History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
Rebunkers by now know what I think and have thought about Sudan for some time. We’ve cried “Never Again!” with regard for genocide, and then watched it happen again due to our fecklessness, cluelessness, and callousness. In the past year much of the world until very recently fiddled while Darfur burned, and bureaucrats debated whether the human rights atrocity in Sudan amounted to genocide. Someday maybe we will realize that beyond the human rights and fundamental justice arguments, there are concrete reasons for America to care about Africa. It is worth pointing out, of course, that Sudan has been wracked by one catastrophe after another, including perhaps the moist destructive civil war(s) in history.
This morning’s Washington Post has the latest Sebastian Mallaby commentary on the Sudan, this time with a twist. Mallaby, one of the more astute observers of Africa in American journalism, has been on the case of the Sudan for far longer than just about any other mainstream columnist. He has tried to put the feet of the United States government and its people to the fire, to little avail. Today he focuses on former Smith College Literature Professor Eric Reeves, who has for the past six years devoted his life to addressing the longstanding humanitarian crisis in Sudan. He took leave from his job and devoted himself to informing the world, including folks in places of power, to such an extent that now the State Department often defers questions to Reeves about the crisis in Africa’s largest nation state. You can access Reeves’ website here.
Another useful Sudan cite, a blog, is Passion of the Present, which can be found here . It is from this cite that I found something that made me happy and proud. It seems that students at my alma mater, have been at the forefront of student activism to raise awareness and action about the Sudan. Evocative of the anti-apartheid shanties that sprung up on college campuses in the 1980s to prod and sometimes shame campuses into divesting from South Africa, the Williams students have met with a Massachusetts state legislator and with college officials about a divestment campaign related to Sudan. A piece in the Williams Recordgives more details.
As we celebrate and discuss the tentative first steps toward a functioning democracy in Iraq, let's keep in mind the struggles of those millions who have not garnered the sort of attention and thus action that would guarantee them progress towards their own freedom and liberation.
My snide comments are an example of my immaturity.
Grant W Jones -
2/3/2005
"Be as nasty as you'd like," Derek Catsam 1/31/05 @6:14PM.
Did it ever occur to you that I like your "ESL" crack almost as much as you like my "Repunk" crack? And why do you feel the need to insult ESL students? Are Rich's snide comments an example of a positive contribution?
Derek, you can dish out the personal insults, but when someone replies in kind you talk of "your ass on the floor." And, that IS your squalid, little world. So, I retrack the "punk with a Ph.D" remark and exchange it with "ruffian with a Ph.D." The barroom ethos of Rebunk is obvious to all.
There are valid reasons to oppose the use of LAND forces in Sudan. (again you misrepresent what I wrote, you can read English?) But, this is typical of your type, the inability to consider that people can honestly disagree with you. You seem to consider Africa your personal franchise. If someone disagrees with your position it must be because of bad motives.
What do professional standards have to do with your posts on Rebunk, good question. You constantly interpret views not to your liking in the most hostile and mean spirited way possible. This is not honest.
Rich Holmes -
2/3/2005
And the night Laci Peterson disappeared, Derek? A simple omission from your comment? I think not!
Derek Charles Catsam -
2/3/2005
Grant --
Re the P.S.: Thanks. That means a lot coming from someone with your publishing record. I do challenge you to find a composition issue with a post, as opposed to the comments, which is what matters here. The comments are conversations. Typing errors are fine, and in any case, Mr. "Statue of Limitations," Pot, Kettle, Black and all that.
Re: the rest -- I am not playing schoolyard bully. I am responding to things you have said. You have not emailed to arrange that meeting of the minds that I proposed, so it may not be all that ingenuous of you to say that you cannot be intimidated -- I see that you backed right off all of those "punk" and masculinity assertions. That seems like something. You started that whole line, not me. Don't start that line with someone and not expect a respinse. i stand by what I have said -- if you walk into any bar in America and call a guy a "punk," say that he "cries like a girl" and the like, you will be knocked on your ass. Again, it is an if x then y sort of thing.
