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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (55093)	10/28/2002 1:36:03 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

Interesting look at Russia's alternatives. From WSJ.com Putin's 9/11 Will the Moscow massacre change Russia's attitude toward terrorism? Monday, October 28, 2002 12:01 a.m. The latest assault by terrorists ended this weekend in Moscow with the deaths of the Chechen rebels and some 100 of the more than 700 hostages held since Wednesday at a local theater. The similarities--and differences--to America's war on terror are worth considering. In a videotape delivered to al Jazeera's Moscow bureau, one of the Chechen terrorists uttered words that could stand as the grim motto of the modern Islamic terrorist: "I swear by God we are more keen on dying than you are keen on living." The same chilling sentiment animated those who killed hundreds of innocents in Bali a few weeks ago, thousands in New York and Washington last year, and many in Israel and India over the past two years. The final death toll in Moscow remains unclear, but it's already known that most of the hostage deaths resulted from the disabling gas used in the rescue operation. That Russian forces refused to tell even hospital workers treating the hostages what kind of gas was used is strange, to say the least, and smacks of Soviet-era secrecy. The U.S. political system would be demanding an explanation. Yet Saturday's dramatic operation by Russian security forces arguably still saved lives. No one will ever know how many future lives it might also preserve; in rejecting the terrorists' demands, President Vladmir Putin sent a powerful signal to would-be attackers that he will not give in to blackmail. In that sense the U.S. was right to support his decision. It was fortunate for Russia that the Chechen rebels have not yet acquired the sophistication or rank brutality of the al Qaeda terrorists with whom Mr. Putin often links them (with some exaggeration). Our own experience with Osama bin Laden and his disciples suggests that they would have bypassed negotiations and simply blown up the theater building, killing perhaps thousands. It was also fortunate that the Chechen rebels apparently have not acquired a weapon of mass destruction. The attacks in Moscow and Bali are two more warnings to the civilized world of the urgency of keeping those weapons out of the hands of rogue states. For all of that, however, the Chechen crisis is not exactly the same as the al Qaeda fatwa on America. While bin Laden attacked the U.S. first, Russia's military has ravaged Chechnya and radicalized some of its population. Some 4,000 Russian soldiers have also been killed since Mr. Putin relaunched the Chechen war in 1999, promising to make up for the humiliating withdrawal three years earlier and to make quick work of the Chechen resistance. There is not a military expert we know of who believes that war is winnable. This is not to justify Chechen terrorism, which merely traduces the cause it purports to stand for. It is also by no means clear whether Chechen leader Aslan Maskhadov is capable of uniting Chechnya's various warrior groups behind a course of nonviolence. Criminalization, lawlessness, violence, warlording and all the afflictions of a statelet that has been deprived the basic means for its survival will haunt any postwar attempt at order. But Russia bears some responsibility for this state of affairs. The theater massacre will now make it even harder for President Putin to pursue a non-military solution in Chechnya. But further escalation of the war--and especially any expansion into independent Georgia--would bring more devastation to the Chechen people and weaken Russia's already fragile democracy. This last point is often overlooked by those in the West who view Chechnya merely as an internal matter with human rights implications. Escalation would require a far larger Russian military mobilization and even broader authority for security forces that are factionalized, often corrupt and in many places a law unto themselves. Al Qaeda and its state supporters are a largely external threat to U.S. security, but if the Chechen crisis isn't resolved it will erode Russia's democracy from the inside, moving it back in the direction of a police state. Because of the Moscow crisis, Mr. Putin didn't join the leaders of the 21 Pacific Rim states meeting this weekend in Mexico, where the war on terror dominated the agenda. President Bush used the event as a chance to renew his call for the United Nations Security Council to enforce its own resolutions to disarm Saddam Hussein. Russia has been resisting that U.S. effort. But now that Islamic terrorists have struck in the heart of Moscow, perhaps Mr. Putin will be more disposed to help. opinionjournal.com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (55093)	10/28/2002 2:18:55 AM
From: Neeka	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Make that two. M Editorials & Opinion: Sunday, October 27, 2002 Leonard Pitts Jr. / Syndicated columnist Belafonte's off base with assault on Powell Is Colin Powell black enough? Strip away the verbiage, and that's essentially the question Harry Belafonte raised in his recent controversial interview with a San Diego radio station. It is the question that has long lurked in the subtext for African Americans suspicious of a black man too beloved by Republican Party faithful. For those who missed it: The singer and activist, who is at odds with the Bush administration over its push toward war with Iraq and its dubious record on civil liberties, accused the secretary of state of being scared to confront his boss on these and other issues. Specifically, Belafonte likened Powell to a house Negro, those "yassuh-boss" toadies who kissed up to the master and sometimes betrayed their fellow slaves in hopes of being allowed to live and work in the comfort of the master's home. "When Colin Powell dares to suggest something other than what the master wants to hear, he will be turned back out to pasture," Belafonte said. Powell struck back in an interview with CNN: "If Harry had wanted to attack my politics, that was fine. If he wanted to attack a particular position I hold, that was fine. But to use a slave reference, I think, is unfortunate and is a throwback to another time and another place that I wish Harry had thought twice about using." Belafonte said last week that he stands by his remarks. Me, I would stand upwind of them. Belafonte embarrassed himself here. And I say that as one who admires him. It's not that I think he's wrong about the administration's post-Sept. 11 record on civil rights. When the government interns people without allowing them access to legal representation, observers ought to be alarmed. Nor am I here to fight about Belafonte's opposition to war. Where Iraq is concerned, George Bush seems destined to go down in history as the reincarnation of either Winston Churchill or Chicken Little. Belafonte would not be the only one to suspect the latter. No, my disagreement with Belafonte has nothing to do with his critique of White House policy and everything to do with playing blacker-than-thou with Colin Powell. Black folk do that entirely too much, throw around "House Negro" and its synonym, "Uncle Tom," with reckless, unthinking and injurious abandon. Not that such behavior is unique to black people. Most marginalized groups tend to be zealous enforcers of their members' loyalty. To belong to one is to know that you will be called traitor and figuratively cast out if you fail to be what the group feels you should. I'm not so naïve as to think there aren't people filled with loathing for the color or culture into which they were born. Nor am I so charitable as to feel they shouldn't receive some abuse when they are found out. I'm pleased to treat harshly any black man — "paging Ward Connerly!" — who disavows, disparages or distances himself from black folk while genuflecting at the altar of white acceptance. For my money, though, Belafonte questioned Powell's racial bona fides for the same misguided reason blacks often do. Not because of disavowal, disparagement or distance, but disagreement. After all, one would be hard put to make the case that Powell, who once defended affirmative action at a GOP convention, has groveled for white folks' approval. What he has done is hold conservative political views not shared by many other blacks. You may think he's wrong, but doesn't he have the right to be wrong without it becoming a question of his racial fidelity? I'm no fan of the administration Powell serves. But he is no more a racial traitor for that service than Belafonte was for divorcing a black woman to marry a white one back in 1957. Some people suggested that he, too, was not black enough. So he should know better. Should know that sometimes, "black enough" is just a means people use to regulate how you think, what you do, where you live and who you love. And that's not freedom. It's just a different set of chains. archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com.