Return to: Home | Blogs | Bright's Blog

176 comments from readers

knave
23 July 2008 at 09:42

Martin i won't post on this one.

DAmmmmmmmmm

Pierre
23 July 2008 at 13:19

The arrest and pending trial of one criminal and not all makes a mockery of justice and simply ingrains the belief of imposed "justice" .

The arrest , with the help of the INTERNET holds up to ridicule the multiple standards that exist for different races/countries concerning "war crimes" thus creating even more hatred and loathing.

niceguy
23 July 2008 at 13:33

Well, I think we can all agree that Mr Karadzic was a bad bad man and indeed a good thing he has been arrested, even if others haven't. I think Karadzic's actions would be pretty universally seen as war crimes, unless you happen to be a member of the Jandaweel.

knave
23 July 2008 at 13:46

With the break up of the old Yugoslavia.

Obviously the actions of the serbs were beyond belief and no one in their right mind can defend them but little is said of the actions of the Croats.

It was that nation that started the fighting, ethnic cleansing and atrocities.

Also the role of Germany in support of the croats was an important factor in the mess.

niceguy
23 July 2008 at 13:57

Yes, but there was also the Chetniks in World War II who commited horrible attrocities, who many in Serbia still look up to.

The importance I would say in arresting Karadzic is that he is still a huge source of inspiration for the many remaining ultra-nationalist Serbs. The Croats and Bosnian Muslims have largely managed to forget the past, and there is no violent reactionary backlash to the crimes against them. Unfortunetely, that is not the case in Serbia, and the ever threat of extremism still remains prominent.

knave
23 July 2008 at 15:25

That is a fair point about forgetting the past. Although travelling through serbia there is a prevailing wind of lets forget the past and move on. Also there is a nasty neo right movement in Croatia.

Perhaps this a frivilous point but it amazes me for all their hatred and fighting they always vote for each other in the Eurovision song contest.

redharry
23 July 2008 at 15:33

Compare the treatment of the Muslim commander of Sebrenica, Naser Oric. Oric carried out raids on surrounding Serb villages and towns where he had a policy of taking no prisoners. Oric killed hundreds of innocent men, women and children. He treated western journalists to trophy videos showing decapitated bodies of Serbs he had slaughtered.

The ICTY charged Oric with the mildest charges possible, prosecuted him incompetently, convicted him of only a few charges and sentenced him to time served. He walked out of court a free man. They then acquitted him on appeal.

Oric abandoned Sebrenica to the Serbs, leaving his men to flee or be killed in an act of revenge which was predicted by the UN.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3481619.stm

General Philippe Morillon 'told the tribunal that he feared that attacks by Muslim forces in which Serbian civilians had been targeted, had enraged the Bosnian Serbs and would result in fierce retaliation in the city. '

niceguy
23 July 2008 at 15:47

I'm of coarse excusing any of the war criminals on any side of the conflict, and Oric should of been suitably punished for his crimes. The point I was trying to make is that Serbia still harbours a lot more resentment, racism and extremism that Bosnians and Croatians do, who tend to go for the live and let live attitude. Quite remarkable really. I saw a documentary last night on Al Jazeera interviewing the victims of the siege of Sarajevo, who mostly came to the conclusion that they will live with them (serbs) and wait for God to punish them. Seems the cosmic policeman has some uses after all.

I'm always bewilldered by that too, just like the Irish voting for us.

Ronnie
23 July 2008 at 18:00

You know, the Serbs could have lifted him at any time. They always knew where he was. Mladic too but he is more difficult because of the army. What interests me is whether anyone tries to stop the continuing development of a fully functioning Serbian autonomous region in the newly independent state of Kosovo. I strongly suspect that a deal has been done.

gnuneo
23 July 2008 at 20:05

"The arrest of George W Bush could not have been more timely. Just as international institutions needed a boost, international public enemy number one is delivered to the Hague tribunal. Received wisdom had it that the Americans would never hand over their most prized war criminal and Bush would end his days on a golf-course somewhere in the American heartlands. But sometimes good things really do happen. What's more, Bush was working in speech therapy. What a perfect profession for a mass murdering psychopath."

sorry, i couldn't resist! :)

niceguy
24 July 2008 at 07:36

Very good gnuneo. I think Bush would always be more likely to be in need of speech therapy than teaching it, unless of coarse he's teaching the likes of Brighty to neo-con rhetoric classes.

Serosch
24 July 2008 at 08:49

I guess it all depends on who you are killing for, I doubt any of Brighty's friends in Israel will ever face a war crimes tribunal.

Martin Bright
24 July 2008 at 09:18

I was just posting a blog about how good this discussion had become and then Serosch came along. Ah well.

niceguy
24 July 2008 at 09:31

Sorry Brighty, couldn't resist. But it is a good idea to teach students about the attrocities of Srebrenica, just as it is to teach them about the Nakba, West Darfur and of coarse the genocidal killings in Iraq of Christians and other religious minorities. Would you agree there?

Martin Bright
24 July 2008 at 09:57

niceguy... you run the risk of creating an atrocity pudding. And it's probably best not to fill children's heads with horror. I think there are specific moral lessons to be drawn from the Holocaust and Srebrenica.

niceguy
24 July 2008 at 10:05

And why do you ignore what happened in Palestine during the formation of the state of Israel and beyond? Does that not constitute as war crimes? There's no point in being selective when it comes to war crimes and genocide otherwise you run the risk of downplaying of non-European genocide, and continuing the line that whites are somehow more dispensible. I think there are important moral lessons in that too.

niceguy
24 July 2008 at 10:20

non-whites that should of been.

knave
24 July 2008 at 12:49

Also teaching kids about atrocities, the most important point is that every race, religion, political persuasion and even political system (I also include democratic states) have it within them to commit genocide and atrocities.

For instance even so called men of culture

Martin Amis , a man I used to admire has recently come out saying that Muslims may have to "deported" and the implications of that statement is what we al must avoid

niceguy
24 July 2008 at 13:12

Yes, and also that "the Muslim community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order". Promoting collective punishment because of the crimes of a few is something that Karadzic and the like, know all so much about.

Serosch
24 July 2008 at 13:37

Palestinians from the West Bank town of Nilin were protesting against the illegal jewish wall which is separating Palestinians from their farmland, the Jewish response was to attack the peaceful protesters, destroy Palestinian property and homes and place the whole town under military curfew.

But I suppose non of this matters to the likes of Bright.

Afrasiab
24 July 2008 at 13:43

From Bright - 'The massacre had a huge influence on Tony Blair's policy of humanitarian intervention, which he relied on as justification for intervention in Kosovo and, to some extent Afghanistan and Iraq'

Humanitarian Intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq, which planet are you on Mr Bright.

redtakesy
24 July 2008 at 14:39

"Humanitarian Intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq, which planet are you on Mr Bright."

He didn't say it was "humanitarian", nor justify it; he just pointed out that it was used in these contexts. I'm certainly not sure Martin Bright was a pro-war cheerleader.

Serosch: what do you want? Martin Bright to write a daily column condemning Israel's occupation of the West Bank? you can't just dismiss an article because it didn't talk about your pet topic, nor because the author doesn't agree with your point of view on that topic. Hell,I can even agree with Nick Cohen when he steers clear of foreign policy and anythign to do with Muslims. I don't necessarily agree with Martin Bright on this issue, but you've got to learn to choose your battles.

Then again, from your comments on other threads, you talk about "Jewish crimes". So maybe that explains something...

knave
24 July 2008 at 16:21

Red you agree with Nick Cohen.

ON WHAT, he a right wing clown on every issue.

Serosch

I agree with Rd

Pick your time with your argument at the right time.

Like the secret of good comedy

knave
24 July 2008 at 16:21

Is timing

Martin Bright
24 July 2008 at 16:52

I don't know how often I need to say this. Probably a lot. No, I was not a cheerleader for the war in Iraq. But it is certainly the case that the experience of Bosnia was central to Blair's humantarian intervention doctrine.

Those of us on the left who opposed intervention in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq need to recognise that we have yet to come up with a more coherent strategy to deal with tyrannical regimes which persecute their own people.

As for the creation of the state of Israel. I do not accept that it was genocide. At the same time, Israel's subsequent treatment of the Palestinians is clearly not beyond reproach.

knave
24 July 2008 at 16:56

Those of us on the left who opposed intervention in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq need to recognise that we have yet to come up with a more coherent strategy to deal with tyrannical regimes which persecute their own people

The most important factor is the reason.

With Kosovo and Sierre leone it was the sight of thousands dying and there was no financial motive for the action.

Afghanistan it was revenge. Which is fair enough if you are honest. Pay back for 9/11

Iraq was greed. Selling off the oil to US companies and the arrest of trades unionists who opposed the great sell off. Is proof of that.

knave
24 July 2008 at 19:51

Going back to the subject of Croatia

Had Tuđman had lived longer, he may have been brought up on war crimes charges by the UN war crimes tribunal in The Hague but I doubt it because of his powerful friends in the west.

Graham Blewitt, a senior Tribunal prosecutor, told the Agence France Presse wire service that "There would have been sufficient evidence to indict president Tuđman had he still been alive."

The Tribunal's indictment of Croatian general Ante Gotovina lists Tuđman as a key participant in a "joint criminal enterprise" aimed at the "permanent removal of the Serb population from the Krajina region by force, fear or threat of force, persecution, forced displacement, transfer and deportation, appropriation and destruction of property and other means."

This rarely makes the news and the reason is simple.

Economic. The croats embraced liberal economics and therefore their crimes were absolved.

Tudjman was the Pinochet of Europe.