Re: Whitman: You may be right on that point. But it does not make her any less of a Republican. Lots of Republicans may never serve in high office -- are they less Republicans as a consequence?
Re: Your numbered list:
1) After this email I shall try to, as I have been trying to, stop this silliness, especially if you stop with groundless accusations (note to readers -- see how he backed off of every one of the allegations and linjes of argument in his previous post and moved on to a whole line of attack? He's done this every time.)
2) What character assassination, asks the man you called a "punk"? I stand by my assertions. It is not character assassination to say that you opposed intervention in the Sudan. It is not character assassination to draw conclusions from that. I'll note that you had ardent disagreements with Tom and Tootle in that line too, so maybe it is me, but the way I see it, when one guy has issues with all three guys on another blog, it may well be that the one connecting link is the one guy, that he has the problem, not the other way around.
3) I think you mean "a logical argument." You were saying about composition?
I have said all along that we should drop this. It was a fair arrangement then, it continues to be a fair arrangement long after you brought it under a post where none of this belonged.
dc
Grant W Jones -
2/3/2005
I do apologise for using a term that is vague. You obviously mistook my meaning of the term "punk." I did not use it in the "Neverland" meaning. I meant it in the meaning of a thirty-something year-old man who behaves on this board like a school yard bully.
Here's the deal, you are in no position to play the schoolyard/barroom bully with me.
So, I hope you'll stop entertaining ideas of intimidating me. You can't. That not an option for you. I know this must be very frustrating on your part.
The picture of Whitman with Carter at Arafat's funeral was political suicide. Just ask yourself who votes in Republican primaries? I think she intends to switch parties. You read it here first. I said that those that actively work to undermine the country's morale in time of war are traitors. Do you equate all protesters with this? I said "temper tantrums," not "crying." Why can't you quote me correctly?
You can:
1. Not reply to this. I which case I will drop the whole thing. Unless one of your compatriots wants another go around.
2. Apologise for your character assassination.
3. Provide an logical argument based on the text for your, as yet, baseless assertions. That's what historians do, is it not?
Does that sound like a fair arrangement to you?
P.S. Your composition is improving.
Derek Charles Catsam -
2/2/2005
Grant --
What do the AHA standards have to do with this debate? I do not get that at all. You keep bringing up my PhD about a discussion on our blog. In this blog I am not writing scholarly work. I have not done anything to violate AHA standards. I will assume that your own misrepresentation here is part of a frustrated mind. I have on many occasions said that anyone who wants to can refer to the comments section on my blog. So what violation am i making? It is my blog! It is my own work and the comments on it to which we are referring! Your accusation would be like accusing me of plagiarizing from page seven of my own article! Not linking something on the web is hardly tantamount to anything other than making you make weak arguments.
The "real Derek" (who did not play college rugby; I played rugby in South Africa) "emerged" as a response to your calling me a punk, among other things. You brought up "manliness," you accused me of "crying like a,.ittle girl." I pointed out that IF you said something like that in my presence, you would get knocked on your ass. The real Derek engaged in an "if X then y" statement of logic. If you felt threatened by that, you probably ought not to be saying things you would not say to someone face to face. Yet you cannot contain yourself -- you say "big, Tough rugby player" as if to mock. here's the deal -- I do not claim anything other than that if you had said the that you said to me -- and I know to at least two other Rebunkers would do the same -- there would have been consequences.
I'll stand by my assertions that the link that you posted earlier showed someone who was more concerned with calling out the UN and the French than he was in saving African lives. As ever, readers can decide for themselves.
Wait -- I thought there were no computer problems? No you say that I might have had them, but that it is my responsibility (it is not) to provide links. Since when? I referred to something that had actually happened. On this blog. What did I misrepresent? So now it is your turn -- you tossed out the charge this time. What does the AHA have to do with this, what did I misrepresent, and at what point do I owe a link to a statement of interpretation about a public discussion on this weblog?
