Kunich, surely you're kidding...right? (nothing to do with racing)



Status
Not open for further replies.
"David Ryan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Jonathan v.d. Sluis" wrote:
> >
> > You missed another one: Cambodia. It was dragged into war by the US, which eventually led to the
> > 'Killing Fields'. A few days ago I saw some footage of 'carpet bombing' around Pnomh Penh. It
> > was horrible.
>
> Shows how little most people know but the propaganda. The Ho Chi Minh trail (the supply line from
> the communist north) skirted the defended border and bombing by going through Cambodia. And the
> growth of the Khmer Rouge did not depend on US involvement no matter how many times America-hating
> professors claim it did.

You're right. As wrong as the bombing of Cambodia was, it can't be blamed for the Killing Fields.
 
They are a breakaway province because there is uranium on their land.

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "TritonRider" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Just a little more info on human nature as it relates to getting
along and
> > peace. Pretty gloomy reading, scan through the tables especialy.
> >
> >
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/392/spy/Ongoing%20World%20Conflicts.h tm
>
>
>
> One of the sentences in there made me laugh.
>
> "China also claims Taiwan and Nepal, which it considers breakaway
provinces"
>
>
> Taiwan yes, but Nepal?
>
> That's funny. Nepal is on the other side of the Himalaya. I've
ridden a MTB down the Lhasa to Kathmandu route and there is almost no
> military presence at the border. Not only that, there is hardly a
road to the border. The roads leading down those gorges drop
> 15,000 vertical feet, the way is steep and there are thousands of
waterfalls, fueled by glacial melting. The 'road' we were on was
> out in 5 different spots (erosion from waterfalls). At the bottom of
one of the wash-outs was a truck hundreds of feet down. The
> commerce that was being conducted was via porters, on foot.
>
> I don't think that China has ever gone after Nepal in its 5000 year
history. It's simply not geographically feasible.
>
> Taiwan is another matter. They view Taiwan the same way we would
view Cuba if the Confederates holed up there after the Civil War.
>
>
> Anyways, that site had interesting reading, but obviously parts of
it need to be taken with a grain of salt.
 
"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "David Ryan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > "Jonathan v.d. Sluis" wrote:
> > >
> > > You missed another one: Cambodia. It was dragged into war by the
US, which
> > > eventually led to the 'Killing Fields'. A few days ago I saw
some footage of
> > > 'carpet bombing' around Pnomh Penh. It was horrible.
> >
> > Shows how little most people know but the propaganda. The Ho Chi Minh trail (the supply line
> > from the communist north) skirted the defended border and bombing by going through Cambodia. And
> > the growth of the Khmer Rouge did not depend on US involvement no matter how many times
> > America-hating professors claim it did.
>
> You're right. As wrong as the bombing of Cambodia was, it can't be
blamed for the Killing Fields.

There is always someone to say, "If they didn't think that there was a Santa Claus they would never
have been so upset to find out that there was no such person and killed 12 million people. So the
blame goes on their mother for telling them there was a Santa Claus."
 
"Curtis L. Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "Stewart Fleming" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> > > "TritonRider" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > >>Just a little more info on human nature as it relates to getting along
> and
> > >>peace. Pretty gloomy reading, scan through the tables especialy.
> > >>
> > >>http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/392/spy/Ongoing%20World%20Conflicts.htm
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > One of the sentences in there made me laugh.
> > >
> > > "China also claims Taiwan and Nepal, which it considers breakaway
> provinces"
> >
> > Tibet instead of Nepal? STF
> >
> Tibet is hardly a breakaway province, occupied as it is by PRC troops. Last two attempts at
> breakaway were relative bloody for the small population.
>
> China has a long memory - they still consider Viet Nam a tributary,

That's a lie. I have been reading Tibet propaganda for a number of years as a hobby. The most
bizarre lies had come from the STF.
 
