Author Topic: Vietnam, Iraq and ..... Iraq  (Read 5859 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Vietnam, Iraq and ..... Iraq
« on: August 29, 2007, 11:59:23 AM »
Vietnam, Iraq and Iraq

Earlier this week, President Bush gave a speech in which he drew an analogy between Vietnam and Iraq. As Max Boot argues in today's Wall Street Journal, this was unusual. Normally it is opponents of American power--those who believe, or hope, that America cannot win--who cite Vietnam. "Supporters of [American] interventions have adamantly resisted any Vietnam comparisons."

"In a skillful bit of political jujitsu," Boot writes, Bush "cited Vietnam not as evidence that the Iraq War is unwinnable, but to argue that the costs of giving up the fight would be catastrophic--just as they were in Southeast Asia." Here is what the president said:

The tragedy of Vietnam is too large to be contained in one speech. So I'm going to limit myself to one argument that has particular significance today. Then as now, people argued the real problem was America's presence and that if we would just withdraw, the killing would end.

The argument that America's presence in Indochina was dangerous had a long pedigree. In 1955, long before the United States had entered the war, Graham Greene wrote a novel called, "The Quiet American." It was set in Saigon, and the main character was a young government agent named Alden Pyle. He was a symbol of American purpose and patriotism--and dangerous naivet?. Another character describes Alden this way: "I never knew a man who had better motives for all the trouble he caused."

After America entered the Vietnam War, the Graham Greene argument gathered some steam. As a matter of fact, many argued that if we pulled out there would be no consequences for the Vietnamese people.

In 1972, one antiwar senator put it this way: "What earthly difference does it make to nomadic tribes or uneducated subsistence farmers in Vietnam or Cambodia or Laos, whether they have a military dictator, a royal prince or a socialist commissar in some distant capital that they've never seen and may never heard of?" A columnist for The New York Times wrote in a similar vein in 1975, just as Cambodia and Vietnam were falling to the communists: "It's difficult to imagine," he said, "how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone." A headline on that story, date Phnom Penh, summed up the argument: "Indochina Without Americans: For Most a Better Life."

The world would learn just how costly these misimpressions would be. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge began a murderous rule in which hundreds of thousands of Cambodians died by starvation and torture and execution. In Vietnam, former allies of the United States and government workers and intellectuals and businessmen were sent off to prison camps, where tens of thousands perished. Hundreds of thousands more fled the country on rickety boats, many of them going to their graves in the South China Sea.


There's a reason for the apparent reversal Boot describes. Usually, the Vietnam analogy comes up before the U.S. intervenes overseas. Opponents of intervention liken it to Vietnam because they think America was wrong to intervene there, and they want to avoid "another Vietnam"--that is, another U.S. military intervention.

Now, however, it is the Iraq opponents who are seeking another Vietnam, i.e., another defeat for America, and President Bush who wants to avoid that outcome. And so the erstwhile opponents of the Vietnam War have to argue that the outcome in Vietnam wasn't really so bad.

This means, among other things, averting one's eyes from the humanitarian costs of American retreat. Newsweek's Michael Hirsh shows how it's done, describing a visit he made to Hanoi in December 1991, when the Soviet Union had less than a month to exist:

Throughout the country, but especially in the North, the Vietnamese had come to despise the large resident Russian population for its cheap spending habits and arrogance. Visiting Americans, by contrast, were welcomed with smiles ("Russians with dollars," we were called.)

On the day I visited the old U.S. Embassy in Saigon--the where [sic] some of those iconic photos symbolizing American defeat were taken--I discovered government workmen removing a plaque that once commemorated the North's victory over the "U.S. imperialists." In the waning days of that epochal year, 1991, the propaganda against American involvement in Southeast Asia was suddenly no longer politically correct. Hanoi's new message: Yankee Come Back (and bring your investment dollars).

Today Vietnam remains nominally communist, but Hanoi knows it is an ideological relic surrounded by Asian capitalist tigers, all of them U.S. allies or dependents (one reason Vietnam was so eager to have Bush visit last November: it wants to be part of that club). The cold war dominoes did fall--but the opposite way.

This was the "harsh" aftermath that George W. Bush attempted to describe this week when he warned against pulling out of Iraq as we did in Vietnam.


Could that last sentence be any more disingenuous? To Hirsh, the "aftermath" of America's withdrawal from Vietnam didn't begin until 1991, more than 16 years after Saigon fell. About events between 1975 and 1991, he has only this to say:

Yes, a lot of Vietnamese boat people died on the high seas; but many others have returned to visit in the ensuing years.