Folks will surely notice the wild vacillations of your charges. First i was a punk. Then you realized that was a mistake. Then I was not in tune with your blue collar world. That after I lied about computer issues and also removed statements that someone easily tracked down. And all of this of course stems from your assertion that war protesters are treasonous and that Christine Todd Whitman was not a legitimate Republican. That is where this started. And so it goes. The AHA thing was more than a reach, but next I suspect that iIhad best have my alibi for the nights that Nicole Brown Simpson was murdered and Jon Binet Ramsey disappeared. (I was in Boston for the former, and I think in Ohio, though possibly DC, for the latter).
I find it amusing that someone who renamed rebunk "Repunk" (RePunk! He changed the "b" to a "p"! Ha!) and who criticizes someone for crying like a little girl ought not to be lecturing others on what it means to be an adult. You levied the attack based on class and my PhD. That was yours. try to turn the tables all you want -- almost every argument you have made has failed on the merits.
(For the record, I've also never been near the Neverland Ranch.)
dc
Grant W Jones -
2/2/2005
Real world experience should have then schooled you in this: When gentlemen shake hands and apologise for past behavior that means it's FORGOTTEN. You do not throw it in the other guy's face seven months later in an argument about something completely different. That you can't understand this simple truth is beyond me. Perhaps "manly" was harsh, I'll resubmit, "adult."
As for what your Ph.D in history has to do with this, go here:
"Would get you knocked on your ass," the real Derek emerges. How could I forget? You're the big, tough, college rugby player. Which means you get to be personally abusive to others with impunity. Is that the world you live in, Derek?
Your computer situation is not my problem. When you, in writing, grossly mischaracterize (see above link*)someone's position it is your responsibilty to provide some evidence.
* "Professional integrity in the practice of history requires awareness of one's own biases...Historians should not misrepresent their sources."
I guess these principles to not carry over to anything other than "scholarly" work in your case.
E. Simon -
2/2/2005
What I think of you and your "credibility" is even less charitable - and I am not alone on that -, so you certainly didn't make any progress on that front.
And although you might see some kind of noble, legal purpose in issuing lofty proclamations with no regard for how to carry them out, I see that as being as useful as an alcoholic choosing to attend AA meetings with no intention of sobering up; an apt analogy if ever there was one.
Derek Charles Catsam -
2/2/2005
Grant --
Either one of us could have backed off. But when I chose not to respond to you on the other posts, you decided to try to revive it in a place where it was not relevant. I am sorry that you are so intent on having a public spat and that you would think that it was in either of our self interest.
As to whether you believe that I had technical difficulties, you keep hitting that point as if it is impossible for you to grasp that a computer system would screw up (note that HNN's entire blog system has been down for two days now). I do not owe an explanation, but I will give one. If it does not pass muster with you or the other readers, there is not much that I can do: I do not have a computer with internet at home, and if I am not at the office I am often at my girlfriend's house. She has a ten-year-old computer with a right click that does not work and she has an MSN account, which is unwieldy, not user friendly and does not have the capacity to easily cut and paste from what I have been able to tell. On top of that, she has a dial-up modem, which makes using more than one or two windows impossible. Trying to do too much -- keep a comment strand open, plus the original window, plus the comments from the past -- makes it almost certain that things will crash, her computer will slow down, or whatever. Now yes, I ought to have waited and responded from the office, but at the office I have a job, books and articles to work on, and so forth, not to mention my blog, the posts for which are more important to me than an argument not going anywhere. Oh, and I have classes to teach and a life to live. So forgive me if after you already identified the link (and hinted that I had somehow made another link disappear until Dr. Dresner found it) I did not bother to repost it, and in fact I said that readers could go to that link and see for themselves if what I said was true.
