T1B

mvscal wrote: He punked the Soviets in the Cuban Missile crisis.

Hardly, as soon as those ships turned around, the US pulled its missiles out of Turkey. He cut a deal and it wasn't advertised.

mvscal wrote:Are you attempting to suggest that Communist insurgencies did not take place throughout Southeast Asia? You sure about that, Felchie?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:which was paralyzed with the real possibility of JFK cutting off all U.S. aid

US aid to Israel added up to jackfuckingshit in 1963, you stupid asshole.

No, besides the Vietnamese communist takeover, there was no domino effect at all. The Cambodian nightmare, of course, was ushered in as a result of our horrendous blundering in the region.

As for U.S. aid to the nascent apartheid state experiment, it was low initially because the Kennedy administration was not favorably disposed to it on several counts. After they whacked JFK, U.S. aid skyrocketed in direct order. That's the point. They knew the U.S. was their most crucial ally, as it's indeed turned out completely--and shamefully.

Wrong again, as usual. Crack a book someday, you brainless asswipe. Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, The Philippines, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and India.

Aid to Israel didn't skyrocket until after the Camp David Accords in 1978, you stupid asshole.

Communist "insurgencies" by your idiotic standards would thus include Italy and France. The point is there was no domino effect. None of those nations became communist. Are you drunk?

As for U.S. aid to Israel, it started rising IMMEDIATELY after they whacked JFK. We notice you weasel away from admitting their dire sudden fear of his direct threat to cut them off for making illegal nuclear weapons.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Communist "insurgencies" by your idiotic standards would thus include Italy and France.

Italy and France are in Southeast Asia?

The point is there was no domino effect.

Right. It was more of a tsunami that swamped the entire region than a domino effect.

None of those nations became communist.

It certainly wasn't for any lack of trying on the part of the Communists and their Chinese masters. How is it relevant that they lost those battles? In fact, it is likely that the only reason they lost those battles was because they were aggressively confronted elsewhere.

As for U.S. aid to Israel, it started rising IMMEDIATELY after they whacked JFK.

A baldface lie.

We notice you weasel away from admitting their dire sudden fear of his direct threat to cut them off for making illegal nuclear weapons.

Dire fear of losing a whopping $63 million? Hyperventilate much? Their nuclear program was secrect not illegal, you stupid douche. Israel never signed the Nonproliferation Treaty. They're free to develop nukes till they're blue in the face.

Besides the hundreds of billions they were to eventually receive from our tax dollars, they really wanted to hold onto the automatic Security Council veto of ours to protect EVERY SINGLE item on their agenda over the years--regardless of how shameful and disgraceful this has proven to America.

As for the hysterically feared domino effect in Southeast Asia that never occurred--even after a decisive defeat of the mighty American war machine--none of the nations in the area faced any significant threat of a communist takeover. Oh, several became repressive right-wing regimes, but no commies. Or what?

mvscal wrote:Crack a book someday, you brainless asswipe.

2nded.

Some Fucking Retard wrote:No, besides the Vietnamese communist takeover, there was no domino effect at all. The Cambodian nightmare, of course, was ushered in as a result of our horrendous blundering in the region.

Because this nutjob seems to have studied a MUCH different history book from the ones I've read.

See, there was this dude named Ho Chi Minh, and a "domino effect" was absolutely what he was aiming for.

The communist revolution in Cambodia started in the mid-50's... crack a book sometime.

Khmer Rouge was marginal though, their membership prior to the bombing campaign was about 5,000. It shot up to 70 - 80,000 afterwards. When the rural population flooded into the cities looking for food (arable land was devastated) everything collapsed and Khmer Rouge really asserted itself. Whether they would have been a threat otherwise is up in the air.

Something else to consider is that Pol Pot gracefully accepted about 80 million from the US, Britain to wage war against Viet Nam.

Dr_Phibes wrote:
Something else to consider is that Pol Pot gracefully accepted about 80 million from the US, Britain to wage war against Viet Nam.

Wonderful strategy, that -- to fight off the murderous communists, give aid to... murderous communists.


Makes sense to me.

Yeah, Dins, that was the masterful statesmanship of Kissinger--perhaps the most demented and fraudulent international war criminal in American history.

The total lack of any domino effect in Southeast Asia was probably caused by our getting the fuck out, for starters.

As for the fake apartheid state whacking JFK because he was going to cut them off for secretly making nuclear weapons, this was apparently considered necessary--just like flaunting any and all international laws, etc.

Dr_Phibes wrote:Khmer Rouge was marginal though, their membership prior to the bombing campaign was about 5,000.

