Trumpers Ask Cambodia for Vietnam Payment


tay
#1
In the course of America's ill-fated war in Viet Nam, U.S. forces lavished half a million tonnes of high explosives on the territory of Cambodia. By one count, America's carpet bombing claimed the lives of 500,000 Cambodians.

Now the United States of Trump wants bygones to be bygones, just as soon as
Cambodia repays a 550-million dollar war debt (external - login to view), the current value of what began as a $274 million loan for food supplies.

William Heidt, the US's ambassador in Phnom Penh, said Cambodia's failure to pay back the debt puts it in league with Sudan, Somalia and Zimbabwe.

"To me, Cambodia does not look like a country that should be in arrears…buildings coming up all over the city, foreign investment coming in, government revenue is rapidly rising," Mr Heidt was quoted as saying by the Cambodia Daily.


Apparently Ambassador Heidt isn't interested in talking reparations for the death and destruction the U.S. lavished on Cambodia and its people during the Viet Nam war.

"I'm saying it is in Cambodia's interest not to look to the past, but to look at how to solve this because it's important to Cambodia's future," he said, adding that the US has never seriously considered cancelling the debt.

Of course the United States doesn't want to look to the past but, then again, it doesn't want to look to the future either. Why, if it started negotiations with Cambodia for its years of relentless carpet bombing in that country, next thing you know the Vietnamese would be at the door looking for a mega cheque for the ongoing deaths, birth deformities and mutilations caused by spraying Agent Orange in that country.

Fury in Cambodia as US asks to be paid back hundreds of millions in war debts (external - login to view)
 
MHz
#2
I'm pretty sure that small loan was paid for many times over.

https://www.cambodiadaily.com/archiv...lourish-26190/ (external - login to view)

The recent closing of Afghan*istan’s borders could increase the production and trafficking of opium through the nations of the Mekong River region, particularly Cambodia, a top UN official said Thurs*day.
“This area is just as much at risk as the countries surrounding Afghanistan,” said Dr Sandro Calvani, East Asia and Pacific representative for the UN Inter*national Drug Control Program. “The Mekong River is a fantastic, open highway…Cambodia is very easy to enter and exit from. And [traffickers] are always looking for ways to develop their business.”
Cambodia’s weak judicial system, open borders, improved roads and generally tolerant society make it an easy target for drug traffickers who are looking for “low-risk” countries in which to establish themselves, he said.
A March 2001 UN report said Cambodia is one of the world’s largest suppliers of marijuana, with the value of illicit exports es*timated to match that of the garment industry, the country’s top legal export.
It also said that “significant quantities” of Southeast Asian heroin, as well as amphetamines made in Burma, are smuggled through Cambodia on its way to markets abroad.
“The country has become a safe haven for criminal organizations…of such proportions that they could seriously undermine the country’s fragile development efforts,” the report stated.
Currently, Afghanistan is responsible for 85 percent of the world’s opium production, Calvani said. But the amount of exported opium fell in December when the ruling Taliban regime halted production of the lucrative crop.
After the Sept 11 terrorist attacks on the US—believed to have been coordinated by Afghanistan resident Osama bin Laden—Afghanistan’s borders were closed, effectively halting all exports of the leftover opium supply, Calvani said.
As the world’s supply of opium has fallen, the price has risen dramatically. In Burma, for example, users are now paying 10 times the amount they were paying last year.
“Demand has not been reduced. Users around the world do not have to obey the Taliban,” Calvani said.
While authorities in Burma and Laos have cracked down on opium farming in recent years, the possibility of increased production in Laos, Thailand and Burma—the so-called “Golden Triangle” of opium production—remains. Traffickers could then use Cambodia, which shares borders with Thailand and Laos, as a staging ground for shipments to Indonesia, Australia, North America and Europe, he said.
Calvani met with top government officials, including Prime Minister Hun Sen, Wednesday to warn about possible increased drug trafficking. He recommended more police training and a sustained education campaign through the media.
Calvani also met with international donors to raise funding for drug efforts here. The UN Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention opened an office in Phnom Penh earlier this year and has a budget of just under $1 million for 2001, Calvani said.
“Cambodia doesn’t compare in production to Burma or to Thailand for consumption and trafficking. But it is one of the poorest countries in the region and there is an enormous need for development,” he said.
Because of Cambodia’s poverty, the number of opium and amphetamine addicts could rise quickly, much faster than in Thailand, Calvani said.
Just five years ago, there were very few amphetamine users in Thailand. Now, there have been 800,000 million “yaba” pills made and distributed among labor workers and middle-class teen-agers, Calvani said.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#3
Do what Trump does to avoid paying bills. Declare bankruptcy. There is also a statute of limitations on collecting debt. Could be it is too late.
 
