Victims of America's dirty war,are still being born

Yes we know your anecdotal evidence far surpasses actual historical documentation of the numerous atrocities committed by the North Vietnamese both before, during, and after the conflict with the U.S..

Between 1953 and 1956, the North Vietnamese government instituted various agrarian reforms, including land redistribution. Large landowners and rich peasants were publicly denounced as landlords (địa ch&#7911, and their land distributed to poor and middle peasants, particularly to those with ties to the Communist Party.[6] In some cases there were mass slaughters of landlords. People of the middle- and upper-class, intellectuals, anti-communists, affiliates to the French colonial government and dissidents were also persecuted, imprisoned or killed. Up to an estimated 172,000 North Vietnamese died through the mass slaughter of "landlords". Dr. Steven Rosefielde, professor of economics at the University of North Carolina, places an estimated death toll at between 200,000 to 900,000.[7] Hundreds of thousands of peasants were massacred in Ho Chi Minh's home province of Nghe An, in a peasant revolt against the communist regime's collectivization of farmland across the North.[8] A widespread famine also occurred across North Vietnam throughout the 1950s, due to the regime's mismanagement of collectivized food supplies to the civilian population.

North Vietnam's capital was Hanoi and it was a one-party state led by the Vietnam Workers' Party (Vietnamese: Đảng lao động Việt Nam). Political opposition groups were suppressed; those publicly opposing the government were imprisoned in hard labor camps. Prisoners were abused and beaten atop of labor-intensive work forced upon them. Many died of exhaustion, starvation, illness (who often died without any medical attention), or assault by prison guards. Up to an estimated 172,000 North Vietnamese died under Ho Chi Minh's regime in Gulags and through the mass slaughter of "landlords". Dr. Steven Rosefielde, professor of economics at the University of North Carolina, places an estimated death toll at between 200,000 to 900,000.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Vietnam

lol they were allied with one another during the Vietnam conflict with the U.S. and he clearly brought up Cambodia and it was the Khmer Rouge whom the U.S. was bombing there.

Really which sanctions were these exactly?

 

I'm not sure where you learned your history. Castro tossed out the mob who was running Cuba, reformed their government, we went for the whole Bay of Pigs bit, and drove him right into the Soviet's arms. Get your history from somewhere besides "My granddad always said."

 

It is estimated there are anywhere between 30 to 80 million individual UXOs, mainly cluster munitions littering the Lao countryside. An average of 300 people, mainly children are killed or maimed each year in Laos. At the current rate of the clean up, it can take up to 180 years to rid Laos of every single UXO.

2 million tons of bombs, mostly cluster bombs, were dropped on Laos between 1964 and 1973. 580,000 bombing sorties, on a population of around 4 million people.

Laos, the most heavily bombed country on this planet per capita. America spent more money per day bombing Laos than it now spends per year cleaning up.

 

I'd show you the children of the Waco raid that Clinton and Reno tear gassed with tanks, but they are all dead. Never trust progressives.



_

 

In 1978-1979 the Khmer Rouge started a campaign against ethnic Vietnamese in the Parrot Beak region of Cambodia. Vietnam reacted with force, sending in their miltary forcing a border war with the Khmer Rouge, which the Vietnamese won.

America stupidly supported the Khmer Rouge like a silly school yard tit for tat, giving aid to the Khmer Rouge.

 

You also supported, financially, materially and militarily, Pol Pot-probably the most apalling tyrant since Stalin-when America had a petulant fit after the hated Vietnamese invaded Cambodia, defeated Pol Pot and installed a Vietnam-friendly government.
Supporting and encouraging murderous tyranny is nothing new to America.

(Apologies to Lizarddust-didn't read your post.)

 

Unlike America which actively supported Pol Pot the Khmer Rouge in 1979 and beyond? That's a conveniently selective narrative you have there, Doc.
As for casualties from unexploded munitions I have no doubt that you'll sneer at, and pour scorn on the following, in your usual fashion: http://www.unicef.org/emerg/files/regional_assessment_final.pdf

 

The needless carpet bombing of Laos by the American military killed more Lao civilians than the Pathet Lao ever did. Also more Lao have been maimed and killed by UXO explosions since the cease fire than the Pathet Lao did.

From 1964 to 1973 it's estimated 25-30% casualties out of a population of around 4 million directly from American bombing.

The American military started bombing Laos in May of 1964, three months before the Gulf of Tonkin Incident and ten months before the commencement of Rolling Thunder. Interestingly, Xieng Khouang province in the north was the first to be bombed, and today, Xieng Khouang province still has the highest concerntration of UXO on this planet.

Laos set the precedent on how wars would be fought in the late 20th century into the 21st century by massive aerial bombardment. Laos the heaviest bombed country on earth.

 

Completely fallacious without a shred of actual evidence to support said assertion, you're thinking of the international leftist heroes; such as, Noam Chomsky.

 

It was the Vietnamese who were directly responsible for the ousting of the Khmer Rouge. No- one else gave a sh!t.

 

That's a blatant (*)(*)(*)(*)ing lie, the most the U.S. ever did in support of Pol-Pot was denouncing Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia and abstaining from the condemnation of China's invasion of Vietnam.

Better than your fictitious narrative.

Because the North Vietnamese didn't use land mines in far larger numbers than the U.S..

 

You obviously get your SE Asian history off the back of a Coco Pops packet.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/US_PolPot.html

 

Anyways can we get back on topic which is that the OP is a big steaming pile of horse(*)(*)(*)(*) long debunked by numerous scientific studies proving the negligible effects of DU exposure?