Meanwhile, what on earth does my PhD and your supposed working class status have to do with anything? I grew up poor. All four of the Rebunkers come from modest roots. I have at no point tried to play the class warfare card because for one thing I know nothing about you, and more significantly, because my dad is a farmer/carpenter and my mom put herself through school working in factories to become a nurse when I was in high school. So forgive me if yet another of your attempts to paint this as a spat between elites and whatever it is that you claim for yourself does not work on me.
You've drawn lots of assumptions here. You seem to think all PhDs are pointy heads, ineffectual types who have not been anywhere or done anything. Three of the four Rebunkers were accomplished college athletes. We all have ample "real world" experience, whatever that means. My own work on Africa and terrorism comes from experience living and working on the ground. And I'd place a pretty solid bet that one of your "punk" comments or snide innuendoes about PhDs would get you knocked on your ass if you pulled it face to face. Let it die, Grant. I'm quite certain that no one here much cares who wins this, or that those few who do are more likely to be my allies than yours. This is not that important, your insistence on keeping it alive notwithstanding.
dc
Grant W Jones -
2/2/2005
Then you shouldn't have started it on public comment pages. So it's OK for you to attack people publicly, but if they call you on it "does not belong?" You made this a public matter, so let's keep it in the original venue. "Manly" or character? I don't have to "validate" anything to you. You asserted a claim about my motives, now support your claim. What's so difficult about that? I, and Prof. Dresner, even found your sources for you. The one's you couldn't find because of "technical difficulties."
Provide some evidence supporting your a priori syllogism, that I'm some sort of genocide enabling bastard. Your the Ph.D here, I'm just an ignorant, non-spelling, blue collar worker bee. So you shouldn't have much problem making your case, if you have one.
Derek Charles Catsam -
2/2/2005
Grant --
Your sniping is not relevant to what we are doing. If you want to continue this, fine, but no one else wants to read it, I am sure. By the way -- what does your statu(t)e of limitations comment mean? I apologized in the past (as did you) for things in the past. What does that have to do with recent disagreements? That makes no sense at all.
As for "manly" enough, or being a punk, an email might expedite your chance to validate your machismo ithout this devolving any further. We can meet, talk it out, or whatever it takes. If this is about masculinity, why hash it out where we can only be bandwidth supermen?
In any case, it surely does not belong on this post at this time where you have said nothing substantial about what I have writte on the post to which these comments are connected. So if choosing to ignore irrelevancies makes me a punk, so be it. The great thing is, on my blog, I get to decide the agenda.
I think all four Rebunkers are united as to your state of reasonableness in this matter. Keep it up. It does not make me look bad. You can claim that I have done X or Y. You have devolved to nothing but name calling. I'll gladly give you a chance to say all of these things face to face, one on one. I am not wasting any more bandwidth, or of my readers' time, until the next time you and I have a legitimate argument about something someone writes on another post.
dc
Grant W Jones -
2/2/2005
It's not a "barb;" it's a statement of fact. Your confederate attacks people personally and then is not manly enough to deal with the fallout. "E-mail me," how pathetic.
Rich Holmes -
2/2/2005
I know you must be patting yourself on the back for concocting the ever-so-hurtful "Repunk: over and out" barb, but, much like New Coke, you should stick to your original material. (Even though that is pretty tired as well.)
Grant W Jones -
2/2/2005
Brilliant repartee. Repunk: over and out.
Rich Holmes -
2/2/2005
*yawn*
Grant W Jones -
2/2/2005
Your right, Rich. Derek's performance is hardly what one would expect from a professional educator. Have fun in your sandbox of punks who can't back up their ad hominems.
Rich Holmes -
2/2/2005
Professional.
How much time do we get to play in the sandbox today during recess?
