>> >I mean who cares if Chomsky fucks chickens, I
>> >don't think that changes the fact that the US Air Force probably killed
> as
>> >many Cambodians as the Khmer Rouge did...
>>
>> You really do know nothing at all about anything.
>>
>> Brad DeLong
>
> What was the CIA estimate for Cambodian dead from US bombing during
> 1970-75 -- something like 600,000? The Yale Center has settled on 1.7
> million dead under the KR, but I recall the CIA's numbers being between
> 600,000 to a million. 'Course, you factor in Vietnamese and Laotian dead
> from the US assault, and the total numbers go way beyond Pol Pot's. And
> if
> he was a genocidal monster (which he was), what does that make us?
Whatever the comparative totals are, one must keep in mind that it was the U.S. bombing of Cambodia that plunged that country into ruin, which enabled the previously-marginal Khmer Rouge to take power. One could easily argue that the _whole_ of the Khmer Rouge's record can be blamed, at least in part, on the United States.
I used to get into lengthy arguments with people who spouted the bullshit about Chomsky being some kind of apologist for the Khmer Rouge. But the most effective point to raise was what Dennis mentioned. I'd point out that these people were getting extremely angry because Chomsky, at worst, expressed skepticism about early accounts of Khmer atrocities. But they weren't angry at _all_ about Carter and Reagan providing them with diplomatic and material support, _after_ their murderous record was clear, well-known, and established. I'd ask, "Why are you getting so worked up over Chomsky, but you let these other guys off the hook when what they did was _leagues_ worse?" That's when I could accuse _them_ of making apologetics for the Khmer Rouge. Heh, heh, heh.
> And let's not dwell on the Carter and Reagan admins' support for the
> KR-dominated "government in exile" after the Vietnamese thankfully threw
> them out of power.