The Vietnam War

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

Alot of people slating the US for this war yet they all forget that many other countries were involved on the US side. South Vietnam, South Korea, Thailand, Australia, New Zealand. None of them wanted nutjob communist dictators spreading in the age of nuclear weapons.

Having allies is no guarantee of righteousness. South Vietnam, Thailand and S Korea were dictatorships at the time.

South Vietnam was a dictatorship run by a small elite unrepresentative of the population.

The Cambodian communists were a tiny isolated group until after the US carpet bombing campaign.

Dwellingdweller

Deleted User wrote: »

I cannot disagree with anything in your posts. But some people here have tried to make out that a communist dictatorships soldiers are freedom fighters:

[snip]

When actually it was the North Vietnamese who destabilised Cambodia by invading and holding the Ho Chi Minh supply trail. Cambodia fought a civil war against its own communists just like in Vietnam. This war BEFORE the Vietnamese communists and the Cambodian communists turned on each other. Cambodia and South Vietnam fell within weeks of each other.

Alot of people slating the US for this war yet they all forget that many other countries were involved on the US side. South Vietnam, South Korea, Thailand, Australia, New Zealand. None of them wanted nutjob communist dictators spreading in the age of nuclear weapons.

Yes, I see what you mean. The idea that the South Vietnamese regime was a puppet regime is retarded. The majority of the South Vietnamese politicians were corrupt, feckless gombeens (remind you of anywhere else? :rolleyes:) which contributed to the weakness of the ARVN and national unity when the Americans pulled out, as you said. In reality, the North Vietnamese had already demonstrated that they would do what they needed to to get rid of colonialist/capitalist powers in what they saw as their country (see: the French). The conflict that America was fighting was a different one to the South Vietnamese - the South Vietnamese wanted freedom to continue living their everyday lives without either Communist or hyper-Capitalist infringement, i.e a practical war, and the Americans were fighting a war of ideology. The Americans actually succeeded in taking away the freedom of the South Vietnamese, rather than empowering it, in Op Ranch Hand and others. And really, the only people in the Vietnam War that one can have sympathy for are the South Vietnamese. 1.4 million killed or wounded, and all for nothing in the end. That's steep.

prinz

Dwellingdweller wrote: »

While I see what you are saying, and agree with it the Americans did more good than harm in Vietnam. They used Vietnam as a proxy, as a part of their 'containment' strategy, and had no interest in the welfare of the average Vietnamese person. They just wanted to retain their status as a world superpower by bullying both the South and the North. There's no denying that Ho Chi Minh and his Communists were a little bit away in the head too....

Throw in a few of other countries using Vietnam as a proxy for the opposite reasons and you're pretty much on the money.

SEPT 23 1989

The Vietnam War had the best drugs and music

Nodin

Nodin wrote: »

Having allies is no guarantee of righteousness. South Vietnam, Thailand and S Korea were dictatorships at the time.

South Vietnam was a dictatorship run by a small elite unrepresentative of the population.

The Cambodian communists were a tiny isolated group until after the US carpet bombing campaign.

the North Vietnamese Army's attempt to overrun the entire country in March–April 1970 plunged Cambodia into civil war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_Civil_War#cite_note-3

The North Vietnamese were ALLIES with the murderous Khmer Rouge who went on to famously massacre over one million people. They sided with them in the Cambodian civil war. Hence why Saigon and Phnom Penh fell within days of each other

Dwellingdweller

Dwellingdweller wrote: »

Yes, I see what you mean. The idea that the South Vietnamese regime was a puppet regime is retarded. The majority of the South Vietnamese politicians were corrupt, feckless gombeens (remind you of anywhere else? :rolleyes:) which contributed to the weakness of the ARVN and national unity when the Americans pulled out, as you said. In reality, the North Vietnamese had already demonstrated that they would do what they needed to to get rid of colonialist/capitalist powers in what they saw as their country (see: the French). The conflict that America was fighting was a different one to the South Vietnamese - the South Vietnamese wanted freedom to continue living their everyday lives without either Communist or hyper-Capitalist infringement, i.e a practical war, and the Americans were fighting a war of ideology. The Americans actually succeeded in taking away the freedom of the South Vietnamese, rather than empowering it, in Op Ranch Hand and others. And really, the only people in the Vietnam War that one can have sympathy for are the South Vietnamese. 1.4 million killed or wounded, and all for nothing in the end. That's steep.

