[Split Topic] Rei's Views on Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

'Cold war' communist versus capitalist ideological struggle (1946 - 1990) and everything else in the post World War II era (1946 onwards).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14197934
Rainbow Crow wrote:TBD, I'm only pedantic with her at times because she acts like this all the time. She's a confused young lady. People who act like children must be treated in a pedantic manner because they can't complete basic recursive tasks.

You can be pedantic without being condescending. God knows there's nobody more pedantic than me.

Rainbow Crow wrote:Obviously there is some level of atrocity that Rei won't support.

I wouldn't be sure of that.
#14197943
Rainbow Crow wrote:No, as TBD noted, you answered a completely different and in some ways fundamentally opposite question. I asked you if there is anything you wouldn't do if you thought it would further your goals, and you said "I wouldn't... because it wouldn't further my goals." This is not answering the question.



To be fair this isn't a logical attack strategy because much of the global politics of the 50s to today involve the constant threat of nuclear annihilation for both sides if their goals were about to be lost.
#14197950
I just don't understand that question that you all are driving at here. As far as I'm aware, I've answered it, I can't do any better than that. If you guys don't like the answer and are really objecting to it because there's something defective in the answer, then it probably just means I'm incapable of understanding the question anyway. Rainbow Crow must be getting upset now if he's resorted to blatantly insulting me - I'll let it slide because I think I'm above it anyway.

So, as my last attempt to understand this question, I will ask you if you are asking me: "Do you ever advocate doing anything without weighing up how it might benefit your cause in the long term?" If that is the question, then the answer is "no, there is never a time that I don't do that". But I don't think that was the question you guys actually asked me several posts ago.
Last edited by Rei Murasame on 21 Mar 2013 05:42, edited 1 time in total.
#14198745
I'm sure that you'll find a way to blame me for the editing, even though I argued quite strongly against the thread split and against the thread editing in the appropriate places. I'm just as angry about this thread-split as you are, since I was quite happy with what the original thread looked like, and I wanted to stand by those words in the context that they were written.

If there's anyone you should blame, you only have to read the log of how this thread-split came to be, in order to see how it happened. The thread no longer makes any sense, and might as well be just be abandoned.
#14198756
Only if you're willing to give the inputs that will produce that same response again. But I think you copy-pasted part of the conclusion into the 'One-Dimensional' thread anyway, when we were sniping at each other the night before last, so the conclusion was preserved at least.

Everything I wrote about the 'Massacre at Hue' and the logic taken to arrive at the end-conclusion is completely lost though.
#14198764
I can try to pick up where we left off. There is not a lot of context needed and some of it is still in the thread.

Rei Murasame wrote:Generally speaking, I am willing to entertain any of the things which you call 'atrocities' and I can accept them and be fine with them if they produce a tangible result which is a gain.
You did write this, correct?

Generally speaking, I think that people shy away from certain things for two reasons: [1] a general if vague love for other human beings which makes them forego hurting others in certain ways or to certain degrees, even when there's a guaranteed gain; and [2] an acknowledgement that their own knowledge and wisdom may be finite. You don't seem to respect either of those feelings, though. If anything, you seem to be proud that you don't. This is not a good way to be because people should try to get along and love each other.
#14198874
Rei wrote:The United States supported Pol Pot because they knew that Pol Pot would wreck Cambodia and thus advance liberal interests. In collaboration with China the USA thought it necessary to destabilise anything in the region that wasn't either under United States or Chinese influence, and one such place was Cambodia.

1. The US had actually been backing a horse in the political race in Cambodia prior to the Khmer Rouge - Lon Nol. Who was totally dependent on the US. Before Lon Nol, it was Sihanouk, who had cut a deal with China. If anything the Khmer Rouge wrecked all this.
2. This brilliant master scheme concocted by the US and China seems to have backfired on account of Cambodia being next door to Vietnam. Or was invasion and occupation by a hostile power part of the liberalisation scheme?
3. Come to think of it, Vietnam and the politics of the Sino-Soviet Split (and triangular diplomacy for the US) seems to have been a far better explanation for why the US would back the Khmer Rouge than the nonsense conspiracy theory you put forward.
4. 'Independent' Cambodia under Hun Sen hasn't exactly been a success for this conspiracy theory either.
#14199326
Rei Murasame wrote:The facts are the facts.

That's right, and all the facts I have presented show that your claim that the US sponsored the Khmer Rouge to further some liberal conspiracy theory (or some scheme for regional hegemony by the US/China) is completely unsupportable. Your description of US policy doesn't fit US actions. The supposed motive doesn't fit what happened in practice in any sense. Where are your facts exactly?
#14200306
Rainbow Crow wrote:then when you finally do it the post gets deleted by an admin later


I'm only a moderator...

Rei Murasame wrote:I'm just as angry about this thread-split as you are, since I was quite happy with what the original thread looked like


Look, I could have given out a ton of warnings for rule 15 violations and one-liners but I was lenient and tried my best to salvage some constructive debate where it did not belong (i.e. a debate about Pol Pot in the North America forum). I could have just deleted everything. If you have a problem with it, then go to the basement.
#14264511
Could someone post a link to the original thread?

Rei, does your value system allow you to make decisions that are small/ minor tactical errors if it's for the greater good?
For example- Would you avoid bombing major population centers in favour of a marginally less valuable target that would suffer fewer casualties?
Would you actively avoid bombing buildings with heritage, cultural or sentimental value?

Do you recognise the war crimes listed by the UN or would you be willing to violate them?

In my opinion, masculinity has declined for all of[…]

This is ridiculous. Articles showing attacks on s[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

It is easy to tell the tunnel was made of pre fab […]

Pretty clear France will be taking a leading role […]