Derek Charles Catsam -
2/2/2005
Genocide is not just another war crime. The Israelis are not engaged in war crimes. The US is not engaged in war crimes. How am I being either ideological ior inconsistent whan i differentiate between things that are different? There is no systematic policy of killing Palestinians, never mind of mass murdering them, in Israel. There certainly is no systematic pattern by the US in Iraq. Lumping all sorts of things you oppose that have only the mildest connection, if there is any at all, certainly does reveal ideological dogmatism. Just not mine. What possible similarities do you see between Israel and the Sudan? My God Chris, have some perspective.
dc
chris l pettit -
2/2/2005
hahahahaha
your reality Mr. Simon? not the reality of international law...just the reality of self interested ideologies...when you learn that you can start making progress...until then you are nothing but an ideological tool with no credibility...
CP
chris l pettit -
2/2/2005
Genocide is just another crime against humanity...albeit one that for whatever reason has become more explicit than ethnic cleansing (depending upon whether one considers it genocide or not), rape (as a CAH), forced migrations, etc. So your statement that something must be done is spot on. The funny thing is (and I hate to bring this up) is that you do not take this stance regarding Israel's actions in Palestine, US actions in Iraq (arguably war crimes...but also CAH), and several other instances of blatant CAH. This is what I am showing to be your inconsistencies and ideological stance on the matter. if you are going to call something genocide or a CAH, you had better be consistent, or else you end up losing all moral, ethical and legal credibility on the issue.
CP
Grant W Jones -
2/2/2005
Repunk: over and out.
E. Simon -
2/1/2005
I can't cut and paste in the blog window, so I guess this is more of a response to Chris' post.
E. Simon -
2/1/2005
I think the most useful analysis is threefold: 1. Is there a moral issue? 2. Is it in the interest of the acting state? (Sorry Chris, this is the real-world, not necessarily a judgment call, just an observation. I apologize if that objectivity bothers you.) 3. Can the proposed action be successfully accomplished?
These considerations can also be quantified - ordered and ranked - against the importance of each in the eyes of a given administration.
Unfortunately I think it is the first consideration that, if not waning in importance to your average Joe voter, probably never really concerned said voter more than just at a superficial level. Ironically, however, it seems to be concurrently gaining in objective importance. I'm more charitible to emerging schools of thought that seek to merge realpolitik with liberalism/liberal idealism in foreign policy -- among HNN devotees I would put my views along the lines of Mark Safranski's. Namely, that in an increasingly well integrated world (in terms of trade, transport, exchange of ideas, and dare we say "values" - although the lag on that last one is probably the cause for so much dissension over Iraq, for instance), the liberal democracies seem to have established themselves as the best governmental framework within which to enjoy the fruits of those advances - (not that that surprises many of us). Even in the domain of human rights (if you'll read Oscar Chamberlain's response in the previous entry, Chris -- and oh yeah, ignore the caning in Singapore of an American a few years back for something so trivial I can't even remember what it was - had something to do with defacing a car or jaywalking) this seems to be largely the case in a comparitive sense.
Thomas PM Barnett has a point that is probably a logical extension of the idea of the democratic peace. Globally, we're becoming so well integrated, that the conflicts that tend to derive within and between non-liberal, non-democratic states are harder to ignore or avoid. And therefore it is becoming easier to focus our attention on the fact that both the propensity for conflict as well as for man-made humanitarian crises with enormous moral implications tend to emanate from an increasingly shrinking pool of politically define-able anachronisms: unfree, authoritarian regimes.
You might not like the merging of security policy and humanitarian interests, but I think it seems quite natural. Ironically, in Oscar's response to you in the previous entry he spoke of avoiding a police-state. I would not want an excessively strong global military for the same reasoning that I would want to avoid excessively empowered domestic policing. But I accept the metaphor that military action is really nothing more than the international extension of domestic policing. They both have the potential to be used for good or for infinitely more nefarious purposes. Try to see both sides of the coin.
Or maybe your antipathy against both military action and liberal democracy are as related to each other as are my preference for the latter and my acknowledgment of a concomitant need for the occasional (hopefully rare) use of the former.
Grant W Jones -
2/1/2005
You got me there, Ralph. But, this is Rebunk, so the occasional "Derekism" is OK. :-))
Ralph E. Luker -
2/1/2005
Grant, I suspect you mean a "statute of limitations." Statues are, you know, things that get pulled over in Baghdad.