Stewart Fleming <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Curtis L. Russell wrote:
>
> > Tibet is hardly a breakaway province, occupied as it is by PRC troops. Last two attempts at
> > breakaway were relative bloody for the small population.
>
> China considers Tibet a Chinese territory. (Note I didn't make the original description of
> "breakaway province".)
>
> In 1949, shortly after the PRC was founded, the call went out from Beijing to "liberate all
> Chinese territories, including Xinjiang, Hainan and Taiwan." (Note the use of the word "liberate"
> to describe the illegal invasion and annexation of another nation.) The Chinese army destroyed the
> Tibetan army in about 2 days and has been there ever since. As you may know, the Dalai Lama stayed
> on as token Head of State for some years before escaping over the mountains in 1959.
>
> Interesting to see what the fledgling UN did in response to requests for assistance (even
> discussion in General Assembly)...

> STF

That's a lie. China never invaded Tibet. Tibet was a part of China and was recognized by all the
Nations on earth. USA recognized Tibet as part of China in the 40s. Then came the Korean War
(1950-1953) USA launched a massive world wide propaganda campaign claiming that China invaded a part
of itself, Tibet.

See for example this US State Department Document. It clearly stated that USA recognized Tibet as a
part of China in
1942:
----
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/bureaus/eap/950907WiedemannTibet.html The United States considers the
Tibet Autonomous Region or TAR (hereinafter referred to as "Tibet") as part of the People's Republic
of China. This longstanding policy is consistent with the view of the entire international
community, including all China's neighbors: no country recognizes Tibet as a sovereign state.
Moreover, U.S. acceptance of China's claim of sovereignty over Tibet predates the establishment of
the People's Republic of China. In 1942, we told the Nationalist Chinese government then
headquartered in Chongqing (Chungking) that we had "at no time raised
(a) question" over Chinese claims to Tibet.
-----------
There is currently a massive US and UK gov sponsored propaganda campaign against China funding via
the US national Endowment for Democracy and the British Westminister Foundation For Democracy. There
are 400,000 web pages on Tibet in the internet. Talking a closer look at these sites, one will find
that most of these propaganda have originated from 3 main sources

(1) The Tibet Information Network (TIN), based in London
(2) Tibetan Center for Human Rights and Democracy, based in India.
(3) International Campaign for Tibet All 3 organizations receive funding from the U.S. National
Endowment For Democracy (NED), a CIA front specializing in psychological warfare. They are
currently trying to overthrow the Gov of Venezuela.

Links; http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/04/25/1019441285250.html Sydney Morning Herald AU.
Washington channelled funds to groups that opposed Chavez By Christopher Marquis in Washington
April 26 2002
 
Yu wrote:

> That's a lie. China never invaded Tibet.

Dammit, you'll probably tell me about the Seventeen Point Agreement next. STF
 
Yu wrote:

> The most bizarre lies had come from the STF.

That's STFU to you.
 
David Ryan <[email protected]> schreef in berichtnieuws
[email protected]...
> "Jonathan v.d. Sluis" wrote:
> >
> > BikeAdman <[email protected]> schreef in berichtnieuws
> > [email protected]...
> > > Tom Kunich wrote: "Please remember that the world has never had a
longer
> > period
> > > of peace than the last 60 years that America has bought with its
money,
> > its
> > > power and its blood."
> > >
> > > Tom, Tom, Tom, I really do do my earnest best to let you go your own,
odd
> > way,
> > > but this, Tom, this is too much. You're kidding, right?
> > >
> > > Just as a top-of-the mind example where the U.S. has inserted troops,
or
> > done
> > > black bag ops attended by death in these last sixty "peaceful" years:
> > >
> > > Afghanistan Dominican Republic Chile Greece Grenada Guatamala Iran Iraq Korea Kosovo Nicaragua
> > > The Phillipines Sudan
> > >
> > > Hmm, I keep thinking I'm missing one. Oh, yes. Vietnam.
> > >
> > > Richard
> >
> > You missed another one: Cambodia. It was dragged into war by the US,
which
> > eventually led to the 'Killing Fields'. A few days ago I saw some
footage of
> > 'carpet bombing' around Pnomh Penh. It was horrible.
>
> Shows how little most people know but the propaganda. The Ho Chi Minh trail (the supply line from
> the communist north) skirted the defended border and bombing by going through Cambodia. And the
> growth of the Khmer Rouge did not depend on US involvement no matter how many times America-hating
> professors claim it did.