As long as you had a Privatisation programme you could commit as many crimes as you like

Tuđman initiated the process of privatization and de-nationalization in Croatia. However, this was far from transparent and fully legal but was welcomed by the west politicians and journalists.

raggedyman
25 July 2008 at 02:05

martin bright:

what specific moral lessons would that be exactly?

Your question implies a moral equivalence.

In Srebrenica according to the ICTY trial transcript there were 'anomalies'. The women and children were carefully separated from men and boys of 'fighting age' consistent with the practices of all the warring factions during this conflict.

Again anomalously the injured and sick were given medical treatment (the court finds this bit inexplicable).

The men and boys of fighting age were marched out presumably with a view to taking them to detention camps but quite possibly simply to execute them. How many were executed, and it seems certain many were, is not easy to establish with certainty. This is clear from the trial transcript. Forensic evidence, for example, from exhumed bodies was hampered by the fact that many had been 're-interred'. The total of exhumed bodies exceeded 4,000 but distinguishing between casualties of conflict and victims of execution by this time was all but impossible.

Either way the view that Srebrenica and 'The Holocaust' have an equivalence somehow doesn't wash.

Seek and ye shall find. The western media sought out Serbian atrocities. The question however is why they did not seek out other atrocities.

Afrasiab
25 July 2008 at 08:57

'The massacre had a huge influence on Tony Blair's policy of humanitarian intervention, which he relied on as justification for intervention in Kosovo and, to some extent Afghanistan and Iraq'

Redtakesy, Tony Blair did not have any policy of humanitarian intervention, therefore how can any event affect something that simply does not exist.

Also the initial case for war by Blair was based on WMD's, Blair stated that if Saddam gave up those weapons he would be allowed to stay in power.

Serosch
25 July 2008 at 09:08

Redtakesy, Bright is the political editor of a left-wing publication, yet this individual goes on Zionist funded trips to Israel, has close links with the Jewish colonialists/settlers, and is constantly engaged in Muslim-bashing along with those other lunatics cohen and Mad Mel.

I don't expect a daily column condemning Israel, but some balance would be welcome, also the Jewish crimes I refer to are crimes - unless of course you don't consider murder, kidnapping, and destruction of property as being crimes.

knave
25 July 2008 at 09:48

Yes Serosch but the debate is about Bosnia and to be fair to Brighty he is actually sticking up for the muslims in that area.

My problem with the approach is that the croats were as just as bad as the serbs but have been let off the hook because of real politik.

redtakesy
25 July 2008 at 10:25

Serosch: my point is they're not "Jewish" crimes - they're crimes committed by some Israelis and Israeli institutions, and that's an imoprtant distinction. Not all Israelis, let alone Jews, support these crimes. Therefore to blame all these crimes indiscriminately on Jews is very unfair. Indeed, there's a word for that.

As for Nick Cohen, he used to do some good stuff on New Labour and privatisationm back in the day.

knave
25 July 2008 at 10:40

I agree with red . I know many leftie secular isrealis who do want not a jewish state but an Isreali state of all religions and more importantly secularists.

Education. Education, Education as long as its secular.

As for Nick Cohen, he used to do some good stuff on New Labour and privatisationm back in the day.

Cohen was a Thatcherite when he was writing for powellite Birmingham mail. He despised new labour but so did many Tories.

As for been anti privatisation, he thought it didn't go far enough (what he despised was the 1/2 and 1/2 situation) , he now supports the odious policy exchange and their rush to privatise the NHS (Brownes pet project) and the appalling migrant watch.

Also he is going all Mel phillips with his attacks on the beeb.In October next year he will fill a column explaining his reasons for voting Tory. It will comment on that the Cameron's Tory party is now the liberal party and that Labour is authoritarian ( of course he won't mention migration watch, privatisation or deporting of Muslims (his mate's Amis idea)).

Anyway get back to the topic

What about the bloody Croats ?

knave
25 July 2008 at 10:55

Sadly Martin will do the same as soon as hears HMV

niceguy
25 July 2008 at 12:11

This has got interesting. Well I agree that the neo-liberal economic policy of Croatia has probally got them off the hook. But the Serb war machine at the time was designed to kill males of fighting ages, create an environment of terror in civilian area, and mass rape of women when they captured Muslim, Croat villages. As I said though, the importance of this is that by capturing the figures key to this, it will hopefully strangle fascism in Serbia.

When I was talking about Israel, the early policy of the government was to kill and create a climate of fear so other Arabs fled. May not be genocide but it is a policy of ethnic cleansing. Agreed though, there are plenty of liberal Israelis who don't want a Jewish state, but unfortunetely, the religious right there still hold a lot of power.

Serosch
25 July 2008 at 12:26

Redtakesy, the Jewish community in the UK fully supported the IDF rampage in Lebanon, the Chief Rabbi Sachs has alos voiced support for the IDF following atrocities against Palestinians.

The Jewish lobby in the US fully supportts the attacks against Palestinians and the Lebanese.

So why shouldn't we call them Jewish crimes.

knave
25 July 2008 at 14:46

Niceguy I am not defending the Serbs , far from it. Although the Bosnian muslims carried out a few atrocities nothing compared to the Serbs.

But is was Croatia that started the war and they commited many war crimes which have been put on the back burner.

Serosch of course some Jews supported the attacks but their are many, especially in academia who are prominent doves.

To condemn a whole race is wrong that is why I depise the Cohens and Amis of the world for the same type of philosophy .

niceguy
25 July 2008 at 14:55

knave- agreed then.

And I do think 'Jewish' war crimes is pretty racist.

roryyeo
25 July 2008 at 15:31

Niceguy@ "The importance I would say in arresting Karadzic is that he is still a huge source of inspiration for the many remaining ultra-nationalist Serbs. The Croats and Bosnian Muslims have largely managed to forget the past, and there is no violent reactionary backlash to the crimes against them. Unfortunetely, that is not the case in Serbia, and the ever threat of extremism still remains prominent."

I really can't speak for Bosnia although Sarajevo, from what I've been told, has a very small number of Serbs now, but having lived on and off in Croatia for the past three years I can tell you that there are many Croats who certainly don't practice a tolerant attitude towards the Serbs and other minorities. I know of Serbs in Croatia who have chosen to have their children baptised as Catholics so that they will have a better life and people are still being driven out of their jobs and homes owing to their non-Croat (i.e. Serb) ethnic origins. The fact that Croatia celebrates the anniversary of the Krajina offensive as a national holiday of liberation; the massive protests against the extradition of Ante Gotovina, even from supposedly moderate polticians and organisations; and the continued attempts to rewrite the gruesome history of the Croatian Ustasha Movement during the Second World War hardly suggest a society which has come to terms with the past, unless by "managing to forget the past" you mean denying it and rewriting it. I met one girl in the National Archives whose M.A. is being funded by the EU. The topic? Arguing that the Holocaust and the mass murder of Serbs never happened in the Independent State of Croatia. Clearly, some tenured professor thought this research would be a good idea. Academic journals are full of such appalling ultra-nationalist and revisionist themes. If only David Irving read Croatian, he would think he had died and gone to heaven.

Also, let's also not forget the anti-Serbian riots in Kosovo in March 2004, the cafes named in honour of Adolf Hitler, the expulsion of the minuscule Jewish community and the continued harassment of Serbs and non-nationalist Albanians in Kosovo. Just this week, the editor of a national newspaper in Kosovo, Bota sot, was convicted of contempt of court at the ICTY in the Hague for allegedly publishing the name of a protected prosecution witness in the case against Ramush Haradinaj, former KLA commander, now successful politician who was ultimately found not guilty through lack of evidence. The fact that two other prominent Albanians (including another newspaper editor) are awaiting trial for attempting to pressurise another prosecution witness in the same trial to not give evidence, might provide some indication of why the trial collapsed. Yes, ultra-nationalism in Serbia is poisonous as it is elsewhere. But please don't pretend that it doesn't still exist elsewhere: it does and it is as equally poisonous.

knave
25 July 2008 at 15:41

Was all this bloodshed and deceit - from Columbus to Cortes, Pizarro the Puritans - a necessity for the human race to progress from savagery to civilization? Was Morison right in burying the story of genocide inside a more important story of human progress? Perhaps a persuasive argument can be made - as it was made by Stalin when he killed pesants for industrial progress in the Soviet Union, as it was made by Churchill explaining the bombings of Dresden and Hamburg, and Truman explaining Hiroshima. But how can the judgement be made if the benefits and losses cannot be balanced because the losses are either unmentioned or mentioned quickly?

Howard Zinn

Will human progress will always accompany its crimes.

roryyeo
25 July 2008 at 15:44

Just one other point. It is undeniable that the Serbs are more resentful at the moment than Croatians and Bosnians, in particular in their attitude to the ICTY. Some commentators hope that the trial of Karadzic and eventually Mladic will change this and aid reconciliation. I think this is a naive and forlorn hope, however. Some commentators argue that many Serbs are paranoid about the tribunal. However, I would argue that the tribunal might have garnered more support and sympathy had it not allowed non-Serbian war crimes indictees to return to their former occupations in the hiatus before their trials; if it had managed to covict those who had been indicted; and, most importantly, indicted more of them. Most Serbs would have no problem, I suspect, with the indictment and, presumably, conviction of Karadzic, Mladic and the late Milosevic were it not for the fact that so many of those who stand accused of committing crimes against Serb civilians have not been indicted and have, in fact prospered - not just Tudjman, Izetbegovic, Ceku, Taci etc. In this way, the tribunal has missed a golden opportunity. Far from contributing to a lessening of bitterness and hatred, it has exacerbated it.

gnuneo
25 July 2008 at 17:06

"Was all this bloodshed and deceit - from Columbus to Cortes, Pizarro the Puritans - a necessity for the human race to progress from savagery to civilization?"

of course not, savagery and its organised component warfare are diametrically opposite to civilisation, imagine how different the world would be if when the European Nations went out to explore and settle the world, they behaved in the manner of British Nationals settling in Spain? If they had treated the indigenous population with humanity and the respect they demanded for themselves?

hell, imagine how different the world would look if the immigrant European Jews had treated the Palestinians this way?

no, savagery breeds savagery, and violence begets violence, and they have *nothing* to do with civilisation.

