This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
It would be helpful if the author cited his sources here.--Buckboard 09:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I added a cleanup tag to this article because some of the sentences are gramatically incorrect or are composed in an awkward manner. For example: "Deception revealed when Major Knight wrote to Senator William Proxmire, asking for 'clarification' as to US policy on bombing Cambodia. He spilled the beans as to the deception."
In addition, I added a tag about the article's inappropriate tone. For example, one passage reads, "Lying on official records. This deception went beyond covertness." The tone of this passage strikes me as editorial in nature. It may true that someone lied on official records, but one need say so in a manner that does not seem overly dramatic or condemnatory.
-- Skb8721 18:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Kudos to RM Gillespie for improving this article's quality by several orders of magnitude in the past few days. When he first started, I was thinking "oh great, another 'improvement', let's see where this goes…" However, as he progressed, it became clear that the initial edits were just the bones of a rough draft. Today I came back and I see that this article is now better referenced than 99% of WP articles. Normally I would not comment on minor improvements, but this is huge. So kudos to you RM Gillespie! Lumbercutter 02:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Gracias, amigo. Check out Operation Freedom Deal to see the next phase of Air Ops in Cambodia. RM Gillespie 16:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I propose moving the article to United States bombing of Cambodia. Any thoughts?
Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 17:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
This section states that since this bombing/incursion was conducted without the consent of Congress, it would have been cause for impeachment of the President. I question this statement. Admittedly, I am not familiar enough with the then-current state of Constitutional Law in this area, but I believe it would have been a cause for impeachment only if the President actively, knowingly took part in deceiving Congress. In that case, it would have been the act of deception/lying/perjury, not the bombing itself, that may have been an impeachable offense, if it could be proven to measure up to the "high crimes and misdemeanors" (ie. that an actual crime had been committed by the President). If somebody can clear this up for me, that would be appreciated.
Why are there no casualty / loss estimates on the Cambodian side in this article? There are many published estimates, and their gravity suggests they be looked into for inclusion here as they lend perspective to the serious human cost of the "beyond covertness" that occured during these activities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.106.188.82 ( talk)
Didn't Operation Menu create strong anti-American sentiment in Cambodia that led to widespread support of the Khmer Rouge? If this is true and verifiable, we should definitely add this. Commissarusa ( talk) 21:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The data released by Clinton in the year 2000 does not cover all U.S. bombing of Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia --not by a long shot.
The years that the data comprises are also considerably narrower than the full scope of the war.
It seems to me that some people have based this part of the article (and perhaps other mentions on the wikipedia) on only a cursory reading of the first paragraph of the Kiernan article for the Walrus (currently the only citation).
Anyone who has glanced at the long list of official "entities" (i.e., separate air forces) that the U.S. used as cut-outs to conduct the bombings will be aware that you're looking at a small (if indicative) sub-set of the data on aerial bombardment.
The experts involved in actual UXO removal in Laos tend to be aware of this fact. People are easily misled into thinking that "U.S. air force" data includes the various attacking forces that the U.S. set up and paid for (as subsidiary to various puppet governments, etc.) --but it doesn't.
The C.I.A. had its own chain of command, and their planes were not part of "the U.S. air force" in any sense. Planes that were flying out of Thailand did so under a variety of banners, some C.I.A., some R.L.G., etc. etc. Looking at the totals in each column is a tricky business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.74.196.9 ( talk) 03:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
There have been lots of estimates about the loss of life due to the United States' bombing of Cambodia, with many figures as high as 600,000 to 1,000,000. How is this not included? Wikipediarul e s 2221 05:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The Dictionary of Genocide attributes its otherwise arbitrary assertion that 700-1,000,000 were killed to the CIA, but /these figures are higher than the CIA's estimate of deaths from all causes throughout the entire Cambodian Civil War--which US bombing played only a minor role in as regards the death toll (there is a separate question as to whether or not the US intervention incited further violence). Therefore, I must conclude it is not a reliable source.
The most widely accepted estimate is Kiernan's 50-150,000. R.J. Rummel, regularly cited by Wikipedia, claims a minimum of 30,000 and a more likely estimate of 300,000. The most comprehensive demographic study by far concluded that 40,000 Cambodians were killed (see Marek Sliwinski, Le Génocide Khmer Rouge: Une Analyse Démographique (L’Harmattan, 1995), pp41-8). Ponchaud estimated 200,000. Even Edward Herman has claimed only 100-200,000 were killed by the bombing.