Well as I understood it, the war wouldn't have spilled over into Cambodia if the US hadn't bombed.
Ofcourse, the number of innocent Cambodians killed by those bombs is less than the number of
innocents killed by the Khmer Rouge, which is a fine reason not to assume any responsibility. I am
convinced that all American actions were well-intended, and that the people were thankful in the
long run. Those who survived, at least.

Jonathan.
 
"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Well as I understood it, the war wouldn't have spilled over into Cambodia if the US hadn't bombed.
> Ofcourse, the number of innocent Cambodians killed by those bombs is less than the number of
> innocents killed by the Khmer Rouge, which is a fine reason not to assume any responsibility. I am
> convinced that all American actions were well-intended, and that the people were thankful in the
> long run. Those who survived, at least.

Are there any other instances you can recall where you blame getting bombed as an excuse for
executing 30% of your countrymen?
 
"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Are there any other instances you can recall where you blame getting
bombed as an excuse for executing 30% of your countrymen?

While I've gotten bombed and done some pretty stupid things, genocide hasn't been one of them.

While it would be foolish to argue that Pol Pot's reign was a direct result of the American bombing
of Cambodia, it would be just as foolish to argue that it had nothing to do with it. Certainly it
had the effect of destabilizing effect on the already tenuous Sihanouk government, and was one of
the many things that contributed to the fall of Lon Nol. A reasonable argument can be made that
without the American intervention in, and the bombing of Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge would have never
been able to sieze power, and the genocide would have never happened.
 
" Tim Mullin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Are there any other instances you can recall where you blame getting
> bombed as an excuse for executing 30% of your countrymen?
>
> While I've gotten bombed and done some pretty stupid things, genocide hasn't been one of them.
>
> While it would be foolish to argue that Pol Pot's reign was a direct result of the American
> bombing of Cambodia, it would be just as foolish to argue that it had nothing to do with it.
> Certainly it had the effect of destabilizing effect on the already tenuous Sihanouk government,
> and was one of the many things that contributed to the fall of Lon Nol. A reasonable argument can
> be made that without the American intervention in, and the bombing of Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge
> would have never been able to sieze power, and the genocide would have never happened.

Those sort of "what-if's" are unproveable and therefore a waste of time to debate. (how about the
"if I hadn't been abused as a kid, then I wouldn't have grown up to be violent" line of defense)

As for things that did happen, I think it is absurd to blame anyone but the Khmer Rouge for the
Killing Fields.
 
"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Well as I understood it, the war wouldn't have spilled over into Cambodia if the US hadn't
> > bombed. Ofcourse, the number of innocent Cambodians killed by those bombs is less than the
> > number of innocents killed by the Khmer Rouge, which is a fine reason not to assume any
> > responsibility. I am convinced that all American actions were well-intended, and that the people
> > were thankful in the long run. Those who survived, at least.
>
> Are there any other instances you can recall where you blame getting bombed as an excuse for
> executing 30% of your countrymen?

Come on Henry. Jon's thinking isn't terribly off kilter though still wrong. It was the American's
truly effective aerial campaign that forced the North Viets into Cambodia. And it was the presence
of the Viets (not the invasion by the Americans) which led to the unrest and eventually rebel groups
the chief (and later victor)among whom was Pol Pot which led to the greatest carnage in the later
part of the 20th century.

So indirectly or directly you could make a case that the USA was responsible for Cambodia. But the
fact is that Pol Pot was responsible for the killing fields and no one else. Other despots have
managed to sieze power without killing 20% of their subjects.

The mind boggles about what we're going to find when we get into Iraq.
 
"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> As for things that did happen, I think it is absurd to blame anyone but
the Khmer Rouge for the Killing Fields.

