engaging in proxy wars for decades.

    But they didn't tell the Khmer Rouge to kill all people with glasses.
    The Communist Party of Kampuchea managed to figure that one out all by themselves.


  • #66
    jester77
    Registered Users Posts: 11,262 ✭✭✭✭jester77


    I visited the killing fields when I was in Cambodia, one of the most horrific place I've ever been. The Chankiri Tree would haunt you for the rest of your days. Evil on another level.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    Wait until you hear what the right-wing European Christian nutjobs did when they arrived in the Americas.....

    And the middle east... and Africa...


  • #68
    1o059k7ewrqj3n
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,779 ✭✭✭1o059k7ewrqj3n


    biko wrote: »
    Sure, Russia and US have been engaging in proxy wars for decades.

    But they didn't tell the Khmer Rouge to kill all people with glasses.
    The Communist Party of Kampuchea managed to figure that one out all by themselves.

    That's quite the big brain take.

    The Khmer Rouge would have never been able to plunge Cambodia into hell if it wasn't for the support of the US and the west. And after the Vietnamese invasion, the US backed the Khmer Rouge's guerilla campaign against the Vietnamese and new government of Cambodia. And US support meant the Khmer Rouge continued to hold Cambodia's seat at the UN after the invasion and the genocide was revealed, it wasn't even considered genocide by the west until the late 1980s.

    On top of it all, it was the US bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam war that propelled the Khmer Rouge to the forefront of politics in the country as a movement opposed to the government and to American attacks - very much the same way that Taliban and ISIS were born of US support and military action. The US dropped more bombs on Cambodia than they did during the entire Pacific campaign of WW2 - and that included two nukes.

    I imagine the B-52 carpet bombing didn't discriminate between people with or without glasses on the ground.


  • #69
    Zebra3
    Registered Users Posts: 13,848 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    JohnnyFlash wrote: »
    Agreed, but that doesn’t negate what Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge stood for. Marxist Leninists who wanted to fast track their way to communist utopia by resetting everything back to an Agrarian society and having a class conscious society bring about communism.

    Going back to an agrarian society had nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism.


  • #70
    Das Reich
    Registered Users Posts: 736 ✭✭✭Das Reich


    Vietnam kicked the arse of USA, Pol Pot and China at the same time.


  • #71
    Zebra3
    Registered Users Posts: 13,848 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    Das Reich wrote: »
    Vietnam kicked the arse of USA, Pol Pot and China at the same time.

    Vietnam certainly didn't kick the arse out of the US.

    The US committed genocide on the Vietnamese people.

    Vietnam lost between 3-4,000,000 people during the US war against them, many civilians.

    The US lost a tiny fraction of that, almost zero civilians.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    The Master
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 14,308 CMod ✭✭✭✭The Master


    Idi Amin played the accordion , that's next level form of Evil

    DSCF7964-kopie.jpg


  • #73
    Snails pace
    Registered Users Posts: 601 ✭✭✭Snails pace


    The behind the bastards podcasts have episodes on both Pol Pot and Idi Amin. Both interesting


  • #74
    Duffy the Vampire Slayer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,378 ✭✭✭Duffy the Vampire Slayer


    Hitler cared about some German people. He gassed others in a sick social experiment.


  • #75
    Das Reich
    Registered Users Posts: 736 ✭✭✭Das Reich


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    Vietnam certainly didn't kick the arse out of the US.

    The US committed genocide on the Vietnamese people.

    Vietnam lost between 3-4,000,000 people during the US war against them, many civilians.

    The US lost a tiny fraction of that, almost zero civilians.

    Yes they did and escaped like rats from Saigon. It is easy to kill civilians by bombing their villages, against a country that had nearly no aerial force. However army against army the USA soldiers proved to be weak, they are good only if having superior numbers. And on propaganda and movies.


  • #76
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,223 ✭✭✭✭biko


    Steyr 556 wrote: »
    That's quite the big brain take.

