June 14, 2005
Srebrenica
It is interesting how video makes news. This news is literally a decade old. Srebrenica was the scene of the worst massacre in the Bosnian war - 7000 murdered. The town filled with refugees after the UN had declared Srebrenica a safe haven, but UN Peacekeepers stood down when Serbian fighters threatened.
In all fairness, their options were limited after their request for close air support was turned down because it was submitted on the wrong form. This was a war where all the paperwork was done properly and all the proper people consulted. In the interests of peace, however, the peacekeepers had already managed to disarm the Muslims and refused to give them back their weapons . . . in the interests of peace. The peacekeepers handed 5000 Muslims over to the Serbs. But UN negotiators won the release of the peacekeepers themselves on the condition that they leave their weapons and some supplies behind.
In the end, about 7000 Muslim men and boys were murdered by the Serbs and buried in mass graves. Think about that number and compare it to others. It might have been better for the peacekeepers to be a little more bloodthirsty and fight back, or at least give the Muslims the means to defend themselves. As it turns out the Serbs successfully bullied them into submission without having to fight anybody, proving the old adage that if only one side gives peace a chance, the nastier team wins.
Nobody knows what would have happened had the peacekeepers dug in and fought back. They probably would have lost, IF the Serbs chose to fight. It is a big if, since the Serbs proved less aggressive against U.S. troops with more robust rules of engagement. Anyway, it is hard to see how it could have gone any worse. The Serbs killed all the men and boys they got their hands on and stopped killing only when they ran out of men and boys to kill.
But until a tape surfaced, it hardly seemed real to many people. Now that there is video, it is confirmed for the world. Now, ten years later, the world is again outraged. I guess the question is: if a tree falls in the woods and there is no video, does it fall?
Reminds me of the Abu Graib Pictures and Video. If the pictures were not there, I am sure the Republicans will still claim its a vast leftwing conspiracy.
Look at Guantanamo. No Video. Ergo, the abuses are all made up by people who hate America. Just like Abu Graib.
Posted by: Aldous at June 14, 2005 10:34 PMI was rooting for intervention when the last Bush was in office. I think this was an American failing here. When we finally took action under Clinton, things got done, and the Serbs got a rather nasty lesson in the cost of picking the wrong enemies.
Ironically enough, do you know who was the biggest cheerleader on intervention? Al Gore. In the David Halberstam book War in A Time of Peace, He’s shown to have been quite the hawk on the matter.
My question is where the Republicans were on this matter. Who was out in front with banner’s waving, and who was carping about military adventurism?
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 14, 2005 10:42 PMThis was a big, big scandal in the Netherlands. I only caught an inkling of it living there 7 years ago, but I can only imagine the reaction they’re having to the film. The last real war the Dutch were in was their post-WWII struggle to hang onto Indonesia. It became their Vietnam. The Srebrenica incident only emphasizes the unease and shame the Dutch associate with their military.
Posted by: Chops at June 14, 2005 10:45 PMI like the CS Monitor’s coverage of the video. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0615/p06s01-woeu.html) Rather than navel-gaze at NATO or U.S. politics vis-a-vis Srebrenica, they look at Serbian public opinion and political reaction. It’s important for us to remember that the ultimate responsibility for this lies with the Serbs. They have to come to grips with this, and change their society from within so that they can live at peace with their neighbors. Until that change occurs (and it has, of course, already begun), no amount of Western intervention will “fix” the Balkans. The same can be said for Central Africa, Israel, Darfur, and countless other non-state conflicts.
Posted by: Chops at June 14, 2005 10:51 PMAldous,
If the pictures were not there, I am sure the Republicans will still claim its a vast leftwing conspiracy.
If you read some of the conservative editorials you will find that many of the Repulicans still believe that Abu Ghraib is a vast leftwing conspiracy.
Stephen,
My question is where the Republicans were on this matter. Who was out in front with banner’s waving, and who was carping about military adventurism?