"In this way, the tribunal has missed a golden opportunity. Far from contributing to a lessening of bitterness and hatred, it has exacerbated it."

considering the ongoing attempt to destabilise and demonise Serbia, one may legitimately wonder if this was an intended effect.

knave
25 July 2008 at 20:40

America is the only nation in history which miraculously has gone directly from barbarism to degeneration without the usual interval of civilization.

Clemenceau

Unfortunately the modern world seems to have the quote back to front and replace america with all of us

Morgan097
26 July 2008 at 05:07

Just think:

Had Bletchley Park not provided Monty with Rommel's order of battle before Alamein, Al Husseini and his Ersatzgruppen would have exterminated every Jew in Palestine.

And little nazis like Serosch, Afrasiab, Pierre, gnumbnuts and Red Hairy could now be picking the gold fillings out their victims' mouths in order to supplement Arafat's billion dollar plus Swiss stash.

knave
26 July 2008 at 06:15

Now Morgan,

You have been so nice recently and this is about Bosnia and the massacre of muslims.

knave
26 July 2008 at 10:58

Remember morgan as the great Oscar said

Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

Morgan097
26 July 2008 at 21:59

knave,

I'm now at liberty to divulge that you are now officially the badger's new hero, and that once he gets his little claws on my Amex card, he's shipping you a case of your preferred vintage of Petrus.

knave
26 July 2008 at 22:21

Your a gent.

A nice Chateauneuf de pape

You are been nice, aren't you ?

knave
28 July 2008 at 14:42

Oliver Kamm has written an article critical of Peter Hitchen's question.

"What about Croatia ?"

http://oliverkamm.typepad.comblog/2008/07/selective-memory.h...

Kamms points about Serbia are spot on and few would disagree with him but he still misses the central point that Croatia got away with many war crimes and certainly were not demonised like the Serbs.

Why ?

If he reads the posts from roryeo and raggy man on another thread. Maybe he can answer the question.

raggedyman
29 July 2008 at 04:05

I would like to underline a few points here which I think are of some relevance to the discussion.

The Bosnian war was a war of peculiar significance for the times we live in. It wasn't just another 'modern' war; in some senses it was the first 'post-modern' war in the sense that the media played a crucial part in its outcome; and this is something we should all try to fully appreciate - that is if we care at all about the fate of our fellow human beings.

This war began in a 'local' sense as a drive for Croatian independence spurred on by early recognition from Germany and swiftly thereafter by the US - but the political realisation of this had a number of seemingly insuperable obstacles to overcome.

Very early on Tudjman's Croatia had employed a US public relations company, Ruder Finn, to in effect ignite a media brush fire whose impact on public opinion would play a defining role in bringing the US into the conflict. It should be acknowledged here that Tudjman was the cleverest of the players and on the whole he regularly outfoxed his opponents Karadzic and Milosovic.

The 'whispering' campaign began by Tudjman's hired US consultancy firm started in late 1991 and promulgated the idea of a 'Serbian campaign of terror that was on a par with the Nazis of WWII'. Crucial to the effectiveness of this media campaign was Roy Gutman, a journalist based in Bonn but working for the Long Island based Newsday. His reports were eventually published as a book called 'witness to genocide' - it was a best-seller and in certain respects is perhaps the begetter of the modern 'genocide' industry that seems so ubiquitous nowadays on the internet.

Much of Gutman's reports concerned Serbian 'death-camps' and he liberally used references to the Nazi 'final solution' and to death camps like Auschwitz and Belsen. His reports were not first hand and he had not visited the camps of Omarska or Trnopolje in person, at the time of publication. His reports that were published in early August 1992 reflected his interviews with a variety of third party witnesses and hearsay; a number of those witnesses were subsequently discovered to have connections with Tudjman's CIC - formerly the Croatian Ministry of Information. This is important to consider as Gutman is at the centre of the beginning of a media firestorm that will eventually bring the US into the conflict not so much as 'peace-keepers' [there was after all little peace to keep] but as actual combatants backing one side against the other.

From a geopolitical point of view the US had good reason to dislike the Serbian regime that politically dominated the former Yugoslavia. Milosovic was in some respects an unreconstructed communist with strong ties to Moscow. Milosovic did not head a strongly nationalist party - in many ways he was a 'pragmatist' whose main aim was to cling on to power. As a consequence he had to balance the very powerful 'nationalist' forces within Serbian politics with that of his own party. The US would exploit this later in their intervention in Kosovo and with a view to turning the decaying former Soviet satellite into a potential Nato asset.

From the outset of military hostilities in Bosnia it was apparent that the Serbs had lost the 'media' war. As the PR professionals at Ruder Finn knew the public did not like complex multipolar conflicts - what they liked was the old-fashioned traditional 'good-guy/bad-guy' conflict acted out in many a Hollywood movie.

This fact clearly played into the Ruder Finn campaign of 'disinformation'. Once the brush-fire had been lit pressure grew on the Bosnian-Serbs to allow the media in to 'investigate' the so-called 'death-camps'.

Karadzic duly obliged and on the 5th and 6th of August 1992 the now famous/infamous visits of the British journalists took place at Omarska and Trnopolje camps. Both the summation of the judge in the famous LM libel trial of 2000 and the 2002 ICTY transcript make clear that the British journalists were the ones enclosed by barbed wire when the infamous 'Belsen' pictures were taken whilst the inmates in reality had a waist-high fence of chicken-wire with additional open areas with armed guards present. Trnopolje was a vast refugee camp with some prisoners penned in for 'security reasons' and unquestionably it was a camp in which there were awful abuses. But it was nevertheless a far cry from a 'Belsen' and, for all we knew, no worse than Muslim or Croatian camps.

The effect of these pictures taken by the British journalists at Trnopolje Camp are difficult to underestimate. Their impact on global public opinion was profound. From a military point of view the Serbs should have defeated their opponents with comparative ease. But by 1995 and just before the siege of Srebrenica the Croatian/Muslim forces reaped the rewards of their concerted PR campaign [Izetbegovic also employs Ruder Finn from 1993] with massive intervention by US air power.

The UN were now backing one side against another in defiance of its own mandate.

The US war aims may have been many but the principal aim was to demolish a former Soviet satellite and turn it into a US/Nato asset much to the advantage of US interests

The British journalists played a particularly egregious role in the murky business. It could be argued that by perpetuating the idea of the atrocious treatment of Serb prisoners and internees the journalists may have contributed to the inhumane treatment of Croatian and Muslim prisoners; indeed that they helped precipitate a downward spiral in the attitudes of all sides towards their prisoners and internees.

I personally can only reiterate the view of Howard Zinn himself a veteran of the Second World Ward 'the only true evil is war itself'. In an age with such an industrial capacity for destruction and for unleashing such human viciousness we must avoid war at all costs.

In the modern world this means looking at the way in which we ourselves are social and economically structured. It is entirely possible that the childish perception of our world as made up of villains and victims is mistaken and that there is a systemic component that is at the root of all our evils.

Without the modern imperia of power maybe people behave well towards each other for most of the time.

knave
29 July 2008 at 07:43

Great post Raggey

Oliver please read.

niceguy
29 July 2008 at 07:53

Very interesting points, although I do think that we're going round in circles. The main point is that Karadzic faces justice for war crimes. Although much of the media reporting was third party, there is still the first hand accounts from victims of the Serbs, such as the victims of rape, families who saw their family shot by snipers or blown up by artillery, or had sons and husbands who disappeared under Serb custody. Granted, this happened on all sides, but to deny justice and closure for these individuals over a game of politics and blame is pretty detrimental to the stability of the region. To my knowledge, it would be one of the first wars where justice has been sought through the courts, rather than by vendetta.

niceguy
29 July 2008 at 07:58

in the Balkans that should be.

Serosch
29 July 2008 at 09:00

Morgan, it's the actions of your sort that most resemble those of the Nazis, remember this one 'Jews are a people without land, and palestine is a land without people' or ' it pains me to think that a palestinian is being born' or 'there will be a palestinian Holocaust', I could go on but the vast majority of people are aware of the comments made in the name of the Jewish sate and the crimes commited in the name of the Jewish state.

I hear the illegal colony will be expanding further into Palestine, and more Palestinians have been murdered, Morgon how much Muslim land do you people intend to steal and how much Muslim blood do want to spill before your happy.

Afrasiab
29 July 2008 at 09:14

niceguy - 'And I do think 'Jewish' war crimes is pretty racist'.

Judaism is a religion and its followers are known as Jews, so how is it racist to call something carried out by Jews, supported by Jews, and for the benefit of Jews, a Jewish war crime.

niceguy
29 July 2008 at 09:41

Well, the Nazis didn't see it that way, and Jews couldn't convert to Christianity as a way of avoiding the death camps. With Israel, it's a nation state, and using the word Jew instead of Israeli is a blanket blame for all Jews across the world, whether they're Jews from Tel Aviv, New York or Tehran. i just think defining those to blame is more appropriate, sorry for any crossed wires.

raggedyman
29 July 2008 at 11:20

niceguy:

With respect niceguy I think it is you that is going round in circles rather than 'we'.