    The Khmer Rouge would have never been able to plunge Cambodia into hell if it wasn't for the support of the US and the west. And after the Vietnamese invasion, the US backed the Khmer Rouge's guerilla campaign against the Vietnamese and new government of Cambodia. And US support meant the Khmer Rouge continued to hold Cambodia's seat at the UN after the invasion and the genocide was revealed, it wasn't even considered genocide by the west until the late 1980s.

    On top of it all, it was the US bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam war that propelled the Khmer Rouge to the forefront of politics in the country as a movement opposed to the government and to American attacks - very much the same way that Taliban and ISIS were born of US support and military action. The US dropped more bombs on Cambodia than they did during the entire Pacific campaign of WW2 - and that included two nukes.

    I imagine the B-52 carpet bombing didn't discriminate between people with or without glasses on the ground.
    It's never the actual killers fault is it?
    It's always the evil US that forced their hand.

    No-one doubts what the US did, but you seem trying to exonerate Pol Pot and the Khmer's actions.
    I doubt the victims would see things your way.


  • #77
    TheValeyard
    Registered Users Posts: 12,204 ✭✭✭✭TheValeyard


    I dont think anyone is trying to dislodge blame. But it was the US actions on Vietnam that led to conditions for far left communist forces to assume total and barbaric control of Cambodia.

    I'd also disagree with the previous poster that army vs army the US was weak. I think that is too simplistic. By 1969 the antiwar movement was extremely popular and the war becoming more of an economic burden for the US state. Nevermind that Nixon saw what the war did to Johnson and did not want that to be his legacy. The American populace was not prepared or wanted to be on a total war footing.

    And for the Vietcong and North Vietnamese forces, they were fighting for their homeland, families, houses, etc. That's an entirely different kind of enemy to be fighting.

    Fcuk Putin. Glory to Ukraine!



  • #78
    Portmanteau
    Closed Accounts Posts: 55 ✭✭Portmanteau


    Rawr wrote: »
    We once had a North Korea apologist on here trying to peddle his pro-Kim nonsense. The whole thread just became a slanging match against him.

    I think that's the only time I've seen anyone try to be pro-North Korea on here (I could be wrong of course).
    There was a recent thread with "I don't think he's that bad", "better than Varadkar/Merkel" and similar type inanities. Unfortunately with the "I'll believe whatever suits me - even when it contradicts fact" approach in vogue, there's quite a bit of this now. All it takes is one person they like on YouTube making a contrarian comment about the figure in question, and suddenly all transgressions evaporate.

    Shur Idi Amin was quite likeable really because Gillian Anderson was hot in the film about him. :p


  • #79
    1o059k7ewrqj3n
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,779 ✭✭✭1o059k7ewrqj3n


    biko wrote: »
    It's never the actual killers fault is it?
    It's always the evil US that forced their hand.

    No-one doubts what the US did, but you seem trying to exonerate Pol Pot and the Khmer's actions.
    I doubt the victims would see things your way.

    Nothing in my post says that I think the Khmer Rouge were innocent, where are you picking this up? That's a stretch to be frank.

    Pol Pot and his lot were a murderous bunch of c*nts and they should have hung for what they did.

    That said, you can't ignore the fact that he wouldn't have gotten as far as he did if it weren't for the Americans


  • #80
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,223 ✭✭✭✭biko


    You'll find that with Pinochet and others. They are often backed by US or Russia, but they do the actual killing.

    Take al-Qaeda or ISIS, supplied by US, but they themselves did the murdering.

    It's not like the US create the murderers, the US arms simply enabled them to murder more than they could before.

    The Khmer Rouge murders of their fellow countrymen rests with them, not the US.


  • #81
    Flavour Diaper
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 61 ✭✭Flavour Diaper


    You'd be looking far and wide to find anybody responsible for more terrorism, theft of resources, mass murder, or spurious foreign interventions in the last sixty years than the USA. But of course they have a much better press team (Hollywood).


