• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Turkish hostages held by IS in Iraq released

The Khmer Rouge was allied with the North Vietnamese. We never worked with the Khmer Rouge.

That's not really true.

China was a bigger supporter of the Khmer Rouge and remember it was the Vietnamese who eventually took them out.

Once the Vietnamese invaded (supported by the Soviet Union), China launched an invasion of North Vietnam, China the USA and a few others supported the Cambodian government in exile which did include the Khmer Rouge.

I know you only like rosy tinted visions of the past, but the fact of the matter is for better or worst, the US has supported some pretty grizzly characters.
 
I have said all along, the middle east is not the area of my expertise. Let's say I am just a casual observer. I can understand them being upset by not being considered part of Europe. But they really never was, Europe ends at Istanbul and the middle east begins. Now I do not know what can be done about that. Perhaps it all goes back to the Ottoman's, Muslim vs. Europe, Christian.

The Turks are not Arab and neither is Iran. But they do have the same religion and perhaps the slight from Europe and probably the Arabs may be bringing Iran and Turkey closer together. Who knows. But anything I say is pure speculation. But as for ISIS, it is understandable if any nation choose not to follow us when they see that we are only going in half way and really no commitment to make sure the job gets finished. The only real commitment it seems when it comes to ISIS is no boots on the ground. So perhaps the big question is, what will our half commitment accomplish? Is half a commitment good enough to get others to go along. Some have, but with a half commitment one shouldn't expect everyone to just jump into the pool.

I am not sure we even know what we want to accomplish when it comes to ISIS.

I had the pleasure of visiting Istanbul of a few days about 5 years ago. What a fascinating place. You do feel like you are 1/2 in a modern European city and 1/2 in the middle east. That said, I think Turkey is the real 'swing state' in the battle against ISIS. They are certainly do what they feel is best for Turkey, which might include staying far away from the US position on this.

What we are dealing with right now is an incredible mess. I am afraid without substantive middle east participation (established middle east governments committing substantial men with guns) this is doomed for failure. You can not win a war with air strikes alone. If the US commits troops without middle eastern participation, you might have some short-term success, but you are more likely to have long-term failure (and likely make matters worse). "Middle East participation" does not mean "moderate rebels" in Syria (whatever a moderate rebel is?). They have their issues and we will never know what side they are on. There is a substantial risk with them that they take our guns and money and we later find those guns pointed at us (... see Afghan Army). IMHO, if the Turks and Saudis don't own this, its a lost cause and we should stand clear.

I am struck about how similar the arguments for war (ok, military assistance) are now as they were in 2003... lots of fear mongering, a coalition of the willing (which means token participation by others) and a naive suggestion that American's won't have to get dirty (or killed)...
 
Last edited:
I find that strange. We backed Lon Nol in Cambodia after he over threw Prince Norodom Sihanouk either in 1969 or early 1970. We then brought up MEDT-C, first headquartered in Saigon and then in Phnom Penh itself to assist Lon Nol in his fight against the KR or Khmer Rouge which were the commie bad guys. MEDT-C as active in Cambodia until April of 1975 when Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge finally captured Phnom Penh.

As for CCN and what they did in Cambodia, I am really not familiar with that. For my first 4 years in Southeast Asia was with JUSMAGTHAI and then with Project 404 in Laos, May of 1967 thru May of 1971. I had nothing to do with Vietnam. Thailand and Laos were my areas of operation. My time in Vietnam was from May of 1971 to March of 1973 at which time I went back to JUSMAGTHAI until July of 1976.

If it helps i can find out exactly when that was. It was 70 to 71 I think, but i could be off a year or two. It doesn't surprise me if you didn't know much about it. We were never officially there IIRR.
 
Do you recall the infantry mopping up?

The point being, you can't win a war with air alone.

Sure. But I also remember reading in history books when planes and tanks were poo pooed by the alleged experts.
 
The Khmer Rouge was allied with the North Vietnamese. We never worked with the Khmer Rouge.

Are you calling me a liar along with my father?

Perhaps the KR were allied with the Chinese at some point but not when my dad was training battalions of them.
 
Last edited:
That's not really true.

China was a bigger supporter of the Khmer Rouge and remember it was the Vietnamese who eventually took them out.

Once the Vietnamese invaded (supported by the Soviet Union), China launched an invasion of North Vietnam, China the USA and a few others supported the Cambodian government in exile which did include the Khmer Rouge.

