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: one_less who wrote (144991)	9/7/2004 11:46:23 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I have never understood why Russia feels compelled to invade and conquer (over and over again) Chechnya in the first place, unless it has something to do with some long term plan to start knocking over dominoes again. The scarriest part about the recent attack on the school is that it wasn't just Chechnyans. It wont stop, and it isn't winnable by the Russians. They can keep occupying Chechnya and will continue to present themselves as targets. I wish someone would explain to me what the interests of Russia, occupying Chechnya are...that would help this discussion. It wasn't like Chechnya was a country outside of Russia and the Russians invaded. Chechnya was/is an administrative district within Russia. It's not even on some edge of Russia. It's like Iowa wanted to declare independence from the US. It's awkward. Having said that, the Russians have been brutal. Killing tens of thousands Muslims and displacing hundreds of thousands. The US used to have a policy that the Russians were oppressing and brutalizing the Chechnyans, but Bush wanted the Russian vote for 1441. ... so the US agreed to call the Chechnyans "terrorists". Of course, no one wants to be seen as "weak" on terrorism. Putin certainly doesn't. One has to remain tough, regardless of the consequences. I'd bet that if we were paying a lot of attention to internal Russian politics, we would find that Putin says he's winning the war on terrorism. jttmab

To: one_less who wrote (144991)	9/7/2004 6:51:17 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

wish someone would explain to me what the interests of Russia, occupying Chechnya are...that would help this discussion. Its an area that has been part of Russia for awhile even if unwillingly part and its not on the edge of Russia. Also Putin doesn't want to seem soft on terrorism, or to be seen as the loser of a war. However even with all that the Russians might let Chechnya walk away if they thought it would end Chechnyan terrorism, and if they thought no other parts of Russia would decide that they too wanted to leave the Russian federation, but neither of those things are entirely certain. Tim

To: one_less who wrote (144991)	9/8/2004 8:47:56 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Respond to of 281500

Hi Jewell. I like having a strong military for a lot of reasons. Using force to attempt to find, kill, subdue and intimidate those who would use terrorism as a tool against us is not, however, one of them. For the reasons why I might believe that, read your post to which I am responding and ask what the use of their overwhelmingly strong military is accomplishing to protect the Russian people from terrorist attacks? Now, who said anything about disbanding the military? It's just using it in a way which will assuredly inflame, create and encourage outbreaks of extremism and terrorism, that I regret. And I especially regret it when the purported reason for doing so is to "fight the war on terrorism." That's just too silly, and why we would swallow it is a mystery to me. Ed