Opp! I missed a few words. Lauk Soriya,
Let me first respond by thanking you for taking time to go through my op-ed piece. You have posted many interesting and legitimate questions related to the KR and Vietnam. And I thank you again for asking those questions. Having said that, I found my self in a predicament here. If I answer all of your questions, I put myself exactly where I do not want to be that is to get bogged down in the debate about the war – a situation I try to avoid by writing this piece that is to move beyond the debate of the war. With your permission, let ‘s agree to disagree on some of the nuances and the interpretation of the war and focus, as you have stated, on the presence and the future. Before getting into this discussion, I want to let you know of my assumptions of you. I assume the followings: I assume that you are Cambodian [I am a bit jealous here because you were in Saigon while I was suffering under the Khmer Rouge regime], that you love Cambodia as much as I do, that you are older than I am, that you are independent politically, and that the reason you participate in this discussion because you want, as I do, to share ideas, to enhance our understanding, and hopefully to help the cause for improving democracy for our country. Here is your question I want to answer [I learned this trick from Sara Palin during the debate- answer only what you want to answer]: “For the CPP, why should it change its leader (I believe you mean "the same leader" when you say "the same candidate") when that leader keeps winning??” Since Cambodian people voted for parties not for individuals, one cannot claim direct correlation. The party elects candidate for the office. That is why I said candidate instead of leader. I am consistent to point out my dissatisfaction with the opposition parties’ leadership. Here again, I am not pointing out individuals. In a broader sense, speaking as an independent, I am completely dumbfounded that Cambodia can only come up with the same individuals election after election. For any giving issue that are being discussed, I can predict the kind of response from CPP, and can safely predict what the opposition leaders would respond. It is the same old thing time after time. I have a strong conviction that Cambodia deserves much better than that. This is why I am advocating for changes, I am advocating for term limits, I am advocating for fresh air with different approaches to solving problems, and with different ideas to tackle our national issues. I believe that there are enough Cambodians who are smart, talented, and capable of putting our heads together to solve our problems. That is why I am advocating for equal opportunity to participate in the process. There are smart and capable people in both parties- CPP and SRP. Let me stop here. On Dec 24, 9:46 am, Jayakhmer <[email protected]> wrote: > Lauk Soriya, > > Let me first respond by thanking you for taking time to go through my > op-ed piece. You have posted many interesting and legitimate > questions related to the KR and Vietnam. And I thank you again for > asking those questions. > > Having said that, I found my self in a predicament here. If I answer > all of your questions, I put myself exactly where I do not want to be > that is to get bogged down in the debate about the war – a situation I > try to avoid by writing this piece that is to move beyond the debate > of the war. > > With your permission, let ‘s agree to disagree on some of the nuances > and the interpretation of the war and focus, as you have stated, on > the presence and the future. > > Before getting into this discussion, I want to let you know of my > assumptions of you. I assume the followings: I assume that you are > Cambodian [I am a bit jealous here because you were in Saigon while I > was suffering under the Khmer Rouge regime], that you love Cambodia as > much as I do, that you are older than I am, that you are independent > politically, and that the reason you participate in this discussion > because you want, as I do, to share ideas, to enhance our > understanding, and hopefully to help the cause for improving democracy > for our country. > > Here is your question I want to answer [I learned this trick from Sara > Palin during the debate- answer only what you want to answer]: > > “For the CPP, why should it change its leader (I believe you mean > "the > same leader" when you say "the same candidate") when that leader > keeps > winning??” > > Since Cambodian people voted for parties not for individuals, one > cannot direct correlation. The party elects candidate for the > office. That is why I said candidate instead of leader. I am > consistent to point out my dissatisfaction with the opposition > parties’ leadership. Here again, I am not pointing out individuals. > > In a broader sense, speaking as an independent, I am completely > dumbfounded that Cambodia can only come up with the same individuals > election after election. For any giving issue that are being > discussed, I can predict the kind of response from CPP, and can safely > predict what the opposition leaders would response. It is the same > old thing time after time. > > I have a strong conviction that Cambodia deserves much better than > that. This is why I am advocating for changes, I am advocating for > term limits, I am advocating for fresh air with different approaches > to solving problems, and with different ideas to tackle our national > issues. > > I believe that there are enough Cambodians who are smart, talented, > and capable of putting our heads together to solve our problems. That > is why I am advocating for equal opportunity to participate in the > process. There are smart and capable people in both parties- CPP and > SRP. > > Let me stop here. > > Respectfully yours, > > Jay > > On Dec 24, 3:52 am, Soriya <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Ref:http://groups.google.com/group/camdisc/browse_thread/thread/5e9eb2145... > > > Jayakhmer, > > > > The war of 1979 and its aftermath generate this lingering > > > question whether the war was an invasion or liberation. > > > The war was both an invasion & a liberation, or, more precisely, an > > invasion & a rescue. Vietnam invaded Pol Pot's Cambodia. It had the > > right to do so because the 2 countries were in war. The liberation or > > more precisely the rescue of the Cambodian people from the genocide by > > the bloody hands of Pol Pot & the Khmer Rouge were a by-product of the > > invasion. Although it was a by-product, it was a liberation or more > > precisely a rescue nonetheless. What would happen to Cambodia if > > Vietnam hadn't invaded?? A