Grant W Jones -
2/1/2005
Thanks Jonathan.
I guess Derek's apologies do have a statue of limitation.
It's there for all to see, the Honor of Catsam, reopener of old wounds in order to score debate points. It's a character thing, Derek, so you wouldn't understand.
Derek Charles Catsam -
2/1/2005
Chris --
I'm not sure it is hypocrisy. The Mail and Guardian is part of a family of newspapers, but it is still given a great deal of independence, and I mostly use it for Suth Africa and Africa stuff. Like the Guardian, I find it more suspect on certain international issues. Their being separate papers is important, independent of ownership. The one thing one can say about the Guardian (and for all of its flaws, it is one of the papers I read when I am in the UK, though i read the Times of London too).
Off to class.
dc
Derek Charles Catsam -
2/1/2005
Chris --
We are on exactly opposite sides of the fence on your assertion here -- the US sees no self interest in Sudan, which is why we have done almost nothing. This is where the Neocons and realists have failed, and why a more traditional left-liberal foreign policy approach, based on humanitarian concerns, would work. The failures of international institutions like the UN and so forth is exactly the probem in this case. It uis interesting that finally after many years, the most effective such organization has been the African union. I just am not certain that we can trust that to hold up, as it is unwieldy and obviously some countries have their own agendas. But well see. At no point did i say that America ought to have been the first in -- they only ought to have been in there once other institutions with the putative right of first refusal failed.
My only point, and I have been consistent on this, is that something should have been done long ago, and if that something was uniulateral action, then unilateral action it had to be. And it is this failure of humanitarian-driven action that reveals the current administrations failures in some ways -- despite the post-facto justifications, the supporters oif the war in the administration never argued for a human rights based policy. They used weapons and 9/11 as their justifications, pretexts, for war. Fine -- but those pretexts proved false due to a rush to justice. The humanitarian justifications were always there. By emphasizing the former things and not the latter, and then pretendig the latter to be the case all along, and then doing nothing in the Sudan, the administration revealed itself to be realists in moralists clothing, a sort of faux-kinder and gentler guise.
dc
Derek Charles Catsam -
2/1/2005
Chris --
The failure of the nation state, which i do not address, is not really germane to the idea of whether or not the UN failed. This is where Grant and I got into trouble the first time -- he said that the UN had failed in the most aggressive way, and my argument was that the UN's failure was not germane because I acknowledges that failure, and that is why US involvement was necessary.
I am not certain how I have defined genocide ideologically. i think I've been pretty good about decrying genocide period -- and i am even willing to have a high standard for what genocide is. But Sudan surely qualifies, and even if it does not, it surely is a humanitarian crisis of such grave proportions that we ought to do something anyway. The case may be akin to famine in east Africa in the 80s -- we should act as early as we can, not worry about the definition. If we are debating wehether something is or is not a genocide, it seems to me that things have already gone too far.
The only place I will grant you that the nation state has failed has been in former colonies such as those in Africa, but even there it would be more proper to say that the legacies of the Nation State have failed, and then because the imperial nation state was almost impossible to make work. But the interesting thing is that post-liberation African leaders themselves insisted upon maintaining the nation state, on maintaining borders and structures that only made sense for the crassness and cruelty of the colonial endeavor. that is to say, many of the post-colonial African leaders either found the existing borders and even what institutions remained to be useful for them. Or else they saw that those borders and institutions were facts on the ground.
dc
chris l pettit -
2/1/2005
How funny that DC (among others) can try and criticise the Guardian and then quote and post articles from the Mail and Guardian in South Africa (the most objective and best news source in Africa) which is basically an extension of the Guardian adapted to Africa...hypocrisy anyone?