They were saying “no oil, no thanks.” The Neocons talk a good game, I’ll give them that, but their lack of advocacy for stopping really horrendous crimes against humanity reveals the falacy of the cheer “liberate Iraq.” I suppose that the one time I would approve of invading a sovereign nation is when you have the chance to save lives to the point where it’s almost tangible. Having said that, Srebrenica is probably one of the few cases were intervention would have been the right thing to do (morally).
But we all know that truly moral actions are rarely done by politicians, and the word “moral” is more of a redflag for an alterior motive than anything.
Posted by: Zeek at June 14, 2005 10:56 PMJack, I don’t know where you got that “wrong form” thing from, but that’s not what happened. UN forces had orders not to shoot because their respective countries didn’t want the UN to be seen taking sides in the conflict.
Here’s some history for the historian,
From the creation of the UN in 1945, peacekeepers were mostly “observers” - unarmed, only sent with the consent of combatants, to stand between parties that had already agreed to a cease-fire. UN peacekeepers played important roles in the Suez Canal crisis (1957), the Belgian Congo (1960-64), and in Cyprus, where they were first deployed in 1964 and still patrol the divided island today.
No doubt, the situation in Bosnia was all F’d up, but the UN has since rewritten the SOP for peacekeepers to be more agressive. You can see the effects in places like Haiti and Congo.
Here’s a really good CSM article about the changes being made,
“We’ve learned you have to have robust capacity and cannot allow bad things to take place in front of you without doing something about it,” says retired US Gen. William Nash, who led US forces into Bosnia, then the UN mission in Kosovo. “None of this is about perfection. There’s no peacekeeping operation that isn’t messy and difficult. But it’s a quest to uphold the highest standards of the international community.”
BTW, I find it ironic that all the conservative complaining about the toothlessness of the UN has forced them to raise what amounts to a UN Army.
Stephen
If you read “War in a Time of Peace” you know that it is hard to blame Bush I for Srebrenica. According to the book, Clinton wanted nothing to do with any foreign operations (which is why he appointed the likes of Christopher and Albright as SecState) and avoided making any decisions about Bosnia that might cause him to take action. Anyway, Srebrenica happened in 1995, you may recall that Clinton was elected in 1992.
BTW – In this case, I supported Clinton then, support him now and advocated a more aggressive policy.
The Balkan problem was not an American failing, unless we are to take the blame for everything in the world. The Euros wanted to manage this thing in their own backyard and everyone wanted to work through the proper international institutions. And it was. This was done by the book. It just was the wrong edition.
AP
I got the part about the forms from a BBC Article on the timeline of the massacre. The BBC is not known for trying to protect American sensibilities.
I wish the peacekeepers had exceeded their mandate and just shot somebody. There are times when we have to give such things a chance too. Of course, had they prevented the massacre, they would have been castigated for being overly aggressive and their actions second guessed.
Zeek and Aldous
The comparison to Abu Ghraib is silly. Let’s see now – 7000 men and boys murdered; thousands of women systematically raped. Compared with some rogue MPs taking some dirty photos. Both are bad, but if you guys can’t tell the difference, well … it is like Amnesty comparing Guantanamo to the Gulag. Such things are insulting to the memories of the thousands that died at Srebrenica or the millions that died in Gulags.
Jack, just for the record, I never compared anything to Abu Ghraib. I was merely pointing out that many still believe the prison scandals to be a lie.
I most certainly can tell the difference between 7000 people being murdered and a score of prisoners being abused. I wish you would have read my post a little more carefully…
Posted by: Zeek at June 14, 2005 11:44 PMZeek said:
“But we all know that truly moral actions are rarely done by politicians, and the word “moral” is more of a redflag for an alterior motive than anything.”
This is a sad commentary on society today…Your comment is unfortunately too true. We have become and “I”moral society…Whatever I think is moral is moral, whatever you think is moral is immoral.
