learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by greywatch on March 09, 2026 15:08

The Khmer Rouge's plan was to start over and create an agricultural self reliant state. Their motives were the constant interruptions by the foreign governments like the constant bombings from the U.S. and the overall status in the world. They were fed up. Therefore they devised a plan to create a thriving country that relied on their own citizens and worked as a collective instead of for individual needs. This sounded like a great idea in theory. But instead this would reign terror of the people in Cambodia for years. The fundamental problem in my perspective was that there was no safe shift in power. They would rather take out an innocent person than to risk them being the enemy. This demonstrates the fundamental issue. They wanted the country to suffer before they could rejoice. In this case, their reign was untested and unsuccessful. I think that communism has yet to provide a successful example, and therefore I can conclude that it is not an effective form of government. I think that certain rules are required to keep an ethical perspective through war and armed struggle. Firstly I am extremely against killing people in general, and at times war may call for it according to certain philosophies but that is not mine. continuing in my personal beliefs, I think that a trial should be required before any sort of punishment occurs. There also needs to be a strict line between combatants and innocent civilians, especially children. There should be no situation, children are fighting and handling weapons for war. Other than that many outlines that I may find obvious are not observed. For example in the final reading, a woman was gutted while pregnant. This cruel and unusual punishment, harming an innocent fetus, should never be permitted under any circumstance in war or an armed takeover.

I think that in any adjustment phase, there will be “growing pains” but that period of adaptation should not span more than 2-3 years. And it should certainly not include mass killings that are unjustified by moral standings. They should also not include preventable starvation and inadequate healthcare and living conditions. Unfortunately it is not simple to outline these for all people and generalize it. When it becomes evident that change is making the society worse, a plan needs to be adopted immediately for the benefit of the citizens. Signs of a failing change include massive death numbers, hunger and starvation, and economic decline. It is the job of those in charge of the government to monitor that and allocate the appropriate help. If a leader cannot witness and address the issues of their country then they are not fit to be leaders.

The international community could have stepped in and declared what was happening in Cambodia to be a genocide or a crime against humanity which would have compelled them to act and support the inncent people. A nation's sovereignty should be overridden if their actions cause evidenced harm to their citizens or anyone within their border. There should be no forced starvation, forced labor, or mass killings, really anything that interferes with the human rights of a person. This could have happened by Vietnam, France or The U.S which were the main authority figures mentioned in relation to Cambodia and that state it was in. France and The U.S were very responsible for the destabilization of that region and in turn they should provide adequate support to help mend what they hurt.

I really liked the structure of this person’s post - they start with explaining the motives and relevant info of the Khmer Rouge. They also explain how communism comes into play and then their opinion on how the KR executed it and the effectiveness of communism in general. I also agreed with their statement about being against killing, torture, and child soldiers in any situation, even war. I also think that someone’s life is not worth it, even if it’s for the “greater good.” I liked their point about how sometimes change calls for “growing pains” while it is underway and their specification that it however does not constitute killing, and in fact that is a sign of failure, along with the other things they mentioned. I also liked their mention of leadership and perhaps they could have expanded on that, but the beginning of their idea on leaders needing to address the issues of the people was compelling. To what extent were the authority figures of the KR unfit rulers? It becomes sort of relative since they thought that the work they put in was for the greater good of the country. This does connect back to their original point of when the negative sides of a transitional period really just become a corrupt idea to begin with. I think this was a really well written and thoughtful response, the only thing I would suggest is incorporating the readings more. I also would have been interested to hear if they thought that Vietnam, France, or the US doing anything would bring justice to the situation or not, or some kind of in between.

Originally posted by Orso on March 06, 2026 13:24

The reign of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia represents one of the worst attempts at Communism during the entire Cold War. The complete disregard for human life, the family unit, and individual thought go beyond even dystopian fiction. Yet, Communism as an ideology has its own fundamental flaws, some of which directly resulted in the events that occurred in Cambodia.

Philosophically communism sounds like a utopian idea that cures all the ills of society by establishing equality. The issues lie in the means that are necessary to achieve such a goal. In order to create a society built around a single unified goal and collective action, there can be no tolerance for anyone who opposes or undermines the new ideas. Even without government corruption or mal-intent, the system itself does not allow for dissent since it breaks down entirely once people stop believing in the mission. In Cambodia, the KR responded by killing and torturing all those who might possibly oppose the regime. They trained children and separated them from their families to create a completely new society since otherwise there would always be those who wanted to live in the old system. Communism does indeed require a start from year 0, so the KR sought to establish this with all its available resources. Communism and capitalism alike can become dangerous once people forget there are alternatives to the status quo, but communism’s mere existence requires it.