CP
chris l pettit -
2/1/2005
it should go to the ICC...if you would permit I would love to post something regarding the differences between the victors justice of the Nuremberg Tribunal, ICTR, ICTY, and other tribunals set up by Security Council mandate and the impartiality and objectiveness of the ICC...in addition to the paucity and self interested nature of the US position...something that cannot be defended in anything other than an ideological manner...and of course the US will veto or impose its will to ensure it does not go to the ICC...and will further validate my point about the paucity of the nation state configuration, the veto powers, and that the US has any authority in international law whatsoever...
Blah to the US position...
CP
chris l pettit -
2/1/2005
As always, DC, I agree with you on this issue and am in full support of your contentions that it can be qualified as a genocide...depending upon your definition.
Saying this, a couple of observations...
You are still rather inconsistent with the usage of the term, and are still rather driven by your own political stances instead of applying it universally. In terms of our debates over the definition of genocide, this would not qualify in terms of the definition that yourself and others (Adam Moshe comes to mind) advocated at the time. If you do support the contention that this qualifies as genocide, you effectively support the exact argument I made and you argued against at that point in time. Again...I don't disagree with your stance here and support it fullheartedly, I just want you to not be so contradictory about the issue (I attribute it to your political stances).
I also think we might see the problems differently...I appreciate your bureacracy statements, but can you not see how this is connected to self interested nation states and the failure of the UN system to deal with this? The main reason the US is so eager to call this genocide is not because it is, but for self interested reasons...there is no semblence of an international community here...just self interested nation states. It is a perfect example to refute the absurdities that you, Steve, Mr. Simon, and others were claiming the other day while attempting to ridicule my denunciation of the nation state system...what should happen here is that the High Commissioner for Human Rights, groups of legal scholars, and human rights NGOs should be the ones to make the designation, since it carries vast legal ramifications (the duty to prevent), not nation state representatives that have only their own interests in mind. Then the UN would be obligated to do something and would not be able to be sabatoged by the US (in other cases such as Rwanda) or RUssia and the Arab states (in this case) so that "never again" keeps repeating over and over. This is what makes your unilateral "the US must do something" argument so scary...it doesn't effectively change anything, is dangerously shortsighted, undermines international law and the rule of law, and effectively allows the US to determine what it wants to see as transgressions...which eliminates any semblence of law at all and simply turns this into a political battle (so why bother with law or ethics at all...call it what is good for the US politically and selfishly...which I do give you credit for coming out and doing.
Anyway...I totally agree with you about the human rights and international law ramifications of the decision, and about the failure of the UN to do anything. however, I think you address the problem at the peripheries in a way that only further destroys the international system when you could be advocating a position that would both solve the present crisis in Sudan as well as build a truly international system based on the rule of law instead of taking a positivist, might makes right, US self interested position that will only cause more problems down the road. We must see the big picture, not the insulated, short sighted and narrow minded one...
CP
Derek Charles Catsam -
2/1/2005
Thanks Jonathan. I simply will not be engaging with Grant any longer. Not in my interest, not in Rebunk's interest.
dc
Jonathan Dresner -
2/1/2005
Mr. Jones, I believe the discussion you are looking for is here, at least judging by the final exchange.
It is difficult to search HNN comments (which isn't necessarily a bad thing) but a google search on "grant derek catsam apology" turned it up.
Jonathan Dresner
HNN Assistant editor
Derek Charles Catsam -
2/1/2005
Does anyone have anything to contribute here? This is getting tedious.
There is no missing exchange. I do not even have control over the comments and could not remove or edit them if I wanted. So enough with that line of innuendo.
Again, I'll let people judge by what they read. As for the "punk" and "little girl" thing, we have an email. Let's engage in that conversation elsewhere. I know you are a baaaaad pmphlet writing, party defining man. rebunkers@hotmail.com
As I sad -- anyone with anything to contribute here? The comment strands sort of speak for themselves.
dc
Grant W Jones -
2/1/2005
"Bully?" "Overaggresive?" Pot Kettle, Black!
Yes, you do not care about what I actually wrote and meant. All you care about is your inner rage and lashing out at any available target.