Never mind Vietnam's and Laos's "re-education" camps; never mind Cambodia's killing fields. It is as if one visited West Germany in 1960, found a prosperous democracy, and reached positive conclusions about the "aftermath" of Nazi rule. It misses the point by a light-year.

Of course Iraq is not Vietnam, and any historical analogy entails differences as well as similarities. But let's look at one more historical analogy to Iraq: Iraq. That is, the last time America abandoned Iraqis, in 1991. In the aftermath of the Gulf War, Shiites in southern Iraq staged an uprising. Today's New York Times reports on some of what happened:

A former top aide to Saddam Hussein had two men tied to concrete blocks and thrown from a helicopter into deep water in 1991, according to testimony on the third day of the trial of Ali Hassan al-Majid, known as Chemical Ali, and 14 co-defendants on charges of crimes against humanity. . . .

Another witness, testifying anonymously, said today that he was tortured in prisons in Basra and Baghdad. In the Basra prison, he said, he was ordered to stand on a chair with a rope around his neck while officers asked him to confess. They kicked out the chair from under him and let him hang by the neck until he passed out, then they took him to another room where he regained consciousness.

The witness said he saw a girl who had been serving tea to officers at the prison forced by one of the officers into an adjoining room, and then he heard her screaming. He realized that she had been raped when another officer congratulated the officer who had taken her into the next room, telling him "you have married twice now, good for you."

He also testified that: he saw hanged men in tents in the prison in Basra; soldiers in the prison raped a young boy who used to work as barber in Basra, and prisoners were tortured by being put into a barrel that was heated by a fire underneath it.


In a 2003 Washington Post op-ed, Peter Galbraith described America's culpability:

On Feb. 15, 1991, President George H.W. Bush called on the Iraqi military and people to overthrow Saddam Hussein. On March 3, an Iraqi tank commander returning from Kuwait fired a shell through one of the portraits of Hussein in Basra's main square, igniting the southern uprising. A week later, Kurdish rebels ended Hussein's control over much of the north.

But although Bush had called for the rebellion, his administration was caught unprepared when it happened. The administration knew little about those in the Iraqi opposition because, as a matter of policy, it refused to talk to them. Policymakers tended to see Iraq's main ethnic groups in caricature: The Shiites were feared as pro-Iranian and the Kurds as anti-Turkish. Indeed, the U.S. administration seemed to prefer the continuation of the Baath regime (albeit without Hussein) to the success of the rebellion. As one National Security Council official told me at the time: "Our policy is to get rid of Saddam, not his regime."

The practical expression of this policy came in the decisions made by the military on the ground. U.S. commanders spurned the rebels' plea for help. The United States allowed Iraq to send Republican Guard units into southern cities and to fly helicopter gunships. (This in spite of a ban on flights, articulated by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf with considerable swagger: "You fly, you die.") The consequences were devastating. Hussein's forces leveled the historical centers of the Shiite towns, bombarded sacred Shiite shrines and executed thousands on the spot. By some estimates, 100,000 people died in reprisal killings between March and September. Many of these atrocities were committed in proximity to American troops, who were under orders not to intervene.


This history is no doubt uncomfortable for the current President Bush, since it was his own father who committed what Galbraith rightly calls "a mistake of historic proportions." Those who seek to abandon Iraq today would risk repeating the catastrophic mistakes not only of Vietnam but also of Iraq after the Gulf War.


Article
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Vietnam, Iraq and ..... Iraq
« Reply #1 on: August 29, 2007, 01:52:17 PM »
One can only wonder WHEN Juniorbush would have deemed a withdrawal from Vietnam timely.

The US involvement started in 1964 with advisors and lasted until 1977. I would think that anything that could not be done in 13 years could bnot be done at all.

One also wonders why Juniortbush and Cheney did not offer their own miserable bodies as weapons of war in this glorious cause.

Who Knows? Perhaps their participation might have snatched victory from the very jaws of defeat.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Vietnam, Iraq and ..... Iraq
« Reply #2 on: August 29, 2007, 02:13:14 PM »
I would think that anything that could not be done in 13 years could bnot be done at all.

The Cathedral of Sao Paulo, built during the 20th century took 40 years to complete.

By your statement, it could not be done at all.

There are many human endeavors that take more than 13 years to complete.


Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Vietnam, Iraq and ..... Iraq
« Reply #3 on: August 29, 2007, 02:31:03 PM »
D'OH       ;)
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Vietnam, Iraq and ..... Iraq
« Reply #4 on: August 29, 2007, 04:17:38 PM »
What a massively stupid editorial. One that would appeal to someone...well, yes.

Quote
In a skillful bit of political jujitsu

LOLOLOL

This Vietnam victimisation revisionism has been worked on for two decades at least. Bush was hardly the inventor and hardly the first to discuss it. If anything it shows a real desperation in drawing the comparison.

Iraq is nothing like Vietnam and Vietnam was nothing like Iraq. This is disengenuous drivel promoted by people who should no better to simpletons who await eagerly with their spoons to lap it up.
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Vietnam, Iraq and ..... Iraq
« Reply #5 on: August 29, 2007, 04:23:27 PM »
What a massively stupid editorial. One that would appeal to someone...well, yes.

Spoken like a true believer to the Anti-war, anti Bush movement      ;)


This Vietnam victimisation revisionism has been worked on for two decades at least. Bush was hardly the inventor and hardly the first to discuss it. If anything it shows a real desperation in drawing the comparison.  Iraq is nothing like Vietnam and Vietnam was nothing like Iraq.

LOL, and yet the left, and those completely saturated with BDS, will trip all over themselves in trying to make the quagmire-like comparison


This is disengenuous drivel promoted by people who should no better to simpletons who await eagerly with their spoons to lap it up.

Well, at least we know who to focus that spotlight of disengenuous uon.....those that keep perseverating the connection, as if there was one
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Vietnam, Iraq and ..... Iraq
« Reply #6 on: August 29, 2007, 04:27:32 PM »
Spoken like a true believer to the Anti-war, anti Bush movement      ;)

Ah, name calling. No, spoken like someone who actually gives a damn about history.

Quote
LOL, and yet the left, and those completely saturated with BDS, will trip all over themselves in trying to make the quagmire-like comparison

So, if one side is doing it, then the other side can to? Nice. The truth gets massacred somewhere in between.

Quote
Well, at least we know who to focus that spotlight of disengenuous uon.....those that keep perseverating the connection, as if there was one

Oooh, is it the word of the day: to perseverate? ;)

You realise you and Bush are two of the people you describe?
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Vietnam, Iraq and ..... Iraq
« Reply #7 on: August 29, 2007, 04:29:19 PM »
So, if one side is doing it, then the other side can to?

That's what I keep hearing from both sides.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Vietnam, Iraq and ..... Iraq
« Reply #8 on: August 29, 2007, 04:30:21 PM »
Spoken like a true believer to the Anti-war, anti Bush movement      ;)

Ah, name calling.

Ahh, I didn't realize being Anti-war or anti-Bush was "name calling"  Boy how bars have been lowered

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Vietnam, Iraq and ..... Iraq
« Reply #9 on: August 29, 2007, 04:31:03 PM »
That's what I keep hearing from both sides.

That does seem to be the new "standard."
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Vietnam, Iraq and ..... Iraq
« Reply #10 on: August 29, 2007, 04:31:55 PM »
Ahh, I didn't realize being Anti-war or anti-Bush was "name calling"  Boy how bars have been lowered

*yawn*

Bringing your best again, I see.
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

Richpo64

  • Guest
Re: Vietnam, Iraq and ..... Iraq
« Reply #11 on: August 29, 2007, 04:50:56 PM »
>>One also wonders why Juniortbush and Cheney did not offer their own miserable bodies as weapons of war in this glorious cause.<<

I believe they do so every day. Don't they? They have been been to war zones, they are both targets for leftists and terrorists.

Also, weren't people like you lamenting a near miss on Vice President Cheney a few months ago?

Think.

Richpo64

  • Guest
Re: Vietnam, Iraq and ..... Iraq
« Reply #12 on: August 29, 2007, 05:06:36 PM »
The Killing Fields of Honest History

By Mark D. Tooley
FrontPageMagazine.com | 8/29/2007

Jim Wallis' Sojourners reacted quickly to President Bush's comparison of Iraq to Vietnam. The Iraq-Vietnam comparison is in fact a frequent one for the Religious Left, but not the way Bush described it. For the Religious Left, every U.S. military involvement is "another Vietnam," i.e. a futile quagmire pitting enlightened Third World liberationists against clueless Western imperialists.