There is no such thing as doing the right thing anymore, because someone from some side will tell you it’s wrong.(and tell you and tell you and tell you…)
Jack:
I never equated Bosnia and Abu Graib. I simply pointed out that Serbs believed the massacres were a lie. Like Republicans, the Serbs believed no abuses or murders took place. Like Republicans, it took overwhelming visual evidence for the Serbs to concede that crimes were committed.
Now compare this reaction to the Guantanamo Abuse where no photos got out. Republicans deny it ever happened.
You really should read better.
Posted by: Aldous at June 15, 2005 03:02 AMOff topic, but important…
Aldous:
“Reminds me of the Abu Graib Pictures and Video. If the pictures were not there, I am sure the Republicans will still claim its a vast leftwing conspiracy.”
New videos and pictures of more horrific Abu Ghraib tortures are soon to be released:
Judge: Release Abu Ghraib Videos, Photos
I got the part about the forms from a BBC Article
A link would be great, Jack. That’s the first time I’ve ever heard that, and I’ve done a lot of reading on the subject as well as paying attention at the time.
I wish the peacekeepers had exceeded their mandate and just shot somebody.
Sure, who doesn’t. But I included that two sentence summary of UN operations for a reason. Previous to Bosnia, UN peacekeepers were observers only - most of the time unarmed. They were never meant to engage in combat.
That’s all changed now. UN rules of engagement have been beefed up, as the recent UN firefights in Congo and Haiti show.
I’m surprised no one has yet brought up Rwanda and Darfur. We did not enter Rwanda because, I believe, not only would the sheer scale and rapid growth in intensity not have allowed it in a timely manner, but there are some other, continuing, reasons.
But, Africa is an enigma to most Americans. We don’t understand it, and unless you’re a true African American (i.e. ancestors recently from Africa, slavery ended 140 years ago) there’s little connection to it. There’s little access to resources and any chance at economic vibrancy is limited by corruption, low education, etc… Also, there are few real gov’ts with functioning civil service arms to deal with. Except for the oil, we wouldn’t really give a crap about the Mid-east either.
Ultimately, I think the root cause is we don’t see any pictures. How many pictures do we see of the cute white girl missing in Aruba, or the runaway bride, or Ramsey? How many pictures of the little black girls raped and murdered in Darfur? We saw a few from Abu Grahib, we saw a few after-the-fact in Rwanda. What might happen if we see the dead bodies in Darfur? Abu Grahib is small potatoes and Bosnia is in the past but I think we will all hang our heads in shame over this one. The conservatives because they’re in charge now. The left because we’re not making any noise.
Posted by: Dave at June 15, 2005 08:00 AMJack-
I did read it, and I do remember Lawrence Eagleburger failing to appreciate just what a psychopath Milosevic. Addition, with pictures of Bosnians being ethnically cleansed all over the media, Bush decided to do nothing.
We decided to do nothing. Having mobilized for a full war for Desert Storm, we did little if nothing for Bosnia, where an even more obvious evil was going on. Where was our leadership? Worrying about Vietnam. As for dates, that doesn’t make things arrange themselves discretely. What happened in Srebrenica only did so because the first Bush did not intervene.
I think it’s important to note that if it is our prerogative to intervene in the rest of the world, as we did then with Desert Storm, and justify it in the name of opposing
tyrants and opposing evil, then we should be prepared to do more than just protect strategic interests.
As for comparisons to Abu Ghraib, the comparison is fair, seeing as how you are claiming that some folks are only admitting that the problem occured after documentary evidence surface.
As for comparisons of Gitmo to the Gulag, I think that’s what one gets in when the Admininstration being questioned is so damn secretive about things. Fact is, nobody knows enough about Gitmo and what’s going on there to avoid getting the wrong idea. Unfortunately, that’s a common problem with this administration, especially since they have screwed up so badly, and tried to keep that quiet.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 15, 2005 08:23 AMThe Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo references are at best gratuitous. It goes to the blame American syndrome that is so prevalent as to be unconscious and it actually shows a type of solipsism. Everything in the world goes back to us. 7000 Bosnians are murdered. Thousands of women are systematically raped, and all we can think of is Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.
