[Rei Murasame]

Regarding Cambodia, I support what the Vietnamese socialists wanted to do with Cambodia's government.

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. That is why the Khmer Rouge was funded and used as a counterweight against the Cambodian government and against Vietnam.

The Heritage Foundation in 1984 published a report called "Mandate for Leadership II", in which they called on the United States government to provide even more attention and funding to be directed toward, and I quote, "...employ[ing] paramilitary assets to weaken those communist and noncommunist regimes that may already be facing the early stages of insurgency within their borders and which threaten U.S. interests..."

Amazing. And what paramilitary assets are those?

"I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot," recalled Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter's National Security Adviser, in 1981. "Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him. But China could." The U.S., he added, "winked semipublicly" as the Chinese funneled arms to the Khmer Rouge, using Thailand as a conduit.

Throughout the Reagan Administration, the Khmer Rouge have been part of a loose and unholy alliance of anti-Vietnamese guerrilla groups that the U.S. helped create. Pol Pot has lurked in the shadows of the Reagan Doctrine.

In the past year the U.S. has grown increasingly concerned that the Khmer Rouge might fill a vacuum left by a Vietnamese retreat from Kampuchea. As part of Mikhail Gorbachev's overall policy of defusing Third World conflicts, Moscow has been pressuring Viet Nam to end its occupation. Hanoi has agreed to pull out all its troops by September. In response, China seems willing to cut off support to the Khmer Rouge once the Vietnamese complete their withdrawal.

But defanging the Khmer Rouge will require more. As Pol Pot's mentor Mao Zedong once said, "Power comes from the barrel of a gun," and thanks to years of Chinese-Thai assistance, with tacit American blessing, the Khmer Rouge have more guns than the two non-Communist guerrilla groups that the U.S. has been aiding directly. The CIA estimates that the Khmer Rouge have enough materiel to fight on for an additional two years against their erstwhile allies.

Vietnam was meanwhile suffering sanctions for its previous efforts to remove the Khmer Rouge:

In 1978, when Vietnamese leaders launched their invasion of Kampuchea to remove the Khmer Rouge regime, they did not expect a negative reaction from the international community. However, the events that followed the invasion showed that Vietnamese leaders had severely miscalculated international sympathies towards their cause. Instead of backing Vietnam, most member countries of the United Nations denounced the Vietnamese use of force against Kampuchea, and even moved to revive the battered Khmer Rouge organisation that once governed the country with such brutality. [...]

The international community's political stance towards Kampuchea had a severe impact on the Vietnamese economy, already wrecked by decades of continuous conflicts. The United States, which already had sanctions in place against Vietnam, convinced other countries of the United Nations to deprive Vietnam and the People's Republic of Kampuchea of much-needed funds by denying them membership to major international organisations such as the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

But hey, facts be damned, just troll me.

[ThereBeDragons]

Regarding Cambodia, I support what the Vietnamese socialists wanted to do with Cambodia's government.

Let's be honest, you and the communists may be on the same side now for the time being, but when it comes down to it blood will run between red and brown just as deeply as ever. After you've exterminated the liberals, they won't be long for the chopping block.

The United States supported Pol Pot because they knew that Pol Pot would wreck Cambodia and thus advance liberal interests.

I said, "if." "If" posits a hypothetical situation that, in fact, was not the case. It is more happenstance than anything else that the US decided to support one branch of communists and the Soviets another. Your dislike for Pol Pot's regime seems to be linked solely to the fact that America supported him.

[Rei Murasame]

TBD, I think you and the liberals just enjoy trolling me, and so any consideration of actual reality is thrown through the window because none of you want to admit that the facts are on my side and that I'm right.

American liberals supported Pol Pot. I oppose Pol Pot, but apparently I am still somehow at fault because you can can imagine a completely improbable scenario where you allege it could potentially make sense for me to support Pol Pot! Now I know how Saddam Hussein felt, it's always the fascists' fault even when it isn't!

This is why things always devolve into "ifs" and "maybes" about what I might say in a parallel universe where everything in history is upside down, because I'm a vampire and vampires are always wrong, and so on.

[ThereBeDragons]

TBD, I think you and the liberals just enjoy trolling me, and so any consideration of actual reality is thrown through the window because none of you want to admit that the facts are on my side and that I'm right.

Rainbow Crow, Sithsaber, and SpecialOlympian may pour inanity into every thread you go, but I have not yet said anything to you that I would not stand by in a formal debate.

This is why things always devolve into "ifs" and "maybes" about what I might say in a parallel universe where everything in history is upside down, because I'm a vampire and vampires are always wrong, and so on.

The point here is that US support to the Khmer Rouge was based on geopolitics and not ideology. If (if) it had been in the US interests to support the other group of communists instead of the one, you would be cheering his regime all the way down. All his butchery would have been written off as "worth it" even if he'd gone down in flames. Your current dislike for him is based 100% on the fact that he was an American catspaw and 0% on the fact that he was one of the most murderous leaders known to the 20th century.

