@shavixmir saidYou are the one that needs a history lesson, Pol Pot was NOT supported by the US and UK. He was fighting to overthrow the US backed Lon Nol regime, and he did it with the help of North Vietnam.
Pol Pot was supported by capitalist US and the UK. And defeated by communism (Vietnam).
Please. First learn theory. Then learn history. Then come back to debate an issue.
By the way you're doing EXACTLY what the guy in the video is talking about, making excuses by saying "Well, those countries weren't REALLY socialist/communist/whatever".
@dood111 saidThe UK and US both blocked financial and food aid in the UN.
You are the one that needs a history lesson, Pol Pot was NOT supported by the US and UK. He was fighting to overthrow the US backed Lon Nol regime, and he did it with the help of North Vietnam.
By the way you're doing EXACTLY what the guy in the video is talking about, making excuses by saying "Well, those countries weren't REALLY socialist/communist/whatever".
They vetoed the removal of Pol Pot’s UN seat.
Get back to your Xmas turkey, you chicken.
@dood111 saidThen the guy in the video is correct, then.
You are the one that needs a history lesson, Pol Pot was NOT supported by the US and UK. He was fighting to overthrow the US backed Lon Nol regime, and he did it with the help of North Vietnam.
By the way you're doing EXACTLY what the guy in the video is talking about, making excuses by saying "Well, those countries weren't REALLY socialist/communist/whatever".
They were not communist by any measure of the definition.
They had various socialist policies, just like most other countries. And that’s the extent of it.
@shavixmir saidAll of this happened AFTER Vietnam took over Cambodia, lot more involved than than you make out. China, Japan, other Asian countries also wanted the Pol Pot regime to retain a UN seat. They made a deal with the devil to try to oust Vietnam from Kampuchea, not because they loved the khmer rouge.
The UK and US both blocked financial and food aid in the UN.
They vetoed the removal of Pol Pot’s UN seat.
Get back to your Xmas turkey, you chicken.
"U.S. to Support Pol Pot Regime For U.N. Seat
By Don OberdorferSeptember 16, 1980
The United States will support the seating of Pol Pot's "democratic Kampuchea" regime in the United Nations again this year despite its abhorrent record on human rights, Secretary of State Edmund S. Muskie announced yesterday.
Speaking to a news conference, Muskie said the U.S. decision -- the subject of speculation and controversy at home and abroad -- was made at the behest of Southeast Asian allies and after "careful diplomatic soundings" that Vietnam is unwilling to negotiate the withdrawal of its forces from Kampuchea.
A credentials challenge to "Democratic Kampuchea," which currently occupies the U.N. seat, is expected in the early days of the General Assembly session, which begins in New York today. The challenge will be mounted by Vietnam and the "People's Republic of Kampuchea", which is ruling most of Cambodia (Kampuchea) from Phnom Penh under Vietnamese sponsorship.
China and Japan, as well as U.S. allies in Southeast Asia, have argued that to unseat the Khmer insurgents, whose military leader is Pol Pot, would be to give international legitimacy to the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia.
State Department officials said a major factor in the U.S. decision was an inflexible Vietnamese stand regarding withdrawal from Cambodia, taken in unannounced talks last month between Vietnamese officials at the United Nations and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State John D. Negroponte. The decision on the U.S. position was made at high levels of the government toward the end of last week, officials said.
Muskie said the U.S. decision "in no way implies any support or recognition of the Democratic Kampuchea regime. We abhor and condemn the regime's human rights record and would never support its return to power in Phnom Penh."
@shavixmir saidAgain, like the guy in the video says, you people ultimately give up defending your position and just result to insults
Squeal piggy, squeak.
@dood111 saidNo. The point is that you’re using BS arguments based on false concepts... on Xmas bloody day.
Again, like the guy in the video says, you people ultimately give up defending your position and just result to insults
I have better things to do than delve into your re-utterences of debunked right-wing US BS.
Sorry.
Live a bit and leave communication to people wishing to absorb feedback.
@AverageJoe1
Of course, regarding all of the above, we certainly have socialistic programs in the USA. No question.
But these programs are not what the vile socialistic politicians are talking about today. Why do the libs herenot admit that? Curious indeed.
Maybe for the same weak reasoning that Suzianne et al expound upon?
It is exactly what liberals are proposing. Stop the corporate handouts. Establish a living minimum wage. Provide healthcare for all. Public institutions of higher learning should be free to tax payers who are qualified to attend. Establish a more progressive tax structure. Use tax dollars to fix and expand the infrastructure (roads, dams, bridges) and improve especially access to the Internet. Make sure all sources of drinking water are free from lead and other dangerous chemicals. Join other nations in dealing with climate change. Whatever Fake News right wingers you are listening to, stop. Get a grip.
2 edits
@phranny saidY0u would REALLY have to define corp handouts. New thread, maybe?
It is exactly what liberals are proposing. Stop the corporate handouts. Establish a living minimum wage. Provide healthcare for all. Public institutions of higher learning should be free to tax payers who are qualified to attend. Establish a more progressive tax structure. Use tax dollars to fix and expand the infrastructure (roads, dams, bridges) and improve especially acces ...[text shortened]... ealing with climate change. Whatever Fake News right wingers you are listening to, stop. Get a grip.
"Living Wage" has never been defined. If Handy (this is an analogy, Handy), has 5 kids, and I have one kid, or maybe single with no kids, and we work the SAME job, at Amazon assembly line or the local McDonalds, here is the problem. The corp pays that job $15/hr. I only need $15/hr to live on. That is it. Now Handy, he has 7 mouths to feed. HE cannot live on the $15.00. That is, $15 is not a 'living wage'' for Handy. He needs to earn more money to support his family.
PLEASE, would a liberal person here thresh though this, and comment in a way that makes sense? What will work for the corps and for the employee at the same time? If you will do this, it will make future typing and bantering SO much easier, we will then all be on an understandable playing field. Cool. Thanks.
@averagejoe1 saidThe answer to this sure would help our threading. And much more meaningful than attacks such as above...?
Y0u would REALLY have to define corp handouts. New thread, maybe?
"Living Wage" has never been defined. If Handy (this is an analogy, Handy), has 5 kids, and I have one kid, or maybe single with no kids, and we work the SAME job, at Amazon assembly line or the local McDonalds, here is the problem. The corp pays that job $15/hr. I only need $15/hr to live on. That is ...[text shortened]... bantering SO much easier, we will then all be on an understandable playing field. Cool. Thanks.