WSJ: Angkor Wat

[Capt. Fantastic]

The WSJ has opened up many of its sections to freeloa, er, non-paying viewers. With that in mind, consider this excellent article on the titular temple.

[steve@thaib]

Originally Posted by Capt. Fantastic

The WSJ has opened up many of its sections to freeloa, er, non-paying viewers. With that in mind, consider this excellent article on the titular temple.

I'm possibly in the wrong frame of mind, but Americans bigging up Cambodia is, in my humble opinion, only going to get some headlines in America and is akin to saying what a nice guy that was who you just shanked. The rest of us may well be aware just why the place is quite so smashed up and why the opportunity to loot such important temples arose in the first place:

'Between 1965 and 1973 the US dropped almost a third more ordnance (2.8 million tonnes) on Cambodia, a country the size of Oklahoma, than the allies dropped in the whole of WW2 (2million tonnes) including the atomic bombs which struck Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Cambodia is thought to be the most heavily bombed country in history.'

I'm sure that the 'warrior class' will appreciate the opportunity to rebut the numbers, but the reason that Cambodia is fcuked is that America fcuked it. Pardon me for not being too impressed if the Wall Street Journal is allowing us free access to a sappy tourist article that fails to address recent history so spectacularly.

[Capt. Fantastic]

Aside from all that, how did you like the article?

[gary09]

If anything i think it was good article about Ankor Wats history, i am heading there in early march after 2 weeks in Patong.

[steve@thaib]

Originally Posted by Capt. Fantastic

Aside from all that, how did you like the article?

Pretty good, to be fair.

[Pad Mc]

Heres a good documentary on Year Zero... A good one to watch, it's by the awarding winning Aussie journalist John Pilger... There are some other good ones there too.

John_Pilger - Cambodia (Year Zero)

[marc26]

Originally Posted by steve@thaib

I'm possibly in the wrong frame of mind, but Americans bigging up Cambodia is, in my humble opinion, only going to get some headlines in America and is akin to saying what a nice guy that was who you just shanked. The rest of us may well be aware just why the place is quite so smashed up and why the opportunity to loot such important temples arose in the first place:

'Between 1965 and 1973 the US dropped almost a third more ordnance (2.8 million tonnes) on Cambodia, a country the size of Oklahoma, than the allies dropped in the whole of WW2 (2million tonnes) including the atomic bombs which struck Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Cambodia is thought to be the most heavily bombed country in history.'

I'm sure that the 'warrior class' will appreciate the opportunity to rebut the numbers, but the reason that Cambodia is fcuked is that America fcuked it. Pardon me for not being too impressed if the Wall Street Journal is allowing us free access to a sappy tourist article that fails to address recent history so spectacularly.

so because of past history, all of us Americans are not allowed to appreciate Cambodia or anything about it because of something our governement did when some of us where babies?
that is a ridiculous statement
then i guess half you Brits cant travel almost anywhere in the world becuase you colonized half of it
you are a very bright guy, Steve, but that was just a ludicrous statement

[khon kaen boy]

I thought Laos had the most

[khon kaen boy]

Yup, just looked it up and it was Laos, from Wikpedia

[steve@thaib]

Originally Posted by marc26

you are a very bright guy, Steve, but that was just a ludicrous statement

Yes, I guess so. As I said, I was probably in the wrong mood but I really ought to know when keep quiet by now.

[steve@thaib]

Originally Posted by khon kaen boy

Yup, just looked it up and it was Laos, from Wikpedia

There is some debate over the exact numbers. I believe that Cambodia is the most heavily bombed in terms of numbers, but Laos had more in terms of intensity in ordnance per square mile.

The numbers in the quote are from an American university research paper, I have the article somewhere.

[Matt Knickerbox]

Originally Posted by khon kaen boy

Yup, just looked it up and it was Laos, from Wikpedia

What about Afghanistan? They've been bombed to hell and back since the 70s.

And don't forget about Palestine, they have to be close runners up.

What about France, could they be included if you count WW1 and WW2?