MHz
#4
The US has been in bankruptcy for many decades. Trump had a few business flop and many, many more that didn't so what's your point?? Beat a dead horse until it takes all your money??

https://anticorruptionsociety.com/th...-america-1933/ (external - login to view)
The Bankruptcy of America – 1933

HINT: A LOT MORE HAPPENED THAN JUST THE CONFISCATION OF THE PEOPLE’S GOLD!


two of you enter into a binding contract and by applying for a license to marry, you now have voluntarily included the State as a third party to your marriage! If things don’t work out in that marriage, the State is first to be satisfied.
[e.g.] Your right to travel is an unalienable right defined by the Declaration of Independence and not a privilege and yet the government demands that you apply for a driver’s license! Google: Right to travel and read the millions of old Court rulings that cite our right to travel without a license! PS/ The Courts now refuse to honor those old precedents of law since 1938 because of a Supreme Court case titled: Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, 304 US 64 (193.
Mr. Tompkins attempted to walk along a set of Railroad Tracks when he was struck by an appendage fastened to a mail train and he subsequently sued claiming negligence and damages on the part of the Railroad. What Tompkins didn’t know was that the Railroads were in partnership with the Corporate United States Government and so to protect the Government, the Supreme Court ruled that: ‘Absent a ticket or license, Tompkins was trespassing on railroad property and therefore he was barred from any relief.’
This ruling wiped the slate clean by eliminating all previous Court precedents that occurred prior to the year 1938 concerning our unalienable right to travel and opened a floodgate for new State and Federal Government controls such as: The State Vehicle Codes and the requirement for licensing of everything and anything!
Prior to 1933, we all were proud and peaceful Sovereign inhabitants of America. The Trading with the Enemy Act, the Confiscation Act and the Lieber Code obligated the military government to, ‘peacefully interact with American citizens’ and prohibited them from ‘provoking us or to act belligerently toward us’ [or] they forfeit their ability to profit and loot [or] to securitize our property, equity and credit being held in a Public Trust.

Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Do what Trump does to avoid paying bills. Declare bankruptcy. There is also a statute of limitations on collecting debt. Could be it is too late.

How about Trump repeal the creation of the FED in 1913 and all the interest on the National deb that was paid to the Rothschild Bankers can be returned to the Citizens of the US where it belongs.