Yeah your bang on there. People are foolish to think that the North Vietnamese were some sort of good guys though. And freedom is not a Communist Dictatorship which is about as close to living in an open prison as you can get from a form of government.

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_Civil_War#cite_note-3

The North Vietnamese were ALLIES with the murderous Khmer Rouge who went on to famously massacre over one million people. They sided with them in the Cambodian civil war. Hence why Saigon and Phnom Penh fell within days of each other

That lets the US off, does it?

In 1973, just before Pol Pot's complete rule over Cambodia, the Khmer Republican Government, with assistance from the United States, "dropped about half a million tons of bombs on Cambodia." Many of those who lost family members and close friends joined the Khmer Rouge's revolution.[18] However the US Seventh Air Force argued that the bombing prevented the fall of Phnom Penh in 1973 by killing 16,000 of 25,500 Khmer Rouge fighters besieging the city.[19]
[T]he bombing forced the Vietnamese Communists deeper and deeper into Cambodia, bringing them into greater contact with Khmer Rouge insurgents . . . [and] drove ordinary Cambodians into the arms of the Khmer Rouge, a group that seemed initially to have slim prospects of revolutionary success.[20]}}Nixon had commanded that, "They [the USAF] have got to go in there and I mean really go in . . . I want everything that can fly to go in there and crack the hell out of them. There is no limitation on mileage and there is no limitation on budget. Is that clear?"

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

Nodin

Nodin wrote: »

That lets the US off, does it?


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

hang on a minute. The North Vietnamese invade in 1970 to help the Khmer Rouge - Pol Pot and his buddies. The Cambodian civil war begins. In 1973 the US bombs them preventing the Khmer Rouge taking over. Some people dislike the bombing and turn to the Khmer Rouge.

I certainly wouldnt be trying to post in favour of Pol Pot and I`d go further to say it is a damn pity that the bombs didnt wipe out all the Khmer Rouge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot#cite_note-42

This view has been disputed,[40][41][42] with author John M. Del Vecchio asserting that Communist forces had overrun two-thirds of the country with 100,000 armed and organized troops prior to any American bombing, and with documents uncovered from the Soviet archives revealing that the North Vietnamese invasion of 1970 was launched at the explicit request of the Khmer Rouge following negotiations with Nuon Chea

Estimates of the total number of deaths resulting from Khmer Rouge policies, including disease and starvation, range from 1.7 to 2.5 million out of a population of around 8 million

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_Fields#cite_note-2

gamgsam

Pottler wrote: »

If you want to know a bit about it, read about or visit the tunnels at Cu-Chi. Mind-blowing. I have an awful lot of admiration for the Vietnamese people, but really, they were beaten at the point that America withdrew due to public and political pressure-bombed, poisoned and blasted to the point of submission. Awful suffering inflicted on both sides but if you go there, there is no bitterness towards the west and the people are fantastic.

Agreed, one of the best books I've ever read

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

hang on a minute. The North Vietnamese invade in 1970 to help the Khmer Rouge - Pol Pot and his buddies. The Cambodian civil war begins. In 1973 the US bombs them preventing the Khmer Rouge taking over. Some people dislike the bombing and turn to the Khmer Rouge.

I certainly wouldnt be trying to post in favour of Pol Pot and I`d go further to say it is a damn pity that the bombs didnt wipe out all the Khmer Rouge.

...the bombs were famously targeted at "any fixed structure".

Sappa

The US sub contracted a lot of the bombing to Thai pilots.
Directives were clear to these guys you come back with your pay load you don't get paid.
If they experienced too much cloud cover,or enemy fire over Vietnam they simply dropped the bombs over Lao and Cambodia killing thousands of innocent people.
The whole war was a farce and anyone justifying the American involvement clearly has never lived in these regions for a significant amount if time or has never spoken to Vietnam vets who failed to live any sort of a normal life after the war,do you think the foreign advisors in the White house experienced the negativity faced by the vets after the war?

Dwellingdweller

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah your bang on there. People are foolish to think that the North Vietnamese were some sort of good guys though. And freedom is not a Communist Dictatorship which is about as close to living in an open prison as you can get from a form of government.