As for Guantanamo compared to Gulag, even if every one of the prisoners held there was killed, it wouldn’t equal the numbers atthe Gulag on even a relatively slow day. You can tell that this annoys me. It is not for the reasons you might think. I met many people who survived the Gulags and similar concentration camps, people who lost their children or their whole families. When I think of them and their plight being compared to Guantanamo … it is like an old lady who is upset that her cat has been hurt in an accident involving a packed school bus. The proportions are so wrong as to be immoral.
There are legitimate discussions about U.S. policy in Bosnia or toward the UN in this discussion, but those two things really don’t fit in.
AP - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/675945.stm under July 11.
Jack-
You’re missing the subtext. It’s not about equating our evil with that of Milosevic’s. That doesn’t compare. What it is equating, is the unwillingness of some people to believe that the evils are going on, great or small, until the proof is staring them in the face through the phosphors of a video screen.
As for comparisons between Guantanamo and the Gulag, I do think there’s a hyperbole involved in describing it that way, but I don’t think it’s done in the service of a cynical agenda. Rumsfeld recently said that the trouble with dealing with Gitmo was that there was simply no precedent for what they were doing there.
Sad fact is, though, there are precedents for legal black holes like Gitmo, and often they become the source of great atrocities. In fact, if you count Abu Ghraib It already has become that. The problem here is that in order to create a place like gitmo, we are having to monkey with some fundamental principles of our legal system to do this.
It seems a reasonable compromise now, but under the stresses of world events, what might have been a relatively responsible operation can degenerate. What happens if there’s a terrorist attack here, and a large number of Americans become terror suspects. What happens to the innocent man abroad who becomes caught up in this problem?
The torturers of the middle age and modern day probably caught a great many criminals, and the gulags and prisons of the USSR probably dealt with a number of terrorists and criminals, but the price for that system, where it worked, was the degradation of human rights across the board, and the failure to exclude the innocent from the pain and suffering
So, when comparisons of Gulags and more heinous prisons comes into play, it would be good to understand this one thing: what these organizations seek to prevent is us taking the first steps down that road. Like it says in Star Wars, the Dark Side is a seductive path to easy power, but once you cross over to it, it will forever dominate your destiny.
What destiny do you wish for us, Jack? What strange attractors of power and its use do you want at the hands of our leaders?
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 15, 2005 10:09 AMThanks for the link, Jack.
Regarding Darfur (and Rwanda), I recently read Madeleine Albright’s book, “Madam Secretary”. She was UN ambassador during the Rwanda tragedy. The fact is, despite the pictures coming out (Dave), Western nations just were not interested in putting troops on the ground in Africa.
Albright’s book was written before the Darfur outbreak, but she predicted that the West wouldn’t put boots on the ground for the next Rwanda either.
I remember a lot of conservatives making hay about Iraq as a humanitarian mission. I’d be willing to bet none of them (and damned few Democrats - I know I didn’t) wrote President Bush demanding he take military action to stop the slaughter in Darfur.
Going back to Srebreneca, the US military was adamant that no troops be committed because it would distract from Iraq and North Korea. Those were the focus in the 90s, and the Pentagon resisted any deviation from those battlefields.
Combat troops win wars, they don’t do peacekeeping, they told Clinton. That’s why the insurgency in Iraq is still going strong today. US combat troops are not trained or equipped to do peace keeping and counter-insurgency, they’re trained to do large scale maneuver warfare against organized national armies.
And, BTW, that’s the only thing I think Rumsfeld did right. When Shelton trotted out the usual 500,000 troops/$500 billion plan for Afghanistan, Rumsfeld said, Bullshit. I wish Cohen had had the cojones to do the same when Clinton was looking for options against bin Laden in ‘98.
I am surprised that nobody has mentioned the atrocity of what has been happening in China for so many years. I speak of the forced abortions on female babies that endured for a long time. Not to mention the limits on the number of children you can have.