 

lol and they were largely responsible for their rise to power in the first place.

 

Yep not a single solitary scrap of (*)(*)(*)(*)ing evidence is in that article which shows that one penny of U.S. funds made its way into the coffers of the Khmer Rouge, nice fail.

 

Your denialism is akin to those who deny the science underpinning the reality of AGW. You are not a 9-11 truther by any chance are you?

 

Deflection.

Until you can provide a link to the contrary, the evidence stands.

M'lud, I rest my case.

 

Ofcourse its NOT the worse , but do you (US Gov ) have to keep on doing it . ? Looks like committing atrocities started with American Civil War and just kept on going , even crossing continents to do so ?

Its NOT old news to those little victims + their parents who are suffering TODAY .

.

Remember this :

View attachment 12350

Rumsfeld with his then buddy Saddam .


America supported Saddam in Iraq-Iran 8 year War .

How Un-american . Perhaps your political masters should be persuaded to read this :




Tatty-byeeee.

 

Oh ! he's good at deflection/ flaming , and boringly repeating himself like a parrot,- which is why I , most of the time , skip his twaddle.

.....

 

Indeed, but I guess we could always take the Japanese approach -- ignore the darker parts of our history altogether. Hell, they don't even teach their kids about what the Imperialists did to Nanjing.

Granted, we have a hard enough time getting state governments to allow the teaching of evolution.

 

When it comes to war, morality mostly goes out the window.

Here's a good example: was it moral to bomb the crap out of various cities in Germany during WW2? Not by most people's conception of morality.

Was it necessary? Yes.

The problem with war is that you're forced to do awful things in order to win. That's just the nature of the beast, and so, my morality is conditional.

Under most circumstances, I would use morality to guide my actions. Obviously, I wouldn't want to make children suffer during peacetime. However, if children end up suffering in the midst of a war because of the use of phosphorus or depleted uranium.... well, that's essentially collateral damage.

Is it right? No, but then again, you could argue war itself isn't right. Once you enter war, morality becomes a secondary concern, which is why it's best to avoid it whenever possible.

Granted, I would agree with a lot of people here in that we don't avoid it enough.

Some of the resentment towards us is from interventionism or our relations with Israel.

Some of it... not so much. Sweden and other countries with only a minimal involvement in Afghanistan have suffered attacks as well, so it's kind of hard to draw those same conclusions in their cases. Hijackings of planes have happened to countries only barely involved in the Middle East since the 1970s.

So, honestly, a lot of the hate for the West that's out there is more driven by ideology than actual policy decisions. Even if we made a truce today, withdrew all of our forces from the Middle East, and ended our pursuit of the War on Terror completely, we'd still be attacked and have various attempts made against us.

I'm not saying that we should do whatever we feel like, but I am saying that you can't appease people. Some people will hate us regardless of what actions we take, and some people will never accept any attempts for us to make amends.

So, our policy should be driven more by rational self-interest. It's in our best interests to just move away from most of the Middle East in general and reduce our interactions down to trade only. That shouldn't be done to avoid terrorism but rather to save on costs. In the meantime, we'll still have to deal with attacks, and our intelligence agencies will be continuously busy with keeping airports safe, but it's better than endless war.

 

Well the atrocities started before then by a long shot. They started before we even became a country. We did some pretty awful things to the natives here.

Then again, some of the natives were pretty brutal to us and to each other.

One of the few consistent themes with humanity seems to be that peaceful cultures tend to get killed off by warmongering ones. This is seen both among tribal communities and among industrialized ones.

We definitely helped Saddam rise. We inadvertently helped Islamists rise in Iran by aiding the Shah as well, since his people grew to hate him.

There's no question that we've meddled in a lot of countries and made quite a mess, but then again, messes are endemic to the Middle East in general. It's been a pretty hostile part of the world for a lot of human history, which is why we need to drift away from that region aside from supporting a few small countries there that have good business relations with us.

 

Translation; 'I realised my argument about America's support of Pol Pot was total horse(*)(*)(*)(*) and I'm changing the subject. So there'. Predictable as the sunrise Doc.

Here's just one of the numerous references supporting my position; Jack Colhoun, "US Supports Khmer Rouge", Covert Action Information Bulletin (Washington, DC #34.Summer 1990, p.37-40. William Blum also writes extensively on the subject in Rogue State. I suggest you do a little work before employing your habitual knee-jerk denialism in future.

That work would include reading the link in the OP (post #1), which referred to the US Army's use of white phosphorus, not depleted uranium.

 

a) Tomahawks was somewhat inefficient - limiting the number of kills compared to White invaders rifles + pistols or Gatling type rapid firing guns.

b) Industrialized ones can carry out their killings on an Induustrial scale,

====

Yes there's some truth in what you say, the sad part is that your people in Washington have not learnt from their past mistakes NORE from the mess + mistakes made by European powers who've previously meddled in ME affairs. Perhaps because your added disadvantage of your Repressentative being in AIPACS pockets .


.......

 

Oh, I totally agree. There's no question that industrialized powers are far more effective at brutality, but I just wanted to mention that there were plenty of warmongering tribes among the Native Americans. We now know that a significant number of tribes were killed off by groups like the Iroquois. Many of the most dominant tribes present during European contact had gained their prominence through warfare. The Aztecs are another good example.

AIPAC has a lot of power, but it's also about oil and the petrodollar. A lot of vested interests are involved.

In short, war is big business.