The questions I raise concern both the objectivity and the politicisation of the ICTY; this has been a disturbing and not that surprising feature of the court from its very inception and has undermined severely its ability to deliver justice with regard to the Bosnian conflict and to the victims of the atrocities committed by all sides. It is especially hypocritical of Richard Holbrooke to be applauding the court at The Hague with regard to Karadzic given the efforts by the Americans in the past to deride and discredit the court at every turn. The value and legitimacy of the court it would seem goes up and down as it suits US interests.

As Lord Owen pointed out at the time of the siege of Srebrenica the most disastrous aspect of the UN 'peacekeeping' operation was its failure to demilitarise the so-called safe havens. Bosnian-muslim forces consequently used the safe havens as convenient launching pads for raids into the surrounding Serbian countryside. These raids were also the subject of prosecutions at the ICTY as whole villages became the victims of a scorched-earth policy that the Bosnian-muslim forces clearly hoped would lead to Nato intervention. The notorious Bosniak warlord, Naser Oric, operated out of Srebrenica in the run up to the siege and was subject himself to trial at the ICTY. His prosecution however was marred by bungling and incompetence by the prosecution that eventually led to his being cleared of all charges and walking free from the court.

It is difficult to see how such one-sided justice is going to lead to reconciliation and stability for this still highly volatile region.

It also remains absolutely infamous that the US/Nato forces entered Bosnia under the UN banner of peacekeeping only to become one of the principal combatants in the conflict. The US policy throughout was to avoid troop-commitment and to back one side against the other with the use of its very considerable air superiority. Did anyone really believe the official US policy of bombing from on high in order to protect those on the ground would achieve its 'peacekeeping' objective?

In many ways the ICTY remains part of the problem rather than the solution and the despicable role of the 'international community' in the Bosnian tragedy, now seeking exculpation through the trial of Karadzic, seems to guarantee that such conflicts will recur well into the future.

niceguy
29 July 2008 at 13:59

How exactly was it solely I who was going round in circles raggedyman? I responded to posts you made, so next time I would appreciate it if you cut out the personal insults.

The court did prosecute Bosnian and Croatians too, such as Hazim Delic who is currently in jail on a 20 year sentence. The majority of those prosecuted were Serbs as in my opinion it was a nationalist offensive from Serb militia groups (basically the JNA in proxy) to carve up Bosnia, and as such was an act of self-defence for the Bosnians, and the first commitment of civilians into the war was by Serb forces when attacking eastern Bosnia.

Like I said, I am not excusing attrocities on either side, but do believe the Serbs (and Croats to a large extent) face the bulk of responsibility for the war, and not a NATO conspiracy to undermine the current Serbian state. Justice has not been as universal as liked, but you offer no alternative. The arrest of Karadzic is of fundamental importance, and as a leading figure in the war, is largely responsible for the conduct of Serb forces in the campaign, and hopefully will offer some relief to the victims.

raggedyman
29 July 2008 at 15:23

Off hand I can't think of a war that hasn't been characterised by barbarism and wide-spread abuse of human rights and the commital of atrocities. War as I have said before is the chief evil. In the light of which it is our imperative to avoid war at all costs.

The Lisbon Agreement may or may not have succeeded in its central idea of a swiss-style cantonisation of the then integral Yugoslavia - the point is it was rendered irrelevant by the premature recognition of the independence of Croatia.

The Croatians did not act without US and German backing and approval.

Question: do those that seek to bring about and then foment a war deserve our special condemnation?

The people responsible for war crimes are invariably its participants but those responsible for the crime of war tend to be well-paid bureaucrats often acting in the pursuit of something nebulously known as the advancement of the national interest.

niceguy
29 July 2008 at 16:56

Yes, I agree with your sentiments, although in this big bad world, I think (personally) that the arrest of such a vile man is a victory, if only a token one. But, I agree it is only part of the picture, and more should of been administered some justice, but for the victims and families, it will serve some sort of relief.

Next, Dubya... we can only hope.

Morgan097
29 July 2008 at 21:36

L'il nazis Serosch & Afrasiab:

During the war, certain members of Morgie's family (don't ask knave) had a way of dealing with your kind:

Two to the thorax; one to the facial triangle.

Morgan097
29 July 2008 at 22:06

niceguy,

Ya gotta think bigger than Chateauneuf!

When I first moved to Cambridge, Mass. in the mid-'60s, Harvard Square liquor stores were selling Lafite, Latour, Margaux, Haut-Brion and Mouton (then, not yet promoted to first growth status) for between $12.50 and $14.00 a bottle. No one had yet even heard of Petrus because it wasn't listed in the 1855 classifications.

At the time, I had a wonderful, elderly Irish housekeeper named Katherine (who'd frequently met a young JFK when, as an undergraduate, he'd come to call for his dates at the Radcliffe Quad, where she'd then worked.

Every Christmas, I'd give her a bottle of Margaux or Latour. Though invariably appreciative, she almost certainly had no idea of their lofty history.

The moral? Hoard your M&S ginger beer!

As they used to say below the Mason-Dixon Line:

"Save your Confederate money, boys; the South shall rise again!"

Morgan097
30 July 2008 at 00:41

And knave, my friend,

Before you again admonish me for being less than diplomatic toward the two little scumbags, I concede to being no Nevile Henderson.

But to paraphrase George Will, Europe is famous for two powerful tendencies: appeasement and anti-Semitism.

Unlike the Eurabians, I simply no longer have the patience or tolerance for either.

gnuneo
30 July 2008 at 02:06

raggey: nice post.

mogran: no-one's interested in your genocidal xenophobia, go away.

Morgan097
30 July 2008 at 06:08

knave:

Kindly inform gnumbnuts that gnazis like him/her/it gneed gnot apply.

knave
30 July 2008 at 08:10

But to paraphrase George Will, Europe is famous for two powerful tendencies: appeasement and anti-Semitism.

Morgan

Lets not go down those two avenues again but I will say every country can have those general accusations thrown at then including the US and stop the threats.

To me violence is the last refuge of the incompetent and shows a lack of reason.

Also who is george will ?

knave
30 July 2008 at 08:10

Sorry i meant at them

niceguy
30 July 2008 at 08:16

Morgan:

It was knave who asked for the Chateaunuef, but if you're asking, I'll go for Lebanon's finest, the Chateau Ksara.

And Morgan choosing the pousse-cafe! What do you expect from badgers these days? In my day they were happy with scrumpy. You can blame Thatcher/Reagan's rampant materialism for that.

knave
30 July 2008 at 08:45

Ah scrumpy

Do they still put dead rats in it ?

niceguy
30 July 2008 at 09:20

I think they do.

Knave, you heard of the new neo-Con Cider? ScGrumpy Hacks

It's made during Policy Exchange weekend retreats to Hereford, when Cohen, Kamm and Browne squash apples in a huge bowl wearing wellies, moaning about Islamism and coming up with solutions of how to destroy the NHS.

Quite pleasant in appearance, but with a very bitter aftertaste.

knave
30 July 2008 at 09:41

I thought their retreats were in Transylvania.

niceguy
30 July 2008 at 09:58

Perhaps to Howard's place

knave
30 July 2008 at 11:16

As for Henderson. I am not one to defend an appeaser or Tory but there is argument that

Henderson argued that Britain should go about rearmament in secret.

He and Chamberlain knew that the Germans had a much better airforce and the RAF needed Spitfire and hurricane production to be increased to nullify the affect of the Luftwaffe.

Personally I think he was weak old pro Nazi who did not do his job.

By the way Morg what were the yanks doing to try to stop the invasion of Czechoslovakia. Probably following that great American hero Lindbergh's example by having coffee with Adolf.

We all have nasty skeletons in the cupboard

niceguy
30 July 2008 at 11:23

Well, all the Conservative government (from Chamberlain to Churchill) were responsible for actively encouraging a controlled fascism against the Soviet Union, and proper democracy as we saw on the Republican side of the Civil War.

knave
30 July 2008 at 12:38

Spanish Bombs in Andulucia

Not to disagree with you Niceguy but there were too many Stalinists on the good guys side for my liking

But those were the days of the POUM and anarcho syndalism.

And it is making it a comeback

niceguy
30 July 2008 at 13:23

Yes, of coarse from Homage to Catalonia you can see the evils of Stalinism. If the Western Governments had supplied the Republicans with weapons though it would never of got to that though, the Soviets did have a monopoly on power once that happened. But the POUM seemed to be more well intentioned in the broad view. And the anarchists also. Except for all the killings of coarse.

knave
30 July 2008 at 14:24

Orwells book although interesting I didn't enjoy it. No bodice ripping heroines, no iron jawed hero and the villains don't have furry animals. Very disappointing

knave
30 July 2008 at 14:25

and Morgan

No Cowboys with white hats.

niceguy
30 July 2008 at 14:59

And how would Kamm/Browne/Johnson/Cohen fit into these architypal characterizations for your book?

knave
30 July 2008 at 15:18

No more heroes anymore

Niceguy

niceguy
30 July 2008 at 15:42

Hold on,

Iron Jaw Hero: Reade

Furry Animal: Cohen

We can only hope.

Morgan097
30 July 2008 at 17:25

knave,

I couldn't agree with you more about "Lucky" Lindy.

In his song "Lindbergh," Woody Guthrie nails it perfectly when he writes:

"And I'm gonna tell you workers, 'fore you cash your checks:

They say 'America First,' but they mean 'America Next!'"