History of Money and Private Central Bank (external - login to view)
From Chapter 1 & 10, The Creature from Jekyll Island by Edward Griffin and from The Secrets of the Federal Reserve by Eustace Mullins. (copy of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act below) In brief, the private banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve System was setup in 1913 at the same time that the 16th Amendment was introduced to force income taxes onto Americans. The 16th Amendment was not legally ratified and this is why people are challenging the legality of income taxes that go to pay the interest on the money created from nothing by the private Federal Reserve System. The FED owners have become immensely wealthy by creating money out of nothing and lending it to the tax payers. Owners of the Fed are listed further down. The same scam happens with the Bank of England and HSBC, both controlled by the Freemason/Illuminati Zionist families (Rothschild, etc.).
The secret meeting on Jekyll Island (owned by J.P.Morgan) in Georgia (around 1910) at which the Federal Reserve was conceived and a roadmap was laid towards the birth of a banking cartel to protect its members from competition, and the strategy of how to convince Congress and the public that this cartel was an agency of the United States government. Seven men who represented an estimated one forth of the total wealth of the entire world were present at that meeting:
1. Nelson W. Aldrich, Republican "whip" in the Senate, Chairman of the National Monetary Commission, business associate of J.P. Morgan, father-in-law to John D. Rockefeller, Jr.;
2. Abraham Piatt Andrew, Assistant Secretary of the United States Treasury;
3. Frank A. Vanderlip, president of the National City Bank of New York, the most powerful of the banks at that time,representing William Rockefeller and the international investment banking house of Kuhn, Loeb & Company;
4. Henry P. Davison, senior partner of the J.P Morgan Company;
5. Charles D. Norton, president of J.P. Morgan's First National Bank ofNew York;
6. Benjamin Strong, head of J.P. Morgan's Bankers Trust Company;and
7. Paul M. Warburg, a partner in Kuhn, Loeb & Company, a representative of the Rothschild banking dynasty in England and France, and brother to Max Warburg who was head of the Warburg banking consortium in Germany and the Netherlands.
These competitors colluded to create a banking cartel who collateral is the US taxpayer and all properties of the US government. In 1913, the same year that the Federal Reserve Act was passed into law, a subcommittee of the House Committee on Currency and Banking, under the chairmanship of Arsene Pujo of Louisiana, completed its investigation into the concentration of financial power in the United States. Pujo was considered to be a spokesman for the oil interests, part of the very group under investigation, and did everything possible to sabotage the hearings. In spite of his efforts, however, the final report of the committee at large was devastating. It stated: Your committee is satisfied from the proofs submitted, even in the absence of data from the banks, that there is an established and well defined identity and community of interest between a few leaders of finance...which has resulted in great and rapidly growing concentration of the control of money and credit in the hands of these few men... When we consider, also, in this connection that into these reservoirs of money and credit there flow a large part of the reserves of the banks of the country, that they are also the agents and correspondents of the out-of-town banks in the loaning of their surplus funds in the only public money market of the country, and that a small group of men and their partners and associates have now further strengthened their hold upon the resources of these institutions by acquiring large stock holdings therein, by representation on their boards and through valuable patronage, we begin to realize something of the extent to which this practical and effective domination and control over our greatest financial, railroad and industrial corporations has developed, largely within the past five years, and that it is fraught with peril to the welfare of the country.
The purpose of this meeting on Jekyll Island was...to come to an agreement on the structure and operation of a banking cartel. The goal of the cartel, as is true with all of them, was to maximize profits by minimizing competition between members, to make it difficult for new competitors to enter the field, and to utilize the police power of government to enforce the cartel agreement.
In more specific terms, the purpose and, indeed, the actual outcome of this meeting was to create the blueprint for the Federal Reserve System.
On 23rd December 1913 the house of representatives had past the Federal Reserve Act, but it was still having difficulty getting it out of the senate. Most members of congress had gone home for the holidays, but unfortunately the senate had not adjourn sine dei (without day) so they were technically still in session. There were only three members still present. On a unanimous consent voice vote the 1913 Federal Reserve Act was passed. No objection was made, possibly because there was no one there to object.
The first leak regarding this meeting found its way into print in 1916. It appeared in Leslie's Weekly and was written by a young financial reporter by the name of B.C. Forbes, who later founded Forbes Magazine. The article was primarily in praise of Paul Warburg, and it is likely that Warburg let the story out during conversations with the writer. At any rate, the opening paragraph contained a dramatic but highly accurate summary of both the nature and purpose of the meeting: Picture a party of the nation's greatest bankers stealing out of New York on a private railroad car under cover of darkness, stealthily hieing hundreds of miles South, embarking on a mysterious launch, sneaking on to an island deserted by all but a few servants, living there a full week under such rigid secrecy that the names of not one of them was once mentioned lest the servants learn the identity and disclose to the world this strangest, most secret expedition in the history of American finance.
I am not romancing. I am giving to the world, for the first time, the real story of how the famous Aldrich currency report, the foundation of our new currency system, was written.
In 1930, Paul Warburg wrote a massive book - 1750 pages in all - entitled "The Federal Reserve System, Its Origin and Growth". In this tome, he described the meeting and its purpose but did not mention either its location or the names of those who attended. But he did say: "The results of the conference were entirely confidential. Even the fact there had been a meeting was not permitted to become public." Then in a footnote he added: "Though eighteen years have since gone by, I do not feel free to give a description of this most interesting conference concerning which Senator Aldrich pledged all participants to secrecy."
In the February 9, 1935, issue of the Saturday Evening Post, an article appeared written by Frank Vanderlip. In it he said: "Despite my views about the value to society of greater publicity for the affairs of corporations, there was an occasion, near the close of 1910, when I was as secretive - indeed, as furtive - as any conspirator....I do not feel it is any exaggeration to speak of our secret expedition to Jekyll Island as the occasion of the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System....We were told to leave our last names behind us. We were told, further, that we should avoid dining together on the night of our departure. We were instructed to come one at a time and as unobtrusively as possible to the railroad terminal on the New Jersy littoral of the Hudson, where Senator Aldrich's private car would be in readiness, attached to the rear end of a train for the South....
Once aboard the private car we began to observe the taboo that had been fixed on last names. We addressed one another as "Ben," "Paul," "Nelson," "Abe" - it is Abraham Piatt Andrew. Davison and I adopted even deeper disguises, abandoning our first names. On the theory that we were always right, he became Wilbur and I became Orville, after those two aviation pioneers, the Wright brothers....The servants and train crew may have known the identities of one or two of us, but they did not know all, and it was the names of all printed together that would have made our mysterious journey significant in Washington, in Wall Street, even in London. Discovery, we knew, simply must not happen, or else all our time and effort would be wasted.
If it were to be exposed publicly that our particular group had got together and written a banking bill, that bill would have no chance whatever of passage by Congress.



