Why don’t peace activists remember killing fields?

Nashville City Paper ^ | 02/28/03 | Bill O'Reilly

[nypokerface]

Because I was a college student from 1967-71, I am a primary source as far as peace demonstrations are concerned. I vividly remember the Vietnam protests and the rhetoric that was used back then: "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" It is eerily similar to what's going on today vis-à-vis Iraq.

Back then, many of the antiwar protestors considered America an evil place, full of warmongering politicians and a military intent on persecuting the people of Southeast Asia. The historical truth, however, turned out to be quite different.

I remember reading a book called The Killing Fields documenting the mass murder of up to 2 million Cambodians. Then I saw the movie starring Sam Waterston. What the Khmer Rouge did was exactly what the Nazis did. Yet the peace demonstrators in America said little about it, perhaps because they knew that if the United States had prevailed in Vietnam, the "killing fields" of neighboring Cambodia would not have happened.

In the early 1990s, I decided to go to Vietnam myself to have a look around. The communist system there allows little freedom and much poverty. In Saigon, I was besieged by Vietnamese who wanted to send messages to relatives and friends in America. I could not offer any assistance, as my "minder" would not even allow me to take their letters.

The point is that for every action, there is a reaction. The Vietnam War was begun to prevent communism in Southeast Asia. The United States was not successful because our allies were corrupt and we fought on the defensive. But what happened after we left Vietnam was far worse in humanitarian terms than anything that happened during that war. Again, I wonder if the Vietnam peace crowd ever thinks about that.

Now we have a similar but far more threatening situation. Many people simply don't want to remove Saddam Hussein by force. But if force is not used, Saddam stays. That means more Iraqis will be tortured and killed, and whatever weapons Saddam has accumulated stay in play. And despite the rhetoric, it is simply impossible to find vials of hidden anthrax in a country the size of California.

And what if someday some of that anthrax finds its way to your house? An elderly Connecticut woman named Ottilie Lundgren experienced that. She's dead. I don't think many of the protestors remember her very well. Perhaps I'm wrong.

If the unthinkable happens and anthrax does show up in America again, chances are the FBI will not be able to trace it. The bureau could not trace the first batch. The arrival of anthrax means Americans will die, institutions will be shut down, and panic will ensue.

The peace protestors do not want to address that possibility the same way they do not want to address "the killing fields." No, the demonstrators are confident that the U.N. weapons inspectors can "contain" a murderous dictator who acknowledged to the United Nations after the Gulf War that he possessed plenty of anthrax and other stuff even worse. And Saddam remains defiant — he will not account for those hideous weapons.

So the next time you see an antiwar demonstration or hear appeasers like Jacques Chirac and Gerhardt Schroeder, think about Ottilie Lundgren and millions of faceless Cambodians. They died horribly, and no power was in place that could protect them.

Most of us know in our hearts that honest dissent is a strength of America and that war is a bad thing. But there are worse things, and every American should think about that.

TV news anchor Bill O'Reilly is host of the Fox News show The O'Reilly Factor.

[Puppage]

...because it doesn't suit their agenda. That's why.

According to Dan Rather, and The Village Voice...IT NEVER HAPPENED

[Blue Collar Christian]

I hate war. I hate anti-Americans alot more.

Anti-Americans are the worst of the hyphonated-Americans.

[backhoe]

The Killing Fields & Murder of a Gentle Land- what really happened in Cambodia a quarter-century ago

[Big Mack]

You have to know that these demonstrations are not about peace, but about down with the U.S. and up with Marxism. If it were about peace some of the turds would be chanting for Saddam to quit killing his own people.

[doc30]

the demonstrators are confident that the U.N. weapons inspectors can "contain" a murderous dictator All I can say about the idea of containing Saddam is this: Would you want to be in that container with him in charge?

[doc30]

the demonstrators are confident that the U.N. weapons inspectors can "contain" a murderous dictator

All I can say about the idea of containing Saddam is this: Would you want to be in that container with him in charge?