Had there then existed such a critter as a neocon, I'd of course have argued for US intervention to preserve the Spanish Republic against Franco. At least before the Stalinist takeover. And likewise, I'd have favored US military intervention in Czechoslovakia, though how this could have been accomplished either logistically (America's army was smaller than Rumania's) or geographically (the US was half a world away), escapes me.

Please recall that '30s US isolationism was a result of most Americans' desire to escape from Europe's endless idiotic conflicts, and not partake in them.

And remember the huge number of German-, Irish-, and Italian-American voters.

Today, as you know, I favor US military intervention to depose Mugabe. But also to protect Darfur from the Sudanese government.

Neocons generally support US efforts to militarily defeat bad guys whenever it becomes possible and practical to do so.

Repeat:

Whenever it becomes possible and practical to do so.

Morgan097
30 July 2008 at 17:28

niceguy,

You can't say that you've experienced true ecstasy until you've watched a badger try to negotiate his way through a pousse-cafe.

niceguy
30 July 2008 at 17:41

Morgan, I would agree with some aspects of liberal (neocon) interventionism if it wasn't for the corporate influences in such 'liberal' interventionism, and the double standards of supporting corrupt dictatorships and then overthrowing others that aren't on their side.

Btw, the US will never invade Zimbabwe because there is no oil there.

niceguy
30 July 2008 at 17:43

Hehe, Morgan, well one day I hope I witness such a spectacle!

Morgan097
30 July 2008 at 18:04

niceguy,

I agree completely that double standards, corporate influence and oil often compromise neocon idealism.

But

1. We needed Stalin,

2. As Coolidge observed in the '20s, "the business of America is business."

3. An unimpeded supply of fossil fuels still remains essential to global stability.

And without all three, we'd have lost the war.

To reiterate, we can only act when it becomes possible and practical to do so.

Rommel tells me that he missed you last Friday at Annabel's. It's always unwise to disappoint a tipsy badger.

niceguy
30 July 2008 at 21:28

"We needed Stalin"

At the time, despite all the evils of the Soviet Union, the USSR was attacked by an aggressive fascist state, so I think it was as much that it was necessary to back Stalin at the time against Hitler and alsp important as "America's army was smaller than Rumania's".

However, with American dominance of the world, I don't think we can think in the mindset of a clash of civilizations sense. America was in sense a insolationist state until WWII, but now as self-appointed promoters of democracy worldwide, then I think that a bit of moral balance to all states and regimes is important, if they want to continue to spread that message.

"the business of America is business."

I am not against business per se, but business is not about ethics. Business is about making profits, so it cannot be the basis of a foreign policy, it cannot be the over riding principle of government and it cannot be the basis of party politcs, otherwise it would be simply a case of Burger King Party against the McDonalds Party. Business needs government intervention, public scrutiny and trade union pressure to being kept as basis for development and capital for the people. I would say on that basis that even America does not fit into that statement, nor should it. But aggressive American trading has left hundreds of thousands of dead across the world, and many other practically enslaved on starvation rations, to push the globalization machine.

3.

The reason for global instability is of coarse natural resources. Your government is quite happy to support your Wahabi oil-rich friends in Saudi Arabia, hacking limbs of thieves and beheading adulterers, as long as they keep the oil flowing for the American machine. Just as it was for Saddam to gas Kurds, again, if he gave you oil.

The question is how can a dynamic country such as America able to shake of this dhimmist European image and move into the 21st Century with an ethical foreign policy, and truly be the promoters of freedom and democracy and gain the respect of the world.

PS. Apologies to Rommel, was supping sloe gins in the Groucho. It's also my last day in the advertising industry tomorrow, so it will be happy hour, at Annabel's. Rommel's round though, he never gets them in.

Morgan097
31 July 2008 at 02:47

Good post, niceguy.

I more or less agree with most of your points.

But with due respect, I still take one or two minor exceptions to your analysis.

1. The US has become in certain instances the self-appointed promoter of democracy, though unfortunately, hardly worldwide. As the saying goes, it's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it. The EU couldn't clean up the mess in it's own backyard in Yugoslavia, so the US successfully intervened in Serbia, Bosnia and Kosovo -- while the French passed on NATO bombing intelligence to Milosevic. The UN, as usual, has been worse than useless. Do Rwanda, Srebrenica or Darfur ring a bell? The $12 billion Oil-For-Food payoffs successfully eviscerated any sanctions upon Saddam that might have prevented the coalition invasion.

2. Despite specific economic dislocations and disparities, most serious economists have concluded that globalization has generally improved the lives of far more than it has harmed. As Tom Friedman says, the utopia for anti-globalizers would seem to be North Korea.

3. Global instability, I'm afraid, has many causes, not just the quest for natural resources. And as for the desirability of the US gaining validation or "respect" from "the world," it neither seeks nor requires either. Without America, there'd be no "free world."

Just a National Socialist or Stalinist world.

And niceguy,

Rommel and I wish you the very best of luck and success in whatever new endeavor you've chosen to pursue.

knave
31 July 2008 at 07:59

Good post, niceguy.

I agree, in fact mirror my views

Morgan good reasoned points as well.

1. The US has become in certain instances the self-appointed promoter of democracy, though unfortunately, hardly worldwide. As the saying goes, it's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it.

I can live with that, although I would prefer co-operation.

The EU couldn't clean up the mess in it's own backyard in Yugoslavia, so the US successfully intervened in Serbia, Bosnia and Kosovo -- while the French passed on NATO bombing intelligence to Milosevic.

Yes, I agree that is why I supported Cook’s ethical foreign policy along with Clinton’s policies.

The UN, as usual, has been worse than useless. Do Rwanda, Srebrenica or Darfur ring a bell? The $12 billion Oil-For-Food payoffs successfully eviscerated any sanctions upon Saddam that might have prevented the coalition invasion.

The UN has it’s problems but UNICEF has been a limited success. Also is did help in a small way to prevent the third world war

2. Despite specific economic dislocations and disparities, most serious economists have concluded that globalization has generally improved the lives of far more than it has harmed. As Tom Friedman says, the utopia for anti-globalizers would seem to be North Korea.

I agree with you on this. To me globalization , like the Internet, bio weapons and the nuclear industry. You cannot go back. In my view the left has great opportunity with globalization. The ideas on the other post Mill and Marx., is an example. LeftoGlobilization could be about helping low paid workers in India, for example

3. Global instability, I'm afraid, has many causes, not just the quest for natural resources. And as for the desirability of the US gaining validation or "respect" from "the world," it neither seeks nor requires either. Without America, there'd be no "free world." Just a National Socialist or Stalinist world.

What does worry me is the motive. If the motive is freedom, then I have no problems with that. If the motive is grab for resources (oil, food, iron, water), then it is no different from economic lebenstraum and in way you have become a Democratic economic Nazi.. Iraq was the latter. Kosova and Sierre Leone in my view was the former

Can I give you a scenario.

There is a pro western country, popular leader, liberal economics and yet tortures many of his people and he arrests trades union leaders.

What should the west do ?

niceguy
31 July 2008 at 08:27

That was not meant to be an anti-American diatribe, and the most of those points a I made, applies to my government too.

But:

1. I feel sorry for America in some aspects, as it can do nothing right. It's criticisized for going for and criticisized for not. From what I hear about Kosovo, Clinton was again reluctant to commit forces, but Tony Blair was persuasive enough to build a joint consensus in Europe and N. America for the need for force to stop further attrocities, which I agree with. And I agree that the later years of Clinton, and early years of Blair, were the basis of a liberal world policy which I could to some extent agree with (all of which fit in with Brighty's view of the importance of Bosnia and Rwanda on Blair's mindset. But not neo-cons. They chose to invade Iraq which posed no real threat to its neighbours and was pretty much self-contained. Which makes me guess it was a mixture of making a regional democratic role model, which was a very ill advised decision. Or simply to create an ally to supply oil.

2. For the West there is no doubt it has, and also for American model cases of 'capitalist development' such as Japan and S. Korea. However, the gap between rich and poor is greater than ever, and America still relies on children working in sweatshops, miners in uranium and diamond mines working in terrible conditions, and farm hands on coffee farms living in bare servitude to the landowners.

There is, I would like to add, other options in between North Korea and the USA. Like I said, I do see the need for trade, business, capitalism etc. But the Scandinavian model seems the most ethical and healthy role model for capitalist states to follow. If capitalism as it stands in the USA such a great thing, then why is there millions without health insurance, millions more living in ghettos, and many more with access to only basic standards of education. And using Friedman as an example for the success of capitalism is a bit like using a Kim Jong Il quote on the marvels of Marxism.

3. Your assumption that "America is the free world" basically conflicts with itself. I am in no way denying the fact that I would rather live in the USA than Iran or N. Korea, but how can you say American is the freeworld, when the statement in itself is a arbitary dictation of the American view of what freedom is. To be honest, I don't think that such a word exists (a child born in a council estate does not have the freedom open to him from a member of the landed gentry, and in some ways visa versa), just levels of social equality and free speech. I don't want to be presumptious, but I'm sure you would view Columbia as a free country (with its band of paramilitaries dictating government policy and crusing trade unions) but not Venezuala (with its policy of heavily taxing big business for the benefit of the poor). Likewise, people in Sweden with a welfare system which embraces all and offers equal opportunties for all the better themselves, could argue that the USA is not free. Respect is the only way for America to be seen as a universal guardian of peace and stability, but America does not have this, not because of jealousy, but because of the statements I have already made.

Now there are countless reasons I love America, its youth culture, aid programmes and the ability to turn adversity into a national movement (from the creation of soul and hip-hop to Civil Rights movements), but the USA which I know the world repects is the Trumanesque, Marshall Plan bearers of peace, goodwill and freedom (we'll ignore Hiroshima here), not the resource grabbing neo-con version of world submission.

