I have read the article. The reference to the missing bloodbath was about Vietnam and not about Cambodia. Chomsky was right there. The missing bloodbath was in

I have read the article. The reference to the missing bloodbath was about Vietnam and not about Cambodia. Chomsky was right there. The missing bloodbath was in reference to the reasoning a lot of people in the US used to prolong the war. The theory was that if the US leaves everyone in the south would be massacred, so we must stay for humanitarian reasons. That was wrong, the North Vietnamese did not massacre civilians after they won. Again this has nothing to do with Cambodia. The other stuff you have written there is just silly. Were you in Vietnam before the war? Can you really make the comparison? Are you sure that as a French colony, when most Vietnamese were either peasants or more or less slaves working on French rubber plantations, Vietnam was more prosperous than it is now? Or do you mean to say that it was just dirty and relatively poor when you saw it and therefore made you feel superior enough to dream up various theories about how it might have been so much better if they let us bomb them a little more. A lot of that poverty is the result of the war, and I really doubt it would have been much better if the war lasted longer.