Comments by "Stephen Jenkins" (@stephenjenkins7971) on "Pol Pot Grandpa of Cambodia" video.

@connorscanlan2167 I know you're trying to mock someone, but you're only proving their point.
14
@connorscanlan2167 I did, but YT de le te d it. So that's all you will get. Besides, the other dude managed well enough, all you did was say "nuh-uh" to him.
14
@monsieurdorgat6864 Nixon did not support him initially, the Vietnamese propped him up at the start; so most of his rise to power is on their shoulders.
13
@goldenfiberwheat238 Yeah. And ignores far worse than what Isrl has done. That was their point. Its like how they criticized Vietnam but not Cambodia. Or, how they criticized Isrl but were perfectly fine with As sad.
11
@connorscanlan2167 I literally can't. YT doesn't let me. So you'll have to be content with the other dude, who you can't even debunk anyway.
10
@monsieurdorgat6864 Pol Pot was very upfront about what he wanted to do, so context does matter. And no, they didn't stop supporting him until he turned against Vietnam, not when he did eth*ic cle@n*ng. Also, the US did not actively support Cambodia like Vietnam or China did after them. It was diplomatic recognition. That's it.
8
@lukasmadrid1945 US did not support the Khmer Rouge actively until the Vietnam-Cambodia conflict. Vietnam supported them far more than the US did.
8
@lukasmadrid1945 Vietnam was actively aiding and supplying them during it, it was when Pol Pot was harming Vietnamese interests that they turned hostile. The US didn't so anything but provide diplomatic support, which is what every nation did, not just the US. It's standard, regardless of government.
8
@MrRawrCEO That's US exceptionalist logic. In reality, Pol Pot was rising even before that with the aid of North Vietnam.
7
@lukasmadrid1945 There is literally no proof of this beyond hearsay. And what can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. What is a fact is that Vietnam continuously and actively aided/abetted the absolute worst of Pol Pot right until he went their interests. Also, imagine talking about the West as a whole when referring to the US alone, which you have no proof of. Meanwhile, there is plenty of proof of US aid to the mujahadeen (NOT the Ta lib an, which didn't exist until over a decade later; they are separate organizations that have little in common). Edit: Incorrect, it literally was standard. Very few nations aligned with Vietnam's actions at the time. That included most anti-US nations.
6
@eges72 US supported almost every nation on Earth at some point. Also, the US was against Pol Pot at the start. So I guess that was a ringing endorsement by your view? 🤡
5
Systems which centralize everything to a single person has to lionize that person in every way. Including through music. Its why democracies are so boring by contrast.
4
@Kozkayn Its too questionable to even consider China a superpower. Its influence outside of East Asia is minimal still.
4
@lukasmadrid1945 Imagine claiming the entire non aligned movement and Soviet allied nations as "US aligned" 😃 I'll check your claim later, but I doubt it
3
@TheAilmam That makes no sense when the US completely dominated economically in every field when it first became a Superpower. It isn't as dominant, but it still is in most fields.
3
@swbleee Wrong. My reply got got though, so you are forgiven.
2
@ribery7593 Everyone did that, to be blunt. But most people only care about what the US does, ignoring what everyone else does.
2
@PitunghereTNOschizo100 Actually, that protocol makes no sense to start with. If the UN can't interfere in nation affair, then nations can do whatever they want to their own people, including allowing geno. So what you want is directly what others are complaining about; a weak UN that does nothing when genos occur.
2
@monsieurdorgat6864 Yeah. And Rumsfield controlled all manner of US policy, right? We have zero proof that the US gave any actual support to Pol Pot. And don't complain about Nationalism when you're blatantly full of it for Vietnam.
1
@bintangyudha4777 It really isn't. US only diplomatically supporter them, unlike other powers that actively did so. Including Vietnam.
1
CIA literally tried to stop him, but then gave up. Meanwhile, China: actively aiding and providing funding for Cambodia, North Korea, and Russia. TRUE common China L
1
Only after ruining it to begin with; without their support, Khmer Rouge would have never gotten into power.
1
Vietnam: Helping Pol Pot into power to begin with. Common Vietnam L
1
@lukasmadrid1945 There is literally no proof of this beyond hearsay. And what can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. What is a fact is that Vietnam continuously and actively aided/abetted the absolute worst of the Khmer Rouge right until the Khmer Rouge attacked their interests. Also, imagine talking about the West as a whole when referring to the US alone, which you have no proof of. Meanwhile, there is plenty of proof of US aid to the Mujahideen (NOT the Taliban, which didn't exist until over a decade later). Edit: Incorrect, it literally was standard. Very few nations aligned with Vietnam's actions at the time. That included most anti-US nations.
1
@lukasmadrid1945 In 1980, only about 30 countries recognized the prk while the rest recognized the cgdk. That's the vast majority, and very much the mainstream opinion of the world nations. By "almost every nation", I do mean the large majority of nations. And the vast majority of nations that recognized the cgdk were NOT US allies. This may hard to understand, but the US was not exactly spending much capital on the cgdk at the time, so why exactly the US or its allies would universally agree to support the cgdk just to be against Vietnam is peak copium. Especially when much of Europe was more partial to Vietnam than the US at the time. But keep revealing how little you actually know, if you want. 🤡
1
@Chr.Monika6469 Mind providing examples of strong Chinese influence outside of East Asia?
1
Apparently its the one that most Marxists get behind as well. Everyone was against Vietnam stopping them.
1
@connorscanlan2167 Newsflash; nobody gives a crap about your very specific metric of what "im peri al ism" means so that you can get justify every crackpot gen oci dal leader just because they were leftist. We have a term in the dictionary, and every marxist leader follows that term to a T; they were all "im peri al ists". Cope harder.
1