Bobby Kennedy

[PoS]

Hindsight is 20/20. Are you going to blame Nixon for not being able to see into the future now?

Anyone with any brains knows that if you start a bombing campaign in another country and then just pretend nothing happened afterwards is asking for trouble. This is why nobody else in history has done it, except your pal Nixon.

 

[Cordelier]

Anyone with any brains knows that if you start a bombing campaign in another country and then just pretend nothing happened afterwards is asking for trouble. This is why nobody else in history has done it, except your pal Nixon.

Well, offhand, the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia comes to mind. I'd say that was pretty effective in ending the fighting in Kosovo, wouldn't you?

 

[PoS]

Well, offhand, the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia comes to mind. I'd say that was pretty effective in ending the fighting in Kosovo, wouldn't you?

Wow, youre comparing apples to rhinos now.

 

[Tigerace117]

I am fully aware of that operation, and I already told you that happened after Sihanouk was ousted so your silly revisionism is wrong, wrong, wrong. The bombing of Cambodia was a war crime, and you defend it. In the end it shows you have no idea what youre talking about.

Bombing North Vietnamese troops in Cambodia and their allies, the Khmer Rouge was not a “war crime”.

 

[Cordelier]

Wow, youre comparing apples to rhinos now.

Not really - both instances involved the use of strategic airpower as a substitute for ground forces to affect change across national borders.

 

[PoS]

Bombing North Vietnamese troops in Cambodia and their allies, the Khmer Rouge was not a “war crime”.

Nixon didnt even tell Congress about it, he just gave secret orders. Thats okay with you?

Not really - both instances involved the use of strategic airpower as a substitute for ground forces to affect change across national borders.

A very silly comparison. Both cases were completely different in purpose, and missions, and even the outcomes.

Both of you ought to read this:

Nixon and the Cambodian Genocide

The genocidal rule of the Khmer Rouge began forty years ago this month. Their rise to power was inseparable from US intervention.

www.jacobinmag.com

 

[bongsaway]

I am watching a new documentary about him on Netflix, and I have learned stuff I didnt know before. I wasnt even born when he died, but to the ones around back then, did he really have a chance to win the POTUS against Nixon if he lived?

He would have beaten Nixon handily. I presume you know nixon's history? He in my opinion is the singular reason america started distrusting its government. Then the gop gave us reagan who started the slide of middle america and left a mountain of debt along with a market crash. W, another winner from the gop. Really left america in a mess and lied us into a war. Almost had another great depression. And now we have trump, another great leader brought to us by the gop faithful. We see the turmoil in the country, we see corona running wild, we see the economy drying up and we hear his constant lies. Rounding the corner.

This is what leadership and respect looks like and it makes people feel the loss when it happens.

 

[NewfieMom]

Bombing North Vietnamese troops in Cambodia and their allies, the Khmer Rouge was not a “war crime”.

I agree that it was not, technically, a war crime, but I can understand why someone would call it, figuratively, a war crime.

Given what we now know, it seems wrong to defend that bombing just as it seemed to much of the citizenry of the US when President Nixon undertook it. It extended an unjust and unnecessary war and brought death to more civilians. It also violated US law as it was carried out without the knowledge of, let alone the declaration of war from from, Congress. (This is what caused the passage of The War Powers Act.)

 

[Tigerace117]

Nixon didnt even tell Congress about it, he just gave secret orders. Thats okay with you?


A very silly comparison. Both cases were completely different in purpose, and missions, and even the outcomes.

Both of you ought to read this:

Nixon and the Cambodian Genocide

The genocidal rule of the Khmer Rouge began forty years ago this month. Their rise to power was inseparable from US intervention.

www.jacobinmag.com

Jacobin is a totally worthless source. They literally ran an article claiming that the “real tragedy” about Srebrencia was that it justified US involvement in the world. They simply aren't credible.

I don’t see anything wrong with bombing psychotic thugs like the Khmer Rouge, and the North Vietnamese invasion force were going to have to be dealt with at some point. It simply wasn’t feasible to allow enemy soldiers to freely operate from a “neutral“ country indefinitely.

 

[Tigerace117]

I agree that it was not, technically, a war crime, but I can understand why someone would call it, figuratively, a war crime.