Bringing about change unfortunately often leads to violence. Once existing institutions take a defensive position and shut out opposition completely, the only response left is overthrowing the government. While just war theory sets likelihood of victory as a criterion for taking up arms, this is often impossible for those seeking internal change. Certainly violence should be a last resort but in the context of a popular and justified revolution it can be tolerated so long as jus in bello principles are followed. Unfortunately this is highly unlikely given the military context of the modern age, but I would still consider it morally gray if it genuinely starts through a popular movement. When establishing a new order, there is never stability as certain voices will demand a return to life before and others will push for even more extreme action (take French and Russian revolutions, for example). In general, the best thing that can happen in such a society is for people to believe in the new government and make sure democratic principles are upheld without actually undoing the revolution. The alternative options often lead to extremism and then authoritarianism as people seek some sense of order. Essentially, even if economic circumstances and quality of life are not improving, the theoretical and ideological efforts of democracy and personal liberty should be prioritized.

The international community failed miserably in Cambodia despite having access to so much information. I do not personally believe that the general populace of the US can be held responsible given the lack of press coverage, the trauma of Vietnam, and the lack of attention from politicians. Still, many countries should have done more to provide humanitarian aid and assist refugees much sooner. Military intervention for humanitarian causes is a very murky subject but genocide is certainly a case where it is necessary. I think in the case of the US violating Cambodian sovereignty, intervening militarily would not have been beneficial and would have deepened regional tensions even further. We also would have been fighting a war against a bunch of child soldiers and caused even more death than there already was. Vietnam did well to intervene since it did have just cause and took on less risk than any western bloc nation, making it the appropriate country to respond to the crisis in Cambodia. I do think, however, that western countries should have acknowledged the atrocities in the region earlier and informed their people, who likely still wouldn’t adopt a hawkish stance on war anyway considering US losses in Vietnam.

I agree with my peer’s view that any attempt at bringing change often leads to violence, which I also wrote about in my own response. They expand on the idea by stating that a time of change is unstable specifically because there’s people on one side calling for a return to what life was like before, and people on the other side calling for even more extreme measures, so no matter the intention of the change, it is weakened in both directions. They also argue that violence in a revolution can be justified if it follows jus in bello principles; however, as they note, Just War Theory gives unclear and easily manipulated guidelines. One aspect that I don’t agree with is when they say that the best thing for people to do when a new order takes power is to believe in the government and try to uphold democratic principles. I don’t believe it is possible to make yourself believe in something when you don’t have a reason to. More importantly, even if a power overthrows another, that doesn’t mean that that new power is especially benevolent, as was seen in the Khmer Rouge’s actions, nor that you will have the power to uphold democracy.

Originally posted by Hibiscus on March 09, 2026 22:50

The fundamental problems within the Khmer Rouge stem from the innate issues of communism, but also from the ways that they went about taking power and instilling communism. Communist ideology attempts to remove individuality in hopes of creating a completely equal society. The inherent flaw with this however is that you can never truly remove individuality; as long as people have their own bodies, own brain, and own two eyes, they will always have their own sense of self and individuality. Now, perhaps if a generation of children grow up in this society, then after several generations a true communist society would emerge, but even in that possibility, creating such a society would be difficult without every parent and person involved complying. Another issue with communism is that in order to instill communism, there needs to be a sort of leader to organize it. This creates the exact power imbalance which communism claims to erase. The same goes for the Khmer Rouge’s regime. Those in charge of camps or leaders would have a different status and treatment than those in the camps and especially those seen as enemies.

The way that the Khmer Rouge went about taking power and instilling communism in Cambodia shows the fundamental weakness of the regime. Excerpt 3 from Chapter 6 of A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide (Power, 2002) explains who the KR targetted. One group they targeted were religious groups like the Cham and Buddhist monks living in Cambodia. For the KR to feel that the only way to rise above religious groups was by killing them shows how fragile and flawed their ideology must be. A truly influential organization wouldn’t need to kill those who pose a threat. The same goes for them wiping out “intellectuals” - those with really basic education.