And thank you for your kind words of success as I step into my new career.

knave
31 July 2008 at 08:52

Morgan

"while the French passed on NATO bombing intelligence to Milosevic. "

Yes but you love their wine

Also during the Falklands war we used US satellite data, which was lovely. Thank you.

Until we found out that , under pressure from the pro junta Fitzpatrick, the same data was given to the Argies.

No so nice.

Funny old world eh Morg

niceguy
31 July 2008 at 08:57

Good points knave, and same to you Morgan. I had great admiration for Cook, he was someone who the Palestinians would listen to, who would take onboard criticism, as he was just as harsh with the Israelis.

And the UN, although quite ineffective in many ways, does offer a universal and non-biased view of how governments should act. The UN is a basis of morals, and if other govenments flout this consensus, risk being seen as Pariah states from the rest of the world, and for the West as a morality guide of which countries it is acceptable to invest into. Also, the research and reports which goes into UNIFEM for example, has done a lot to help women across the world.

Somi
31 July 2008 at 09:22

Somayeh

I think it doesn't matter who commited atrocity or did crimes against humanity christians muslims or jews , they are all should be condomned , some people think that happening wars are inevitable, despite that I disgree I think war shuld have it's own rules

you can fight withot killing kids and raping innocent women or doing massacre

I wanna know how a serbian wife (or wives from every nationalities) can trust her husband in spite of that she knows he raped women brutally in war or how the kids can like their father knowing that he tortured and raped and murdered kids during war

where we will be going?

nothing can heal the brokenhearted victims such as jews or serbs during WWII, Armenian, Bosnian muslims, many innocent people in Darfur or... but I hope by arresting criminals such as Karadzic we all get a bit upbeat about justice and humanism in the universe

knave
31 July 2008 at 09:36

Also Morgan there is a philosophical difference between the likes of myself and sorry niceguy, if I put you in the same category.

We would describe ourselves as social democrats, who believe in gradual change for a better world.

The neo conservatives have a Trotskyite view of the world of a global neo conservative revolution.

In fact many of the leading neo cons were ex trots ( men like Cohen)

niceguy
31 July 2008 at 09:42

Nice points Somi, and it does bring into the presepective the damages to soceity that Civil War, or indeed any wars, bring. It's important to highlight the role of women from trying to mold a fragmented society, with the will of peace above everything. The women of Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia deserve our sympathy and respect for trying to rebuild the former Yugoslavia, and not succumb to the ghosts of the past.

Also, as we know the world is not perfect, but to use the arrest of Karadzic for pointless point-making over American foreign policy from some elements of the far-left is cynical to say the least. For all those affected by Karadzic's command of Serb forces, I hope it bring some relief, and for the families of those effected by other commanders not brought to justice, I hope that in some way the trial of Karadzic will be a way for them to channel their pain, into a man who likewise cared nothing for any civilians, just a sadistic thirst for power.

niceguy
31 July 2008 at 09:45

Don't worry Knave, I would put myself in the category of a social democrat. Gradual change is the solution, but see the need to reserve the option of force in times of genocide.

niceguy
31 July 2008 at 09:47

point-scoring, sorry, not point making.

knave
31 July 2008 at 09:56

I agree the second world war was necessary not noble.

I am not a pacifist.

knave
31 July 2008 at 10:00

The other thing I find difficult to understand.

Is we get what I call media friendly wars.

Fight the good fight in Dafur. I have no problems with that but what about the Congo.

niceguy
31 July 2008 at 10:05

The media war also depends on what level of the Stop the War coalition is against a certain war. Also, how vocal Galloway is against the war. Sierra Leone wasn't a huge media campaign because even Galloway couldn't argue against interventionism, but if there is a threat of bombing a nice theocratic dictatorship like Iran, which treats Galloway like the Medhi himself, then it will be all over the media.

knave
31 July 2008 at 10:38

True.

raggedyman
31 July 2008 at 11:29

niceguy:

you have got to be kidding.

moderator:

Is it possible to say bollocks in these forums?

niceguy
31 July 2008 at 13:15

Erm Raggedyman, do you have a point, or are you just trying to make your pointless life feel more important. This is a forum, so we exchange views, not profanities. But I know that will go against your Stalinist world view of things.

Peace out Raggey

raggedyman
31 July 2008 at 21:26

niceguy:

I unreservedly retract the profanity and offer my profuse apologies. I've been under a lot of strain lately.

By the way as a lapsed Dadaist flirting with Nihilism I can only thank you for your other complimentary remarks. Except that is for the 'Stalinist' bit which I'll put down to the fact that we have only just met.

Your not a wordy man and I like that. You're also not a man who's too fussy in which order your words go - and that's ok too although not always a virtue. For example what does this mean?

The media war also depends on what level of the Stop the War coalition is against a certain war.

James Joyce put a lot of these together in a book once which impressed a lot of academics and appreciators of linguistic legerdemain.

Re: Galloway

It's hard to know what Galloway is vocal about since he rarely gets any coverage except when making a prat of himself on a popular tv show - which of course says more about our media than it does about George Galloway.

As far as Brighty's view of Blair is concerned he seems to be living in the pre-Iraq War dreamworld of 'Blair the Crusader' or is it 'Blair the Seducer'; the rest of us have since woken up to the reality-check world of 'Blair the bullshitter'.

Also the idea that Blair had to work hard to persuade the Americans to 'bomb' Kosovo on humanitarian grounds is a hoot. I would be interested to know if you think genocide was actually taking place in Kosovo? And if so before, or during, the American bombing campaign? Evidence? Examples?

And just to be clear would you care to define what it is exactly that you understand 'genocide' to be?

As an interesting exercise try putting 'genocide' into google. Then consider this: before 1990 there hadn't been a genocide appearing on the grid since the Second World War.

Why have we got a veritable 'genocide' industry flourishing suddenly? Even Zimbabwe is now being monitored for signs of genocide. Who next? Venezuela?

gnuneo
31 July 2008 at 21:41

niceguy: even senior US military strategic planners have pulled all the stops out to warn against attacking Iran - Galloway is small fry, and it is ridiculous to imagine he has any real sway in the media, and that he alone is the reason why there is a no-war-on-Iran movement.

i think that is why raggey wished to say "bollocks" to you.

btw, nice discussion, even allowing that Genocidal Morgan is in an extremely weird reality tunnel, christ alone knows what sources he gets his opinions and information from, Stormfront's sub-forum "Mossad" perhaps??

somi: good words.

Morgan097
01 August 2008 at 06:21

gnumbnuts:

You remain the insolent simpleton.

Speak when you're spoken to!

Now, sit down and behave before your embarrassed parents take away your allowance.

Morgan097
01 August 2008 at 07:27

knave,

Let me assure you that I'm no Trotskyite.

Though obviously preferable to Stalin, Ol' Leon came from a tradition very different and very foreign to most neocons.

We were Henry "Scoop" Jackson Democrats who espoused a centrist domestic policy and a pro-active foreign policy combined with a powerful national defense.

When in '72 the Democrats nominated a radical leftist George McGovern (who was subsequently obliterated by Nixon in the general election), we knew that the days of FDR, Truman and JFK were but a memory.

We saw our future in a new reinvigorated conservatism, and were welcomed by Bill Buckley and his National Review. Carter's disastrous administration (Iran, double-digit inflation, Afghanistan, etc.) was for neocons the final nail in the Democratic party coffin.

Ronald Reagan embraced us, our ideals and our ideas, and before long, it was bye-bye Gulagland. Bush 41 alienated us and promptly lost to Clinton.

Wilsonian Democrats? Perhaps.

Trotskyites? Not a chance in hell.

knave
01 August 2008 at 07:49

Morgan

I didn't said the neo conservatives were trots but you a similar view of world change. There is a neoconservative desire to spread democracy abroad has been likened to the Trotskyist theory of permanent revolution. In my view neoconservatives are influenced by the thought of former Trotskyists such as James Burnham and Max Shachtman, who argued that "the United States and similar societies are dominated by a decadent, postbourgeois 'new class.'" The neoconservative concept of "global democratic revolution" as deriving from the Trotskyist Fourth International's "vision of permanent revolution." Also the Marxist origin of "the economic determinist idea that liberal democracy is an epiphenomenon of capitalism," which he describes as "Marxism with entrepreneurs substituted for proletarians as the heroic subjects of history." However, few leading neoconservatives cite James Burnham as a major influence.

It is true a lot of them especially the UK ones are ex Trots

.

raggedyman
01 August 2008 at 09:56

How the British civilising mission became subtly transposed into the American manifest destiny or project spread democracy.

How, for example, the discovery of exploding 'pineapples' in the Queen's cupboard led to the annexation of Hawaii.

How happy indigenous folks who played on the beach and surfed the waves became good protestants who practiced the importance of abstinence, proper potty training, and hard work.

Then one day the unsuspecting natives woke up to discover that much of their ancestral land was owned by the Dole Pineapple Company.

Unfortunately the few remaining natives proved incurably lazy requiring the importation by the company of large numbers of Chinese and Indians to man the, by now, world's largest plantations.

Back in Detroit tenement-dwellers weary from a long day labouring in the vast mechanised factories brighten up the gloom of their malodorous. dingy. apartments with a little luxury - an exotic tin of pineapple fruit.

Soon the whole world will be free too like the natives of Hawaii and the termite-dwellers of Detroit. Free to spend, free to work, and free to spend some more.

Morgan097
01 August 2008 at 11:59

knave,

You must be psychic today.

Your last sentence captures exactly what was in my mind when I cited the distinctiveness of the American neocon experience.

