|
Index
Participating in Issues
Discussions
- 10
Guidelines for Participating is Discussionsu
- 10 Critical Thinkers Discussing an Issue - an Example
Debating an Issue
|
10 Critical Thinkers Discussing an Issue—an Example
This example of online discussion may give you some ideas about
engaging in any kind of constructive discussion about the issues. Your
discussion could be online, in a classroom, or around a kitchen table.
Anson, May 22, 1999:
I think that most of us are following the conflict in the Balkans.
We know from the chapters about the First World War that there's been
a lot of tension for a long time - ever since the decline of the Ottoman
Empire.
I've been studying the recent background, and the Kosovo conflict seems
to have gained momentum after the emergence of the KLA in 1996. KLA stands
for Kosovo Liberation Army. It has been fighting to regain independence
from Yugoslavia, which is dominated by Serbia, because President Slobodan
Milosevic took greater control of Kosovo province in 1989. In 1997 the
KLA began killing Serbs in Kosovo, mainly policemen, and took control
of certain areas of the province. Milosevic responded in what seemed to
be a ruthless way. Then NATO began threatening Milosevic with air strikes.
He failed to meet their conditions, and on March 24 they began bombing.
The Serbs started driving out people of Albanian descent from Kosovo,
and there are stories about massacres by the Serbian police and armed
forces. There are now many Kosovo refugees in both Albania and Macedonia,
and there has been a lot of destruction in Yugoslavia.
I propose that we discuss this question: Should NATO stop bombing Yugoslavia?
Bren, May 22, 1999:
Anson asked us to discuss this question: Should NATO stop bombing
Yugoslavia?
I think we should. I've been following the story in the news, but I haven't
made any Issues Log entries about it yet. Has anyone come across any good
articles?
Chris, May 23, 1999:
I read an article titled "Bombs a betrayal for dissident Serbs"
in yesterday's Globe and Mail. The Serbs who were quoted believe
that the bombing will not overthrow Milosevic. They say it will actually
work to his favour because it has allowed him to pose as a heroic protector
to his nation.
Bren, May 24, 1999:
I don't get the Globe and Mail, but I can read it at the library
if the article is good enough. How do we know that it's reliable? I'm
interested in what Chris says the "Serbs who were quoted" said,
but how do I know that they are a reliable source of information?
Anson, May 24, 1999:
First of all, thank you to Bren and Chris for discussing my issue.
Before I read Chris's comment, I didn't realize that a purpose of the
bombing was to overthrow Milosevic. I've been watching for that today,
and a lot of other people seem to think that getting rid of Milosevic
is NATO's purpose. Perhaps we need to give more thought to the purpose
of the bombing. If it is just to get rid of Milosevic, there must be a
better way. I was wondering if we should just get one of the Serbs who
don't like him to assassinate him. Then I remembered what happened when
a Serb did that to the Archduke Ferdinand in 1914!
Dana, May 25, 1999:
I looked for some background about Kosovo on the Internet. I'm attaching
a Kosovo Factsheet that I found. The writer is Melissa Haney of Associated
Press. And it's really current, May 25, 1999 - today! I also found a Kosovo
timeline at the CBC Website, and the sources have the same dates, so I
think the Kosovo Factsheet is probably accurate.
Erin, May 25, 1999:
Thanks, Dana! Your factsheet really helped me to understand what is
going on. I think that NATO backed Milosevic into a corner. I didn't realize
that before.
Fran, May 25, 1999:
I did an Issues Log entry on this a while ago. My entry was about
"Rex Murphy's Point of View," April 7, 1999. I got it from http://tv.cbc.ca/.
It made me reflect on a few points. We are at war, but most people do
not fully realize this. How did we a nation of peacekeepers
get into this war? If we shouldn't be at war, then we know for sure that
we shouldn't be bombing anyone.
Dana, May 24, 1999
Went over for dinner with my aunt and uncle last night. Talked about
Kosovo.
Some people say not to talk about politics at the dinner table, but it
was the most interesting conversation I can remember over there. Way better
than when they talk to Grandma about Buddy Holly and Jerry Lee Lewis and
roll their eyes and sort of smile like they've just thought of a joke
when I say I watched one of his telethons. (For about five minutes, but
I don't tell them that.)
Anyway, they get Newsweek magazine, and my uncle gave me the April
26 copy. It has a special report about Kosovo. There's a part called "Collateral
Damage" on pages 26 and 27 that shows another reason not to bomb.
The F-16 pilots are so high up that they sometimes can't tell the difference
between a Serb Army truck and a refugee truck. And they got mixed up and
bombed a convoy of refugees. If NATO won't stop the bombing in Kosovo,
I wonder if they could take a first step and stop bombing refugee Kosovars?