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Zebra3
    Registered Users Posts: 13,848 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    Das Reich wrote: »
    Yes they did and escaped like rats from Saigon. It is easy to kill civilians by bombing their villages, against a country that had nearly no aerial force. However army against army the USA soldiers proved to be weak, they are good only if having superior numbers. And on propaganda and movies.

    A lot of US soldiers didn't want to be there.

    How would the war had gone if the roles had been reversed?


  • #83
    Portmanteau
    Closed Accounts Posts: 55 ✭✭Portmanteau


    Flavour Diaper wrote: »
    You'd be looking far and wide to find anybody responsible for more terrorism, theft of resources, mass murder, or spurious foreign interventions in the last sixty years than the USA. But of course they have a much better press team (Hollywood).
    Undoubtedly the USA's recent history contains terrible chapters where foreign policy is concerned, but that doesn't mitigate the atrocities elsewhere. Plus, bad as American society can be, it's still a better place to live than the tyrannies being mentioned on this thread.


  • #84
    Zebra3
    Registered Users Posts: 13,848 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    Portmanteau wrote: »
    Undoubtedly the USA's recent history contains terrible chapters where foreign policy is concerned, but that doesn't mitigate the atrocities elsewhere. Plus, bad as American society can be, it's still a better place to live than the tyrannies being mentioned on this thread.

    A better place to live because most victims of US crimes live outside the US.


  • #85
    dan1895
    Registered Users Posts: 4,597 ✭✭✭dan1895


    Portmanteau wrote: »
    Undoubtedly the USA's recent history contains terrible chapters where foreign policy is concerned, but that doesn't mitigate the atrocities elsewhere. Plus, bad as American society can be, it's still a better place to live than the tyrannies being mentioned on this thread.

    As long as your not poor and black.


  • #86
    Ipso
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,995 ✭✭✭Ipso


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    A better place to live because most victims of US crimes live outside the US.

    Yes. The exact reason.


  • #87
    Portmanteau
    Closed Accounts Posts: 55 ✭✭Portmanteau


    dan1895 wrote: »
    As long as your not poor and black.
    Still better than the aforementioned tyrannies. Doesn't make the USA brilliant for everyone by any means, but in all the current noise, the meaning of dictatorship is getting lost.


  • #88
    Ipso
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,995 ✭✭✭Ipso


    Portmanteau wrote: »
    Still better than the aforementioned tyrannies. Doesn't make the USA brilliant for everyone by any means, but in all the current noise, the meaning of dictatorship is getting lost.

    Stick around. WW1, WW2 and the holocaust will be their fault.


  • #89
    Homelander
    Registered Users Posts: 4,345 ✭✭✭Homelander


    Das Reich wrote: »
    Yes they did and escaped like rats from Saigon. It is easy to kill civilians by bombing their villages, against a country that had nearly no aerial force. However army against army the USA soldiers proved to be weak, they are good only if having superior numbers. And on propaganda and movies.


    The NVA won because they successfully were able to hold on until the US grew tired of the war politically and could no longer continue it.

    They suffered 900 thousand military dead vs 60 thousand on the US side

    The whole "army vs army" is nonsense. Of course the average NVA soldier was going to be more motivated compared to the average GI who was thousands of miles away from home and just wanted to do his tour and get home.

    Same could be said of the average German soldier but it made no difference become of the overwhelming material superiority of US forces. It was not uncommon for US infantry forces to falter at slight opposition during the fighting, to instead rely on support.


  • #90
    Hector Savage
    Registered Users Posts: 8,810 ✭✭✭Hector Savage


    completedit wrote: »
    I watched a video about him and was just left speechless by the end. Tragic that he is held up as like the grandfather of Belgians or at least was until recently.

    You should read a book called King Leopold's Ghost by Adam Hochschild

    Great read, and shocking, probably the best history book I've read on Africa.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Zebra3
    Registered Users Posts: 13,848 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    Ipso wrote: »
    Stick around. WW1, WW2 and the holocaust will be their fault.

    The holocaust of the native Americans had a lot to do with the US, but that's a genocide that gets swept under the carpet.

    That reminds me, when's Thanksgiving???!!!!


Advertisement