On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 15:02:42 +0200, "Markku Grönroos"
wrote:
>
>"Pan" wrote in message
>news:n281rvgetur3bjtb3rgtl5teujjp9o0jlq@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 01:49:54 GMT, 46jimbo wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 23:08:51 +0200, "Markku Grönroos"
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>"Adar" wrote in message
>> >>news:bootuu$spd1@noticias.madritel.es...
>> >>>
>> >>> But the USA had to keep their hands off Nepal. Remember it was
>communist
>> >>> Vietnam who overthrew the criminal Pol Pot regime.
>>
>> >>As well as the military of the criminal USA.
>> >>>>>
>>
>> >Could you explain this, please? I always thought that the US opposed
>> >Vietnam's actions as did the UN.
>>
>> You're correct. My guess is that Markku may be too obsessed with
>> anti-U.S. feelings to keep things in context. Had the U.S. supported
>> the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, that would have been a _good_
>> thing. Unfortunately, the U.S. at that time was more concerned with
>> Vietnam being an ally of the U.S.S.R. than with stopping the mass
>> murders of the Khmer Rouge. If anything, it was U.S. support for the
>> Khmer Rouge while they were in opposition to the pro-Vietnamese regime
>> of Heng Samrin that was "criminal."
>>
>I was merely pointing out that not only did Vietnamese military pacify
>Cambodia but Vietnam as well.
In which case, it seems like we were simply confused by your use of
"overthrow." Perhaps native English speakers from some other place may
disagree, but I don't find it idiomatic to speak of "overthrowing the
U.S. military." One overthrows a regime.
Michael
If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted. |