[CtBigPat]

Liberalism is based on immature thinking. They want big daddy government to take care of all their problems for them, they want the "truth" to be whatever they want it to be and they NEVER want to be held acountable for their actions. In their minds the "peace movment" of the 60's was a good and noble effort. So what if a few million Cambodians were killed.

[CtBigPat]

Liberalism is based on immature thinking. They want big daddy government to take care of all their problems for them, they want the "truth" to be whatever they want it to be and they NEVER want to be held acountable for their actions. In their minds the "peace movment" of the 60's was a good and noble effort. So what if a few million Cambodians were killed.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Liberalism is based on immature thinking. They want big daddy government to take care of all their problems for them, they want the "truth" to be whatever they want it to be and they NEVER want to be held acountable for their actions.

Socialism was described as a system where "the worst get on top."

They sell the idea of having a tyrannical government run by Mother Teresa, even after Mother Teresa is dead and buried. And notwithstanding the fact that Mother Teresa, if she actually were the paragon of virtue being advertised, would know that the position proposed exceeded her capacity.

[TigersEye]

They do remember. They just don't care. Their street signs and articles unambiguously say "it's not our problem".

[A_perfect_lady]

I know several of them, college professors some of them, who have convinced themselves that the slaughter happened BECAUSE the US got involved. It was a "natural reaction" to the "imperialist interference."

Yes, really.

[CyberAnt]

It's called: selective memory

[Destructor]

"Why don’t peace activists remember killing fields?"

They conveniently forget!

[Question_Assumptions]

Again, I wonder if the Vietnam peace crowd ever thinks about that.

Of course not. Once they've "succeeded", they go on to their next great cause and never look back. Like drunken drivers passing through a crowded school yard, they probably wouldn't like what they saw if they looked back.

[altayann]

Um, Bill?

Ever heard of Noam Chomsky? You know, the leftist that has been decrying the Khmer Rouge and the killing fields for years?

You know, the one that tries to insinuate that the US bears some responsibility for the killing fields?

Bill, wake up. The left has been screaming about Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge for *years*.

Does the Hollywood film "The Killing Fields" ring any bells?

[altayann]

I remember reading a book called The Killing Fields documenting the mass murder of up to 2 million Cambodians. Then I saw the movie starring Sam Waterston. What the Khmer Rouge did was exactly what the Nazis did. Yet the peace demonstrators in America said little about it, perhaps because they knew that if the United States had prevailed in Vietnam, the "killing fields" of neighboring Cambodia would not have happened.

And maybe it's because Khmer Rouge seized power in Cambodia in 1975, Bill. By 1975, the peace movement in the United States really didn't have that much to do protestwise as the US had already begun to pull out of Vietnam.

Mr O'Reilly, if you want to argue against leftists, that's fine. But you've got to start using arguments that don't make you look so stupid.

[Conservative_Rob]

One liberal quote you often hear goes something like: "More people have been killed in the name of Christianity than for any other reason." I wish to revise that to say that more people have been killed by Liberalism / Socialism / Communism (I consider them all the same) than by any other means. That fact is true even knowing that Christianity has been around for 2,000 years and Liberalism / Socialism / Communism only being around for about 150 years. You don't even have to look at wars and tyranny to see Liberals / Socialists / Communists kill people, just look at the millions of people who have died from the banning of DDT. The analogy of a drunk driving through a schoolyard is very accurate.

[On the Road to Serfdom]

Does the Hollywood film "The Killing Fields" ring any bells?

I probably should not speak for Bill, but since this is in his article: I remember reading a book called The Killing Fields documenting the mass murder of up to 2 million Cambodians. Then I saw the movie starring Sam Waterston.

I think his answer would be "Yes."

[Archimedes2000]

If I may, I think you miss the point. O'Rielly was asking where all the peace protesters were when the KR was killing millions, implying that they didn't care about people, the peace protestors only cared about hating "the US"