I know you only like rosy tinted visions of the past, but the fact of the matter is for better or worst, the US has supported some pretty grizzly characters.

Yes, it is really true. Stop taking one frame from history and try to insist that it represents the entire show.

I know we've supported some murderous bastards, but the Khmer Rouge wasn't one of them. If you want to smear America, at least get your facts straight.
 
Are you calling me a liar along with my father?

Perhaps the KR were allied with the Chinese at some point but not when my dad was training battalions of them.

Most likely, you misunderstood what he told you, or remembering it wrong.
 
Sure. But I also remember reading in history books when planes and tanks were poo pooed by the alleged experts.

And now you're poo-pooing infantry units...opposite side of the same coin.
 
I had the pleasure of visiting Istanbul of a few days about 5 years ago. What a fascinating place. You do feel like you are 1/2 in a modern European city and 1/2 in the middle east. That said, I think Turkey is the real 'swing state' in the battle against ISIS. They are certainly do what they feel is best for Turkey, which might include staying far away from the US position on this.

What we are dealing with right now is an incredible mess. I am afraid without substantive middle east participation (established middle east governments committing substantial men with guns) this is doomed for failure. You can not win a war with air strikes alone. If the US commits troops without middle eastern participation, you might have some short-term success, but you are more likely to have long-term failure (and likely make matters worse). "Middle East participation" does not mean "moderate rebels" in Syria (whatever a moderate rebel is?). They have their issues and we will never know what side they are on. There is a substantial risk with them that they take our guns and money and we later find those guns pointed at us (... see Afghan Army). IMHO, if the Turks and Saudis don't own this, its a lost cause and we should stand clear.

I am struck about how similar the arguments for war (ok, military assistance) are now as they were in 2003... lots of fear mongering, a coalition of the willing (which means token participation by others) and a naive suggestion that American's won't have to get dirty (or killed)...


unfortunately the saudis are more worried about the iranians.
 
I had the pleasure of visiting Istanbul of a few days about 5 years ago. What a fascinating place. You do feel like you are 1/2 in a modern European city and 1/2 in the middle east. That said, I think Turkey is the real 'swing state' in the battle against ISIS. They are certainly do what they feel is best for Turkey, which might include staying far away from the US position on this.

What we are dealing with right now is an incredible mess. I am afraid without substantive middle east participation (established middle east governments committing substantial men with guns) this is doomed for failure. You can not win a war with air strikes alone. If the US commits troops without middle eastern participation, you might have some short-term success, but you are more likely to have long-term failure (and likely make matters worse). "Middle East participation" does not mean "moderate rebels" in Syria (whatever a moderate rebel is?). They have their issues and we will never know what side they are on. There is a substantial risk with them that they take our guns and money and we later find those guns pointed at us (... see Afghan Army). IMHO, if the Turks and Saudis don't own this, its a lost cause and we should stand clear.

I am struck about how similar the arguments for war (ok, military assistance) are now as they were in 2003... lots of fear mongering, a coalition of the willing (which means token participation by others) and a naive suggestion that American's won't have to get dirty (or killed)...

I agree that air strikes alone won't accomplish the mission. That there has to be ground forces to push home the advantage the air strikes bring to the table. Without ground forces, Iraqi, Saudi, perhaps Syrian if we can ever get over our fetish of getting rid of Assad, air strikes alone won't work. If the Arabs of the region do not perceive ISIS as a threat to them, either they are foolish or they are sitting on their hands waiting for the U.S. to do all the work.

The majority of the Iraqi people and also the Syrians must want to be rid of ISIS. They must want to be rid of ISIS enough to do something about them themselves. I agree without that want or willingness or whatever you want to call it. That mess will only become worse. Apparently the Iraqi didn't feel the Maliki government was worth fighting for, we will have to wait and see what they think or feel about this new government. But somehow I do not think it will make that much difference.
 
If it helps i can find out exactly when that was. It was 70 to 71 I think, but i could be off a year or two. It doesn't surprise me if you didn't know much about it. We were never officially there IIRR.

Helping and advising Lon Nol during that time frame fight the Khmer Rouge was what we were doing. MEDT-C in Cambodia itself and perhaps CCN or MACV-SOG from Vietnam. We were bombing the heck out of the Khmer Rouge and their allies, the NVA at that time. We were sending in tons of supplies, ammo, equipment from Thailand and up the Mekong to Lon Nol during that time period to fight the KR.

I just think whom he was advising and training you got mixed up.
 