Definitely. It's just a pity that the people of South Vietnam got trapped between the "fell and mighty opposites" of Capitalist and Communist ideology. It's interesting too at the same time that the whole reason the US conducted Operation Ranch Hand and similar was to create a South Vietnamese state that was dependent on US aid to survive. I'm not siding with Communism here, but the Americans used some pretty despicable methods to force the South Vietnamese into a limited capitalism where all services were provided and controlled by the US (medicine, education, food and more). In effect they wanted to turn South Vietnam into a cultural, financial, and political extension of America and American capitalism.

All of this doesn't mean the North Vietnamese were any better but the US and their allies provided fertile ground (with their f**ked up military doctrine and cultural and humanitarian insensitivity) for f**ked up regimes like Ho Chi Minh and Khmer Rouge to take root in SE Asia.

danniemcq

Dispatches by Michael Herr is the only book you'll need to read on Vietnam

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dispatches-Picador-thirty-Michael-Herr/dp/0330491997/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1337339508&sr=8-2

completly mind blowing and so well written

'We have all spent ten years trying to explain what happened to our heads and our lives in the decade we finally survived - but Michael Herr's Dispatches puts all the rest of us in the shade' HUNTER S. THOMPSON

dasdog

danniemcq wrote: »

Dispatches by Michael Herr is the only book you'll need to read on Vietnam

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dispatches-Picador-thirty-Michael-Herr/dp/0330491997/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1337339508&sr=8-2

completly mind blowing and so well written

A foot on the ground (and in the air) account of the madness that was taking place. Excellent book.

jwilco

The Military Channel had a great series about the Vietnam war recently. Real eye opener to what Amercian done and got away with.

Dwellingdweller

Dwellingdweller wrote: »

Definitely. It's just a pity that the people of South Vietnam got trapped between the "fell and mighty opposites" of Capitalist and Communist ideology. It's interesting too at the same time that the whole reason the US conducted Operation Ranch Hand and similar was to create a South Vietnamese state that was dependent on US aid to survive. I'm not siding with Communism here, but the Americans used some pretty despicable methods to force the South Vietnamese into a limited capitalism where all services were provided and controlled by the US (medicine, education, food and more). In effect they wanted to turn South Vietnam into a cultural, financial, and political extension of America and American capitalism.

All of this doesn't mean the North Vietnamese were any better but the US and their allies provided fertile ground (with their f**ked up military doctrine and cultural and humanitarian insensitivity) for f**ked up regimes like Ho Chi Minh and Khmer Rouge to take root in SE Asia.

The tactic to forcibly relocate people to government controlled "population centers" was based on the successful tactics used by the British against the Malaysian communist insurgency.

Things worked out in Malaysia but it was a different scenario to Vietnam and as you point out the US turned the tactic into a way of controlling food supply.

ejmaztec

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Yanks disgust me with their "Freedom"

Look at the Orange Kid in this Video, There still having deformed Children in Vietnam today because of Agent Orange.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3K_E_QKJIo

Any surprise people want to kill the pricks.

Look at what it's doing to Kids being born right now http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_NE-72ZXux-g/Sl4TbwklJ0I/AAAAAAAAKHw/TOnb2u1gDMs/s400/Agent+Orange.jpg

I hate America and It's wars. Let's nuke the bastards!!

Some American soldiers also got a dose of Agent Orange, leading to chronic illness and their wives giving birth to deformed children. The American government denied any responsibility and I don't know whether or not they eventually owned up and paid compensation (I haven't got time to Google it).

It wasn't a "chemical weapon" as such, but basically a weed-killer containing Dioxin, the use of which has since been banned.

Chuck Stone

xflyer wrote: »

As for the war itself you really have to put it in the context of the cold war and fear of Communism.

What exactly was America, or more accurately the stake-holders of the American way, afraid of?

ejmaztec

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What exactly was America, or more accurately the stake-holders of the American way, afraid of?

They were afraid of those "dirty pinko commie bastards" taking over the world.

HavingCrack

maninasia wrote: »

Where was the domino effect proved correct? Indonesia never became communist, neither did Thailand, neither did the Phillipines, neither did Myanmar, neither did India etc etc. Only Laos and Cambodia did precisely because they were so impoverished and part of the same conflict, the break up of the Indochine empire.