Now, they are short of girls so they are offering incentives for girl babies. Incentives that actually involve an initial bonus, living and educational costs covered, etc.
Pregnant Chineese women will now likely opt to abort male fetuses so they can immediately make another attempt for a girl.
How different is this than the massacre at Srebrenica.? I have not seen an outcry for US or UN intervention. This is something that is happening today. Srebrenica is over.
Posted by: steve smith at June 15, 2005 11:16 AMWhy is it every time an offence by the US occurs, the (R) first denies, then compares it to obscenities like Srebrenica, the Gulags, etc… Have we become so low that we need to compare ourselves to the worst, and not the best?
Does the mother of dead baby in Falluja say “I suppose in the context of the Holocaust, I shouldn’t be complaining?”
Does a prisoner in Abu Grahib say “At least this isn’t the Spanish Inquisition?”
(Thanks to Matt Bors for these)
AP: Wish I had time to read that much. As far as pictures, I’m sure there’s a feedback effect. There are no masses of pictures because there is no interest so the media doesn’t show the pictures there are, etc… But, pictures are worth a thousand words. If the pictures were blasted all over our screens, there would have to be an outcry. If not, we have no heart left.
Posted by: Dave at June 15, 2005 11:30 AMSerbs killed 7,000?
Where were the video cameras here?
http://www.historyofjihad.org/croatia.html
Is it politically incorrect to mention that half the population of the Balkan pennsula mass murdered by the forefathers of these 7,000 Muslims?
Don’t believe me…just click the link above…or any other link you want. Just type in the words “jihad” and “Balkans” and “1389”.
Posted by: Jim T at June 15, 2005 11:31 AMIf the pictures were blasted all over our screens, there would have to be an outcry. If not, we have no heart left.
Dave, no doubt Americans would open their checkbooks, but nobody’d be calling up the White House demanding that we put US lives on the line for those people.
Aldous
Your constant whining about all that’s wrong with everything is why people don’t listen to rhetoric b.s. that the left tries to feed the public. Why is it that you can only find fault in the right but never the left? I for one am intelligent enough to know that neither is perfect, I’m also open minded enough to realize that both sides have something to offer. If you can’t bring an intelligent, well thought out, and researched argument to the discussion, why bother?
Jim T, should I blame you for slavery in America? Why don’t you whip out your checkbook and start paying reparations to African-Americans.
I thought Aldous made a pretty good point. There are still Germans who insist that the Holocaust never happened.
Nobody wants to believe their group is capable of atrocity. That’s why Rush still insists the torture was no worse than a college prank.
Pundit:
That’s exactly what the Nation of Islam wants us all to do. Whip out the checkbooks. They don’t forget…and neither do the Serbs for what the Ottoman Turk Muslims did in 1389.
And by the way, just as a sidebar, the war that began in 1389 has never really stopped. It took a “time out” to reload when the Soviets occupied Serbia during the cold war, but it broke right back out when the USSR collapsed.
An interview done with a Kosavar woman a while back was interesting and relevant. She was asked what would happen if the UN Forces pulled out. She said that the killing would start all over again.
It won’t end…it won’t stop.
Let me put it to you like this. What if Canada had invaded us and taken everthing from Pennsylvania nothward and Ohio eastward and killed half the people in that region? Would we fight to get it back? Sure. Would we ever stop until those people were avenged? No. Even if it were a 600 year stalemate? Don’t know.
But that is the exact situation in that area of the world…and it won’t stop. Ever. Until the Ottoman Turk remnants are totally gone.
Will people make war until they get what they want? Well, what about a war that only recently stopped. It started some 900 years ago…in a little ol’ place called Viet Nam.
I think you know how that one ended.
Posted by: Jim T at June 15, 2005 12:02 PMAP
I’m not so sure about that. The (R) was against our involvement in Bosnia since it was not-for-our-security-etc… Now that one reason Bush has given for us being in Iraq is anti-totalitarianism, how could the (R) say “No” to involvement in Darfur?