In any case, you honestly shouldn't care that I've accused you of hypothetically willing to support Pol Pot. I don't even know why you're offended, based on the values you profess to hold.

[Rainbow Crow]

Rei, is there any articulable thing or event you would not support if you thought it furthered your goals? Anything at all?

[Rei Murasame]

The point here is that US support to the Khmer Rouge was based on geopolitics and not ideology. If (if) it had been in the US interests to support the other group of communists instead of the one, you would be cheering his regime all the way down.

But that is impossible. The financial powers behind the United States would have no reason to let the existing government do as it pleased, so long as something like Pol Pot was out there and could be funded by them.

I think everyone recognises that Pol Pot was an abomination and that his movement was actually what's called a 'destructive force'. He is one of only two entities in the 20th century that actually counts as a 'destructive force' in the Marxian sense of the term, the only other one is the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, which also got into power because of liberal interference.

Pol Pot is worse than usual, because he manages to actually take his country backwards (he didn't even merely stagnate, he put the gear-shift into reverse and stepped on the pedal) to a previous mode of production, and he did it on purpose and pretty much set out overtly from the start to do so.

Rei, is there any articulable thing or event you would not support if you thought it furthered your goals? Anything at all?

Yes, there is something I would not support. One thing. I don't support becoming a 'destructive force' in the Marxian sense of the term. Hence, you will never hear me say, "let's destroy all the industrial plants in this country, forget the skills we had, and go back to the countryside, as a method to defeat our opponents". Because that is not actually winning, that is simply taking up a path that has a 100% chance of resulting in later defeat. So that is the one strategy which is permanently off the table. It will never be on the table.

I would also be against doing that to other peoples, for reasons that are too complex to explain here, so for the sake of brevity I'll leave it at that.

Now, I'll ask the question back at you. Is there anything you won't do to your own people (and/or to others) in order to further the liberal cause?

[ThereBeDragons]

But that is impossible. The financial powers behind the United States would have no reason to let the existing government do as it pleased, so long as something like Pol Pot was out there and could be funded by them.

And if Pol Pot had aligned himself with the Soviet/Vietnamese axis instead of the Chinese one after taking power, America would be his staunchest enemy. Although this obviously did not happen, this was not some sort of wild impossibility. And then he would be a hero of yours.

Yes, I don't support becoming a 'destructive force' in the Marxian sense. Hence, you will never hear me say, "let's destroy all the industrial plants in this country, forget the skills we had, and go back to the countryside, as a method to defeat our opponents". Because that is not actually winning, that is simply taking up a path that has a 100% chance of resulting in later defeat. So that is the one strategy which is permanently off the table. It will never be on the table.

You did not actually answer the question that was asked. There was an "if" in his question, too. You ignored it.

Now, I'll ask the question back at you. Is there anything you won't do to your own people in order to further the liberal cause?

I have no doubt the answer is yes, as it would be for the vast majority of liberals and non-liberals alike, everywhere.

[Rainbow Crow]

Well, I wouldn't support an invasion purely for profit. Or many other things, too many for me to even list. Though you seem to think that I do support such things.

Just so that we're clear, you'd support genocide, nuclear attacks, chemical weapons usage, etc., to push a fascist agenda?

[Rei Murasame]

And if Pol Pot had aligned himself with the Soviet/Vietnamese axis instead of the Chinese one, after taking power, America would be his staunchest enemy. Although this obviously did not happen, this is not massively improbable.

It is indeed massively improbable. Because of his understanding of history and the sort of theory he was pedalling, he would never have been able to align himself with the Soviets or Vietnamese.

You did not answer the question.

I absolutely answered the question, firmly and decisively. I will never support de-industrialising any part of the earth as a way to advance my agenda.

[ThereBeDragons]

It is indeed massively improbable. Because of his understanding of history and the sort of theory he was pedalling, he would never have been able to align himself with the Soviets or Vietnamese.

Ideology always takes a back seat to geopolitics. No American would want to live under his rule, and most probably didn't even think he was sane. Pol Pot's theory may have been far removed from what the Soviets were preaching, but it's even farther from American ideals. That didn't stop him from taking American aid.

I absolutely answered the question, firmly and decisively.

Rei, is there any articulable thing or event you would not support if you thought it furthered your goals?

I would not support becoming a destructive force, because it would not further my goals.

This is one of the most spectacular non-answers in the history of PoliticsForum.

[Rei Murasame]

Maybe all I am doing is adding to the list of my goals, the things that I will not support doing to someone's society. That's not a sign of not answering, it's just a sign that my answer is coherent, it's what I ought to say.

[Rainbow Crow]

Good catch on the details there TBD, I would not have pointed it out in such a fashion myself but how you stated it is better than what I was going to say. Rei is just going to answer her own question I guess and ignore mine.

