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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (6837)	10/3/1998 11:31:00 AM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

Let us go back to the Chechen situation again. I doubt very much whether the Russians would have started hitting us with their nukes if President Clinton had simply come out with a statement deploring the slaughter, rather than basically endorsing it. I can't prove it, but it seems to me that the failure of the Europeans and especially the Americans to go on record emboldened the Russian establishment to pursue their operation with even more vigor ("The West doesn't care"). I think the calculus in the White House, State Department, and the National Security Counsel went something like this at the time. It's an internal Russian matter. A very ugly one which we don't like, but it doesn't amount to genocide or something of that magnitude. The Russians believe they have a right to quell internal rebellions within their own territory. No matter what we say, or do, the Russians are not going to be seen to be cowed out of their internal policy by American pressure. Indeed pressure from us might make them that much more stubborn, and determined to show that they haven't lost their super power status. Our relationship with the Russians has improved enormously, and may improve still more in the future. We may need to call upon that improved relationship in a time of some international crisis or another, when it will really matter, and the Russians can be persuaded to help, or at least not hinder, our efforts. Let us not cut off the good will we have built up, for no tangible results. Yes, there will be those who criticize our relative silence, and call it hypocritical, and the like. Those concerns will pass. The price of effective international statesmanship is sometimes to bear criticism from democratic and human rights idealists that one's position is not pure. I think that real politic position was essentially right. Doug

To: jbe who wrote (6837)	10/3/1998 1:13:00 PM
From: pezz	Respond to of 67261

jbe,your arguments make a lot of sense.But I would like to make some comments where we may have some small disagreements.<<whenever possible speak out when the situation demands it...the Americans could have advised the IMF to NOT have made the monster loan to Russia as long as the bombing continued>>.This appears harmless enough on the surface but I believe that is because we our looking at this through our own eyes.Governments are,after all made up of people.And people [as you,being an astute individual have noticed on this thread]do not like to be criticized,told how to run their affairs , threatened or given ultimatums.It makes them quite nasty.<<I doubt very much that the Russians would have started hitting us with their nukes if President Clintion had simply come out with a statement deploring the slaughter>>I'm sure they wouldn't have.But if you couple this along with the rejection of the IMF money I believe it could easily be the beginning of an escalation in tensions.Notice on this thread how a basically innocent criticism can quickly turn into an insult contest.This is what I meant by a catalyst for disaster.If your gentle pressure approach would be potentially effective perhaps it would be worth the risk.After all I admit that damage done in one area can often be reversed in other arenas.Unfortunatly I believe that this could even be counter productive .Assume that the Russians had decided for whatever reasons that the bombing was not in their best interests and were trying to extradite themselves from the situation.Along comes America making threats [this is how they would see it] as to how they should run their own country.Looking at this through their eyes what do you think the response would be? Pressure to save face may well cause a prolonging of the bombing.The simple statement that you alluded to by itself may not be enough to cause any sense of threat on their part but I suspect it would be ignored.I do not believe in symbolic gestures .There are no simple answers here.Perhaps your approach may well be worth any risk that I perceive.Perhaps because my generation grew up in the shadow of the nuclear threat has caused a paranoia that will forever haunt my soul.We always thought that the nuclear threat was in the end inevitable that it would come to pass.To me the end of the cold war is a second chance for humanity we must not blow it[so to speak]I like most stock players am a gambler jbe.But you know no matter how good the odds if the losing payoff is so high one must not take the gamble. pez