Oh wait, I forgot that duplicity, denial, and excuses are what make up the (R) agenda, and there’s no oil. Or is there?
Jim T: So that justifies the murders in 199x?
Posted by: Dave at June 15, 2005 12:04 PMAlthough this blog is titled “Republicans & Conservatives”, it has become more of a place to bash Republicans rather than get to the heart of the issues. Do any of you seriously believe that Democratic politicians are above secrets, avoidance, lies and manipulations? Under Clinton’s administration, how many indictments occurred? I’m sure they were all innocent just like 98% of our current prison population claims. It was just the vast right-wing conspiracy at work…….
The fact is that Democratic politicians crave power just as much as their Republican colleagues. They gain their power through taxation (redistribution of wealth), program creation/dependence and legislating their own brand of “morality.” They had 40 years of congressional control. Consequently, half of the population is disenfranchised by their view of morality. Hardly an inclusive way to deal with all “the people.” Fact: Both political parties are guilty of ignoring national and world issues to protect their own agendas.
In my opinion, the issue then remains, who is responsible to police and end tyranny of any sort throughout the world? Not just Bosnia, Serbia, Iran or Iraq? Anywhere it occurs. Where is the “World Community” when thousands die every year at the hands of any tyrant? They are protecting their interests and pretending that they do not see what is happening. Many countries in Europe, as well as the US under multiple administrations, ignored the slaughter in Iraq because they had their own interest in the oil they gained in exchange for silence and protection. People were still slaughtered. The UN traded food for oil and profit. People were still slaughtered. Where was the moral outrage then?
Is there some way we can get past this polarization that is occurring in our country and hold “all” politicians accountable for their failures? Regardless of their party affiliations? A fair question, I hope…………
Posted by: Sam Steele at June 15, 2005 12:05 PMAldous…
I am a Republican who DOES believe the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Garib took place. Most thinking people do believe they took place and are an atrocity. Not ALL Rebublicans are mindless “ditto head” idiots.
A bit smaller brushstroke is called for, I think.
Posted by: Jim T at June 15, 2005 12:08 PMDave…
Nothing justifies mass murder. Nothing.
I’m just explaining why it happened.
Posted by: Jim T at June 15, 2005 12:10 PMSam~
Beatiful theory ~ I just wouldn’t hold my breath among these threads!
Sam,
Do any of you seriously believe that Democratic politicians are above secrets, avoidance, lies and manipulations?
Nope. But then, does that make Bush’s behavior acceptable?
The fact is that Democratic politicians crave power just as much as their Republican colleagues.
Yep, a politician is a politician.
Fact: Both political parties are guilty of ignoring national and world issues to protect their own agendas.
Yep.
Is there some way we can get past this polarization that is occurring in our country and hold “all” politicians accountable for their failures? Regardless of their party affiliations?
Not in a million years.
Posted by: Zeek at June 15, 2005 04:02 PMTraci,
Not holding my breath….. :0
Zeek,
Thanks for your candid response. I agree, but it is fun to dream now and then. :)
Posted by: Sam Steele at June 15, 2005 04:06 PMNot many people deny that atrocities took place at Abu Ghraib. That is a straw man.
What I object to is the comparison to things like the Gulag. What I object to is that some people insist that this was done on orders from the top, when all the evidence indicates it was not.
As for Guantanamo, let me quote from Ducan Hunter on the menu there:
“If you go back to Sunday, it looks like it’s honey-baked — or lemon-baked fish as an entree. And if you look at the food and you also look at the list that has been prepared for the Armed Services Committee which lists abuses of the — a way that you can abuse a prisoner, feeding them the food that we feed our soldiers.”
The definition of abuse has changed a lot since the Gulag. I guess if you don’t like fish or chicken you might have to go to bed hungry.
Jim T-
The future does not always proceed from the past in a straight line. It may just be that our intervention changes things, if we do it right. This world is not a grand theatre of history which must passively be experienced. We are actors on this stage, and we should make our performance count. It may be difficult, but its right, and we should not look to ancient history to inform our actions.