Rei, I suspect that people would stop trolling you and trying to get you to say this thing if you would just come out and say it, it is the heart of people's contention with you. What are you afraid of? If you would be honest about it then everyone can accept it and move on.

[ThereBeDragons]

Maybe all I am doing is adding to the list of my goals, the things that I will not support doing to someone's society. That's not a sign of not answering, it's just a sign that my answer is coherent, it's what I ought to say.

I can't believe that "don't de-industrialize society" is such an important goal that everything else takes a back seat to it. All I can see so far is that "de-industrializing is bad strategy, so we won't do it." That would make it not a goal in and of itself, but a means to an end, the same way a policy like "don't cut off your own feet" is sound advice if your goal is to win a marathon but is not its own goal.

If an enemy army were marching on the industrial heartland of one of your satellite states and you could not transport it in time, scorched earth policy (in the name of not losing the coming war) would be off the table? I can't believe that. That's something even soft-hearted people could get behind.

[Rei Murasame]

I'm not actually sure what you guys are asking me to say. I think I speak for myself and for most fascists when I say that if we are in a competition against another society, we would not covertly fund some whackjob group to try and de-industrialise their society, just so that we can win over them.

To us, that is not really winning. Pol Pot is always a figure of disgust, because to ideologies born out of the industrial era, it is always incomprehensible to us, that someone could set out out to deprive a people of what is needed for advancement as a whole species. Even if they are the enemy, it harms the world as a whole if there is no industry to compete with on their side.

That is basically the only line that I draw. If there were no lines to draw, I'd have just said at the start "there is nothing I won't do", which is nice and tidy answer and would have saved me all this typing. If you all don't believe that that counts as a line, then I guess you can count that as being effectively "there is nothing I won't do", it doesn't matter if you want to call it that, but I thought it was worthwhile to make the point as I perceive it, at least.

[Rainbow Crow]

I'm not talking about Pol Pot, personally. I asked you a really simple question. TBD italicized a key part that you deliberately avoided. Why won't you answer it? It's like you're afraid to.

[ThereBeDragons]

I'm not actually sure what you guys are asking me to say. I think I speak for myself and for most fascists when I say that if we are in a competition against another society, we would not covertly fund some whackjob group to try and de-industrialise their society, just so that we can win over them.

"Bomb the other nation's industry into the medieval era" has always been policy on the table for every military power at war.

To us, that is not really winning. Pol Pot is always a figure of disgust, because to ideologies born out of the industrial era, it is always incomprehensible to us, that someone could set out out to deprive a people of what they need to advance as as a species. Even if they are the enemy, it harms the world as a whole if there is no industry to compete with on their side.

If all that made people turn away from Pol Pot in disgust was the fact that he advocated an agrarian society, he would be nowhere near as reviled as he is. Thomas Jefferson even toyed with the idea of an agrarian America. It may have been astoundingly unsound economic policy but even if he had gone all-out trying to promote it, nobody would ever talk about the two in the same breath.

That is basically the only line that I draw.

It looks like such a tactical goal that I think most people find it hard to believe that it's one of the few things you absolutely refuse to compromise on.

[Rei Murasame]

"Bomb the other nation's industry into the medieval era" has always been policy on the table for every military power at war.

Which you can understand is different from establishing a social order that causes those people to dismantle their own industries willingly and not rebuild them.

I'm not talking about Pol Pot, personally.

Pol Pot was relevant because he is important archetype of the thing that we will not do.

Why won't you answer it? It's like you're afraid to.

I think that I am answering it, and I quite seriously don't understand why you don't interpret that as being an answer.

If all that made people turn away from Pol Pot in disgust was the fact that he advocated an agrarian society, he would be nowhere near as reviled as he is.

What? Why wouldn't he be?

Thomas Jefferson even toyed with the idea of an agrarian America.

If he had done that in the middle of the industrial era and actually carried it out, he would have become a Pol Pot type character and would be reviled by everyone.

[Rainbow Crow]

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.

[ThereBeDragons]

Which you can understand is different from establishing a social order that causes those people to dismantle their own industries willingly and not rebuild them.

You wouldn't even condemn one nation to eternal backwater status if that's what it took to overthrow the rest of the liberal order?

If he had done that in the middle of the industrial era and actually carried it out, he would have become a Pol Pot type character and would be reviled by everyone.

Most people will always draw a firm line between even our theoretical crazy Jefferson and Pol Pot because one of them was willing to kill, and did kill, millions of his own countrymen and one of them was not.

Also I think right now Rainbow Crow actually is pressing a real point and not just being pedantic.

[Rainbow Crow]

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.

Obviously there is some level of atrocity that Rei won't support. Yet she has some fear of coming out and saying this because then she might have to reassess whether she is taking herself down the right path. She might have to stop being "one-dimensional" if she draws a line, any line, anywhere in the pursuit of her goals. She obviously isn't open to conducting a critical review of her own positions, even though such a thing is fundamental to personal growth.

It's her own loss of course.