Indonesia only didn't become communist because the PKI were massacred by Sukarno with tacit US support and overt Islamic fundamentalist support in 1965/1966-up to 2 million people were murdered in the blood letting, in fact it should be considered genocide (if murder of an entire political grouping was to be included as it should be). Indonesia was the one location the domino theory actually had legs.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What exactly was America, or more accurately the stake-holders of the American way, afraid of?

The domino theory-the idea that if Vietnam fell to communism the other newly independent states of South East Asia would follow.

Latchy

Deleted User wrote: »

then we have those who somehow believe the US helped the Khmer Rouge Communists get into power

^That's your Incorrect interpretation .

After all they had been through ,The South Vietnamese felt betrayed and abandoned when the Americans pulled out of Vietnam so the scene was set for even worse savagery to come by North Vietnamese and then the Khmer Rouge. Some in the American military also felt they had betrayed them but it was time to withdraw and as quickly as possible .

I remember back in 1975 watching the tv footage of the Helicoptors taking the last of the American Embassy staff , Military and some lucky refugees off the the Embassy roof to the waiting ships at sea , while thousends of other refugees tried desperately to get in .So ended American Military involvement in Vietnam ....with the North Vietnamese troops only a few miles away from the Embassy gates .

jwilco wrote: »

The Military Channel had a great series about the Vietnam war recently. Real eye opener to what Amercian done and got away with.

You might be talking about Vietnam :Lost Movies in HD . I've watched two episodes so far ,Search And Destroy 1966/67 and The Tet Offensive shown last night which has the personal storys from soldiers who were there ,with some fascinating and graphic footage cleaned up and presented in HD form ,much not seen untill recently .

http://www.militaryhistory.co.uk/shows/vietnam-lost-films.html

http://www.militaryhistory.co.uk/videos.html?bctid=1386372989001&Vietnam:-Lost-Films---The-making-of (also on you tube )

http://realscreen.com/2011/11/08/vietnam-in-hd-gives-rare-glimpse-into-the-living-room-war/

Many Vietnam vets were treated appalingly by the American public and it took a few decades for them to come to terms with the suffering and sacrfices made by their soldiers in that conflict .

Chuck Stone

ejmaztec wrote: »

They were afraid of those "dirty pinko commie bastards" taking over the world.

Na. North America, Western Europe, Japan, Lolstralia, etc were secure. When you have nukes you don't get taken over by force.

The US stakeholders were afraid of communism offering an alternative model for development. The alternative model must be frustrated and be seen to fail at all costs. That's the principle reason the US were in Vietnam. Wreck the fucking place and make sure it doesn't appear to succeed as a nationalist/communist model for other countries.

HavingCrack

Latchy wrote: »

I remember back in 1975 watching the tv footage of the Helicoptors taking the last of the American Embassy staff , Military and some lucky refugees off the the Embassy roof to the waiting ships at sea , while thousends of other refugees tried desperately to get in .So ended American Military involvement in Vietnam ....with the North Vietnamese troops only a few miles away from the Embassy gates .
.

I actually met an ex pilot who was part of the evacuation from the roof of the embassy three years ago when I was in California giving tours on the USS Midway in San Diego if anyone has heard of it. I actually think he might have been the last one to take off...

Bullrush

Anyone looking for a good fictional work about the Vietnam War should check out Matterhorn by Karl Marlentes. He fought out there and was half his life writing about it. It's up for the Impac award.

Latchy

ejmaztec wrote: »

They were afraid of those "dirty pinko commie bastards" taking over the world.

Good to see some humor in this thread

HavingCrack wrote: »

I actually met an ex pilot who was part of the evacuation from the roof of the embassy three years ago when I was in California giving tours on the USS Midway in San Diego if anyone has heard of it. I actually think he might have been the last one to take off...

He would have some stories to tell I'd imagine .There was a great documentry made some years ago about the American withdrawl and the fall of Saigon ... he might have been one of the people interviewed .It was very sad and emotional for all concerned ,not least the poor refugees left behind but you could also see the sadness in the Americans soldiers and staff interviewed who knew they were leaving these people to their fate .

Azure_sky

I love the irony of how right wingers/ U.S. Republicans are so big on small government (anti welfare/health care etc) unless it involves interfering with peoples lives- transphobic, anti atheistic and homophobic (etc) laws-enforcing their "Christian" morality on their fellow citizens_ or indeed the lives of the citizens of a foreign nation. Communism is a great idea, Jesus was a massive Commie, but it will never work as we have something called the selfish gene. I consider limited capitalism the lesser of the other evils.