I am sure Turkey sees it the same way. Now they are willing to ship arms to the Syrian Rebels and help in their training. But even so, I am sure Turkey weighed the risks vs. the potential reward and decided to stay out of the ISIS mess

They're buying the Iraqi oil ISIS is selling, they're hospitalizing wounded guerrillas, they're letting foreign jihadists pass through the country. So Turkey is not exactly "staying out."
 
My guess is those of you that think the air strikes are minor wouldn't think so when the 500 pounders start falling on or near your position. Having loaded and armed fighter jets I wouldn't want to be within a mile of that ordinance. The ol' man that called in air strikes to the perimeter of his Special Forces camps in Vietnam says he had to hold on to something they make the ground shake so much. Both of my parents have experienced bombs and mortars and say there is nothing to compare it to. My mother experienced it in WWII as a little girl. Even had an allied fighter pilot strafe her as she ran with her mother.

B-52 carpet bombing from the perspective of a Vietcong:

The first few times I experienced a B-52 attack it seemed, as I strained to press myself into the bunker floor, that I had been caught in the Apocalypse. The terror was complete. One lost control of bodily functions as the mind screamed incomprehensible orders to get out. On one occasion a Soviet delegation was visiting our ministry when a particularly short-notice warning came through. When it was over, no one had been hurt, but the entire delegation had sustained considerable to its dignity – uncontrollable trembling and wet pants the all-too-obvious outward signs of inner convulsions. The visitors could have spared themselves their feelings of embarrassment; each of their hosts was a veteran of the same symptoms.

War for a Viet Cong

B-52 Dropping Lots & Lots of Bombs - Carpet Bombing - YouTube
 
And now you're poo-pooing infantry units...opposite side of the same coin.

No I'm poo pooing the generals that once said planes and tanks would be a waste of time. Get it?
 
Helping and advising Lon Nol during that time frame fight the Khmer Rouge was what we were doing. MEDT-C in Cambodia itself and perhaps CCN or MACV-SOG from Vietnam. We were bombing the heck out of the Khmer Rouge and their allies, the NVA at that time. We were sending in tons of supplies, ammo, equipment from Thailand and up the Mekong to Lon Nol during that time period to fight the KR.

I just think whom he was advising and training you got mixed up.

No mix up just talked to him at dinner. It was 1972 and he trained 50 battalions. Said something about them being trained in Long Hai and it was a former R& R base. 6 to 12 year olds! No mistake. I think he and I know the difference especially since he was there.

My dad retired as a Msgt. Special Forces in 1973.
 
No mix up just talked to him at dinner. It was 1972 and he trained 50 battalions. Said something about them being trained in Long Hai and it was a former R& R base. 6 to 12 year olds! No mistake. I think he and I know the difference especially since he was there.

My dad retired as a Msgt. Special Forces in 1973.

50 battalions? The Khmer Rouge never had a 50 thousand man army.
 
No mix up just talked to him at dinner. It was 1972 and he trained 50 battalions. Said something about them being trained in Long Hai and it was a former R& R base. 6 to 12 year olds! No mistake. I think he and I know the difference especially since he was there.

My dad retired as a Msgt. Special Forces in 1973.

Okay, so he was training the enemy. Read this:

Khmer Rouge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While I was at JUSMAG/MACTHAI our J-3 in coordination with MEDT-C, 7/13th AF Udorn, USDAO both in Saigon and Phnom Penh we sent tons of ARC LIGHTS B-52's and other aircraft to bomb the heck out of the Khmer Rouge. Also during this time we were training Lon Nol's Cambodian Army and Air Force pilots south of Ubon Thailand and in Pakse Laos. I would not doubt that training of his Army was taking place in Vietnam also. In Thailand the training was done by 46th SF Company along with DEPCH and MACTHAI personnel. In fact as part of Operation Waterpump located at Udorn RTAFB training of both Laotian and Cambodian Pilots from the Lon Nol side was taking place. MACTHAI J-3 was in charge of that after MACTHAI took over Project Water Pump from the CIA’s 4802nd JLD, the 56thSOW and funding from DEPCHJUSMAGTHAI.

I still highly doubt you dad would be training enemy forces especially if he was with MACV-SOG and CCN. But whatever you say.
 
50 battalions? The Khmer Rouge never had a 50 thousand man army.

I think the official DOD estimate of the Khmer Rouge was around 60,000 towards the end of the war. Combine them with the NVA/VC in Cambodia, you are talking well over 100,000 combined troops. Lon Nol and his FANK had more men, but they were rag tag and not well trained and really not dedicated to anything.