The Khmer Rouge felt that killing and targeting “traitors” was the way to bring about change. Now this poses the question: To what extent must one go to bring about change? Does the seriousness or necessity of the change affect where to draw this line? I think that in the situation of the KR, they definitely went too far. I think the change that they tried to make was really just taking advantage of the situation with the Vietnam War and the United States’s unauthorized bombings of Cambodia. Pol Pot was able to hold power by force and by using the current events of the time to justify his new totalitarian state. In this situation, I don’t think there was enough seriousness/necessity to kill civilians - it just added more fuel to the fire of the already war torn part of the world.

The only suffering really that I think makes sense to bring out change is suffering of those who have already disturbed the peace or those actively working to protect those who have made such issues. In societies where it is obvious that the opposite is happening, nations shouldn’t turn a blind eye to the situation, and instead work together as outside countries to support the people in the country. The issue with this specific situation was that the United States had finally learned the full extent of what was going on in Cambodia after the Vietnam War, which already had left many families devastated, men traumatized, and overall gave the nation a negative outlook on war/South East Asia. The United States had to choose between doing what’s best for its country or trying to help another, which is never an easy decision. In each situation, there is never really a clear cut answer of what should be done, what is morally right, and what is guaranteed to resolve issues without creating worse impacts in the process.

I completely agree with your view of Communism as an idea that doesn’t ever work in practice, because, of course, people all have individuality and most people want to keep their individuality especially after being introduced to it. It would be interesting to see if a communist nation was more successful if it was almost completely children growing up in the regime, however this is basically what the Khmer Rouge tried. It really didn’t work, and people were still very unhappy. I also agree that the leaders of communism are often the biggest issues with introducing it.

Similarly, I think that the idea of wiping out intellectuals may work to get rid of the ideas of the old religion, but then you have an uneducated society that would be hard to advance and succeed. Most regimes don’t want to admit it, but the intelligentsia are key for a successful society.

The Khmer Rouge were only successful to begin with because of the advantageous situation they had when they started their regime, but once this advantage began to weaken as the United States pulled out of Vietnam and Vietnam was able to focus more on the Khmer Rouge attacks their advantage completely fell away and left the poorly planned regime to be completely disintegrated.

I agree that the intelligentsia may pose a challenge to new regimes like the Khmer Rouge, but I think they would have been more successful with less suffering if they had found a way to ally themselves with them. Therefore there would have been no disturbance of this peace from the educated group and the Khmer Rouge may have been more successful. I agree that this could be wishful thinking to stop this traumatization, but I believe there were plenty of other strategies that could have worked better.

Originally posted by pink on March 09, 2026 08:31

LTQ Post 8: The Khmer Rouge: Failure of Ideology and of the International Community

The tragedy in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge from 1975-1979 shows how dangerous an extreme ideology can become when it is applied without limits or concern for human life. The Khmer Rouge, led by Pol Pot, wanted to completely remake Cambodian society. They tried to create a classless, agrarian communist state called democratic Kampuchea. However their plan led to the deaths of around 1.7 million people from starvation, forced labor, disease and execution. While the regime claimed to be “building a better society" its actions caused massive destruction instead.

One of the main problems in the Khmers Rouge's ideology was how extreme and unrealistic it was. They believed Cambodia needed to return to “year zero” meaning that they would erase modern society and start over. Cities were emptied, schools and hospitals were shut down, religion was banned and money was eliminated. In “The Rise and Fall of democratic Kampuchea” Sok Udom Deth explains that the regime tried to purify society by removing anyone connected to the old system. This included educated people, professionals, monks and even people who simply looked intellectual. The government assumed that forcing everyone into farm labor would create equality and prosperity but instead it caused starvation and suffering. Their plan ignored basic human needs and the complexity of running a country.

This situation does not necessarily prove that communism itself always leads to genocide. Instead it shows how dangerous it is when leaders interpret an ideology in a violent way. The Khmer Rouge did not allow disagreement, free speech, or political opposition. There were no checks on their power. Any criticism was seen as betrayal. The problem was not just the theory of communism, but the way it was enforced without flexibility. When leaders believe their goal justified any action, human lives become less important than ideology.

Another important issue is the role of the international community. In "Problem from Hell” Samantha Power describes how the United States and other countries had information about what was happening in Cambodia but often responded with doubt or political calculation. Some officials questioned the reports while others focused more on cold war politics than on stopping the suffering. This shows a failure of moral responsibility. Although Cambodia was a sovereign nation the scale of suffering raises the question of when the world should intervene. If a government is killing its own people, protecting sovereignty should not be more important than protecting human life.

