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.

Politics : To be a Liberal,you have to believe that..... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Lacelle who wrote (3666)	10/2/1999 7:50:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6418

The point I am trying to get across is the arrogant and hypocritical position of the Clinton Administration. The point you were trying to get across was that US policy in Indonesia was significantly shaped by money paid by the Lippo Group to Clinton and friends. That's what I reacted to. One minute he calls massive air strikes against a nation that never threatened anyone outside its borders killing over 5,000 civilians, the next minute he ducks and dodges the issue of whether the US should intervene in the Indonesian civil war. As I pointed out, the constraining factor in both cases was identical: the need to put together a multi-nation coalition and avoid unilateral intervention. It just happened to be easier to do in Kosovo, because of the presence of NATO. He will only use the military when he knows the enemy can't shoot back such as Waco, Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, or Yugoslavia. The man is a coward. Any intervention must naturally be subjected to an assessment of costs and benefits. Nobody has ever proposed that we should stop ethnic cleansing all over the world, or impose our view of human rights on the world. We and our allies do what we can, where we can, within the constraints imposed by reality, diplomacy, and domestic politics. These constraints affect all administrations. The Kurds are every bit as deserving of a state as the East Timorese, but Turkey, a vital NATO ally, won't have it. So we don't even talk about it. That won't change, no matter who is President. Reluctance to send US troops unilaterally into situations where extended commitment and significant casualties might result could be attributed to cowardice, or to domestic politics, or to common sense. In any case, I'm not so sure it's a bad thing. The US is not incapable of intervening in East Timor. But the cost of unilateral intervention would be far too great to justify the benefit. No vital US interest is at stake, that is the bottom line. If anything, the vital US interest lies in preventing a full-scale regional conflict over Timor. There two simple reasons why you saw cruise missiles in Kosovo and none in Timor. First, because military intelligence assessments would reveal no significant targets. Second, because Indonesia controls vital sea lanes, through which all of Asia's oil passes. These constraints would be real no matter who was in the white house. Our responses are shaped less by Presidential personalities than by by the situations on the ground. Focusing on individuals is dangerous, it distracts attention from the real-world factors with which we have to deal. The world was all fucked up before Clinton, it will be all fucked up after him. He is less significant a factor than many would like to believe.