Are you really so stupid that you can't make the distinction between the subject of the discussion and the participants? Apparently so, since I made the point before and you didn't get it then, either. "RINO" the term that set you off (such bizarre synthetic anger), is commonly bantered about amongst Republicans. If you don't like it, who gives a shit? You still haven't demonstrated why Republicans should give a rat's ass about your opinions on our Party.
You can't quote me in context to make your point. As I suspected, you are a punk with a Ph.D. Why didn't you provide your evidence? Oh yeah, "technical difficulties," couldn't find the link. What a joke, who are you kidding, besides yourself? Or, are you so lazy that when you attack people's character/motives you can't even bother to go back and read everything that's relevant?
Derek, since you are so concerned about the Sudanese, and have made a career of wearing your heart on your sleeve and indulging in cost-free moral puffery (your only discernable talent), why don't YOU go to Sudan and do something? Are you a chicken-altruist? Always happy to have others die for your moral crusades? Go Derek, take a plane to Cairo, buy a camel and a AK-47, and head south. It's easy being brave and issuing categorical imperatives from your office. Why don't you DO something besides typing or running your mouth?
Means and ends. "America can do better." And the troops are going to come from where? I don't see you running to the recruiting office.
Your last paragraph, does that mean you're done? I'm sooo irrelevent, but you always reply to my posts, although you don't "worry" about me. Who said you did? You just like to vent your inner demons on the rest of us. And yes, I do waste my time pouring gasoline on your little-girl temper tantrums. But hey, we don't have TV out here in the sticks.
What's the deal with the missing exchange, is there a expiration date on your apoligies and agreements?
Derek Charles Catsam -
1/31/2005
Yes, I am very intimidated by your rapier keyboard.. Be as nasty as you'd like. Given that you come on here every time like a bully, overaggressive and dismissive of all who disagree with you, (look at what you have said about the french, Whitman, and anti-war tyes in your last few posts) I have knocked you down a few times. Beyond that, I am very, very intimidated by how nasty and brutal you claim you can be. In your pamphleteering days, when you were singlehandedly deciding the direction of the Republican Party, I am sure you hurt many feelings.
You were argung against American intervention in Africa. We both agreed that the UN would be unable or unwilling to do anything. Thus you were arguing for a policy of inaction that would lead to the death of Africans. I do not much care about the niceties beyond that. Inaction was tantamount to death. If you are ok with that, fine. If not, then urge America to do better because we can. We said we'd never sit back again, and again we sat back. Those of us who argued for intervention -- including all three rebunkers -- were right. Those who decided it was more fruitful to bash the UN and defend inaction on our part were wrong. Readers who care can go back and read through the argument from months ago.
You gave the correct citations above to the conversation. I've no idea where the others are. They are there someplace. As awe-inspiring as your capacity to craft a withering response to me might be, and as much as I sit and wait with baited breath, you are not clever or interesting enough to worry me, and I am going to wait for people to engage what I have actually written here rather than let you goad another argument in a place where it does not belong.
dc
Grant W Jones -
1/31/2005
Derek, sometime between this exchange, for which you could not produce a link because of "technical" difficulties:
There was another exchange between us where we both apoligised for what had been said in anger. I can't find that exchange in the archives. You wouldn't happen to know where it might be would you? It is still there, is it not?
The first link above is the now famous argument over American intervention in Sudan. You stated, in our last discussion, "you were arguing against stopping genocide in Africa." I was not. I, and Ralph Luker, were arguing that the U.S. was in no position to do anything about it. I also stated, numerous times, that it was time for the UN to do something useful and that the main responsibilty was theirs. I also stated that if American air attacks would help, then the U.S. should do that.
In the second link we were quite civil.
You have attacked my character and motives in writing on a public venue, yet again. The burden of proof, a high burden given the gravity of the charge, is yours.
Now it is time for you to shut up or put up.
Before you reply, sit back, take a deep breath and realize that I can be as nasty, vicious and personal as you.
