Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Kosovo -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michael Sphar who wrote (12303)	6/17/1999 3:55:00 PM
From: RealMuLan	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 17770

<<If the communists that currently rule the mainland have a policy as you indicate, then their policy is flawed and the people of China should move to fix that flaw.>> As a Chinese myself, I don't think this policy is flawed. I think the US/NATO policy is flawed. I guess people do think differently, don't they? Thus, we have to agree to disagree. As for the freedom of expression, I have to tell you that I can express in China whatever I express here in the US. I do not feel I have a tiny bit less freedom in China than I have here in the US. Not only that, because China still have a long way to go to establish the same kind of strict government regulation like here in the US, I feel I have more personal freedom in China. Hard to believe, isn't it. That is too bad. That is why I said a lot of people here are brain-washed about what is really happening in China without even realizing it.

To: Michael Sphar who wrote (12303)	6/17/1999 8:25:00 PM
From: Andy Thomas	Respond to of 17770

>>It is obligatory for other nations to intervene. This is the lesson of WW2.<< Powers intervene when it suits their strategic interests. Humanitarian reasons, although sometimes there, almost without exception happen to dovetail with strategic considerations. In other words, the US didn't intervene against the USSR in Hungary in 1956, nor did they intervene in Warsaw in 1970, or in Mongolia or Tibet against the Chinese... the US intervenes when there is something else at stake altogether... strategic consideration. It so happens that in Kosovo there is a humanitarian reason/excuse for the intervention, which if anything is strategic in nature (keep Europe stable). In Iraq, the real reason was oil and the balance of power but the pretend (humanitarian reason) was "Kuwaiti democracy." In WW2 the Germans declared war on the US.. prior to that the American involvement in the European theatre was limited. Did the US go to war to save the Jews or for strategic considerations? It probably depends upon whom you ask. Some would tell you they did too little, too late, and others would say we should have just let Germany take over the continent and then dealt with them politically. In hindsight it's a good thing we destroyed Hitler but I'm not sure if hindsight will vindicate the architects of this Kosovo gambit. FWIW Andy