The film "First They Killed my Father” also helped show the human impact of the Khmer Rouge's policies in a more personal way. Instead of just statistics the film follows a child's experiences and shows how families were separated, children were forced into labor camps and people were constantly living in fear. It makes it clear that the suffering was not just political or economic but that it destroyed trust, identity, and basic human relationships. Seeing the event through a child's perspective emphasizes how extreme ideology affected ordinary people who had no power or control of what was happening. This connects to the larger idea that when leaders prioritize ideally over humanity it is everyday citizens who pay the price.

Overall the destruction caused by the khmer rouge demonstrates the dangers of extreme ideology combined with absolute power. It shows that no political theory should be followed blindly especially when it causes massive suffering. It also reminds us that the governments harm their own people. Cambodia's history is a warning about what can happen when ideology is valued more than human life.

The most compelling idea in my peer’s post was how unrealistic and extreme the Khmer Rouge’s ideology was. I agree with that idea because the KR pushed their limits, and their strict regulations led to unnecessary starvation and suffering, like my peer has reinforced. However, I also appreciated that my peer mentioned the importance of interpretation of various ideologies, which is something that I had also mentioned in my own LTQ. Interpretation is a dangerous subjective ideal that we have in our society, that causes a lot of deeds to be justified, similar to how Nazi’s interpretation of the Jews justified their extermination. On the other hand, me and my peer definitely have similar views and some overlap, but then again our explanations differed. I appreciated the thoughtful analysis that my peer had put into their work, and also mentioning aspects that I may have thought about, but didn’t necessarily include in my final draft. Lastly, I agree with my peer’s view that the film “ First They Killed My Father” offered intimacy. This film made me feel like I was emotionally connected to the victims, and depicted the harsh reality of what the Cambodians had to endure on a deep level, such as being stripped away from their families, the harsh labor, and an attempt at survival all together.

Originally posted by promotes on March 09, 2026 19:49

The Khmer Rouge

Following the retreat of American soldiers from Vietnam, and Southeast Asia all together, in 1973, communism rose in Cambodia. Having had experience in Western education, many young leaders had thoughts of bringing communism to Southeast Asia, including Pol Pot. Pol Pot built a communist regime known as the Khmer Rouge, which ultimately took control of Cambodia, and in its presence, closed off the nation to the rest of the world for several years. With the threat of U.S. bombings still lingering, the Khmer Rouge soldiers were easily able to clear out Phnom Penh and the other cities, and move people closer to the countryside, where people were then forced to give up any ties to their individuality. The emphasis on the people as equal and the same led to brutal punishments and violence towards anyone who was even slightly different. With eyes everywhere, many people were met with harsh ends everyday due to murder, starvation, conditions of living, disease, and more.

The Khmer Rouge sought for change in Cambodia, and went to all means in order to achieve it, crossing the lines of ethics and what is universally considered moral. In A Problem From Hell, a novel by Samantha Power, Power recaps the conditions that Cambodians were faced with under the Khmer Rouge in the chapter “This is Not 1942”: no travel, no education, no family, no love/intimacy, no religion, no independence, no money, and no access to the outside world. With heavy restrictions placed on even basic aspects of life and a strict way of living, the Khmer Rouge raises the question of to what extent change is okay, and to how to go about that change in an ethical way. Although morals are highly subjective, there are still boundaries which cannot, and should not, be crossed in any situation— murder of civilians, forced starvation, and many other things that the Khmer Rouge did during their reign.

One of the major goals of the Khmer Rouge was to create a better society, completely free of capitalism. However, the means to get there sacrificed many lives and overtook them completely. In my opinion, the suffering of people should not be necessary in order to make a positive change; despite the discomfort and difficulties that come with any rebuilding of society, actual torture and suffering of an entire population is inexcusable. The relentless punishing of the Khmer Rouge towards anyone who showed even slight disloyalty is immoral, unneeded, and unjustified. For example, this regime is most commonly known for executing people with one of the reasons being needing glasses, as it was considered a sign of education, upper class, and intelligence to the Khmer Rouge. When the desperate making of change is clearly initiating the beginning of a decline for society, instead of growth and improvement, I think that there should be some form of interference by an outside force, whether it’s international or national, especially on part of the United Nations. There should be at least an effort made to prevent the further decline of said nation, in order to save the nation, but also the people living there.