Given what we now know, it seems wrong to defend that bombing just as it seemed to much of the citizenry of the US when President Nixon undertook it. It extended an unjust and unnecessary war and brought death to more civilians. It also violated US law as it was carried out without the knowledge of, let alone the declaration of war from from, Congress. (This is what caused the passage of The War Powers Act.)

It wasn’t wrong either morally or figuratively. It targeted foreign invaders(the North Vietnamese) and a psychotic communist paramilitay organization(the Khmer Rouge). The fact that Hanoi had plenty of good PR doesn’t change the facts. But I guess it was much more easy to turn a blind eye to the civilians being machine gunned for having an education when one can just yell about “US imperialism“

 

[NewfieMom]

I don’t see anything wrong with bombing psychotic thugs like the Khmer Rouge, and the North Vietnamese invasion force were going to have to be dealt with at some point. It simply wasn’t feasible to allow enemy soldiers to freely operate from a “neutral“ country indefinitely.

.
It does not matter whether you see anything wrong in the bombing. It is not up to you nor was it up to President Nixon to decide if the forces he bombed were "psychotic thugs" who got what they deserved or not. Nor does it matter whether you think the North Vietnamese invasion force was going to have to be "dealt with" so the United States could do whatever the hell it wanted anywhere in the world. It was up to the United States Congress not to Nixon as Emperor. Not to you as some gung ho ready to go get 'em cowboy. I am glad Congress passed The War Powers Act to check the impulses of everyone who wanted to do whatever the hell he wanted in Cambodia without the approval of the American people's representatives.

 

[Tigerace117]

.
It does not matter whether you see anything wrong in the bombing. It is not up to you nor was it up to President Nixon to decide if the forces he bombed were "psychotic thugs" who got what they deserved or not. Nor does it matter whether you think the North Vietnamese invasion force was going to have to be "dealt with" so the United States could do whatever the hell it wanted anywhere in the world. It was up to the United States Congress not to Nixon as Emperor. Not to you as some gung ho ready to go get 'em cowboy. I am glad Congress passed The War Powers Act to check the impulses of everyone who wanted to do whatever the hell he wanted in Cambodia without the approval of the American people's representatives.

The objective fact is that the Khmer Rouge were psychotic thugs. This has been throughly documented, no matter what Noam Chomsky and his ilk thought. The objective fact is that the North Vietnamese had invaded Cambodia in violation of international law in the first place. You can’t “expand” a war to a place where it was already ongoing. Relying on Congress to do the “right thing” is a bad joke at the best of times, and, again, doesn’t change the facts.

 

[NewfieMom]

It wasn’t wrong either morally or figuratively. It targeted foreign invaders(the North Vietnamese) and a psychotic communist paramilitay organization(the Khmer Rouge). The fact that Hanoi had plenty of good PR doesn’t change the facts. But I guess it was much more easy to turn a blind eye to the civilians being machine gunned for having an education when one can just yell about “US imperialism“

Wrong. That was not why Nixon went into Cambodia. And I believe, as do all my friends, that If you see atrocities against civilians, you go to Congress for a declaration of war. It's in the Constitution.

 

[NewfieMom]

The objective fact is that the Khmer Rouge were psychotic thugs. This has been throughly documented, no matter what Noam Chomsky and his ilk thought. The objective fact is that the North Vietnamese had invaded Cambodia in violation of international law in the first place. You can’t “expand” a war to a place where it was already ongoing. Relying on Congress to do the “right thing” is a bad joke at the best of times, and, again, doesn’t change the facts.

So you would ignore Congress and the Constitution and let the military rule.

 

[Tigerace117]

Wrong. That was not why Nixon went into Cambodia. And I believe, as do all my friends, that If you see atrocities against civilians, you go to Congress for a declaration of war. It's in the Constitution.

If Nixon had asked for a formal declaration of war against the Khmer Rouge there would have been even more riots. Lots of Americans simply didn’t care what Hanoi and its allies did to the local people. Instead, he simply addressed the fact that the war was already in Cambodia.

 

[Tigerace117]

So you would ignore Congress and the Constitution and let the military rule.

Arguing that bombing the Khmer Rouge made us a military junta is utterly laughable. The fact of the matter is that when it’s a question between doing the right thing and letting Congress posture, there’s no question there at all.