Chris, May 25, 1999
Bren asked about my article, "How do we know that it's reliable?"
I think it meets the criteria. The writer, Marcus Gee, said that he was
writing from downtown Belgrade, and it's clear from the details in his
article that it was current. Gee only quotes three people, but they too
seem to be reliable. They are people who fought for western values, and
the article shows that usually they would be supporters of the countries
that are bombing their country. They can't be completely objective when
they are in the middle of a war, but I don't think we could find many
sources that are more objective. They are the experts, and they believe
that the bombing is defeating their efforts for democracy in their country.
Bren, May 27, 1999:
Fran writes: "My entry was about "Rex Murphy's Point of
View," April 7, 1999. I got it from http://tv.cbc.ca/."
I've read Rex Murphy's opinion. He seems to have persuaded Fran, and maybe
they are both right. I'm just wondering about his expertise. What bothered
me was that Murphy read a whole lot into President Clinton's "amazed
look" when three Americans were captured. We're told that Clinton
was surprised that the other side would retaliate because the Americans
think they can fire with unchallenged might and no one is going to fire
back. I don't think anyone can look at someone else's expression on a
TV screen and be sure of that much.
Erin, May 27, 1999:
I've read Chris's Globe article, and I agree that it's pretty
reliable. It does seem as though Yugoslavia is stuck with Milosevic. One
of the women who was quoted told a joke, with the question "What
are the first words of Mr. Milosevic's will?"
The answer: "If I ever die, . . ."
Fran, May 27, 1999:
I agree that the Marcus Gee article seems reliable in some ways, but
it bothers me. There are hardly any facts in the article. It is a human
interest story that appeals to our emotions. I guess that sells newspapers.
Does it help us when we are trying to come up with a rational opinion
about the bombing? Not much.
Chris, May 27, 1999:
I suggest to Fran that the Gee article is a reliable source of information
about the attitude of Serbian people that NATO would like to influence.
It doesn't have to be a fact sheet to be reliable. Gee was talking to
some pretty good primary sources.
Goko, May 28, 1999:
I was leafing back through my Canadian Issues text and I came
to the article "The Eastern Question" on pages 42-43. It's interesting
to be reminded that a similar kind of occurrence was going on in 1912
in Serbia with the Ottomans. The Serbs were fighting for their independence
from the Ottoman Empire, just as people in that region are now fighting
for their independence from Mr. Milosevic's empire. I'm not sure what
this has to do with the bombing, but I guess I am starting to agree with
the people who wonder why we are getting so involved in fighting among
people who seem to be always fighting.
Dana, May 28, 1999:
Way to go, Goko! And the bombing is just increasing the violence.
Clinton and Chretien and the British guy should listen to the Spice Girls
- "Stop right now, thank you very much!"
Hakeem, May 29, 1999:
I agree with Dana, but I also think the Albanians have a right to
independence from Mr. Milosevic. They should be allowed their previous
cultural freedoms. We should do everything in our power to help them attain
that, but is it really going to help anything if we keep on bombing bridges
and TV stations and railways?
Bren, May 29, 1999:
I think we're getting swept up by a lot of anti-bombing propaganda.
It may be causing what I've seen called "a bandwagon effect."
Do you think that perhaps we've been jumping on a bandwagon without even
knowing it?
I bet I'm not the only one who has done a Web search for "Kosovo
bombing." Call me cynical, but who are these groups that are filling
the Web with anti-bombing articles. The main thing I can tell is that
they are experts - in knowing how to be found by a Web search. Have a
look at who the site sponsors are and what else is on the site. We've
been citing some good sources, but the propaganda out there may be getting
to us too.
I've finally made a decision, and I'm going to take a stand. (Better late
than never.) I say that bombing is the only way we can help.
What else could we do? To send in troops would risk NATO casualties. The
people in the Balkans seem to have been killing each other for centuries.
We'd like to help, but do we want Canadians to be injured and killed?
I don't think so!
Hakeem, May 29, 1999:
This is a good discussion! I wish I had joined it earlier.
I looked through the papers in our recycling box and found a column called
"Poor memories got us into this mess" in the May 22 issue of
the Vancouver Sun. It commented that it was only as a result of
a land attack by the Croatian army in Krajina and Bosnia that the Bosnian
Serbs were driven to the conference table. Earlier this year, however,
NATO's political elite decided that it was NATO's air strikes that created
peace in Bosnia. The columnist, Lewis Mackenzie, thought that NATO was
wrong and that it was NATO's ground and air forces working in concert.