I think that we can both agree that the goal of the Komer Rough was to create a better society by their standards but their methods were horrible and the suffering they caused was not necessary or should be permitted. We agree on many aspects of how the Cambodians influence the human rights of their victims. This response highlighted that there were many, almost all liberties taken away from the people such as marriage, religion, money, communication and most of all independence. Everyone was supposed to be the same and they had no differences. These rights were taken away from them and if they did act on them then they would be punished severely. Their punishments were also not ethical and without proper conviction. The most compelling idea in my opinion was, “ When the desperate making of change is clearly initiating the beginning of a decline for society, instead of growth and improvement” which I think perfectly captivates when outside intervention is necessary. Cambodia was seeing absolutely no change in their society and instead they were seeing a decline. This should have been the red flag or warning sign that they needed to change. This is also the sign that tells others that they need to be saved or helped from a harmful and controlling regime.

Originally posted by Olympic on March 09, 2026 13:59

The main issue with the Khmer Rouge’s ideology was their belief that “to keep you is no gain; to kill you is no loss.” Their complete disregard for any human life was not just a moral problem but also was a key factor that led to their failure. This is not something inherently wrong with communism; instead it is focused on the specific scenario of the Khmer Rouge leader. The complete callousness of the Khmer Rouge was unheard of and not a successful way to build a society that will love the communist nation they live under. The main issue that communist faceovers all face is that they never end up appealing to the people of the nation, because they are so corrupted that the bottom of the population suffers so greatly that they do not see the point of the communist nation that has been created. Nobody wanted to support the communist takeover of the Khmer Rouge because they were all living in a constant state of suffering. When the leaders of the revolution put themselves in such a great position above the people of the nation there is bound to be distress in the country. While one could argue that this is not communism’s fault I believe that it will always be the pitfall of communism that makes it an unsuccessful way to govern a country. Instead, socialism is the much more successful and less extreme version of communism that has proven to work in society while communism often leads to the suffering of its subjects.

I do think that as a revolution happens and a new revolution comes into power there will be some suffering and death involved. As a new leadership takes over they must exact some sort of power on the old government that they are placing a government over. The leaders of the old government may need to suffer as some sort of example from the new government to the old, but after that the whole society should not be forced to suffer just because a new government has shifted into power. The Khmer Rouge clearly didn’t believe in this as they reset the entire population through a wave of constant suffering. I think that the Khmer Rouge should have been able to recognize for themselves that their society strategy would not work well for long, because no one wanted to be living under their government for very long.

There are definitely instances where it is the international community’s responsibility to stop the immense suffering by people, however I believe that for the first few years of the Khmer Rouge’s rule in Cambodia America was correct in not acting. At the beginning there was virtually no information on the violence that was happening in Cambodia so the only reason America would have militarized was to fight the government takeover by a communist regime which had proven to not work in Vietnam. As Samantha Power explained in “A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide” David Greenway described the original situation as “the proverb of the blind men trying to describe an elephant” since no one outside of Cambodia really knew what was happening, but over time there were too many refugees who “told the same stories in too much detail to doubt” (120) that Greenway and the U.S. were forced to believe it. If the U.S. had not started this problem for Cambodia I would be more inclined to argue that there was no reason for America to step forward especially so soon after their loss in Vietnam, but since the U.S. was responsible for a lot of what happened in Cambodia and the government being overrun by the Khmer Rouge in this situation they did have some responsibility to act. They did provide support after the Khmer Rouge was run out of Cambodia, but they should have acted sooner to right their wrongs.

This post offers a moving critique of the Khmer Rouge's ideology, particularly the focus on the mantra, “to keep you is no gain; to kill you is no loss.” This is undoubtedly the most compelling part of the argument as it highlights how a fundamental disregard for human life ensures the eventual collapse of any regime, as no society can truly exist on the basis of terror. I agree with the distinction between the theoretical goals of a revolution and the “callousness” that defined this specific regime. You make an interesting point regarding the inevitability of “suffering and death” during power shifts. While that is a bold claim, it accurately reflects the historical reality of the transition from the old government to the new in Cambodia. My views align with yours regarding the failure of the Khmer Rouge to recognize the unsustainability of their “Year Zero” strategy, though I would argue that their goal wasn’t longevity so much as a radical, immediate purification of society. One area for improvement would be to deepen the discussion on the U.S. role. You mentioned that the U.S. was “responsible for a lot of what happened,” but providing a brief mention of the 1969-1973 carpet-bombing campaign (Operation Menu) would clarify why the U.S. had a moral debt to the Cambodian people. Furthermore, checking the mechanical flow of your paragraph on intervention would help. It is kind of dense and could be split to separate the “lack of information” argument from the “moral responsibility” argument. Overall, your use of Samantha Power’s blind men and the elephant” analogy effectively illustrates the international community’s lack of intervention