Pure horseshit. They were in control of most of the country before the bombing and their power was growing.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Yeah, Dins, that was the masterful statesmanship of Kissinger--perhaps the most demented and fraudulent international war criminal in American history.

Actually it was the masterful statesmanship of Zbigniew Brzezinski, you stupid fuck. This alleged aid did not begin until after the Khmer Rouge were overthrown.

The U.S. was working directly with the "Chinese masters" of communism to aid the Khmer Rouge. Pol Pot and his pals--not communists, btw,--were ushered into power in the wake of our horrific--and completely illegal--bombing of Cambodia.

There was no domino effect, period. On the contrary, the only actual domino effect was the installation and support of various heinous right-wing dictators.

Your idiotic inversion reflex is a tired and tedious waste of time. You've been proven dead wrong--just like yer boy Rove--on every single event you've dutifully parroted. And yet like him, you're still spewing gibberish--just droning the lies again and again.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Pol Pot and his pals--not communists, btw.

Oh they just called themselves the Communist Party of Kampuchea for giggles then? You are one pathetically stupid fuck.

mvscal wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Pol Pot and his pals--not communists, btw.

Oh they just called themselves the Communist Party of Kampuchea for giggles then? You are one pathetically stupid fuck.

Uhm... correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they actually outlaw money at some point?


And if by "no domino effect," you mean "all of Indochina falling like dominos," then you're spot-on.

Felcho is about as astute a student of history as he is of physics and chemistry.

They were in fact a radical nationalist fascist movement. Semantics don't really mean much in such a situation. point is, we angled them in and they sure as hell don't count as vindicating the Cold War hysteria that was--apparently is still belched by the likes of you.

Here's the Khmer Rouge explaining it..

"We are not communists ... we are revolutionaries" who do not 'belong to the commonly accepted grouping of communist Indochina."(Ieng Sary, 1977, quoted by Vickery, Cambodia: 1978-1983, p. 288).

And as for Vietnam finally taking back their country after a century or so of European and American domination, this isn't "dominoes," it's a victory for the Vietnamese, period.

Khmer Rouge can't really be looked at as a monolithic entity, there were at least three different factions all with their own power base. They were busy beating the shit out of each other when the worst was going on. When they did get it together, it wasn't in the best of situations, Lon Nol had already driven the place into the ground, the race for 'agrarian re-birth' was a disaster, those people were all going to die anyway, there was nothing to eat.
I think it's better viewed as a catastrophe from the structural failure of the country and incompetence.

Dinsdale wrote:Uhm... correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they actually outlaw money at some point?

They outlawed pretty much everything. You could be executed for engaging in such capitalist enterprises as berry picking to supplement your diet of sticks and gravel.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:They were in fact a radical nationalist fascist movement.

No, they were communists. They were educated in Paris. Joined the French Communist Party and were members of various communist organization on their return to Cambodia where they eventually coalesced into the Communist Party of Kampuchea. They were neither nationalists or fascists.

You remain a monument to the failure of public education.

"We are not communists ... we are revolutionaries" who do not 'belong to the commonly accepted grouping of communist Indochina."(Ieng Sary, 1977, quoted by Vickery, Cambodia: 1978-1983, p. 288).

"The commonly accepted grouping of communist Indochina" was dominated by the Vietnamese as was the early communist movement in Cambodia. The Khmer Rouge wanted to distance themselves from the Vietnamese but they were, arguably, the most hard core commies the world has ever had the misfortune to host.

Definitely communists, hardly orthodox Maoists, there was a method to their 'madness' and evacuating the urban population did make sense. The Soviets prevented a similar situation in the 30's famine by sealing off the cities to refugees, Khmer Rouge didn't have that luxury. Their issues on the Viet Nam border go back in time, those were age old rivalries, territorial disputes playing themselves out, set to the tune of modern revolutionary rhetoric

Dr_Phibes wrote:and evacuating the urban population did make sense.

Maybe if you're batshit crazy.

It's simplistic but, you've got millions of people with no food and no way to remedy the situation.

Dr_Phibes wrote:It's simplistic but, you've got millions of people with no food and no way to remedy the situation.

They didn't have millions of people with no food until after they began their "agrarian reforms," idiot.
Then they compounded the problem by forcing hundreds of thousands of people who didn't know jackshit about farming into the countryside to starve.

Sorta like the morons in Zimbabwe.

The rural population didn't flood into Phnom Pen to catch a show, the population explosion kicked of prior to 1975 under Nol, check your timelines, comrade, Khmer Rouge inherited the problem and they didn't exactly help, but there was nothing to be done. The collapse began in 1970.