So you contend that had the Khmer Rouge met with failure, and Pol Pot not come to power, somehow the
result would have been the same? How does that happen? And if it doesn't, then those who helped him
to power--even though unintentionally--share in some part of the blame.
 
" Tim Mullin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > As for things that did happen, I think it is absurd to blame anyone but
> the Khmer Rouge for the Killing Fields.
>
> So you contend that had the Khmer Rouge met with failure, and Pol Pot not come to power, somehow
> the result would have been the same? How does that happen? And if it doesn't, then those who
> helped him to power--even though unintentionally--share in some part of the blame.

The Treaty of Versailles, which ended WW1, was a punitive action against the losers (the Germans).

It humiliated them, forcing them to pay war reparations, giving rise to hyperinflation there and
ruining their economy. The result was Adolf ******.

Since ****** was partially the fault of the Allies of WW1, are the Allies responsible for The
Holocaust?

K. Gringioni

ps. my kindergarten teacher made me sit in a corner. I was traumatized. It's her fault that I kick
my dog when I come home from work.
 
"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Since ****** was partially the fault of the Allies of WW1, are the Allies
responsible for The Holocaust?

Had ****** not come to power, would the Holocaust have happened? Most probably not. So, yes, in some
small part those who forged the Treaty Versailles must shoulder some of the responsability. Should
they be punished? No. Should the recognize their role in history? Yes. This is no radical concept.
If a nation or coallition understands and acknowledges its actions and how they relate to history,
that is a good thing. The Marshall Plan is a fine example. Rather than repeat the mistakes made in
the Treaty of Versailles, they took a far less punative, more humane course. And guess what? It paid
off. You see, history is good for more than fueling endless, stupid debates on the usenet. If you
study it, and learn from it, you can keep from making the same mistakes over and over and over
again. Of course, if you fail to accept responsabilty for your actions, and walk around with your
head up your ass, you're going to find yourself walking in very small circles, wondering why it
seems like you've been here before.

> ps. my kindergarten teacher made me sit in a corner. I was traumatized.
It's her fault that I kick my dog when I come home from
> work.

Was she make you old, fat, bald, and slow? No. And that's really making you so angry you kick your
dog. Cut your teacher some slack, dude.
 
Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> schreef in berichtnieuws
[email protected]...
> Those sort of "what-if's" are unproveable and therefore a waste of time to
debate. (how about the "if I hadn't been abused as a kid,
> then I wouldn't have grown up to be violent" line of defense)

The American solution was: abuse the kid a bit more, and leave when the kid is abused by its
parents. A friend of mine is a psychologist that works as a researcher of post-traumatic stress in
Cambodia. Those people's lives are ruined and you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
Your ignorance of human tragedy and inability to put responsibility where it belongs is saddening.

>
> As for things that did happen, I think it is absurd to blame anyone but
the Khmer Rouge for the Killing Fields.

How can you believe that the part played by the Americans in Cambodia was in any way positive? Do
you know how many bombs were thrown on people who had done nothing at all to deserve being killed?
If the US government in its own country so much as hits someone in the face, that person will sue
for millions of dollars. Non-americans are first decimated and left in the hands of a psychopath,
without any legal repercussions. Cambodia is damaged for generations to come, and the only thing you
can do is throw some Bush-wacked logic around: 'The Khmer Rouge were evil, so we were good.'

I blame the US for what they did: killing innocent people and then abandoning those that
weren't killed.

Jonathan.
 
"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> schreef in berichtnieuws
> [email protected]...
> > Those sort of "what-if's" are unproveable and therefore a waste of time to
> debate. (how about the "if I hadn't been abused as a kid,
> > then I wouldn't have grown up to be violent" line of defense)
>
> The American solution was: abuse the kid a bit more, and leave when the kid is abused by its
> parents. A friend of mine is a psychologist that works as a researcher of post-traumatic stress in
> Cambodia. Those people's lives are ruined and you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
> Your ignorance of human tragedy and inability to put responsibility where it belongs is saddening.
>
> >
> > As for things that did happen, I think it is absurd to blame anyone but
> the Khmer Rouge for the Killing Fields.
>
> How can you believe that the part played by the Americans in Cambodia was in any way positive?

