It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Cambodians Mark Start of Genocide

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 02:09 AM
link   
Today marks the thirty year anniversary of the fall of Phnom Penh to the Cambodian communists, the Khmer Rouge. During their reign, from 1975 to 1979, an estimated 1.5 million to 2 million Cambodians were systematically murdered. Not one of the leaders of the regime has ever been brought to trial. The bones of the victims have become the memorial of the genocide, creating controversy among those who believe that the souls of the dead cannot rest until their remains have been cremated according to Buddhist tradition.
 



www.cnn.com
An estimated 1.7 million people died from execution, starvation, ill health and overwork during the Khmer Rouge's 1975-1979 brutal rule. None of the regime's top leaders has been brought to trial, although the government has signed a deal with the United Nations to create a U.N.-backed tribunal.

Following a brutal, five-year war between the Khmer Rouge guerrillas and a U.S.-backed government, the victors marched into Phnom Penh April 17, 1975, driving its residents into the countryside at gunpoint to become rice farmers and slave laborers.

The Khmer Rouge victory preceded that of communist forces in Vietnam which captured the South Vietnamese capital, Saigon, on April 30, and forced remaining U.S. personnel to flee the country as they had earlier in Cambodia.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The communist genocide that took place after the US pulled out its combat troops from Vietnam in 1973 has been a strangely taboo subject for those who took up the cause of the communists during the war. John Kerry and Jane Fonda are just two prominent individuals on the left who have had precious little to say about the crimes committed by the communists following their "anti-war" activities.

We should never, however, forget the genocide in Cambodia or the 3.8 million who died in Vietnam as a result of communist political violence in the years following the US withdrawal. These deaths should remind us all of the importance of our opposition to global communist expansion and how fragile our freedom remains to this day because of those whose ideology despises liberty.

Related News Links:
www.signonsandiego.com
www.voanews.com
www.journalnow.com
www.hawaii.edu

[edit on 05/4/17 by GradyPhilpott]




posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 06:57 AM
link   
That final link, to Hawaii Edu, is a real find. To anyone that believes war is the worst man can do to man their is proof to the contrary.

One of the authors (Rummel, I believe) cites that death by government against it's own people is as if "nuclear war has already occured." Comparing the 100 million plus deaths by government against the 35 million in war it is impossible to argue.

Good article




posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by JoeDoaks
That final link, to Hawaii Edu, is a real find. To anyone that believes war is the worst man can do to man their is proof to the contrary.


Yes, it s a good link, which I have used before to present links on how many people have died because of communism.

This is the link i have used in the past and shows the deaths by communist regimes.
www.hawaii.edu...



[edit on 17-4-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   
It's a sad thing that the systematic massacre by the Khmer Rouge has been so under-reported and is rarely even discussed. This was probably the worst crime committed by a government against its people in the last half of the 20th century, yet no one seems to even know about it.

Over a quarter of the population was murdered, starved or worked to death. My bosses happen to be Cambodian, and they were thankfully able to escape the Khmer Rouge and eventually come to America. They are very nice people and you would never even think that they lived through such a horrible time. My boss said he was lucky because out of his family, only his father starved to death because of the regime. The loss of just one family member from the Khmer Rouge is a miracle in itself.

I believe the leader of the Khmer Rouge was Pal Pot. Ironically, he was first a teacher. He lived out his life surrounded by loyalists and never was even brought to trial for his horrible crimes. When he finally died at an old age, his body was burned amongst a pile of trash and tires. Can you imagine being a leader of a country and ending up being cremated in a pile of garabage when you die? Kind of a fitting tribute to the guy for what he did, but I wish that he could have felt some of the pain and murder that he ordered.

One more thing... the Khmer Rouge's famous prison camp, S-21, was one of the most brutal I've ever heard of. Of the thousands that went through it, I believe something like 9 people survived. Women and children who they claimed were enemies of the state were shot and thrown into ditches.

