Some people say that Iraq was a second Veitnam for us. I agree with this is some ways, but as at stands now we achieved in the end what we wanted to do, just not nearly as well or as quickly as we wanted. Both wars however cause serious regional upheaval. 

Our war in Vietnam spilled over into Cambodia. This lead to the rise of the Khmer Rouge and what I consider the worst genoside in history. Over 3 million people were purged. They targeted the educated 1st, but they did not stop there. They turned at one point to killing people who wore glasses. I visited the killing fields in Phnom Penh where when it rains the remains of bones and clothing appear. There is still blood on a tree where the killed babies by bashing their heads against the tree. 

Now to Syria. The major difference is most of the 250,000 killed were not "purged" by was the result of hostile action. We have seen chemical weapons used. There has not been a large scale genocide, but we really dont know for sure what ISIS is doing in their controlled territories. 

You may wonder how we let such a thing happen in the 1970s in Cambodia. The public had not desire to revisit that part of the world so shortly after an unpopular war. It actually took Vietnam to remove the Khmer Rouge from power, the enemy. We just sat and watched as it happened. Sounds alot like Syria. 

The French don't get nearly enough credit for fucking up that entire area in south east asia which set up the whole fuckery that went on with vietnam and cambodia.

It was the entire chain of events really. Japanese occupation in WW2, China becoming communist, then French mismanagement, then of course are piece in it.

Muslims are to Israel as the savage Indian was to USA. Thanks for the info.

User was moderated for this post

-Super_Boom

Well at least we can't say the same thing about them regarding irak war (I hope that Bush still enjoys his freedom fries) off course Libya is another subject. 

Actually, I don't think we were too aware of Khmer Rouge activities when they were going on. I highly doubt the Khmer Rouge would have allowed free rein for Western journalists to document their activities so how could we have known the full scale?

In addition to being wrong, this is completely unrelated to the OP or anything anyone posted before you.  Are you sure you are in the right thread? 

My dad was actually a Vietnamese soldier who fought off the Khmer Rouge and then later as part of the counter invasion. Doesn't talk about it much but he saw some horrible things. We watched The Killing Fields together years ago and he told me that was exactly what Cambodia was like.

It was pretty heart breaking to see the genocide museum and killing fields. Its amazing it took until 1997 for Pol Pot to die. 

Cambodia is starting to pull up some. Alot of investment for Japan, Korea and China. Alot, it took a over a generation for things to sort out. As I said in the OP they targeted the educated in the genocide, so when the Khmer Rouge was driven out it was run poorly due to lack of education. 

Cambodia, under the reign of the Khmer rouge, even remained a member of the UN...

Maybe the world had had enough of all the problems in the region and just decided to turn their heads the other way?