Bush challenged that narrative by pointing to Indochina's mass murder and oppression after the U.S. Congress of 1975 virtually cut off all aid to anti-communist resistance in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. After Indochina's "liberation" by Soviet-backed North Vietnam, the North Vietnamese-backed Pathet Lao in Laos, and the Chinese-backed Pol Pot in Cambodia, at least two million were murdered by these "liberators." Millions more endured imprisonment and persecution, while hundreds of thousands fled across the seas, thousands of whom would drown.

Cambodia's communist rulers were by far Indochina's most homocidal, conducting perhaps the most systematic, government-orchestrated genocide since the Nazis. (Mao's China and Sudan's current Islamist regime killed more victims, but their depravity was spread across more years and conducted among larger populations.)

Even more than the secular Left, the Religious Left is discomfitted by talk of genocide by Third World liberationists. For these left-wing religionists, the wars of Indochina were a spiritual catharsis. Previously moderate liberals who presided over America's most important religious institutions were radicalized by Vietnam, ultimately not only opposing the war but aligning rather openly with North Vietnam and the communist insurgencies. "Liberation Theology" freed these religionists from having to preach the old-time Gospel, with its conventional morality. Thanks to the war, the new Religious Left of the 1960's and 1970's was able to proclaim a new gospel of political and economic revolution.

To the extent the Religious Left will ever reference the horrors of Indochina after the U.S. withdrawal, it will fault the U.S. exclusively for causing what the U.S. expended 50,000 American lives in trying to prevent.

So, when Bush pointed to the killing fields of Pol Pot's Cambodia as one ugly fruit of the U.S. abandonment of Indochina, Sojourners board member David Cortright responded on the Sojourners website with a polemic ironically called "Distorting History."

"In an attempt to scare off support for a military exit from Iraq, President Bush in a recent speech made the false claim that U.S. disengagement from Vietnam caused the killing fields in Cambodia," noted Cortwright, who is also a fellow at the Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies and heads the Fourth Freedom Forum. "The price of American withdrawal, the president said, was paid in the agonies of millions of innocent people."

But Cortwright explained that the U.S. is really at fault for these agonies of so many millions of Indochinese, especially the suffering Cambodians.
.
"What actually happened in Cambodia was this: President Nixon spread the Vietnam War into Cambodia," Cortwright explained, in the routine narrative of the Left. "He ordered the so-called 'secret bombing' of Cambodia, in which U.S. B-52 bombers pounded the countryside for years."

Cortwright also allged that the U.S. supported the March 1970 overthrow of Cambodia's Prince Norodom Sihanouk, who, according to Cortwright, "had tried to keep his country out of the war." In April 1970, Nixon ordered an "incursion" by U.S. troops into Cambodia, which Cortwright described as resulting "in widespread violence and chaos, especially in the countryside." These U.S. actions fueled support for Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge, which "overran the government" in 1975, he recounted. "The Khmer Rouge emptied Phnom Penh and instituted their reign of terror by claiming that the U.S. was going to bomb."

It is all very simple. "The killing fields were the tragic result of the Nixon administration's misguided policies of military escalation," Cortwright wrote. "If the United States had not bombed and invaded Cambodia, and if we had let Sihanouk alone, Cambodia would not have suffered its horrible fate."

Perhaps in follow-up articles, Cortwright will describe how the brief U.S. intervention in the Russian Civil War provoked Joseph Stalin into murdering millions, and how U.S. support for Chiang Kai-shek's resistance to the Chinese Communists can be blamed for Mao Zedong's destruction of tens of millions of Chinese.

Religious Leftists like Cortwright and Sojourners do not like to admit that Communism is by definition prone to mass murder. But the Religious Left, to the extent it acknowledges history, does so only through the prism of its own personal experiences. Cortwright recalled the mass demonstrations that followed the U.S. incursion into Cambodia in 1970. How glorious those demonstrators were, standing up to the Nixon administration!

Predictably, Cortwright did not explain why there was a U.S. incursion into Cambodia. North Vietnamese and its Viet Cong allies were attacking South Vietnamese and U.S. forces from base camps in Cambodia. The North Vietnamese also hoped to establish North Vietnam's control over Cambodia with the rest of Indochina.

Powerless to move against the North Vietnamese troops occupying his own country, Prince Sihanouk in fact had quietly acquiesced to the U.S. "secret" bombing of these communist camps. Sihanouk publicly denounced the North Vietnamese "aggression" on his country, which included 35,000 to 40,000 troops. But he refused to enlarge Cambodia's military, fearing it would overthrow him.