I think that we as a free people should do everything we can to help Cambodia. Although I won't go as far to say that the Khmer Rouge coming to power was our fault, we certainly did nothing to stop it. We should be helping these proud people rebuild their country and their lives, even if its been 30 years.


[edit on 17-4-2005 by Rasputin13]



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Your post got me wondering about the current state of affairs in Cambodia, my quick search shows they've managed to establish a shaky multiparty democracy with UN supervision. Here's the CIA Factbook entry, only a few months out of date: www.cia.gov...



Most Cambodians consider themselves to be Khmers, whose Angkor Empire extended over much of Southeast Asia and reached its zenith between the 10th and 13th centuries. Subsequently, attacks by the Thai and Cham (from present-day Vietnam) weakened the empire ushering in a long period of decline. In 1863, the king of Cambodia placed the country under French protection; it became part of French Indochina in 1887. Following Japanese occupation in World War II, Cambodia became independent within the French Union in 1949 and fully independent in 1953. After a five-year struggle, Communist Khmer Rouge forces captured Phnom Penh in April 1975 and ordered the evacuation of all cities and towns; at least 1.5 million Cambodians died from execution, enforced hardships, or starvation during the Khmer Rouge regime under POL POT. A December 1978 Vietnamese invasion drove the Khmer Rouge into the countryside, led to a 10-year Vietnamese occupation, and touched off almost 13 years of civil war. The 1991 Paris Peace Accords mandated democratic elections and a ceasefire, which was not fully respected by the Khmer Rouge. UN-sponsored elections in 1993 helped restore some semblance of normalcy and the final elements of the Khmer Rouge surrendered in early 1999. Factional fighting in 1997 ended the first coalition government, but a second round of national elections in 1998 led to the formation of another coalition government and renewed political stability. The July 2003 elections were relatively peaceful, but it took one year of negotiations between contending political parties before a coalition government was formed. Nation-wide local elections are scheduled for 2007 and national elections for 2008.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasputin13
I think that we as a free people should do everything we can to help Cambodia. Although I won't go as far to say that the Khmer Rouge coming to power was our fault, we certainly did nothing to stop it. We should be helping these proud people rebuild their country and their lives, even if its been 30 years. [emphasis mine]


It's interesting that you would say such a thing. Have you failed to note that the Khmer Rouge take over of Phnom Penh took place just two weeks before the fall of Saigon? Did you forget that the fall of Saigon was a direct result of the American left's (John Kerry, Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, et al.) violent opposition to the war in Vietnam?

What makes you think that the US could have done anything for Cambodia that it was unable to do for Vietnam because of the likes of Jane Fonda, John Kerry, and the thousands of others who championed the cause of these genocidal maniacs?


[edit on 05/4/17 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Grady that's just your opinion. It is not shared by MOST that were there. The 'lefties' you listed were NOT the anti-war leaders, they just pretend to be. Americans with broken hearts that were sick and tired of their children coming home in body bags or addicted or crazy ended the war.

Interesting some people still harbor some glimmer that 'we' could have won that war. We should have never been there. America supported corruption in South Vietnam. America destabilized the entire region.

How many people died there? 2 ½ million or so? Cambodia's hell would have never happened if America had kept it's nose out of Indochina. Of that over 2 million how many were non-Vietnamese?

The list for reasons the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam is long, the 'lefties' barely make it on the list.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
John Kerry and Jane Fonda are just two prominent individuals on the left who have had precious little to say about the crimes committed by the communists following their "anti-war" activities.

[edit on 05/4/17 by GradyPhilpott]


I don't quite understand what you are saying. Are Kerry and Fonda they big fans of the genocide? Do they respond with a "no comment" when asked? "Precious little" compared to whom? Bush? Britney Spears? Does Bush and Spears speak more of the regime than Kerry or Fonda?
Do they differ on opinion?



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 07:05 AM
link   

We should have never been there. America supported corruption in South Vietnam. America destabilized the entire region.

How many people died there? 2 ½ million or so? Cambodia's hell would have never happened if America had kept it's nose out of Indochina. Of that over 2 million how many were non-Vietnamese?