 

[PoS]

Jacobin is a totally worthless source. They literally ran an article claiming that the “real tragedy” about Srebrencia was that it justified US involvement in the world. They simply aren't credible.

I don’t see anything wrong with bombing psychotic thugs like the Khmer Rouge, and the North Vietnamese invasion force were going to have to be dealt with at some point. It simply wasn’t feasible to allow enemy soldiers to freely operate from a “neutral“ country indefinitely.

One of the definition of war crimes includes attacking a neutral country. The US didnt declare war or even said anything until the NYTimes exposed their secret bombing campaign in Cambodia. Prior to that the Cambodians complained at the UN, but the bombings were denied by the US even then.

The bombing was also indiscriminate. More Cambodian civilians died because the US didnt even know where the Vietnamese were other than along the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

And here was Nixon's defense of the bombing:

How Nixon’s Invasion of Cambodia Triggered a Check on Presidential Power | HISTORY

Following months of secret U.S. bombings on Communist bases, American ground troops were deployed to northern Cambodia on April 28, 1970.

www.history.com

On May 8, 1970, Nixon held a press conference to defend the invasion of Cambodia. He argued that it bought six to eight months of training time for South Vietnamese forces, thereby shortening the war for Americans and saving American lives. He promised to withdraw 150,000 American soldiers by the following spring.

So the reason he claimed that he did the bombing was not to destroy the enemy, it was to delay them so he could pull out American troops out of Vietnam gradually. He killed tens of thousands of innocents for political, not military purposes.

People to this day are still being crippled by leftover US ordinance in Cambodia.

 

[Tigerace117]

One of the definition of war crimes includes attacking a neutral country. The US didnt declare war or even said anything until the NYTimes exposed their secret bombing campaign in Cambodia. Prior to that the Cambodians complained at the UN, but the bombings were denied by the US even then.

The bombing was also indiscriminate. More Cambodian civilians died because the US didnt even know where the Vietnamese were other than along the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

And here was Nixon's defense of the bombing:

How Nixon’s Invasion of Cambodia Triggered a Check on Presidential Power | HISTORY

Following months of secret U.S. bombings on Communist bases, American ground troops were deployed to northern Cambodia on April 28, 1970.

www.history.com

So the reason he claimed that he did the bombing was not to destroy the enemy, it was to delay them so he could pull out American troops out of Vietnam gradually. He killed tens of thousands of innocents for political, not military purposes.

People to this day are still being crippled by leftover US ordinance in Cambodia.

Gee, you mean like how North Vietnam did by invading Cambodia in the first place?

The Netherlands was a neutral country up until Germany invaded it during the Second World War. Later the United States invaded in order to expel the Germans. Was that a “war crime“ as well? No North Vietnamese invasion, no war in Cambodia. It’s really that simple.

The Cambodians turning a blind eye to an invasion of their territory and arming of psychotic paramilitaries makes their “complaints” rather meaningless. One can’t have it both ways— either you are neutral, which means you have an obligation to stop armed combatants from using your territory as a base of operations, or you aren’t, in which case you can’t complain about the US continuing the war.

Nixon‘s official political rationale is on the “realpolitik“ side, yes, but it also inflicted heavy damage on the Khmer Rouge and North Vietnamese in Cambodia, therefore helping strengthen the ARVN and therefore helping the military situation.

And there are still large communities of integrated former refugees who narrowly escaped being mass murdered by North Vietnam and it’s allies.


Yes, the accuracy of the bombings was not great, and collateral damage did occur, but that was true for all air strikes. Even with today‘s technology, air strikes still go awry. It’s sad but there’s not really a way to avoid it.

 

[PoS]

Gee, you mean like how North Vietnam did by invading Cambodia in the first place?

The Netherlands was a neutral country up until Germany invaded it during the Second World War. Later the United States invaded in order to expel the Germans. Was that a “war crime“ as well? No North Vietnamese invasion, no war in Cambodia. It’s really that simple.

False equivalency. Sihanouk tolerated the Vietnamese- they didnt invade. He did this because he had no choice- his army was tiny and was no match against them (this would later prove correct).

The Cambodians turning a blind eye to an invasion of their territory and arming of psychotic paramilitaries makes their “complaints” rather meaningless.