Sam Steele-
We Democrats come over and comment because we feel motivated to. If you are unmotivated in that respect, it’s not our fault. You are not our passive victims, and you demean yourselves by acting like that’s the case. It’s not like you guys are the powerless minority at the moment.
Not many people deny that atrocities took place at Abu Ghraib. That is a straw man.
What I object to is the comparison to things like the Gulag. What I object to is that some people insist that this was done on orders from the top, when all the evidence indicates it was not.
As for Guantanamo, let me quote from Ducan Hunter on the menu there:
“If you go back to Sunday, it looks like it’s honey-baked — or lemon-baked fish as an entree. And if you look at the food and you also look at the list that has been prepared for the Armed Services Committee which lists abuses of the — a way that you can abuse a prisoner, feeding them the food that we feed our soldiers.”
The definition of abuse has changed a lot since the Gulag. I guess if you don’t like fish or chicken you might have to go to bed hungry.
Wow, I didn’t think people would actually buy into that “same food we eat” crap. Good work Hunter! I’m also happy that the propoganda is working so that people forget Bush asked for Gonzales to justify the use of torture.
Finally, I’m really glad to hear our prisons are finally better than the gulags. Soon, Gitmo will be better than Elmina Castle. Maybe we can look forward to Iraq and Afghanistan being “not as bad” as the Cambodian killing fields.
Posted by: Dave at June 15, 2005 09:49 PMStephen,
Motivated by what? In reading these posts, it is clear that no one is changing anyone’s mind. I prefer not to post on the liberal sites as it is not likely that anyone that holds onto their party line so zealously is going to be swayed by anyone. Why waste the time? Not a victim, more of a pragmatic approach. So, I am not acting the victim, but rather questioning the value of the vicitim mentality portrayed by the left. When in doubt, “blame Bush” is the standard that the left has adopted. So….who is really playing the victim? As far as being the powerless minority, the left had their time for over 40 years. Both good and bad resulted. No doubt, the same will be said about the conservative’s time in power……..
Posted by: Sam Steele at June 15, 2005 11:20 PMit is not likely that anyone that holds onto their party line so zealously is going to be swayed by anyone. Why waste the time?
…and besides, it’s too hard to actually come up with facts to dispute what those liberal zealots say. It’s much easier to wallow in incestuous amplification. :/
Frankly, the debate is waht I really like about WatchBlog. I’m always disappointed when I see shallow op-ed pieces over on this side, rather than well-thought out commentary on GOP policy with good data to back it up.
Sam Steele-
We pursue Bush because he’s failed to finish off a dangerous enemy, turned Americans against each other in a time of war, and used weak evidence to bring us into a war we didn’t need at the worst possible time.
This is what I mean by motivation, among other things. If you think we’re wrong, make your best case for how and why. That’s the great thing about this site: people keep each other on their toes. Each side confronts the other, each side airs out the differences, lays out the issues. It doesn’t work perfectly, but it works better than many partisan sites I see.
In my mind, it is better to speak your own mind than to ask a person who’s doing so to shut up.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 16, 2005 09:04 AMStephen,
While I may disagree with your opinion and feel that it is the political parties that are pitting Americans against each other and that many administrations failed us with regard to our national security and safety, I take no issue with the rest of your statement.
Rather than making inflammatory statements about “Republicans” and “Democrats”, informed discussion is always welcome. While I find myself far more conservative than liberal, I do not agree with all that the Republican party has become. I also do not agree with what the Democratic party has become. Both parties have evolved (or devolved) into nothing more than schoolyard bullies trying to force others to do want they decide is “right.” That said, I find that the more “common” folk out there seem to lean more center than extreme, yet there doesn’t seem to be anyone in the political spectrum that matches the masses. Sadly, I’m not sure that a centrist would be elected if they did run.
