The Khmer Rouge

[MikeWaters]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapc...aud/index.html

A brief mention of Kissinger's tolerance/acceptance of the Khmer Rouge.

The "aura of brilliance" can be nothing more than the mask that hides evil. Evil is always banal.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/ima...inger.1975.pdf

If one were to support the Khmer Rouge, in hopes of achieving some other aim, how is that not the equivalent of supporting terrorism, or something worse than terrorism.

The world wrings its hands at Mumbai, but ignores Darfur.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapc...aud/index.html

A brief mention of Kissinger's tolerance/acceptance of the Khmer Rouge.

The "aura of brilliance" can be nothing more than the mask that hides evil. Evil is always banal.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/ima...inger.1975.pdf

If one were to support the Khmer Rouge, in hopes of achieving some other aim, how is that not the equivalent of supporting terrorism, or something worse than terrorism.

The world wrings its hands at Mumbai, but ignores Darfur.

Come on, Mike. You formed part of the problem. You supported a candidate who was mildly interested in helping Darfur at the expense of a candidate who spoke out strongly against what is happening in Darfur (and voted accordingly). While I am sure your vote was based on factors other than Darfur, that effectively means that there are other issues that are more important to you than what is happening in Darfur (which isn't necessarily wrong, but which is also true of millions of others around the world who you now criticize for concern over Mumbai and a lack of concern/attention for Darfur).

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Come on, Mike. You formed part of the problem. You supported a candidate who was mildly interested in helping Darfur at the expense of a candidate who spoke out strongly against what is happening in Darfur (and voted accordingly). While I am sure your vote was based on factors other than Darfur, that effectively means that there are other issues that are more important to you than what is happening in Darfur (which isn't necessarily wrong, but which is also true of millions of others around the world who you now criticize for concern over Mumbai and a lack of concern/attention for Darfur).

You are equating McCain or Bush to Kissinger? Am I correct?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

You are equating McCain or Bush to Kissinger? Am I correct?

Not at all. I am addressing the irony of your last sentence.