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: George Papadopoulos who wrote (15041)	10/22/1999 10:39:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17770

I thought the bombing of Yugoslavia was a bad idea, right from the first bomb, George, and of course the handling of that whole sorry episode makes the US -- and the other NATO countries -- vulnerable to the charge of hypocrisy if they get too "critical" of the Russian action in Chechnya. At the same time, what should they do, in your opinion? Keep quiet, because they too showed insufficient concern for civilians? And bear in mind that this time around the damage in Chechnya -- and the toll in lives -- has already been much more extensive than in Yugoslavia, relative to the size of their territory & populations. That is on top of the estimated 80,000 dead during the first go-round, the destruction of virtually all of Chechnya's hospitals, schools, factories, you name it. Even before the "second round," Grozny was a city of ruins. No rebuilding at all. And I was amazed to hear that the Russians have been systematically bombing the village of Serzhen-Yurt (Khattab has his training camp near there). The last time I drove through Serzhen-Yurt, in 1996, there were only nine houses standing! I counted them! What the HELL is left to bomb? And if the villagers had managed to rebuild, can you imagine the psychological trauma of going through all that again? It is a wonder that the Chechens are not all stark raving mad..I should say it is a wonder that all the residents of the republic are not stark raving mad, because before this last exodus of refugees there were still quite a few Russians, Nogais, Tatars, etc., left. And the non-Chechens aren't getting any "special treatment," any more than they did in 1994-1996. Bombs don't pick their victims. - In other words, we are talking about total obliteration here.

To: George Papadopoulos who wrote (15041)	10/23/1999 2:21:00 AM
From: jbe	Respond to of 17770

More on the total obliteration of Chechnya. Some population data, from the Russian newspaper "Kommersant." At the time of the 1989 census, there were 1,270,000 people living in Checheno-Ingushetia. When Chechnya & Ingushetia split (amicably) in 1991, that left slightly over 1,000,000 people in Chechnya. From 1994 to the present, the dreadful conditions of war and of the war's aftermath led to mass emigration. By 1996, there were only about 600,000 left. By January, 1999, that number had fallen to 350,000, and by August, to 320,000. According to the most recent estimate (early October), the population had shrunk to 200,000. Given the continuing refugee flow, that number is probably down to 150,000 now. Some Chechens of my acquaintance insist that the population of the republic is being deliberately underestimated, for political reasons. Could be. But if not, it looks as if the republic is in real danger of complete depopulation... Take another look at the Russian concept of "territorial integrity." For them, it is all territory; the people who live on it do not matter. When the Russians say "Chechnya is part of the Russian Federation" they do NOT mean that "Chechens are Russian citizens (who should be accorded all the protection of the law)". No, it is quite true: they want Chechnya without the Chechens.

To: George Papadopoulos who wrote (15041)	10/24/1999 12:04:00 PM
From: John Lacelle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

George, I think you nailed it. The Russians sold out Milosevic for a better hand in dealing with Chechnya. I'm sure Clinton was more than willing to sign on the dotted line cause he wanted to end the Yugoslavian War something bad. Great analysis! We have not seen these kinds of back room deals since Yalta. I'll bet my guess on the lack of US interest over East Timor did indeed involve a back room deal with some of Clinton's Indonesian friends. You have got to love the Machiavelli in Clinton. He talks the talk about Woodstock but when it goes to the line this guy can cut a deal with the best of historys bad boys. -John