The estimate of 800,000 killed comes from official Khmer Rouge propaganda. An estimate of 700-1,000,000 is demographically and statistically impossible. If it were true, then how did every census ever taken overlook a million missing Cambodians killed in a matter of months just in the eastern part of the country? If just in eastern Cambodia there were a million deaths; there would have been three million wounded. Why did virtually none of them ever get treatment for their wounds?
Then there is the toll from the entire Cambodian civil war. The idea that all of the deaths on all sides were caused by American bombing is incredible. The death toll from the entire war can help us evaluate the impact of the US bombing that accounted only for a fraction of its death toll. Bruce Sharp notes:
[Quoted material redacted -- much too long to qualify for fair use. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Now, if 250,000 were killed throughout the entire war; then US bombing could have accounted for only a fraction of that sum. Wikipedia's article on the Cambodian Civil War suggests that as many as 600,000 died in the war; your figures would imply that all of these deaths and then some were due solely to American bombing.
Because Dictionary of Genocide is not a reliable source; I will incorporate this range of seemingly reliable sources into the article, all of which suggest a lower toll. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 23:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I feel that it is inaccurate to suggest the actions taken by the Ohio National Guard that resulted in the Kent State shooting was an engagement of the Vietnam War. The reasons are fairly obvious: A)It did not occur in the Vietnam theater of operations. B) It did not involve combatants of the VC or NVA. C) It was an unbalanced action on the part of the Ohio National guard in which students protesting the Vietnam conflict were killed. To characterize the protesters as combatants is absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.103.56 ( talk) 06:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
The figures currently on this page state 40,000 but the consensus amongst historians is that it is many more. Yale states more than 100,000. I will compile a list of all the available figures and they will come in at more than 40,000. The last editor is accusing me of being dishonest but the fact is that using the figure of 40,000 is dishonest.Thoughts? Zrdragon12 ( talk) 18:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Please, you should highlight the number of victims, it is almost invisible on the right side of the page. This article is not really objective. The number of victims should be one of the first information in the introductuion. Thank you!
There is no mention of casualties in the entire article. Plus the section in the right part is incomplete : it ignores the casualties in Laos (which were in the tens of thousands). The article should present estimates from various sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.145.202.53 ( talk) 16:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
It would be helpful if the author cited his sources here.--Buckboard 09:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I added a cleanup tag to this article because some of the sentences are gramatically incorrect or are composed in an awkward manner. For example: "Deception revealed when Major Knight wrote to Senator William Proxmire, asking for 'clarification' as to US policy on bombing Cambodia. He spilled the beans as to the deception."
In addition, I added a tag about the article's inappropriate tone. For example, one passage reads, "Lying on official records. This deception went beyond covertness." The tone of this passage strikes me as editorial in nature. It may true that someone lied on official records, but one need say so in a manner that does not seem overly dramatic or condemnatory.
-- Skb8721 18:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Kudos to RM Gillespie for improving this article's quality by several orders of magnitude in the past few days. When he first started, I was thinking "oh great, another 'improvement', let's see where this goes…" However, as he progressed, it became clear that the initial edits were just the bones of a rough draft. Today I came back and I see that this article is now better referenced than 99% of WP articles. Normally I would not comment on minor improvements, but this is huge. So kudos to you RM Gillespie! Lumbercutter 02:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Gracias, amigo. Check out Operation Freedom Deal to see the next phase of Air Ops in Cambodia. RM Gillespie 16:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I propose moving the article to United States bombing of Cambodia. Any thoughts?
Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 17:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
This section states that since this bombing/incursion was conducted without the consent of Congress, it would have been cause for impeachment of the President. I question this statement. Admittedly, I am not familiar enough with the then-current state of Constitutional Law in this area, but I believe it would have been a cause for impeachment only if the President actively, knowingly took part in deceiving Congress. In that case, it would have been the act of deception/lying/perjury, not the bombing itself, that may have been an impeachable offense, if it could be proven to measure up to the "high crimes and misdemeanors" (ie. that an actual crime had been committed by the President). If somebody can clear this up for me, that would be appreciated.
Why are there no casualty / loss estimates on the Cambodian side in this article? There are many published estimates, and their gravity suggests they be looked into for inclusion here as they lend perspective to the serious human cost of the "beyond covertness" that occured during these activities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.106.188.82 ( talk)
Didn't Operation Menu create strong anti-American sentiment in Cambodia that led to widespread support of the Khmer Rouge? If this is true and verifiable, we should definitely add this. Commissarusa ( talk) 21:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The data released by Clinton in the year 2000 does not cover all U.S. bombing of Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia --not by a long shot.