How the hell do you figure any of that? If America had never entered, you'd still have the same crazy communists taking over.

I fail to see how its wrong for America to come to a nations aid when they are about to be overrun by incompetent murderers. The North was already slaughtering anyone in the South who disagreed with the communist agenda before America ever entered.


The list for reasons the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam is long, the 'lefties' barely make it on the list.


It was because of those lefties we couldn't just simply inavde North Vietnam, or Cambodia, and put a quick end to the war. It was because of them we were stuck basically patrolling areas, allowing our troops to be ambushed by an enemy who could simply flee beyond their authority.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 08:28 AM
link   

In 1955, when CIA intervention in Cambodia began, there was no communist threat to rationalize it. Sandwiched as he was between two US client states, Thailand and South Vietnam, Prince Norodom Sihanouk, the popular sovereign of Cambodia, had one overriding goal-to keep his country from becoming involved in the Vietnam War. To that end, he stuck tenaciously to a policy of neutralism from 1955 to 1970, accepting aid from both communist and capitalist states but criticizing each on occasion.

Sihanouk dismissed as fraudulent CIA documents that predicted imminent Communist aggression against him, but the plots and coup attempts by US-backed factions were all too real. In his memoir, My War with the CIA, Sihanouk alleges at least two assassination plots against him. There were also numerous incursions by Thai, South Vietnamese and US troops, a 1958 CIA-backed coup attempt and countless "accidental" bombing runs into Cambodian territory. Sihanouk's unwillingness to join the crusade against Communism made him the CIA's enemy.

Perhaps the final straw was when Sihanouk denounced US military incursions into Cambodia at a major press conference (dutifully, the US media barely mentioned his charges). In March 1970, Sihanouk was deposed by a CIA puppet named Lon Nol, who immediately began committing Cambodian troops to the war in Vietnam.

With Sihanouk out of the way, war quickly engulfed Cambodia. US bombing intensified near the Vietnamese border, driving North Vietnamese and NLF troops deeper into Cambodia. From 1969 to 1975, US bombing killed 600,000 Cambodians and created a full-scale famine.

Not surprisingly, forces opposed to Lon Nol's regime grew rapidly. In 1975, one of them, the Communist Khmer Rouge, took power (before Lon Nol, they'd been a tiny, marginal group).

As depicted in the film The Killing Fields, the Khmer Rouge carried out many atrocities, executing probably between 100,000 and 350,000 people. For propaganda purposes, Western reporters inflated the total by adding famine deaths to it.

The Khmer Rouge's hideous crimes didn't prevent the CIA from supporting it after Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1979, and for many years thereafter. As the Arabs say, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."


www.thirdworldtraveler.com...



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

JoeDoaks posted
The list for reasons the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam is long, the 'lefties' barely make it on the list.


It was because of those lefties we couldn't just simply invade North Vietnam, or Cambodia, and put a quick end to the war. It was because of them we were stuck basically patrolling areas, allowing our troops to be ambushed by an enemy who could simply flee beyond their authority.

To follow this logic the U.S. left Iraq a year ago?
Afghanistan is safe and secure now?
The Philippine insurrection only lasted a few months?
The American conquest of its own west didn't really take almost a hundred years?

'simply flee beyond their authority'- now that's rich.

The only time in U.S. history that an American Army won 'quickly' against a well trained and supplied insurgent force located in jungles was the South Pacific in WW II. To those Americans that fought there it wasn't quick enough. The terrain also had limited maneuver room as compared to Indochina and theri was no indigenous population.

Not invading North Vietnam was not decided by 'lefties.' This decision was based upon the Korean War experience and America not wanting to precipitate another war with China.

Read what krotzkrotz posted- a good quote that more or less sums up America's meddlesome Cambodian adventure.

Don't be 'right-left' blind to that era. It was not that easy and simple. Sure the 'lefties' got a lot of photo-ops, but by then every community in America was questioning the 'why.' Every family had seen the body bags of American youth. Diem and his successors were corrupt, they represented no group but a small oligarchy. With or without the North, South Vietnam would have had a revolution.