Cambodia with a population of less than a > > million all of whom are illiterate?? You bet!! > > > Of the following 2 options, which one would you choose?? > > > 1) Vietnam invaded Pol Pot's Cambodia, thus as a by-product > > ended his killing spree of the Cambodian people, & withdrew its > > troops from Cambodia 10 years later, > > > 2) Vietnam didn't invade Pol Pot's Cambodia, & thus Pol Pot & Co > > continued their massacre of the Cambodian people. > > > > Can we move beyond this debate? I think we can and we > > > should. > > > The Khmer Rouge & their sympathizers here in CamDisc will never move > > beyond this debate. They want & are trying to revenge Vietnam for > > ending their reign of terror. > > > > It would be easy to decide if the warring parties were all foreign > > > forces against Cambodian’s. The complexity increases > > > exponentially when Cambodians collaborated with the invasion > > > forces. Battalions of the Khmer Resistance Force of the United > > > Front for National Salvation of Kampuchea (UFNSK) fought side > > > by side with the Vietnamese forces. > > > The UFNSK were Khmer Rouge factions who opposed the genocide. The > > opportunity arrived for them to rescue the Cambodian people when the > > Vietnam/Khmer Rouge war broke out. Who else can they ask for help to > > rescue the Cambodian people?? They knew that for Vietnam it was > > Vietnam's interest that was the most important. But again, who else > > would come to save the Cambodian people?? The Thais?? They treated the > > Cambodian refugees in Thailand as street dogs!! Can you rely on > > them?? > > > > Was it an invasion or a liberation? > > > It was both an invasion & a liberation, or more precisely an invasion > > & a rescue. > > > > To Vietnam it was a conquest and an invasion. It was Vietnam’s > > > Machiavellian approach to settling disputes between its weaker > > > neighbors. What were border skirmishes between the former > > > allies during the Vietnam War against the U.S. became a > > > full-blown war between Vietnam and the Democratic Kampuchea > > > (DK) as the two nations deeply divided between the Soviet and > > > the Chinese camp. > > > Pol Pot, emboldened by his then so far success in his efforts to try > > to wipe out the Cambodian nation from the face of the earth without > > any resistance from the Cambodian people, didn't agree to Vietnam's > > request for negotiations to end the conflict. He even "invaded" > > Vietnamese villages along the border & massacred 1,000s of innocent > > Vietnamsese civilians. > > > What do you expect?? Do you expect the Vietnamese to sit still & wait > > for the Khmer Rouge to come to cut off their heads?? > > > What about you, if you're in war with Vietnam & you're stronger than > > it, wouldn't you invade it to try to end the war?? > > > > In my mind, the war would have been a liberation if it was > > > conceived and planned by the leadership of UFNSK. The UFNSK > > > was promulgated as a resistance force in Snoul, Kratie on > > > December 2, 1978 by which time the Vietnamese generals > > > had meticulously planned the war, and the preparations for war > > > were already completed. While it is conceivable that the > > > Vietnamese generals may have consulted with its Cambodian > > > counterparts, the records, thus far, showed that the > > > Vietnamese generals were the brains behind the invasion. > > > If the Vietnamese generals hadn't consulted with the UFNSK, what would > > you do?? They were in war against Pol Pot's Cambodia, if they hadn't > > consulted with Pol Pot's Cambodian opponents, what would you do?? They > > were in war against Pol Pot's Cambodia, who says they had to consult > > with Pol Pot's Cambodian opponents?? > > > > In “ The Tale of the Five Generals,” Pribbenow II described the > > > war planning and execution in breath taking details. “The > > > Vietnamese army spent all of 1978 drafting and training new > > > recruits, calling up reservists, rebuilding under strength units, > > > and converting military ‘economic construction’ groups back into > > > regular combat units.” > > > That's right. At that time I lived in Saigon. I heard that the > > Vietnamese government even recruited the former soldiers of the > > "ancient" regime to go to fight the Khmer Rouge. How about ther Khmer > > Rouge?? Oh yeah, they didn't recruit, they only killed. How "smart"!! > > > > The war was scheduled to begin on January 1,1979. The KR > > > made a preemptive move by attacking Vietnam on December 21 > > > and 22 of 1978. The Vietnamese and UFNSK force responded > > > and capture Phnom Penh on January 7, 1979. > > > See, how "intelligent" the Khmer Rouge leaders were!! > > > > The Khmer Rouge’s systematic killing of its citizens made an > > > invasion a welcome relief for many Cambodians. > > > Not just for "many" Cambodians, it was for ALL non-Khmer-Rouge > > Cambodians. > > > > On the one hand, the invasion stopped the killing. Without the > > > invasion, the alternative could have been very gloom for many > > > Cambodians. Clearly, the U.S. could not have rescued > > > Cambodians from the KR – the Vietnam War was too fresh for > > > the U.S to return to the region; the Soviet Union was already > > > Vietnam’s staunchest ally; and China supported the KR. > > > That's right. > > > > On the other hand, the invasion has been a constant source of > > > criticism and mistrust for the current government many of whose > > > members served in the UFNSK that became the government of > > > Cambodia after the 1979 invasion. > > > The criticism is rooted in 2 sources: 1) the Khmer Rouge themselves, & > > 2) racial hatred. > > > Number 1 is understandable. For number 2, it's very hard to educate > > the Khmers. It's virtually impossible to make them understand that the > > past is the past, that in the past the Vietnamese were bad to the > > Khmers and the Khmers were also bad to the Vietnamese, that it's ok & > > even good that they should look back at it to learn from it but > > shouldn't live in it, that now is the present & thus that they should > > take the present conditions into consideration. > > > It's even impossible to convince them that had Vietnam not invaded Pol > > Pot's Cambodia, Pol Pot & Co would have eliminated all the > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cambodia Discussion (CAMDISC) - www.cambodia.org" group. This is an unmoderated forum. Please refrain from using foul language. Thank you for your understanding. Peace among us and in Cambodia. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/camdisc Learn more - http://www.cambodia.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