You are a dumbass.

No one ever said what the US did was good. I'm just saying you can't blame the Khmer Rouge's actions
on us. They are responsible for their own actions.
 
"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> researcher of post-traumatic stress in Cambodia. Those people's lives are ruined and you obviously
> don't know what you're talking about. Your ignorance of human tragedy and inability to put
> responsibility where it belongs is saddening.

Here you are being just as obtuse as Henry. He doesn't understand the tragedy of Kampuchia? I
haven't seen that demonstrated. Nor has he failed to assign the responsability where the majority of
it primarily belongs....squarely on the shoulders of Pol Pot. He oversimplifies history in one
direction, while your original contention that Cambodia was "dragged into the war by the US,"
grossly oversimplifies in the other direction. The Vietnamese took the war to an already fractured
Cambodia a full year before the US became involved. The Khmer Rouge's attrocities were as much a
result of existing ethnic divisions and the brutal, autocratic rule of Sihanook, as of the US
involvement in Cambodia.
 
Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> schreef in berichtnieuws
[email protected]...
>
> "Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> schreef in berichtnieuws
> > [email protected]...
> > > Those sort of "what-if's" are unproveable and therefore a waste of
time to
> > debate. (how about the "if I hadn't been abused as a kid,
> > > then I wouldn't have grown up to be violent" line of defense)
> >
> > The American solution was: abuse the kid a bit more, and leave when the
kid
> > is abused by its parents. A friend of mine is a psychologist that works
as a
> > researcher of post-traumatic stress in Cambodia. Those people's lives
are
> > ruined and you obviously don't know what you're talking about. Your ignorance of human tragedy
> > and inability to put responsibility where it belongs is saddening.
> >
> > >
> > > As for things that did happen, I think it is absurd to blame anyone
but
> > the Khmer Rouge for the Killing Fields.
> >
> > How can you believe that the part played by the Americans in Cambodia
was in
> > any way positive?
>
>
> You are a dumbass.
>
> No one ever said what the US did was good.

Neither did I blame the US for anything that was done by Pol Pot's gang, but it was OK to interpret
me as such, right?

Ofcourse, these days it is common practice to blame Saddam's actions on those who do not want to
attack Iraq. It's the same fallacy, but when others, like the French, are victim of it, it's
perfectly fine, right? Even my own (Dutch) goverment reasons that those unwilling to attack Iraq
must be in league with Saddam Hussein.

But I admit it's wrong to suggest that leaving the citizens of Phnom Penh alone with the Khmer Rouge
made the US accomplice to murder. After all, if I had a kid and left him into a cage of hungry
wolves, the wolves would be guilty of murder, right?

> I'm just saying you can't blame the Khmer Rouge's actions on us. They are
responsible for
> their own actions.

If 'you' are so proud of what 'you' did, then admit the full scope of it. Face up to the tragedy
that was caused by the USA in Cambodia, and never punished. Pointing at others who did worse is a
lousy way of admitting guilt.
 
> The Treaty of Versailles, which ended WW1, was a punitive action against the losers (the Germans).
>
> It humiliated them, forcing them to pay war reparations, giving rise to hyperinflation there and
> ruining their economy. The result was Adolf ******.
>
> Since ****** was partially the fault of the Allies of WW1, are the Allies responsible for The
> Holocaust?
>
>
>
> K. Gringioni
>

It would be simpler (and equally as ludicrous) to point the finger at Ma ****** for not having had
an abortion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
Replies
12
Views
2K
Road Cycling
Fred Fredburger
F
K
Replies
0
Views
278
Road Cycling
Kurgan Gringioni
K
F
Replies
1
Views
356
Road Cycling
Richard Cheese
R
K
Replies
45
Views
934
Road Cycling
howard kveck
H
C
Replies
5
Views
416
Road Cycling
Mike Jacoubowsky
M
B
Replies
7
Views
364
Road Cycling
Howard Kveck
H