Their rigid class system led many British progressives to embrace the Marxist matrix of class struggle to express and fulfill their motivations and goals.

In America, class differences, though still real, are nevertheless far more subtle and flexible, and barely register in the public consciousness. All it requires for an American like Obama to become a presidential nominee are intelligence, ambition, determination and charisma. HLS (the Obamas) and YLS (the Clintons) never negatively discriminate on the basis of race or class. They in fact practice a liberal agenda-driven policy of affirmative action that routinely penalizes the better-prepared and often more deserving affluent best and brightest.

Most Americans could neither identify nor identify with Trotskyite theories of class struggle even if their lives depended upon it.

Most neocons don't regard Burnham as a significant influence at all. When he broke with the party over Finland, future neocons were still proud supporters of FDR (we try to forget Yalta, which came later). Burnham was embraced by the only conservatives who then existed or mattered, the paleocons.

niceguy
01 August 2008 at 19:44

Morgan:

I was actually chatting last night to an American LSE student here about this subject last night, who was asking me why Britain is so much more left wing than America, particularly amongst intellectuals.

My opinion (which may be bollocks, ay raggedyman) but America's media and cultural projection of the American dream, and rags to riches stories, ensures that pyschologically, the class divide is almost non-existant. The Detroit car maker dreams of being the next Henry Ford, and the burger-stall worker of being the next Ray Kroc. Britain, with its rigid class-divides, cynical and conservative attitudes, has ensured limited success of the left. The broad appeal of the left in the UK will remain limited to sustaining the NHS and living wage.

Morgan097
01 August 2008 at 20:44

niceguy,

I couldn't agree more.

And the limited appeal of poliical fringes is nothing particularly surprising. A stable middle class is understandably satisfied with the status quo. A nice roof over one's head, decent food on the table, a modicum of cultural and/or intellectual stimulation, pleasurable diversions like instant access to news, sports, and even companionship on television and the internet are the stuff of earlier generations' dreams.

After the state has provided the necessary safety net for the less fortunate, protection from internal and external threat, and traditional functions ranging from justice system to mail delivery, the average citizen wants to lead his life with as little unnecessary interference as possible.

knave
01 August 2008 at 21:03

"In America, class differences, though still real, are nevertheless far more subtle and flexible, and barely register in the public consciousness."

I thought that, until visiting friends in Virginia and the class system seemed to be as rigid as anything I have seen in the UK.

Also isn't true that going to the right university is as important in the US as it is in the UK. That depends on social background and cash.

I will give you the fact that the US is more of a meritocracy than the UK.

PS I hope Obama wins purely because I did love his answer to the stupid question

“Have you ever smoked Marihuana?”

“Yes, I have”

“Did, you inhale”

“Yes, that was whole point of doing it”

As my kids say ‘Quality”

raggedyman
01 August 2008 at 21:09

niceguy:

I am what you might call an anti-anti-Americanist.

Was that Hutsis or Tutus one Pentagon General asked when hearing about the Rwanda massacres.

What part of Africa is Bosnia in queried another on hearing about the infamous 'death camps'.

As far as class divides are concerned I fear you may be talking the utmost twaddle [again]. Consider:

Your social class is still most clearly visible when you say things. "One's speech is an unceasingly repeated public announcement about background and social standing," says John Brooks, translating into modern American Ben Jonson's observation "Language most shows a man. Speak, that I may see thee." And what held true in his seventeenth century holds even truer in our twentieth, because now we have something virtually unknown to Jonson, a sizable middle class desperate not to offend through language and thus addicted to such conspicuous class giveaways as euphemism, genteelism, and mock profanity ("Golly!").

—Paul Fussell, American writer and historian, Class, 1983

It's 'non-existent' by the way.

Why wasn't the American LSE student asking: why is America so much more right-wing than the Europeans/Rest of the World??

niceguy
01 August 2008 at 21:44

As ever, I respect your opinions, and agree that social class divide is thrives through language, which is evident with your dissection of my language.

In what ways aspects would you say America is more right-wing?

Europe still remains deeply conservative and righ-wing in certain areas. Look at Poland's attitude towards homosexuality, the religious processions in Spain during Easter and the laws on abortion in Portugal. I agree that America remains right-wing, but I also think the remaining popularity of retaining a feudal head-of-state, aswell as the Church of England's role in our 'constitution', would be classed as right-wing too.

Morgan097
01 August 2008 at 22:00

knave,

I must disagree with your comment that in the US, the proper sheepskin means less than social background and cash, though all three come in handy.

The Trumans, Nixons, Fords, Reagans, Doles, Clintons and Obamas were originally hardly part of America's social or financial elite.

And your trip to Virginia notwithstanding (hope you visited Williamsburg), America is a country of vast diversity, and newcomers' impressions frequently rely unduly upon the opinions of those with an axe to grind or simply upon the anecdotal.

Incidentally, the parents of my beautiful, blonde, longtime girlfriend (a terrifying combination of Goldie Hawn and Lucrezia Borgia) lived in a magnificent estate overlooking the James River and owned entire blocks of downtown Richmond, yet their brainy only daughter "only" attended the University of Cincinnati.

raggedyman
01 August 2008 at 22:01

Well for me left/right is a spectrum with say anarcho-capitalists with clenched buttocks at one end and tree-hugging beardies with a penchant for communal living at the other.

The very right read self-help manuals and Martin Amis while the lefties read 'how to grow magic mushrooms in a bedsit' and Flann 'o' Brien.

Does that clarify matters.

Morgan097:

I haven't been to the US but as I cherish my iPod I doubt I shall be risking it any time soon.

The last great descriptive work on America I read was Henry Miller's 'The Air-conditioned Nightmare'.

I assume things have improved a bit since then.

Morgan097
01 August 2008 at 22:19

raggy:

May I respectfully suggest that if you must rely upon historical artifacts for information pertaining to the American character, a more rewarding literary survey might include the works of de Tocqueville.

niceguy
01 August 2008 at 22:22

I think a good potrait of America could be the scenes of the WTO meeting (Battle of Seatle), with crusty anarchists rioting and riot police brutal suppression. Both project the left and right of America.

And if you have a flick through your iPod, I'm sure the aggressive, radical, lyrical content of Rage Against the Machine or even the populist defiance of Green Day (none of which are on mine it has to be said) testifies to the lively political views of young people in the States.

Which reminds me, I really must find some good new music.

Morgan097
01 August 2008 at 22:38

niceguy,

Rommel suggests:

1. Solti, Chicago, Mahler 8th

2. Heifetz, Saint-Saens Havanaise

3. Furtwangler-Fischer, Brahms Piano Cto #2

4. The Pipkins, Gimme Dat Ding

raggedyman
01 August 2008 at 22:41

I have it before me Morgy, 'Democracy in America' - he was concerned with the tyranny of the majority was he not? He needn't have worried - the plutocrats have averted any such danger. Did someone recently say the best democracy money can buy? Or did I dream it?

Chateau Margaux? At least we in this country know the difference between a Bordeaux and a Claret.

Morgan097
01 August 2008 at 22:43

raggy:

Obviously not.

"Claret" is the British term for red Bordeaux.

raggedyman
01 August 2008 at 22:51

Morgy - forget it.

Morgan097
01 August 2008 at 22:55

raggy:

All is forgiven.

raggedyman
01 August 2008 at 22:57

What, everything?

niceguy
01 August 2008 at 22:57

I would suggest:

The Badger Song, for Rommel (awful)

Beirut: Postcards From Italy (America's new bright young thing)

Morgan097
01 August 2008 at 23:01

raggy:

Sure.

niceguy:

Have a heart!

raggedyman
02 August 2008 at 00:53

I know this hardly needs saying but I would much rather be stuck in a lift with a tree-hugger than a buttock-clencher.

Morgan097
02 August 2008 at 03:09

raggy:

Are these your only alternatives?

Take the escalator before it's too late!

knave
02 August 2008 at 06:23

Niceguy

I also find both US and UK society “unhappy” and ill at ease with themselves. There is a lack of cohesion or communal spirit. I have worked and lived in France, Germany, Finland and now Holland. They seem more happy and society is more cohesive.

It is nothing to do with right or left. The Dutch have a reputation of being “liberal” but that is not true, the are conservative with a small c, but pragmatic.

What I have noticed is that the class system, which is certainly not as bad in Europe as the UK or the states is because the difference in income is not as great and the public school systems are so good there is no private education as such

knave
02 August 2008 at 06:34

On my ipod have

The clash give them enough rope

The best of the waterboys and the Jam

Scouting for Girls

The ghost of Tom Joad by the boss

Led Zepellin 1

Wish you were here by the Floyd.

Christ knows what that says about me.

By the way anybody recommend any good books I am going on holiday, sorry morg vacation, in 3 weeks.

I'm reading John Farrels Historical comedal tome. It is a hoot

Morgan097
02 August 2008 at 07:02

knave,

Have a great vacation.

Since you seem to take an interest in Lindbergh, I wonder if you've gotten around to Philip Roth's alternatve history novel, "The Plot Against America"?

knave
02 August 2008 at 09:32

Thank you Morg

Yes I have read it.

raggedyman
02 August 2008 at 10:17

knave:

try bellowhead - putting trad English folk back on the map

I find Davis' 'Late Victorian Holocausts' is good for the beach; for the airport try Davies' 'Flat Earth News' - will give you a whole new insight on how the ed vulliamy, martin bright tribe churn out their stuff these days.