Latchy

Latchy wrote: »

^That's your Incorrect interpretation .

nope its not my interpretation, I had citations in my post.
The Khmer Rouge had 2/3rd of Cambodia taken over and an army of 100,000
with North Vietnamese military aid when the US started bombing. If the US didnt bomb they would have taken over before 75

Chuck Stone

Azure_sky wrote: »

I love the irony of how right wingers/ U.S. Republicans are so big on small government (anti welfare/health care etc) unless it involves interfering with peoples lives- transphobic, anti atheistic and homophobic (etc) laws-enforcing their "Christian" morality on their fellow citizens_ or indeed the lives of the citizens of a foreign nation.

Conservatives love big government and pretend to hate but they only hate the bit that doesn't serve their dark desires.

Fucking scum.

Azure_sky

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Conservatives love big government and pretend to hate but they only hate the bit that doesn't serve their dark desires.

****ing scum.

Latchy

Deleted User wrote: »

nope its not my interpretation

blindjustice

then we have those who somehow believe the US helped the Khmer Rouge Communists get into power

The Americans were more concerned with getting out of Vietnam than who was taken over after they left , which if you go back to 1962 ,was what concerned Kennedys goverment at the time ie, who best to side with in Vietnam so as we don't get bogged down (and bogged down is what they got ) and but they would have been all to aware of the Kamer Rouge in Cambodia but not privy to the idea that they were about to committ mass genocide and take the county back to zero 1 ,which is what you seem to imply by that quote above .The 15 odd years they were there and with 58,000 dead ,the American involvment all came to nothing in the end ...lives wasted for nothing .

Dangerous Man

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Apoc Now... I was told it was the greatest Vietnam War movie ever made.... It's such a load of absolute bollix.

For a literary man to say that... I'm disappointed. It's one of the best literary adaptions ever made.

Chuck Stone

Azure_sky wrote: »

[YOUTUBE)Simpsons.vid[/YOUTUBE]

Ah yes - the noble Public Relations 'industry'. Helping socio-paths get elected into office and helping the electorate vote against their interests since time immemorial.

HavingCrack

Latchy wrote: »

Good to see some humor in this thread

He would have some stories to tell I'd imagine .There was a great documentry made some years ago about the American withdrawl and the fall of Saigon ... he might have been one of the people interviewed .It was very sad and emotional for all concerned ,not least the poor refugees left behind but you could also see the sadness in the Americans soldiers and staff interviewed who knew they were leaving these people to their fate .

Yeah, I would have loved to have a chat with him about it, I'd say he would be a very interesting person to talk to.

token101

flutterflye wrote: »

I watched 'The Deer Hunter' earlier, and now I'm watching 'Apocalypse Now' - both for the first time.
Oh my god - zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.........
There are both so boring.
That's probably not relevant, but I'm not quite sure how to answer whether I believe it to be "a good war" or not!

Youre clearly not old enough to appreciate the smell of napalm in the morning.

Stimpyone

…it was a policing action….OK!!

sdanseo

My understanding is that the USA turned a civil war into a much longer, bloodier and famously pointless international incident. Much like they've done ever since.

Latchy

HavingCrack wrote: »

Yeah, I would have loved to have a chat with him about it, I'd say he would be a very interesting person to talk to.

Indeed ...flying back and forth between the Embassy and the ship he would have some seen some sights and have some memorys of that day .

A fitting memorial to all who gave the ultimate sacrifice in Vietnam

token101

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Azure_sky wrote: »

I love the irony of how right wingers/ U.S. Republicans are so big on small government (anti welfare/health care etc) unless it involves interfering with peoples lives- transphobic, anti atheistic and homophobic (etc) laws-enforcing their "Christian" morality on their fellow citizens_ or indeed the lives of the citizens of a foreign nation.

Conservatives love big government and pretend to hate but they only hate the bit that doesn't serve their dark desires.

Fucking scum.

Conservatives are pure of heart and mind. Family values are essential. Liberty and justice for all. You'd do well to remember that pinko. Next youll be telling us that the gays dont make baby Jesus cry tears of blood.