Meanwhile, Cambodia's rage over North Vietnam's unwelcome military presence increased. Thousands of Cambodians trashed North Vietnam's embassy. Exasperated by Sihanouk's inaction against the North Vietnamese, who had ignored an ultimatum to leave Cambodia, the Cambodian National Assembly voted unanimously in March 1970 to remove Sihanouk from power. Sihanouk's own prime minister, Lon Nol, continued to govern Cambodia, but with Sihanouk now in exile.

The U.S. had in fact preferred a continuation of Sihanouk's rule, believing that his "neutral" regime would have more staying power against the communists than a more aggressive successor regime. But with little advance warning, the U.S. learned of Sihanouk's peaceful overthrow, and slowly began backing the new Lon Nol government's struggle against both the Khmer Rouge and the North Vietnamese. Thereafter, an indignant Sihanouk publicly aligned himself with the communists from his exile in China.

North Vietnamese forces began leaving their "sanctuaries" in eastern Cambodia and plunged more deeply into Cambodia to overthrow the Lon Nol government. Fearful of Cambodia's falling completely to North Vietnam, the South Vietnamese urged a more united front with anti-communist government in Cambodia and Laos. In May 1970, determined to stabilize both Cambodia and South Vietnam, U.S. forces accompanied South Vietnamese forces in attacking North Vietnam's sanctuaries in Cambodia.

The U.S.-South Vietnamese incursion of 1970, which lasted only a few months, was largely successful. North Vietnamese operations in Cambodia were crippled, and U.S. casulaties were reduced. The Cambodian government was bolstered, and the gradual U.S. military withdrawal from South Vietnam was able to proceed. The Lon Nol regime survived until 1975, when the U.S. Congress refused to grant additional military aid to either it or the South Vietnamese.

After the Khmer Rouge seized Cambodia in April 1975, they began the systematic destruction of at least 1.5 million Cambodians and perhaps as many as 3 million through executions, forced starvation and slave labor. Its tyranny and mass murder continued until 1979, when communist Vietnam invaded and installed its own puppet government.

The Religious Left never expressed much interest in one of the worst holocausts of the 20th century. In 1976, a World Council of Churches official infamously remarked about Pol Pot's genocidal rule: "We are all sinners." The National Council of Churches (NCC) waited until 1978 to acknowledge the Khmer Rouge's "extermination of large segments" of Cambodia. But naturally the NCC faulted the U.S., whose support for a "reactionary government" had helped empower the Khmer Rouge.
"Even as we deplored the actions of our government during the Vietnam War, which extended the war to Cambodia, we now deplore the deliberate tragedy forced on the people of [Cambodia] by its government," the NCC intoned, unable to morally differentiate between the U.S. and the Cambodian genocidalists whom the U.S. had faught to oppose.

Cambodia's horrors began with communist North Vietnam's invasion, not the U.S. and South Vietnamese response to that violation of Cambodia's neutrality. But too often, the Religious Left prefers, in Sojourners spokesman David Cortwright's apt phrase, the expedient of "Distorting History."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark D. Tooley directs the United Methodist committee at the Institute on Religion and Democracy.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Vietnam, Iraq and ..... Iraq
« Reply #13 on: August 29, 2007, 05:08:40 PM »
Ahh, I didn't realize being Anti-war or anti-Bush was "name calling"  Boy how bars have been lowered

*yawn*  Bringing your best again, I see.

Yea, right up there with that brilliant retort of "massively stupid editorial".  Wow, adverb in front of the adjective for extra emphasis.  I learn from the best
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Vietnam, Iraq and ..... Iraq
« Reply #14 on: August 29, 2007, 05:26:28 PM »
Stupid article, so dumb I hardly know where to start.  So the Vietnamese today don't like Russians and like Americans?  BFD, the issue was never about America or Russia, it was independence for Vietnam.  Once they were out from under foreign domination, they were, like any other sovereign state, free to choose their own friends.  That's what they fought to achieve, that's what the Americans fought to deprive them of.

The Cambodian killing grounds?  As I and others have pointed out, seemingly to no effect, the Khmer Rouge victory was an inevitable result of American meddling in a country they didn't understand and cared nothing about.  Bush being the lying bastard he is, he naturally tries to lay this whole tragedy at the feet of the American peace movement, whereas in fact it was the same deadly combination of arrogance, militarism, fascism and neo-colonialism that 42 years later is still trying to fight its way out of another quagmire of its own making.

The desperation of the lunatic right is becoming more apparent with each such article.  Every lying excuse the bastards have for their naked oil grab has evaporated, from WMD to "democracy" and now it's "Cambodia."  What a fucking joke.