dagblog - Comments for "Seymour Hersh: The Red Line and the Rat Line"

I should have mentioned that

Aaron Carine — Mon, 19 May 2014 13:08:06 +0000

In reply to This article, which has juicy

I should have mentioned that in Porter's article, he is mostly attacking the authors' methodology, rather than presenting data about Indochina, which is indeed a matter on which he is not at all reliable.

Not sure which article you

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 19 May 2014 04:36:26 +0000

In reply to This article, which has juicy

Not sure which article you were trying to link to.

1 I did find searching "re-education" said 100,000 to 200,000 still imprisoned as of 1982.

Searching on their reference to camp Z30-D, this article concludes 165,000 killed in camps based on US & European studies.

Forget Porter.

This article, which has juicy

Aaron Carine — Sun, 18 May 2014 22:52:41 +0000

In reply to I'm aware that much of

This article, which has juicy stuff about Communist brutality, supports Porter's numbers for the inmates in the re-education camps.

http://indomemoires.hypotheses.org/23

I'm aware that much of

Aaron Carine — Sun, 18 May 2014 21:36:55 +0000

In reply to Again, careful about the

I'm aware that much of Porter's stuff has been debunked(his old claim that 800 were killed in Ho's land reform is ridiculous) but no one has refuted "Creating a Bloodbath Through Statistical Manipulation". It holds up.

Again, careful about the

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 18 May 2014 20:01:20 +0000

In reply to Aaron. I think I should say

Again, careful about the friends you keep.

In 1976, George C. Hildebrand and Porter wrote a book titled Cambodia: Starvation and Revolution, challenging early accounts of Khmer Rouge atrocities and ideological fanaticism during the Cambodian genocide. They argued that the Khmer Rouge had a "coherent, well-developed plan for developing the economy,"^[18] dismissed Western media reports of grave crimes as a "systematic process of mythmaking,"^[19] labelled Sydney Schanberg's account for the New York Times 'a weak foundation for the massive historical judgment rendered by the news media',^[20] and disputed charges of government-inflicted famine: "It is the officially inspired propaganda of starvation for which no proof has been produced... Thus the starvation myth has come full circle to haunt its authors."^[19] While other sources reported that the Khmer Rouge's forced evacuation of Phnom Penh cost tens of thousands of lives,^[21]^[22] Porter and Hildebrand stated that the evacuation "was actually a rationally conceived strategy for dealing with the urgent problems that faced postwar Cambodia" rather than "a backward-looking policy motivated by doctrinaire hatred".^[23] Due to years of civil war and an influx of refugees, Phnom Penh had limited supplies, with François Ponchaud estimating that the city had no more than two months worth of food in April 1975.^[24] The Khmer Rouge had been forcibly evacuating the inhabitants of the villages and towns they occupied since 1972,^[25] contributed to Phnom Penh's dire situation by shelling the city for more than a year,^[26] and rejected offers of foreign aid.^[27] Author William Shawcross wrote that "arguments about the precise quantities of food available in the city" were "somewhat academic", citing a statement by Pol Pot that the evacuation had been planned in advance to assist in the Khmer Rouge policy of "smashing... all sorts of enemy spy organizations."^[28] By contrast, Porter and Hildebrand suggested that the evacuation may have been undertaken for humanitarian purposes, and "undoubtedly saved the lives of many thousands of Cambodians."^[23]

^{An apologist for the Khmer Rouge - just humanitarians trying to save lives? I'm less than impressed with your source.}

Aaron. I think I should say

Aaron Carine — Sun, 18 May 2014 18:21:28 +0000

In reply to Are you PS or Aaron?

Aaron. I think I should say "Porter proved there wasn't a basis for claiming 65,000" rather than "Porter proved it wasn't 65,000".

Ok, to put this to rest - 1)

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 18 May 2014 17:38:11 +0000

In reply to Seymour Hersh: The Red Line and the Rat Line

Ok, to put this to rest -

1) I gave Obama points for stopping short of war, but dinned him slightly for almost getting suckered in. I thought that a bit fair.

2) "I'd be very surprised if the Communists killed more than 50,000 civilians in the war. I don't believe the quarter of a million deaths among ARVN soldiers would have occurred if there had been no war. The number bumped off after the war isn't known, but I doubt it was more than 30,000." "and the (probable) 20-30,000 killed after the Communist victory is much smaller than the number the Americans would have killed if they had pressed the war to victory." Ignoring more accurate numbers, in the 50's, 60's after '74 - each era minimum 10x that amount. US always bad, ignoring for example that Nixon drew troops down drastically from 1969-1972 - who the fuck "pressed the war to victory"? he did withdraw much faster than anyone could have hoped.

3) Pinochet - once again people conform to habit and scream about a guy who killed 3000 and tortured numerous more, but somehow think he's worse than regimes like North Vietnam that killed at least 100x more or Czechoslovakia that killed roughly 2-3x as many but imprisoned many for much longer and held the society captive for 40+ years rather than Pinochet's 15 (and Pinochet voluntarily resigned, wasn't overthrown)

4) Democracy - like our Constitution, it's not a suicide pact. Voting isn't the most important thing in the universe, as the latest Crimea and Ukraine referendums show (as well as our staged votes in Iraq and Nicaragua)

5) Redistribution of wealth - fine to some extent - see #4 - if your plan leads to economic meltdown or relative genocide (e.g. Catholics/Montagnards in Vietname), then your socialist plans ain't worth shit. If you have someone brilliant like Hugo Chavez who threads the line between crony corruption and a police state and state-sponsored theft of property, you just may have a winner. If you have a fucker like Somoza or Mobutu, you just might not have a choice.

6) Gusmão - be careful about the company you keep, even if you have a good cause - taking support from an ideology that's killed 10's of millions of innocents just in the last 5-10 years is not the way to engender trust or broker peace. If you have a situation like Indonesia in the 60's, paybacks may be hell. See #3 above - it could have been much worse, but people are whining for 40 years since - stupid is as stupid does.

7) It's been nice talking to you. Enjoy.

Are you PS or Aaron?

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 18 May 2014 17:10:26 +0000

In reply to Peracles is clearly getting

Are you PS or Aaron?

Peracles is clearly getting

Anonymous — Sun, 18 May 2014 13:12:26 +0000

In reply to I laid down references,

Peracles is clearly getting desperate. I don't remember saying anything about a worker's paradise in Chile, or about Ho being "peaceful". His gibes can be answered by re-reading what I actually wrote.

To protect them?

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 18 May 2014 13:00:04 +0000

In reply to I can't post the

To protect them?