Holy f*ck, the numbers do not lie. $10B jump in 1918 and even bigger crimes to come.


https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/...ebt_histo1.htm 1750-1849

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/...ebt_histo2.htm 1850-1899

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/...ebt_histo3.htm 1900-1949

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/...ebt_histo4.htm 1950-1999

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/...ebt_histo5.htm 2000-2015
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
+1
#5  Top Rated Post
That's pretty damned funny ... the defeated Americans demanding reparations from the victors. Trump is short of a lot of things but blarney isn't one of them.
 
White_Unifier
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious CdnView Post

That's pretty damned funny ... the defeated Americans demanding reparations from the victors. Trump is short of a lot of things but blarney isn't one of them.

If you're referring to the Vietnam War, I'm not sure there was a victor, more like a stalemate with the US giving up once its own economy was in shambles.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by White_UnifierView Post

If you're referring to the Vietnam War, I'm not sure there was a victor, more like a stalemate with the US giving up once its own economy was in shambles.

I don't see American flags flying anywhere over Cambodia, Laos nor Vietnam. I don't see South Vietnamese flags flying there, either. Stalemate? Nonsense. It was a total military defeat.


www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source...LrasBucoSChv0Q (external - login to view)
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious CdnView Post

I don't see American flags flying anywhere over Cambodia, Laos nor Vietnam. I don't see South Vietnamese flags flying there, either. Stalemate? Nonsense. It was a total military defeat.


www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source...LrasBucoSChv0Q (external - login to view)

Maybe a defeat for the south but for the US it was more cutting their losses.
 
White_Unifier
#9
We could say the US lost in that it failed to fulfill its objective. The Vietcong succeeded in its mission, so yes it's fair to say the US lost. I hesitate to say the Vietcong won though since they lost much too. So it's probably better to say the US lost, not that the Vietcong won.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Maybe a defeat for the south but for the US it was more cutting their losses.

... cutting their losses after having their asses kicked inside out.

As a matter of fact, except for a massively outweighed invasion of Grenada, U.S. forces haven't been victorious since WW II. (POSSIBLY during the First Gulf War but whatever "victory" that was didn't last long.
 
White_Unifier
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious CdnView Post

... cutting their losses after having their asses kicked inside out.

As a matter of fact, except for a massively outweighed invasion of Grenada, U.S. forces haven't been victorious since WW II. (POSSIBLY during the First Gulf War but whatever "victory" that was didn't last long.

And again, whoever lost, we can agree at least that there were no winners.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by White_UnifierView Post

And again, whoever lost, we can agree at least that there were no winners.

Vietnam is probably poised to pass the United States in manufacturing output over the next few decades.
 
White_Unifier
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious CdnView Post

Vietnam is probably poised to pass the United States in manufacturing output over the next few decades.

To be fair though, free trade tends to benefit the poor more than the wealthy. Poor countries hold a wealthy one back while a wealthy one props a poor country up.

Same with people. Imagine two equally qualified workers. One has plenty of cash in the bank, the other spent his last cent. While the wealthier one will weigh his options about returning into the workforce, the poorer one will be willing to work at below his worth at least initially just to get the job because he is in survival mode. The other might with the savings in the bank might find it harder to find work because he's not yet wiling to work at the lower wage.

There is justice in this though in that it benefits the poor over the rich. I oppose trade barriers for the same reason I oppose the minimum wage. They hurt the poor the most.
 

Similar Threads

5
Spider Payment
by Twila | Nov 26th, 2008
0
Cambodia 1st U.N peacekeeping mission
by Jersay | Apr 15th, 2006
no new posts