Vajradhara
One of Many
Namaste all,
as the title of the OP suggests, i would like to ask two sets of questions based around one theme and see if there are any different responses and, if so, why the difference exists.
first:
Cambodia was subjugated under the Khmer Rouge and their brutal leader, Pol Pot, from 1975-1979. at the point that the KR took control, Cambodia had a population of nearly 8 million humans. in the four years of the KP, more than 4 million Cambodias were killed. that is half of the population of an entire nation!
Dr. Gregory H. Stanton, wrote in the article "Blue Scarves and Yellow Stars: Classification and Symbolization in the Cambodian Genocide" : "Key officials of Pol Pot's regime had read André Gunder Frank's Marxist theory that cities are parasitic on the countryside, that only labor value is true value, that cities extract surplus value from the rural areas. Therefore immediately after they took power, the Khmer Rouge evacuated all the cities at gunpoint, including those who were not supposed to be moved, such as patients in hospitals and newborns.
In 1976 people were reclassified as full rights (base) people, candidates, and depositees -- so called because they included most of the new people who had been deposited from the cities into the communes.
Depositees were marked for destruction. Their rations were reduced to two bowls of rice soup, or "juk" per day. This led to widespread starvation amongst the depositees.
The Khmer Rouge leadership boasted over their radio station that only one or two million people out of the population were needed to build the new agrarian communist utopia. As for the others, as their proverb put it, "if they survive, no gain; if they die, no loss. "
Hundreds of thousands of the new people, and later the depositees, were taken out, shackled, to dig their own mass graves. Then the Khmer Rouge soldiers beat them to death with iron bars and hoes or buried them alive. A Khmer Rouge extermination prison directive ordered, "Bullets are not to be wasted."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot
second:
if this same situation were occuring today, would you support a military invasion of Cambodia to stop the Khmer Rouge? why or why not? would your answer change if it was the American military that was going to invade or if it was the Chinese military?
metta,
~v
as the title of the OP suggests, i would like to ask two sets of questions based around one theme and see if there are any different responses and, if so, why the difference exists.
first:
Cambodia was subjugated under the Khmer Rouge and their brutal leader, Pol Pot, from 1975-1979. at the point that the KR took control, Cambodia had a population of nearly 8 million humans. in the four years of the KP, more than 4 million Cambodias were killed. that is half of the population of an entire nation!
Dr. Gregory H. Stanton, wrote in the article "Blue Scarves and Yellow Stars: Classification and Symbolization in the Cambodian Genocide" : "Key officials of Pol Pot's regime had read André Gunder Frank's Marxist theory that cities are parasitic on the countryside, that only labor value is true value, that cities extract surplus value from the rural areas. Therefore immediately after they took power, the Khmer Rouge evacuated all the cities at gunpoint, including those who were not supposed to be moved, such as patients in hospitals and newborns.
In 1976 people were reclassified as full rights (base) people, candidates, and depositees -- so called because they included most of the new people who had been deposited from the cities into the communes.
Depositees were marked for destruction. Their rations were reduced to two bowls of rice soup, or "juk" per day. This led to widespread starvation amongst the depositees.
The Khmer Rouge leadership boasted over their radio station that only one or two million people out of the population were needed to build the new agrarian communist utopia. As for the others, as their proverb put it, "if they survive, no gain; if they die, no loss. "
Hundreds of thousands of the new people, and later the depositees, were taken out, shackled, to dig their own mass graves. Then the Khmer Rouge soldiers beat them to death with iron bars and hoes or buried them alive. A Khmer Rouge extermination prison directive ordered, "Bullets are not to be wasted."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot
second:
if this same situation were occuring today, would you support a military invasion of Cambodia to stop the Khmer Rouge? why or why not? would your answer change if it was the American military that was going to invade or if it was the Chinese military?
metta,
~v