LBJ and the military pushed for a 'glorious war.' After tens of thousands of dead Americans LBJ realized the Vietnamese were not going to roll over and quit. He didn't run for re-election. I have always believed he was heart-sick by that time.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 05:20 PM
link   

To follow this logic the U.S. left Iraq a year ago?


There is talk of withdrawing troops at this point. And the war in Iraq, believe it or not, is over. I didn't say all resistance in Vietnam would have died right away, but you can not destroy them by sitting on the other side of a border waiting for the enemy to come to you.


Afghanistan is safe and secure now?


Same situation with Iraq, just better overall. That nation was torn apart by over 2 decades of war.


The Philippine insurrection only lasted a few months?


This was the result of bad politics, not military. It's like Vietnam in that sense. If we had treated the people right, there wouldn't have been any problem to begin with.


The American conquest of its own west didn't really take almost a hundred years?


First, the Indians had numerous advantages over our own troops. We never exactly led some long war to take the land we wanted, anyway. We pushed the Indians out when it became necessary, and we never really had significant problems. The reality of the situation was a few lost skirmishes. It wasn't even a war.


'simply flee beyond their authority'- now that's rich.


What would you call it when American troops can only patrol a small area?


The only time in U.S. history that an American Army won 'quickly' against a well trained and supplied insurgent force located in jungles was the South Pacific in WW II. To those Americans that fought there it wasn't quick enough. The terrain also had limited maneuver room as compared to Indochina and theri was no indigenous population.


We haven't exactly faced that many well trained insurgencies located in jungles to begin with. If we invaded North Vietnam, it wouldn't have been a war against insurgency. We'd be facing the North's military heads up. They could have retreated into the jungle and tried to conduct a guerilla war, but they would have been hard pressed without a strong base and source of supplies. The political environment changes, and the people loose their will to fight. The support dwindles, and the guerilla war collapses.


Not invading North Vietnam was not decided by 'lefties.' This decision was based upon the Korean War experience and America not wanting to precipitate another war with China.


China wasn't friends with the North. They were closer to being our allies in the Vietnam war. A united Vietnam threatened China, the reason China invaded them later on.


Read what krotzkrotz posted- a good quote that more or less sums up America's meddlesome Cambodian adventure.


A biased article means nothing. Why is it no other nation, like China, for instance, is mentioned? Why does the blame go on America in that article? Why is there no mention of how the Vietcong were stationed in Cambodia, and using it to attack our troops?


Don't be 'right-left' blind to that era. It was not that easy and simple. Sure the 'lefties' got a lot of photo-ops, but by then every community in America was questioning the 'why.' Every family had seen the body bags of American youth. Diem and his successors were corrupt, they represented no group but a small oligarchy. With or without the North, South Vietnam would have had a revolution.


Don't spout your rhetoric on how this wasn't a political matter. The losses of the war weren't even heavy. Morale was so low because of the liberal media's campaign against the war. We fought the war like pussies because the liberal media led what amounts to a propaganda campaign against the war. We didn't even have to invade. If Nixon simply hadn't been screwed over, there would still be a South and North Vietnam, with at least half being free.

And no, there wouldn't have been a revolution. The South was not that bad. It gave people at the very least freedom, and the economy was doing pretty good. It was certainly better then South Korea's was for decades after the Korean War.


LBJ and the military pushed for a 'glorious war.' After tens of thousands of dead Americans LBJ realized the Vietnamese were not going to roll over and quit. He didn't run for re-election. I have always believed he was heart-sick by that time.


"LBJ" could have bombed a few targets and destroyed North Vietnam if he weren't a pussy who was scared of the media.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The communist genocide that took place after the US pulled out its combat troops from Vietnam in 1973 has been a strangely taboo subject for those who took up the cause of the communists during the war. John Kerry and Jane Fonda are just two prominent individuals on the left who have had precious little to say about the crimes committed by the communists following their "anti-war" activities.


LOL Grady does it again.

What has been a taboo was a complicity of the US and Britain complicity in the genocide.

www.users.bigpond.com...