If he's right, then I think it's important to also send ground troops.
Bombing isn't good enough by itself. I haven't decided yet whether NATO
should be bombing at all.
Fran, May 29,1999:
Welcome, Hakeem! I would like to ask Hakeem how we can be sure that
the information in Sun column "Poor memories got us into this
mess" is reliable?
Hakeem, May 29, 1999:
The article was written on May 22, so it is still quite current. Lewis
Mackenzie is a former Canadian Armed Forces General who was stationed
in the Balkans, and his background suggests that, at the very least, he
will have thought about the tactical benefits of a bombing campaign. He
is therefore an expert on the topic. I haven't quite decided whether he
is objective.
Anson, May 30, 1999:
I've been reading Lewis Mackenzie's columns. I didn't know that generals
were such good writers, but did you notice his tone? He's quite sarcastic
about how Russia is "chuckling" at NATO and how stupid the journalists
are.
Dana, May 30, 1999:
If Retired General Mackenzie thinks that military people know all
the answers, I feel like being sarcastic too. How do all these generals
we're hearing from get so much smarter as soon as they retire?
So I don't think we should stop the bombing because retired generals tell
us to do so. I think we should stop because we can figure it out for ourselves.
We need to catch Milosevic and put him on trial, but we don't need to
bomb anyone, even if we can ever figure out the difference between a Serb
army convoy and Kosovar refugees. And between a Chinese embassy and whatever
the bombing masterminds thought it was.
You're thinking that my sarcasm doesn't prove anything? That's my point!
Nobody's does - even when the speaker is a retired general.
Hakeem, May 30, 1999:
Anson has a good point. I've just read Lewis Mackenzie's column again,
and I think he's making two arguments. One is that the bombing campaign
has been a disaster, but the other argument is that it is military people
and not other commentators who know what they're talking about. I thought
at first that I should just believe his opinion because he is an expert,
but now I'm not sure about some of it.
I still think that he is a pretty good source when he talks about the
tactical benefits of the bombing campaign. Or the lack of tactical benefits!?
Chris, June 1, 1999:
You haven't heard from me for a while, but I've been reading the messages.
Good ideas, but I think we're making it too complicated. It's getting
clearer and simpler for me.
The ends do not justify the means. Bombing the Serbs is unethical. It
destroys human life.
Erin, June 1, 1999:
Another time where aerial bombing occurred was during the Second World
War. I read about it in "A year of Crisis" in Canadian Issues,
pages 152153. At the end of August 1940, Hitler ordered his airforce,
the Lutwaffe, to drop bombs on London and other large cities in
England. In May 1941, after 8 months of bombing, the German air raids
ceased. This was the first major German defeat in the war. I think that
we can learn from this that aerial attacks are not necessarily the most
effective.
Dana, June 2, 1999:
Why so much attention to Kosovo? Do we care as much about wars in
Africa and other underdeveloped countries? All people deserve justice
and equal rights. If bombing is so good, I guess they all deserve that
too. (No more sarcasm please, Dana. Sorry.)
Chris, June 2, 1999:
In bombing, we are also affecting the overall Serbian population,
not just the military, Most of the people are innocent. I don't think
people deserve to be bombed, which I guess is what Dana is saying.
Jade, June 3, 1999:
I read the June 2 comments and would like to comment that if NATO
doesn't bomb we are affecting the Albanians in Kosovo because in not helping
them many more will die.
Dana, June 3, 1999:
Why is it that there is so much international attention on Kosovo
when there are so many wars raging in Africa that one can traverse it
from the Red Sea in the northeast to the southwestern Atlantic coast and
never step on peaceful territory? At least that's what I read in an article
by Jimmy Carter that I found in the New York Times at the library.
The article is called "Have We Forgotten the Path to Peace?"
Thursday, May 27, 1999. There is a paragraph in italics about Jimmy Carter
that says he was the President of the United States. And he is chairman
of the Carter Center, which is nonprofit and seeks to advance peace and
health around the world. I think he must be fairly expert and objective.
Carter makes a lot of good arguments, especially against cluster bombs.
Goko, June 3, 1999:
In response to Dana's message on June 3, 1999, as to why there is
so much more attention on the Balkans than in Africa: it is probably because
the people in the Balkans are European, and North Americans are mainly
of European descent.
Chris, June 4, 1999:
Our purposes are admirable: to enhance peace, freedom, democracy,
human rights, and democratic progress. This is however causing unwanted
suffering and strengthening unsavory regimes in several countries, including
Sudan, Cuba, Iraq, and the most troubling example - Serbia.