I just think he got the two sides mixed up. No big thing. One thing though that I hate, is after the North Vietnamese invaded Cambodia to put a stop to the Pol Pot/Khmer Rouge killing fields, Jimmy Carter in 1979 did start aiding the KR to oppose the Vietnamese who had taken over Cambodia. I think we should have thanked the Vietnamese for that.
 
I think the official DOD estimate of the Khmer Rouge was around 60,000 towards the end of the war. Combine them with the NVA/VC in Cambodia, you are talking well over 100,000 combined troops. Lon Nol and his FANK had more men, but they were rag tag and not well trained and really not dedicated to anything.

I just think he got the two sides mixed up. No big thing. One thing though that I hate, is after the North Vietnamese invaded Cambodia to put a stop to the Pol Pot/Khmer Rouge killing fields, Jimmy Carter in 1979 did start aiding the KR to oppose the Vietnamese who had taken over Cambodia. I think we should have thanked the Vietnamese for that.

Vietnam invaded Cambodia in response to a premptive invasion by Pol Pot. Let's not get carried away with patting the Vietcoms on the back.
 
Vietnam invaded Cambodia in response to a premptive invasion by Pol Pot. Let's not get carried away with patting the Vietcoms on the back.

Regardless of the reason, I am still grateful for it. Killing 2-3 million of your own people, that is out of a country that at the time had only 7 million people. Say around 35% of a countries total population wiped out by the KR.
 
50 battalions? The Khmer Rouge never had a 50 thousand man army.

As usual you don't know what you're talking about. They may not have had 50 battalions later on but 50 were trained. My guess is considering their ages and the fact that they were pulled from their families, there was some attrition, not to mention deaths.

I stand by what my father has told me and he's never been known to make things up. He doesn't have to. You weren't there so you don't know squat. Just googling or going by what the official line was, does not always give you the real picture.

I'm done with this discussion. It may not have been wise of me to even post what I posted considering it was probably a clandestine operation. For those of you that are old enough to remember we were never officially in Cambodia.

I'm not happy the U.S. trained Khmer Rouge child soldiers, that at least some probably went on to be instrumental in the "Killing Fields" even if had a strategic reason at the time. However my father was doing what he as ordered to do.
 
Last edited:
Okay, so he was training the enemy. Read this:

Khmer Rouge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While I was at JUSMAG/MACTHAI our J-3 in coordination with MEDT-C, 7/13th AF Udorn, USDAO both in Saigon and Phnom Penh we sent tons of ARC LIGHTS B-52's and other aircraft to bomb the heck out of the Khmer Rouge. Also during this time we were training Lon Nol's Cambodian Army and Air Force pilots south of Ubon Thailand and in Pakse Laos. I would not doubt that training of his Army was taking place in Vietnam also. In Thailand the training was done by 46th SF Company along with DEPCH and MACTHAI personnel. In fact as part of Operation Waterpump located at Udorn RTAFB training of both Laotian and Cambodian Pilots from the Lon Nol side was taking place. MACTHAI J-3 was in charge of that after MACTHAI took over Project Water Pump from the CIA’s 4802nd JLD, the 56thSOW and funding from DEPCHJUSMAGTHAI.


I still highly doubt you dad would be training enemy forces especially if he was with MACV-SOG and CCN. But whatever you say.

You can doubt all you want but it doesn't change what really happened. It wouldn't be the first time we trained the enemy of my enemy.
 
I think the official DOD estimate of the Khmer Rouge was around 60,000 towards the end of the war. Combine them with the NVA/VC in Cambodia, you are talking well over 100,000 combined troops. Lon Nol and his FANK had more men, but they were rag tag and not well trained and really not dedicated to anything.

I just think he got the two sides mixed up. No big thing. One thing though that I hate, is after the North Vietnamese invaded Cambodia to put a stop to the Pol Pot/Khmer Rouge killing fields, Jimmy Carter in 1979 did start aiding the KR to oppose the Vietnamese who had taken over Cambodia. I think we should have thanked the Vietnamese for that.

Again no mix up. Do you really think a Green Beret would mix up the Khmer Rouge with someone else? Seriously? I can look at all the pictures, plaques, etc. anytime I want and there is no mistake.
 
You can doubt all you want but it doesn't change what really happened. It wouldn't be the first time we trained the enemy of my enemy.

The Khmer Rouge wasn't the enemy of our enemy in 1970.
 
Back
Top Bottom