Just do some research on it. The US was so anti-Vietnam that they supported Pol Pot against the Vietnamese (there has always been ethnic hate between these two nations, which is most unfortunate).



The Cambodian lawyer defending Ta Mok, the Khmer Rouge military leader captured last year, has said: "All the foreigners involved have to be called to court, and there will be no exceptions . . . Madeleine Albright, Margaret Thatcher, Henry Kissinger, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George Bush . . . we are going to invite them to tell the world why they supported the Khmer Rouge." It is an important principle, of which those in Washington and Whitehall currently sustaining bloodstained tyrannies elsewhere might take note.


I did a lot of reading on this when I went to Cambodia, but didn't keep the links -- use Google and be enlightened.

[edit on 18-4-2005 by Aelita]



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Don't spout your rhetoric on how this wasn't a political matter. The losses of the war weren't even heavy. Morale was so low because of the liberal media's campaign against the war. We fought the war like pussies because the liberal media led what amounts to a propaganda campaign against the war. We didn't even have to invade. If Nixon simply hadn't been screwed over, there would still be a South and North Vietnam, with at least half being free.

And no, there wouldn't have been a revolution. The South was not that bad. It gave people at the very least freedom, and the economy was doing pretty good. It was certainly better then South Korea's was for decades after the Korean War.

You go to the Michael Jackson trial? Reads like you are from Dreamland-

Loses not that bad-
by your count?


www.vhfcn.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> Vietnam war stats
Average age of 58,148 killed in Vietnam was 23.11 years

The average infantryman in the South Pacific during World War II saw about 40 days of combat in four years. The average infantryman in Vietnam saw about 240 days of combat in one year thanks to the mobility of the helicopter.

One out of every 10 Americans who served in Vietnam was a casualty. 58,169 were killed and 304,000 wounded out of 2.59 million who served. Although the percent who died is similar to other wars, amputations or crippling wounds were 300 percent higher than in World War II. 75,000 Vietnam veterans are severely disabled.


wikipedia
A further 153,303 Americans were wounded to give total casualties of 211,529.
-and-
Vietnam's Ministry of Labor, War Invalids and Social Affairs released figures on April 3, 1995, reporting that 1.1 million fighters -- Viet Cong guerrillas and North Vietnamese soldiers -- and nearly 2 million civilians in the north and the south were killed between 1954 and 1975. The number of wounded fighters was put at 600,000. It is unclear how many Vietnamese civilians were wounded. The accuracy of these figures has generally not been challenged.


vietnamwar.com



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 10:40 PM
link   
We averaged about 5,800 deaths per year in Vietnam. Regardless of any other statistics, that was pretty low relative to other wars. Everyone of those lives were important and a grave loss, but in comparison to one battle like Iwo Jima, the loss pales in comparison.

I believe that is what Disturbed Deliverer was trying to say.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Loses not that bad-
by your count?


No, by anyone who knows a thing about military history. But a liberal doesn't need that to judge the severity of a war. They're fine just trying to bend things to match their pre-determined viewpoint.


What has been a taboo was a complicity of the US and Britain complicity in the genocide


It amazes me that pretty much every problem in the history of the world in the past one hundred years gets pushed onto America. America was completely powerless to stop what was going on at that point, and that's the fault of those who pulled us out of the war in the first place.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

Joedoaks
Los[s]es not that bad-
by your count?


No, by anyone who knows a thing about military history. But a liberal doesn't need that to judge the severity of a war. They're fine just trying to bend things to match their pre-determined viewpoint.

2nd time I've been branded a Liberal at ATS- if the shoe fits?


Aelita
What has been a taboo was a complicity of the US and Britain complicity in the genocide


Not only taboo but quickly laid upon others. The US and Britain caused the entire disaster in Cambodia through their meddlesome politics.