Youve contradicted yourself on the very next paragraph. First you said it was an invasion, now you say they turned a blind eye to the Vietnamese.

Nixon‘s official political rationale is on the “realpolitik“ side, yes, but it also inflicted heavy damage on the Khmer Rouge and North Vietnamese in Cambodia, therefore helping strengthen the ARVN and therefore helping the military situation.

No it did not. It failed spectacularly. Nothing changed on the ground whatsoever, except the massive civilian casualties caused a surge in Khmer Rouge recruitment. The KR went from a rag tag guerilla band to a huge army because of the bombing. If it wasnt for the bombing, Cambodia might have not undergone self genocide.

Nixon's own one word assessment with the Cambodian bombing was: "zilch"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/11/secret-archive-offers-fresh-insight-into-nixon-presidency/

Henry Kissinger's genocidal legacy: Vietnam, Cambodia and the birth of American militarism

Nixon introduced us to permanent, extrajudicial war in Southeast Asia, and it continues today in the Middle East

www.salon.com

So not only was a war crime perpetrated, it made everything worse by plunging Cambodia into a genocidal civil war. Nothing was gained by the US except a flood of refugees.

 

[Tigerace117]

False equivalency. Sihanouk tolerated the Vietnamese- they didnt invade. He did this because he had no choice- his army was tiny and was no match against them (this would later prove correct).


Youve contradicted yourself on the very next paragraph. First you said it was an invasion, now you say they turned a blind eye to the Vietnamese.



No it did not. It failed spectacularly. Nothing changed on the ground whatsoever, except the massive civilian casualties caused a surge in Khmer Rouge recruitment. The KR went from a rag tag guerilla band to a huge army because of the bombing. If it wasnt for the bombing, Cambodia might have not undergone self genocide.

Nixon's own one word assessment with the Cambodian bombing was: "zilch"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/11/secret-archive-offers-fresh-insight-into-nixon-presidency/

Henry Kissinger's genocidal legacy: Vietnam, Cambodia and the birth of American militarism

Nixon introduced us to permanent, extrajudicial war in Southeast Asia, and it continues today in the Middle East

www.salon.com

So not only was a war crime perpetrated, it made everything worse by plunging Cambodia into a genocidal civil war. Nothing was gained by the US except a flood of refugees.

It was an invasion, and one which the Cambodian government turned a blind eye to. The US would have provided Cambodia with immense amounts of aid and even troop support if they had requested it to protect their borders from the invaders, but they let their country become a communist staging ground.....with obvious results.

Operation Menu accomplished “zilch”. Operation Freedom Deal, however, managed to push the North Vietnamese back from the South Vietnamese border and keep the Cambodian capital out of the hands of Khmer Rouge. Had it not been for the North Vietnamese invasion, there never would have been a war in Cambodia. Arguing the Khmer Rouge wouldn’t have tried to take advantage of the large amounts of territory the invaders controlled as a base for their “revolutionary struggle” is laughable.

 

[PoS]

It was an invasion, and one which the Cambodian government turned a blind eye to.

Then it cant be an invasion if they tolerated it. You cant have it both ways.

The US would have provided Cambodia with immense amounts of aid and even troop support if they had requested it to protect their borders from the invaders, but they let their country become a communist staging ground.....with obvious results.

Only we did provide support for them when they threw out Sihanouk, and then abandoned them because we really didnt care very much.

Operation Menu accomplished “zilch”.

Glad we agree. Kudos.

Operation Freedom Deal, however, managed to push the North Vietnamese back from the South Vietnamese border and keep the Cambodian capital out of the hands of Khmer Rouge.

lolwhut? Freedom Deal was a last ditch bombing against the Khmer Rouge forces that were about to overrun Phnom Penh, the Vietnamese were not involved.

And guess what, it failed as well.

Had it not been for the North Vietnamese invasion, there never would have been a war in Cambodia.

Had we not supported a dictatorship in South Vietnam there wouldnt have been a Vietnam War. See where this logic goes?

Arguing the Khmer Rouge wouldn’t have tried to take advantage of the large amounts of territory the invaders controlled as a base for their “revolutionary struggle” is laughable.

I never argued that. My point was that the KR would not have grown in strength to be a countrywide threat had Nixon not bombed Cambodia.