Ben Stein -Deep Throat and Genocide

The American Spectator ^ | 6/1/2005 12:22:42 AM | Ben Stein

[Logophile]

I did say however, that Nixon's involvement in Cambodia slid a neutral nation into complete chaos by large scale bombing. . . . . Perhaps you should study what happens to a nation when it gets bombed heavily. Societal cohesion is not one of its' main hallmarks.

But the nation of Cambodia as a whole was not subjected to large-scale bombing. The bombing was along the border with South Vietnam, a region that was controlled by North Vietnam and not the Cambodian government. How could that have caused "complete chaos" in the rest of Cambodia?

[PeteAtomic]

The NLF were not using Cambodia to the extent that the Nixon administration described it as.

There were NLF medical camps in Cambodia, however-- there were not major divisional units based in Cambodia.

[PeteAtomic]

The NLF had medical camps to treat their wounded, but not any major unit organizational camps or headquarters there.

Remember, the invasion of Cambodia was costly and completely useless in 1970-2.

Cambodia was laid waste. The NLF and Khmer Rouge dominated Southeast Asia.

[PeteAtomic]

"But the nation of Cambodia as a whole was not subjected to large-scale bombing. The bombing was along the border with South Vietnam, a region that was controlled by North Vietnam and not the Cambodian government."

This is why we as a nation are having such foreign policy problems!!

Listen to yourself!

We only 'bombed the border of another country' ?? What the hell!

How many other nations have to deal with this type of indicretion? If you bomb a country, you are typically at war with them (!)

In our lesson, child-- we were not at war with Cambodia. They did not have their forces at war with us, and we were not at war with Cambodian Army forces.

Yet, the U.S. Army and SVN invaded Cambodia in 1970-1.

[bad company]

The U.S. had lost the war long before that. The U.S. would be out of Vietnam by 1973, and in 1975-- the South Vietnamese regime collapsed.

Hogwash. The south Vietnamese regeime lost the war because as the russians and chi-coms continued to pour money into north vietnam the democrats in congress, at the behest of jane fonda and tom hayden, cut off funding to the south. The north had shot their wad on tet. They had nothing left. Most of their southern compatriots were dead or captured. The war was very winnable on the ground. They had to wait for the help of the "peace movement" here to finally win.

[Logophile]

The NLF were not using Cambodia to the extent that the Nixon administration described it as. . . . There were NLF medical camps in Cambodia, however-- there were not major divisional units based in Cambodia.

In a previous post you admit that the North Vietnamese were using the area to stage attacks on South Vietnam. Moreover, the Ho Chi Minh trail, by which the Communist supplied their forces in South Vietnam, ran through the area. Those two facts were sufficient to justify sending our forces there.

[Logophile]

The NLF had medical camps to treat their wounded, but not any major unit organizational camps or headquarters there.

You have already admitted that the North Vietnamese Communists were using Cambodia as a staging area from which to launch attacks on South Vietnam. Whether there was a major camp or HQ in the area is immaterial.

Remember, the invasion of Cambodia was costly and completely useless in 1970-2.

U.S. military planners thought otherwise. You have given me no reason to accept your judgment instead of theirs.

Cambodia was laid waste. The NLF and Khmer Rouge dominated Southeast Asia.

Yes, Cambodia was laid waste—but not by the United States. It was the Communist Party of Cambodia (the "Khmer Rouge") who did that awful deed. Nothing the Communists or their fellow travelers say now will change that fact.

You refer to the NLF (the "National Liberation Front" or Vietcong), but do not mention the role of North Vietnamese Army (NVA). That is strange because the Vietcong were not a significant military force after their decisive defeat in the Tet offensive. The NLF did not conquer South Vietnam; that atrocity was committed by the regular army of North Vietnam.

So why do you write as if the NLF won the war and "dominated Southeast Asia"? The only people I know who still talk this way are Leftists who would have us believe the fiction that South Vietnam fell to a popular local "liberation" movement instead of a massive invasion from North Vietnam.

[Logophile]

. . . If you bomb a country, you are typically at war with them (!)

Think again. We bombed Japanese forces in the Philippines during World War II, but we were never at war with the Philippines. I am sure you can think of numerous other examples.

In our lesson, child-- we were not at war with Cambodia. They did not have their forces at war with us, and we were not at war with Cambodian Army forces.

Of course we were not at war with Cambodia or its armed forces—who has said otherwise? We were at war with the North Vietnamese communists, and they were the ones our forces attacked.

The NVA had seized control of part of Cambodia for use as a staging area for attacks in South Vietnam. It was North Vietnam that first violated the territory of Cambodia, and continued to do so long after the U.S. had withdrawn from the area.

Yet, the U.S. Army and SVN invaded Cambodia in 1970-1.

I believe that the United States and South Vietnam were perfectly justified in attacking the NVA in Cambodia. Do you believe that NVA was justified in invading Cambodia in the first place?