Pundit,
“…and besides, it’s too hard to actually come up with facts to dispute what those liberal zealots say. It’s much easier to wallow in incestuous amplification. :/”
There are plenty of facts to dispute otherwise this blog would not be worth anyone’s time, but would you listen openly? Based on the tone of your last line, it’s doubtful. If you truly believe what you say:
“Frankly, the debate is waht I really like about WatchBlog.”
Then debate rather than spew nasty names. The names are not facts and hardly bolster your argument. What they do, to use your words, is “wallow in incestuous amplification. :/” of the extreme left.
Clearly, based on your past statements, the only facts you will believe are the ones that you want to believe. The rest is just a game to be played. Prove me wrong with facts, not vitriol…..
Posted by: Sam Steele at June 16, 2005 10:18 AMSam, so far, I haven’t heard you spout a single fact. You just whine about how mean liberals are. Make a statement about Srebreneca or Gitmo. you can’t have a debate if you don’t address a subject.
I always listen openly, and I’ve had my position shifted a few times here by conservatives who made a good, well-reasoned argument based on facts and data. You should try it sometime.
Pundit,
You do enough whining for everyone. As far as facts, you’re right. I have to balance doing an “honest day’s work” (something Howard Dean feels conservatives are incapable of doing) with trying to keep up with events as they unfold. In that arena, I applaud your ability to stay current. I will try to provide facts as I find the time and reliable sources.
Sam
Posted by: Sam Steele at June 16, 2005 07:05 PMSam, AP, comeon you two, you don’t have to resort to this sort of petty bickering… And, Sam, you don’t have to defend your opinions with your work. We all have spheres of life outside this blog and that’s understandable. AP just doesn’t realize that not everyone has as much time to waste finding “facts” as I do :P
By the by, Howard Dean is a fool and you shouldn’t take anything he says personally/seriously.
Posted by: Zeek at June 17, 2005 12:05 AMAP just doesn’t realize that not everyone has as much time to waste finding “facts” as I do :P
My Daddy always told me, “Son, if you don’t know the facts, shut up and learn.”
Posted by: American Pundit at June 17, 2005 04:55 AMZeek,
Thanks for the voice of calm.
AP,
My Daddy always said “Don’t believe everything your read or are told” and “Take it all with a grain of salt.” No hard feelings here. Just two rather passionate people that care…… :)
AP,
My Daddy always told me, “Son, if you don’t know the facts, shut up and learn.”
My daddy always asked me, “Are you a retard?”
But our dads are not the point here.
Let me remind you why we don’t bash people for not knowing everything there is to know about politics,
Let’s face it, politics is confusing. Sometimes it’s difficult to know who to believe, who to listen to and who to support. We’re here to help.
I got that from the top of this page. Apparently, people here are supposed to help inform people, not to tell them to shut-up. Of course, you don’t have to listen to me if you don’t want, it’s just a friendly suggestion.
Posted by: Zeek at June 17, 2005 10:46 AMZeek,
Once again, the voice of calm…and now reason. We all try to keep on top of the facts that are presented, but all too often they are only partially reported to sway an opinion or biased based on the agenda of the writer/group presenting the facts as they see them. I would place a low level of belief in anything that comes from MoveOn.org as well as RushLimbaugh.com. Both have agendas and will conveniently omit information that would not help their case.
So, the issue is not the facts alone, but the source and completeness of the facts as well as everything in context. When I look at things that way, I see very little difference between politicians and political parties. Both sides, over the years, have been willing to jump back and forth on issues depending upon opinion polls.
So, with all due respect to AP (I really mean that!), I may not have all the facts everytime I post, but I do have the right to question the facts. It is overwhelming and near impossible to find a source that does not have some bias in their reporting. The truth lies somewhere in the middle after applying common sense and human error.
Thanks again for the voice of calm and reason.
Posted by: Sam Steele at June 17, 2005 11:05 AMSam,
Once again, the voice of calm…and now reason.
Oh, sorry for not using reason in my other posts :P
Posted by: Zeek at June 17, 2005 12:16 PMMy bad……I left out both the first time. :0
Posted by: Sam Steele at June 17, 2005 03:54 PM