Kauffman the paleocon on 'the plot against america':

"a repellent novel, bigoted and libelous of the dead, dripping with hatred of rural America, of Catholics, of any Middle American who has ever dared stand against the war machine"

Probably a more relevant and thought-provoking jewish writer would be Hannah Arendt - since this thread concerns the alleged committal of genocide her 'Responsibility and Judgment' would repay close study.

Not that I agree entirely with Arendt's views especially as expressed in 'Auschwitz on Trial' but it is a provocative read.

knave
02 August 2008 at 10:41

Thank you

raggy

niceguy
02 August 2008 at 10:59

Yes, I was going to make the point of the importance of private and public education on the class mentality too.

Enjoy your holiday, going anywhere nice? I've found David Sedaris great for reading on hols, with his lighthearted, cynical humour. The Rest is Noise: Listening to the Twentieth Century is a very interesting read too.

Well, may I just recommend one Lebanese band, who have just signed to EMI (better them playing round with Yamaha synths than Katyusha rockets, ay Morg) called Lumi. www.myspace.com/lumisounds

And for needless plugging, my old band, www.myspace.com/commissaruk

Morgan097
02 August 2008 at 11:28

raggy:

Thanks for the old Bill Kauffman quote which perfectly captures the old America First, isolationist, reactionary hatred, not only for those who demanded military intervention to save Britain and confront Hitler, but for neoconservatism, as well.

But The American Conservative, where the review appeared, is hardly representative of paleoconservatism as a whole. The magazine was funded as a vanity project by a newly wealthy Taki, whose political views have long been considered both pro-axis and anti-Semitic. He selected Pat Buchanan, who largely shares his sentiments, to be his editor.

About 25 years ago, Taki wrote in the Spectator that while he was at Swiss boarding school, the students were shown newsreel footage of German troops marching into newly-occupied Athens. Taki proudly wrote that he stood and cheered.

Those who write for the all-but-invisible, money-losing magazine know that it exists only to reflect Taki's extreme right wing politics, and Kauffman invariably toes the party line.

The review, like the magazine, is not representative of mainstream American conservative opinion.

Morgan097
02 August 2008 at 11:33

niceguy,

As the teachers used to shout at us during '50s nuclear attack drills:

"Duck and cover!"

Morgan097
02 August 2008 at 11:54

And raggy:

As for Arendt, her shamefully subservient relationship to Heidegger calls into question both her judgment and professionalism.

raggedyman
02 August 2008 at 17:26

And Morgan097:

The Israeli state has donned the 'anti-semitic' vest so effectively that it is all but completely immune to criticism. A situation that increasingly holds grave dangers for the world in a middle-east torn by Jewish-Arab strife - a violent and volatile situation that Arendt shrewdly foresaw in her critical writings of the Zionist project back in the 1940s. She was by far not the only Jew to voice deep misgivings concerning the forcible creation of a Jewish state within the Palestine and its likely consequences.

I would have characterised her relationship with Heidegger as ambiguous and complex - as you might expect between two loving adults. Also to attack the person rather than their philosophical views is to declare a sort of 'bankruptcy' of argument.

Probably you are well aware that you are not the first to peddle in this kind of calumny.

Here are the Maier-Katkin's in the intro to their essay,

'Hannah Arendt and Martin Heidegger: Calumny and the Politics of Reconciliation':

This essay is about calumny as a rhetorical device. It is a case study of the false and malicious misrepresentation of the character and judgment of the social critic Hannah Arendt, calculated to undermine the legitimacy of her thought, which favored reconciliation with Germans after the defeat of the Third Reich and secular pluralism in the Middle East.

As Arendt favoured reconciliation with the German people after WWII and has been a consistent critic of Israeli militarism and foreign policy she has been much traduced in an effort to discredit her whole philosophical position. She remains a powerful and provocative social critic and her ideas should be appraised on their own merits, or demerits, as the case may be.

Incidentally to return to topic for a moment Ruder Finn are on record as saying that it was their most triumphant moment to have succeeded in turning Jewish lobby groups in America into a strongly anti-Serbian position - something I am sure you are aware not favoured by the tide of history. Even so they baulked at the prospect of Tudjman being invited to the opening ceremony of the Holocaust Museum in Washington in '93.

Morgan097
02 August 2008 at 21:03

OK, knave and niceguy,

It's multiple choice fun time!

Which of the following best expresses your preferred response to raggy?

a. When the Floyd's Roger Waters wrote "we don't need no education," I doubt that he expected you to take his words literally.

b. Your gushing defense of the late Ms. Arendt troubles me. Are you aware of the statutes forbidding necrophilia?

c. Which "non-claret" red Bordeaux goes best with roast badger?

raggedyman
02 August 2008 at 21:17

knave & niceguy:

I think Morgy's trying to co-opt you geezers in lieu of making an argument.

As you people are familiar with his wily ways is this a typical maneuvre/strategem?

Morgan097
02 August 2008 at 21:21

raggy,

Moi?

niceguy
02 August 2008 at 21:29

He could almost be British with his divide and conquer tactics.

Morgan097
02 August 2008 at 21:30

niceguy,

I think that you just hurt my feelings.

raggedyman
02 August 2008 at 21:38

niceguy:

I thought you'd be well-oiled in a wine bar somewhere like knave.

Morgan097
02 August 2008 at 21:40

And Rommel suspects you of being a mole (pardon the expression), working undercover for the Kent shaving brush division.

niceguy
02 August 2008 at 21:43

Ah, I have work tomorrow. First day of my new job... so actually, a wine bar would probally be a good idea. What's your excuse?

Sorry, Morgan, we love you really.

Morgan097
02 August 2008 at 21:46

But if you promise not to feel smug about it, I'll admit to having just knocked off three shots of Cuervo Gold.

raggedyman
02 August 2008 at 21:47

If he can explain the off-side rule then he can't be a Yank, can he?

I hope knave doesn't start slurring when he comes in or do anything he might regret in the morning.

Morgan097
02 August 2008 at 21:48

niceguy,

Thanks.

As always, the feeling's mutual.

raggedyman
02 August 2008 at 21:51

niceguy:

Like Orwell I prefer growing veg and English beer. After all someone has to keep our quaint traditions going.

niceguy
02 August 2008 at 21:52

Well I had a Fosters, I have to write a 1,600 word piece on Agyness Steyn for tomorrow, so need to feel slightly numb.

I think it's more likely Morgan knows what LBW stands for than what the off-side rule is.

Morgan097
02 August 2008 at 21:52

And for God's sake, niceguy:

Good luck at the new job!

niceguy
02 August 2008 at 21:53

Raggedyman, do you have an allotment? Please tell me someone in the UK still has one.

niceguy
02 August 2008 at 21:54

Why thank you Morgan.

Morgan097
02 August 2008 at 21:55

Come to think of it, I probably could use a new wicket.

raggedyman
02 August 2008 at 21:58

niceguy:

Well, actually, two. It's difficult to explain but when you're down there in the misty morn admiring your leeks...

But then, of course, there are the slugs...

niceguy
02 August 2008 at 22:04

Ah, the curse of every gardener. I grew herbs when I was back home. As Orwell stated in the Lion and the Unicorn, queer little pastimes are a quintessentially British. Mine is collecting various stripy tops.

niceguy
02 August 2008 at 22:04

trait

Morgan097
02 August 2008 at 22:06

But niceguy,

Over the years, I've been a fan of the Brooklyn Dodgers, then the New York Yankees in baseball, and the Detroit Red Wings in hockey.

But my true loyalty and devotion has always gone to the New York Football Giants of the NFL.

niceguy
02 August 2008 at 22:14

American sports... nothing brings me closer to pulling out my own finger nails than having to sit through the slightly less manly version of rugby, that is American Football.

No offence Morgan.

raggedyman
02 August 2008 at 22:14

Stripy tops? You too?

Morgan097
02 August 2008 at 22:15

Make that "have."

The Cuervo sure does go down smoothly.

niceguy
02 August 2008 at 22:16

It's a very common hobby I think. I must of been been a prisoner in a past life.

Morgan097
02 August 2008 at 22:18

But I wanna play middle linebacker for the Giants!

And the degenerates just signed Rommel, instead.

niceguy
02 August 2008 at 22:19

Well, Rommel is quick of the mark, with an aggressive streak. I can see why.

Morgan097
02 August 2008 at 22:20

You really know how to hurt a guy.

Morgan097
02 August 2008 at 22:28

Time for Morgie to sulk, then go beddy-bye.

Hope you're proud of yourself!

knave
03 August 2008 at 08:21

raggy

What do you mean wellllllllllllloiled.

knave
03 August 2008 at 08:34

Nice guy

Stripey tops eh

When I was in the services there was fellah who was "into" the Jam. He collected Fred Perry tops. He had 53. He was voted by the lads "As the man most likely to keep fred perry in buisness"

knave
03 August 2008 at 09:06

Morgan

I had you down as a rodeo groupie

Morgan097
03 August 2008 at 12:14

knave,

Admittedly, I've been in a funk since the US military adopted the Beretta P9 over the Colt Single Action Army .45 LC, but I promise to again tour the rodeo circuit when the 1st Cav replaces its Apaches with wild mustangs.

Morgan097
03 August 2008 at 12:30

And knave,

When you made that passing reference to "it's a funny ol' world," were you alluding to the fat bastard who sang "Didn't You Kill My Badger?"

niceguy
03 August 2008 at 12:57

Yes, I have quite a collection now, but nowhere near 53, and none of those Freddie Kruger-style Fredy Perry shirts. Plain Fred Perry shirts all the way.

Morgan, I'm sorry again. I hope the sleep did you and Rommel some good. When does Rommel start his hibernation period?

Morgan097
03 August 2008 at 14:13

niceguy,

Every night, shortly after he staggers home from Annabel's.