Latchy

sdeire wrote: »

My understanding is that the USA turned a civil war into a much longer, bloodier and famously pointless international incident. Much like they've done ever since.

Very much so although Kennedy was probably looking for the solution to the problem in that corner of the world in a much more diplomatic way then . When there was only a few thousend troops in Vietnam , Secratary of state McNamara while serving under president Kennedy, found himself in agreement with his boss that American troops should be withdrawn but under president Johnson,( who in the early weeks and months of his presidency found the Vietnam war more of an annoyance than anything ) McNamara went the opposite way and sided with the Generals who persuaded an undecided and indecisive Johnson that ' this war can be won ' and the escalation of troops and wepons went on and on .


Some idea of where president Johnsons head was at in the mid sixties when he kept getting daily reports of more troop deaths ,with little or no improvement against the enemy he said ...Quote '' How the hell can the strongest nation in the world not beat the crap outta a bunch of peasents running around the jungle in pyjamas ? ''

Manic Moran

Dangerous Man wrote: »

For a literary man to say that... I'm disappointed. It's one of the best literary adaptions ever made.

It may be a great literary adaptation, but I didn't like it.

May just mean I wouldn't have liked the book either if it was close to the book.

NTM

JohnMearsheimer

The Vietnam war was part of containment strategy during the Cold War. Containment was a strategy designed to stop the spread of communism. The US went into Vietnam because they feared a domino effect, if Vietnam fell to communism then the rest of south east Asia could potentially fall to communism as well. They went into Vietnam, got bogged down for a few years and south Vietnam was over run and became communist anyway. Pointless war.

Manic Moran

JohnMearsheimer wrote: »

The Vietnam war was part of containment strategy during the Cold War. Containment was a strategy designed to stop the spread of communism. The US went into Vietnam because they feared a domino effect, if Vietnam fell to communism then the rest of south east Asia could potentially fall to communism as well. They went into Vietnam, got bogged down for a few years and south Vietnam was over run and became communist anyway. Pointless war.

True, but I'm not so sure about the last sentence: The US also showed that it was still more than willing to put its blood and treasure behind the cause of stopping the spread of communism, just in case people had decided they had had a change of heart since Korea. One may question, for example, the viability of Taiwan as an independent nation from PRC in the early 1970s if the US hadn't indicated in such a manner that any attempt to force the issue would, at the least, be expensive.

NTM

flutterflye

token101 wrote: »

Youre clearly not old enough to appreciate the smell of napalm in the morning.

27 -so no, I guess not.

The Radiator

bang bang pow

Latchy

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

The Vietnam War had the best drugs and music

The soundtrack to all those Vietnam movies with every ' Nam ' cliche you can thing of to .

The Jammy dodger

Some interesting responses. Will have to get that book someone mentioned earliar.

Cedrus

An excellent book well worth reading is 'Vietnam' by Christian G. Appy, it's made up of hundreds of interviews with people from all sides of the war, civilian, military, politician, north viet, south viet, american and allies.

I worked with an Aussie who was there and he handed me his copy of 'Chickenhawk' by Robert Mason which he had just read, and he told that it was the most real account he had ever come across.

themandan6611

Cedrus wrote: »

I worked with an Aussie who was there and he handed me his copy of 'Chickenhawk' by Robert Mason which he had just read, and he told that it was the most real account he had ever come across.

a cracking book

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

nope its not my interpretation, I had citations in my post.
The Khmer Rouge had 2/3rd of Cambodia taken over and an army of 100,000
with North Vietnamese military aid when the US started bombing. If the US didnt bomb they would have taken over before 75

The ancient Roman practice of decimation involved killing 1 in 10 of a disgraced legion. Reviews of soilders since esp. WWII show that a people can survive a low attrition rate without getting unhinged, up to ~3% in a single mission IIRC. Beyond that and they become depersonalised.

The US dropped more bombs on the south east corner of Cambodia than were dropped during WWII (+/- stories about bombers in holding patterns they were so busy)

I've heard it suggested that this is what triggered off the later brutality.
Apart from weapons and those technologies needed for a repressive state to keep control (including exporting food and wood)

Cambodia went back to a pre-industrial society.

Latchy

Pol Pots Cambodia went back to zero 1 that by todays standards would make the Talibans rule of law look tame .