The years that the data comprises are also considerably narrower than the full scope of the war.
It seems to me that some people have based this part of the article (and perhaps other mentions on the wikipedia) on only a cursory reading of the first paragraph of the Kiernan article for the Walrus (currently the only citation).
Anyone who has glanced at the long list of official "entities" (i.e., separate air forces) that the U.S. used as cut-outs to conduct the bombings will be aware that you're looking at a small (if indicative) sub-set of the data on aerial bombardment.
The experts involved in actual UXO removal in Laos tend to be aware of this fact. People are easily misled into thinking that "U.S. air force" data includes the various attacking forces that the U.S. set up and paid for (as subsidiary to various puppet governments, etc.) --but it doesn't.
The C.I.A. had its own chain of command, and their planes were not part of "the U.S. air force" in any sense. Planes that were flying out of Thailand did so under a variety of banners, some C.I.A., some R.L.G., etc. etc. Looking at the totals in each column is a tricky business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.74.196.9 ( talk) 03:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
There have been lots of estimates about the loss of life due to the United States' bombing of Cambodia, with many figures as high as 600,000 to 1,000,000. How is this not included? Wikipediarul e s 2221 05:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The Dictionary of Genocide attributes its otherwise arbitrary assertion that 700-1,000,000 were killed to the CIA, but /these figures are higher than the CIA's estimate of deaths from all causes throughout the entire Cambodian Civil War--which US bombing played only a minor role in as regards the death toll (there is a separate question as to whether or not the US intervention incited further violence). Therefore, I must conclude it is not a reliable source.
The most widely accepted estimate is Kiernan's 50-150,000. R.J. Rummel, regularly cited by Wikipedia, claims a minimum of 30,000 and a more likely estimate of 300,000. The most comprehensive demographic study by far concluded that 40,000 Cambodians were killed (see Marek Sliwinski, Le Génocide Khmer Rouge: Une Analyse Démographique (L’Harmattan, 1995), pp41-8). Ponchaud estimated 200,000. Even Edward Herman has claimed only 100-200,000 were killed by the bombing.
The estimate of 800,000 killed comes from official Khmer Rouge propaganda. An estimate of 700-1,000,000 is demographically and statistically impossible. If it were true, then how did every census ever taken overlook a million missing Cambodians killed in a matter of months just in the eastern part of the country? If just in eastern Cambodia there were a million deaths; there would have been three million wounded. Why did virtually none of them ever get treatment for their wounds?
Then there is the toll from the entire Cambodian civil war. The idea that all of the deaths on all sides were caused by American bombing is incredible. The death toll from the entire war can help us evaluate the impact of the US bombing that accounted only for a fraction of its death toll. Bruce Sharp notes:
[Quoted material redacted -- much too long to qualify for fair use. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Now, if 250,000 were killed throughout the entire war; then US bombing could have accounted for only a fraction of that sum. Wikipedia's article on the Cambodian Civil War suggests that as many as 600,000 died in the war; your figures would imply that all of these deaths and then some were due solely to American bombing.
Because Dictionary of Genocide is not a reliable source; I will incorporate this range of seemingly reliable sources into the article, all of which suggest a lower toll. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 23:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I feel that it is inaccurate to suggest the actions taken by the Ohio National Guard that resulted in the Kent State shooting was an engagement of the Vietnam War. The reasons are fairly obvious: A)It did not occur in the Vietnam theater of operations. B) It did not involve combatants of the VC or NVA. C) It was an unbalanced action on the part of the Ohio National guard in which students protesting the Vietnam conflict were killed. To characterize the protesters as combatants is absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.103.56 ( talk) 06:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
The figures currently on this page state 40,000 but the consensus amongst historians is that it is many more. Yale states more than 100,000. I will compile a list of all the available figures and they will come in at more than 40,000. The last editor is accusing me of being dishonest but the fact is that using the figure of 40,000 is dishonest.Thoughts? Zrdragon12 ( talk) 18:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Please, you should highlight the number of victims, it is almost invisible on the right side of the page. This article is not really objective. The number of victims should be one of the first information in the introductuion. Thank you!
There is no mention of casualties in the entire article. Plus the section in the right part is incomplete : it ignores the casualties in Laos (which were in the tens of thousands). The article should present estimates from various sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.145.202.53 ( talk) 16:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)