Cambodia the most bombed country in history?

dyn2nvu

Senior member
Feb 8, 2004
631
1
81
Is history repeating itself with the war in Iraq? I hope there we can understand just a little more on why people in other countries don't like being bombed or invaded.

http://japanfocus.org/products/details/2420
http://taylorowen.com/?p=110


New information reveals that Cambodia was bombed far more heavily during the Vietnam War than previously believed ? and that the bombing began not under Richard Nixon, but under Lyndon Johnson.

?October 4, 1965, to August 15, 1973, the United States dropped far more ordnance on Cambodia than was previously believed: 2,756,941 tons? worth, dropped in 230,516 sorties on 113,716 sites. Just over 10 percent of this bombing was indiscriminate, with 3,580 of the sites listed as having ?unknown? targets and another 8,238 sites having no target listed at all.

?setting in motion the expansion of the Vietnam War deeper into Cambodia, a coup d?état in 1970, the rapid rise of the Khmer Rouge, and ultimately the Cambodian genocide.

?We heard a terrifying noise which shook the ground; it was as if the earth trembled, rose up and opened beneath our feet. Enormous explosions lit up the sky like huge bolts of lightning; it was the American B-52s.?
?Cambodian bombing survivor, Kampong Thom

in 1965 under the Johnson administration, had already seen 475,515 tons of ordnance dropped on Cambodia, which had been a neutral kingdom until nine months before the phone call, when pro-US General Lon Nol seized power.

Nixon demanded more bombing, deeper into the country: ?They have got to go in there and I mean really go in . . . I want everything that can fly to go in there and crack the hell out of them. There is no limitation on mileage and there is no limitation on budget. Is that clear??
He responded hesitantly: ?The problem is, Mr. President, the Air Force is designed to fight an air battle against the Soviet Union. They are not designed for this war . . . in fact, they are not designed for any war we are likely to have to fight.?

?Kissinger called General Alexander Haig to relay the new orders from the president: ?He wants a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. He doesn?t want to hear anything. It?s an order, it?s to be done. Anything that flies, on anything that moves. You got that?? The response from Haig, barely audible on tape, sounds like laughter.

From 1965 to 1968, 2,565 sorties took place over Cambodia, with 214 tons of bombs dropped. These early strikes were likely designed to support the nearly two thousand secret ground incursions conducted by the CIA and US Special Forces during that period. B-52s ? long range bombers capable of carrying very heavy loads ? were not deployed, whether out of concern for Cambodian lives or the country?s neutrality, or because carpet bombing was believed to be of limited strategic value.

Nixon decided on a different course, and beginning in 1969 the Air Force deployed B-52s over Cambodia. The new rationale for the bombings was that they would keep enemy forces at bay long enough to allow the United States to withdraw from Vietnam.

To put the revised total of 2,756,941 tons into perspective, the Allies dropped just over 2 million tons of bombs during all of World War II, including the bombs that struck Hiroshima and Nagasaki: 15,000 and 20,000 tons, respectively. Cambodia may well be the most heavily bombed country in history.

The Cambodian bombing campaign had two unintended side effects that ultimately combined to produce the very domino effect that the Vietnam War was supposed to prevent. First, the bombing forced the Vietnamese Communists deeper and deeper into Cambodia, bringing them into greater contact with Khmer Rouge insurgents. Second, the bombs drove ordinary Cambodians into the arms of the Khmer Rouge, a group that seemed initially to have slim prospects of revolutionary success.

?Every time after there had been bombing, they would take the people to see the craters, to see how big and deep the craters were, to see how the earth had been gouged out and scorched . . . . The ordinary people sometimes literally ****** in their pants when the big bombs and shells came. Their minds just froze up and they would wander around mute for three or four days. Terrified and half crazy, the people were ready to believe what they were told. It was because of their dissatisfaction with the bombing that they kept on co-operating with the Khmer Rouge, joining up with the Khmer Rouge, sending their children off to go with them. . . . Sometimes the bombs fell and hit little children, and their fathers would be all for the Khmer Rouge.?
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,072
1,476
126
So, in other words. Bombing the hell out of a country that has enemy forces in it but that is not actually involved in the war is a bad idea. Maybe someone should have informed Israel what happened when we tried it and maybe they wouldn't have had their little 30 days war last year.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Right-wing response: they feel powerful by being the side that bombs, so they cheer it, and make up the facts needed to feel it was ok to do, or just ignore the moral issue.

Left-wing response: to note the immorality involved in the actions, the harm done to people, and to look at how to prevent such things from happening.

Right-wing response to the left: call them 'weak' for not wanting to use such violence unnecessarily.

Left-wing response to the right: immoral thugs.

It's amazing the human capacity to see others' wrongs in exaggerated terms, and to whitewash the atrocities done by 'your' side.

We can condemn the Japanese all day long for refusing to admit the atrocities they did to China, but we have national ignorance, 'who cares', about an issue like this.

We really need to increase the education of the American people, but those who profit from the wars' results are not too willing for that to happen.

They need the American people just being productive, and paying their taxes, as the engine for the war machine, not asking questions and just cheering the flag.