For Grady

rbackstr
On 19 February 1945, the 5th Marine Amphibious Corps (consisting of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Marine Divisions) landed on Iwo Jima (Sulphur Island). When the battle was over, 6821 American Marines, Sailors, and Soldiers , along with an estimated 20,000+ Japanese defenders had died.



wikipedia
The NLF and the NVA lost around 35,000 men killed, 60,000 wounded and 6,000 POWs for no military success. The US and ARVN dead totaled around 3,900 (1,100 US). But this was not the conflict as the US public saw it. US media reports of the battles shocked both the American public and its politicians. Apparently the depth of the US reaction surprised even the North Vietnamese leadership.

Tet proved that the US military could fight against overwhelming odds for extended periods and inflict horrendous casualties to gain- ?

Sure Iwo Jima was rough and devastating, but so too would have been an American invasion of say Ninh Binh (90 klicks from Hanoi)

During the Vietnam War it is unfair to only count American dead and wounded. Don't forget the 3 million (or so) Vietnamese and the 153,000 American casualties and who knows how many 'allies' including the Hmong and Montangards. I'll just round this off to 3 ¼ million killed and 750,000 wounded.

Now, working on a ten year time line that comes out to 325,000 dead per year and 75,000 wounded.

Throw in Cambodia and Laos to double that number. That is a lot of dead and maimed people for no reason other than testosterone. American hubris killed and maimed all those people.


Disturbed Deliverer
It amazes me that pretty much every problem in the history of the world in the past one hundred years gets pushed onto America. America was completely powerless to stop what was going on at that point, and that's the fault of those who pulled us out of the war in the first place.

Don't be amazed, be realistic. -'pulled us out of the war'- just who do you think that was?

Start a thread on the subject and become enlightened to other points of view. America has been a very bad world neighbor.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Not only taboo but quickly laid upon others. The US and Britain caused the entire disaster in Cambodia through their meddlesome politics.


We never would have backed any coup if we had simply been allowed to clear out Vietcong using Cambodia to stage attacks on our troops. We couldn't do this, though. We couldn't even get the whiny liberals to let us invade the North. And once again, I suppose Americans were the only ones backing a coup, right? There was never any support from the Chinese, who invaded Vietnam for its invasion of Cambodia.

America was out of Vietnam when all of this happened. That's the simple fact.


Tet proved that the US military could fight against overwhelming odds for extended periods and inflict horrendous casualties to gain- ?


There never should have been a Tet offensive. There never would have been any Vietcong offensive if we had invaded the North. You can't win a war purely on the defensive, and that's what liberals expected us to do. It's absurd to place restrictions on our troops, then say the war is unwinnable.

If America would have been allowed to inavde, guess what would have happened? No more problem with Cambodia.

As for casualties, I was under the impression people were talking about American, which were low. The deaths among the enemy would have been far lower had the war not dragged on for years. You know how you end this war earlier? You invade North Vietnam.


Throw in Cambodia and Laos to double that number. That is a lot of dead and maimed people for no reason other than testosterone. American hubris killed and maimed all those people.


Right...preventing a communist government from forcing its idealogy on people is completely useless. It's perfectly acceptable to allow them to slaughter people from the South who opposed their incompetent and oppresive government, as they were doing before American troops were involved.


Start a thread on the subject and become enlightened to other points of view. America has been a very bad world neighbor.


America has been a bad neighbor? Forgive us for increasing the wealth of the entire world, and giving more charity and aid than anyone else.

Maybe we should become more like the Europeans or any other past world power, and just outright invade any nation we see fit without giving any explanation. We don't have to the UN or any European nation to get approval, we do that simply because we don't want to be the bully.

I'd love to see what the world would do if America were half as bad as they claim we are. Maybe it's time we see a real American Empire, where we take what we want, and screw everyone else.



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   
DD I understand where you are coming from (I think), and in a way I completely agree with you.

I also bemoan the anti-American thing, but not in the way you do. I want to understand why- and with that what could be different.

I don't like the prospect of a one world, even an American one world. I don't like any 'new Rome.'

I believe America and the genious of America was best served from an isolationist view.


Reel back in many of the economic thrusts, think more about the home country. Let the world sort itself out.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join