Dana, June 4, 1999:
The bombing is affecting how the West is viewed and accepted. Or not
accepted. As we can tell from the article, "Bombs a betrayal for
dissident Serbs," the Serbs are now beginning to reject the West
and its ways. We are an unnecessary enemy of Serbia.
Chris, June 4, 1999:
I still don't understand how the NATO bombing is going to help the
Kosovars. Wouldn't bombing Kosovo hurt the Kosovars as well as the Serbs?
Goko, June 5, 1999:
In response to Chris's comment made on June 4: One reason that NATO
is bombing parts of Yugoslavia is to cut off supply lines to the Serbian
troops to try to help the Kosovars. I'm not saying they should do it,
but that is their reason.
Dana, June 5, 1999:
The NATO bombings have been concentrating on bridges, railways, roads,
electric power, and fuel and fresh water supplies. So they are making
military supply harder. But they are mainly wrecking the lives of innocent
civilians. Not useful!
Fran, June 6, 1999:
I don't think that the NATO bombing has proved very effective since
there seems to be no end in sight to the war in Kosovo with neither Milosevic
nor NATO prepared to back down.
Goko, June 7, 1999:
After re-reading "The Balance of Power" in Canadian Issues,
I realize how complex alliances can become. Whatever happens in one
place can affect many other places. The alliances have changed since 1911,
but the overall effect is the same. Considering this, I feel that the
fewer the countries that become involved in a conflict the better. Involvement
from alliances leads to more destruction, as we have learned from both
world wars.
Dana, June 7, 1999:
NATO should stop bombing. In the article "Have We Forgotten The
Path To Peace" (featured in the New York Times on May 27),
the information is given that there is little indication of success after
more than 25,000 sorties and 14,000 missiles and bombs, Four thousand
of which were not precision guided!
Erin, June 7, 1999:
I read an article off the web called NATO's Options on April 7, 1999
available at http://tv.cbc.ca/national/pgminfo/kosovo2/options.html.
Canadian-born author Michael Ignatieff has spent years studying ethnic
conflict in the Balkans, and he says that "The essence at the end
of the day is the Kosovars want their own homeland . . . to be allowed
to live in peace and to build their own community. . . ." So I think
that even though their country may be in ruins, the Kosovars will still
be happy if the NATO air strikes are successful as long as they have their
country to govern and uphold their traditional cultural values and practices.
We hope the bombing will stop soon, but I can see that there is another
side to the story.
Indy, June 8, 1999:
It's interesting to look back two months to what Michael Ignatieff
in the article Erin suggested yesterday. Even then, Ignatieff said that
NATO wasn't going to accomplish the objectives that people thought the
bombing was about. NATO wasn't going to stop the ethnic cleansing even
then, so it's clear that they're not going to stop it now. The important
thing now is that Milosevic has to be seen to lose. Even if the Kosovars
have lost in huge ways, Milosevic at least has to lose as well. I've been
reading through this great discussion, and I think most people who have
contributed think the bombing didn't work well. That means that the bombing
maybe shouldn't have started, but it doesn't mean that NATO should stop.
Fran, June 8, 1999:
I came down on the anti-bombing side before, but I have to admit that
Indy has a good point. I looked back to what Anson asked at the beginning
of this discussion, and I think we lost track of the question. Back on
May 22, Anson wrote: "I am proposing that we discuss this question:
Should NATO stop bombing Yugoslavia?"
Indy, June 8, 1999:
If we're still on the question "Should NATO stop bombing Yugoslavia?"
the answer seems to be NO. It's too late to try another strategy to stop
what Milosevic was doing to the Albanian Kosovars, and continuing the
bombing now is better than stopping too soon.
Or the answer could be YES. Yes, NATO should stop the bombing - after
Yugoslavia surrenders. The Serbs can save face a bit, but they have to
surrender. And I think it's getting close.
Anson, June 10, 1999:
I guess we've all heard the news. NATO has stopped the bombing.
Jade, June 10, 1999:
Anson writes: I guess we've all heard the news. NATO has stopped the
bombing.
I just have one thing to add: I wonder what history will say about all
this?
Bren, Aug. 3, 1999:
I know that the NATO bombings stopped a long time ago, but I'd like
to make one further comment. I was reading an article in Redbook
called "I know my parents will find me," by Joyce Maynard. The
author spent time with Kosovo refugees in a refugee camp in Macedonia.
She found that all the refugees said that they love NATO. They spoke of
it as their only source of hope.
The Kosovo discussion example is a simulation. It was
developed for this manual by a student, with input from instructors and
other course developers.
|
