How do you PeaceNicks manage to sleep at nights knowing that you
directly caused the death of millions after you stopped the Nam war?

---

Request for Question Clarification by robertskelton-ga on 26 Apr 2003 22:52 PDT

Could you elaborate on which millions of deaths you are refering to?

---

Request for Question Clarification by tutuzdad-ga on 27 Apr 2003 14:25 PDT

If you would kindly tell us how you came to this conclusion in the
first place perhaps we can try and research your question. Are you
willing to accept the fact that you might be wrong in your assumptions
as an answer if that is the case?

Regards;
Tutuzdad-ga

---

Clarification of Question by toughlover-ga on 28 Apr 2003 13:57 PDT

The number slaughtered is better than 2,000,000.00 and who the hell
cares whether it was Cambodia or Nam or Indonicia or Laos, it all
resulted from our having withrdawn our troops.  I recognize that there
are PEACENIKS in the congress too, but congressmen blow with the WIND
of PEACENIKS in their constituents.

Dear Toughlover, 

Thank you for your question. I hope you know that your question is
problematic : You ask "How do you PeaceNicks manage to sleep at
nights...". However, as you probably know, Google Answers is a
research service. Google Answers Researchers are impartial and are
supposed to bring hard evidences, not personal accounts of their
sleeping disorders, in order to prove a point. Therefore, if you would
like to ask "peaceniks" (that's the correct spelling of the word,
according to the American Heritage Dictionary) about their sleeping
habbits or other issues, you might want to search for another
platform.

From my acquitance with several Google Answers Researchers, I could
say that there are people who oppose and support this war (or others)
among them, from various moral and strategic reasons. We are all
individuals, who are able to accept the others' views and even
understand the logic behind them, even if we disagree. This discourse
makes us who we are. Delegitimasing the opposing views does not help
us understand each other.

In general, a "peacenik" is an informal noun, describing "A political
activist who publicly opposes war, a particular war, or the
proliferation of weapons; a pacifist." (Source: The American HeritageŽ
Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, 2000,
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=peacenik&r=67).

The answer, is thus tautological: A person who opposes wars because of
their negative impact, or a person who believes from one of man
reasons that *any* war is negative in essence, is true by definitions
to their believes, and doesn't feel the moral burden that might cause
sleeping disorders.

Reagdring your other question, "Did PEACEnicks cause the MURDER of
MILLIONS by stopping the Vietnam war?" and by referring to the horrors
of Cambodia, this is a very interesting question indeed. The civil war
in Cambodia began in spring 1970, after Nixon sought ways to hinder
North Vietnam, yet continue with the withdrawl of troops from Vietnam.
For five years on, American military acted in Cambodia and Laos. The
withdrawal in 1975 invoked the dominancy of Pol Pot's terror regime.

However, the evidences on the level of correlation between the
activity of the American peace activists to leave South East Asia and
the decisions to employ this policy in Cambodia and Laos are
inconclusive, nor there are any evidences that dictate without doubt,
that the activities of the peace movement could be connected directly
to the Khmer Rough activities. Last but not least, none of us could
know "what would have happened if...", if the Americans have not
withdrawn from Vietnam.

The article you have referred to, by prof. Rudolph Rummel of the
University of Hawaii, doesn't also indicate that the "peace movement"
is responsible for the crimes of the Khmer Rough. It claims, though,
that the withdrawl is to be connected with the horrible outcomes. (See
his homepage, including the Wall Street Journal article, here:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome.html).

Further Reading
===============
On public opinion and the Vietnam War:
http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~eemoise/public.html

On the Anti-War Movement and the Catholic Anti-War Movement: 
http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~eemoise/cathanti.html 
http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~eemoise/antiwar.html 

I hope I answered your question. Please contact me for any further
clarifications.

You do good work PoliticalGuru.  You dont have to agree with me to
earn my 5 stars.  You are right most of my questions are moot and ment
to provoke comments especially by the but of my contentions, rather
than formal researched answers, but I likr your style.  watch for my
followup retort.

Being a veteran of the Viet Nam era, I seem to recall we didn't stop
the war because of "peaceniks."  We stopped the war because we lost.

The only country where millions died after and as a result of the
Vietman War was Cambodia under Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge.

The history books I've read say that the most significant factor in
Pol Pot's rise to power was the reaction to Nixon's secret bombing of
Cambodia.

Ultimately the Khmer Rouge were removed from power when Vietnam,
unified after the defeat of the South by the North, invaded Cambodia
for that purpose.

Dear Sir. RobertSkelton-ga,

Why do you make me do your research?  I realy did not obtain my notion
from any particular source, it was purely from snippets of information
that filtered into my subconscious.  I am in no way a "war-scholar",
however I just did a Google-search and found a perfect match and
positive confirmation of my off-the-cuff concusion. It follows:  "War
isn't the biggest killer"
by R.J. Rummel Wall Street Journal July 7th 1986

YOU SHOULD TEACH ME HOW TO generate a link to such sources... 

By the way my second off-the-cuf notion is that Nam, Cambodia, Laos
and so on, are loosely considered as part of the Vietnam Era Conflict.
 Pitty the poor fool who lets manner spoil meaning.

Hi DigSalot-ga, when did you learn that we had lost the war, while you
were there, or was it after you returned and listened to the guilt
ridden peaceniks trying to justify our abandoning the cause and the
millions who would die.

Of course we did not loose the war.  I am going to hazzard another off
the cuff proclamaition subject to correction.  here it comes: America
does not loose wars, we just loose interest after awhile.  Did we
loose the Lebanan fracas or the Somalia conflict, or did we just get
fedup and walk away?

If we did not loose to the mighty English when we were yet young nor
to Japan nor Germany with their ingenious war machines and kamakazis,
I pitty the poor fool who thinks we lost to Nam etal.  91% of the Nam
fighters when quizzed would have gone back to Nam if asked I bet they
would have had that high moral if they had felt whipped on the
battlefield.

Dear Richard-ga, please promise me that after you walk away from this
discussion you will never again let manner of presentation spoil the
meaning of what is presented. Does it matter which strip of land these
atrosities occurred on?  There all part of the South East Asia
Sonflict.  Laos, Cambodia, Indinecia, all stemmed from the Nam
shoot-out.  And when we pulled out we left all of our sympathisers and
co-worriers to retribution.

Wheather or not the reason for going in in the first place was the
wisest move is a moot question, but pulling out before thhe job is
completed compounded the mistake.  Assuming that you are on the side
that believe it was a mistake.

Yes TutuzDad, for a moment I did think that I may have had a
misconception, until you guys frightened me into researching the
subject, whereby I stumbled otothe piece by R.J. Rummel of the Wall
Street Journal July 7 1986.

I do understand that PEACEniks may not embrace the deeds of the
DICTATORS they try to stop us from waring against, and they are only
targeting America because we are the  parth of lest resistance and
lease danger to themselves.

And of course the pharasees that they are, they can make the greatest
poblic show that they care, with no regard that they will kill more
inocent folk than they save.

"The number slaughtered is better than 2,000,000.00 ..."

Are you sure?  I thought it was 1,999,999.99

Actually, if blame is to be laid for the excesses of the Pol Pot
regime it should be laid at the feel of Henry Kissinger and Mao Tse
Dong.  Both recognised the DRK in the United Nations and continued to
do so while that government was in exile.

I don't think any peaceniks would support that.