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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Douglas V. Fant who wrote (40909)	3/26/1999 12:10:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

<OT> Chechnya casualties, autonomy, charnel houses 1) Doug, estimates of casualties in Chechnya have been all over the map. That is basically because it has proved hard to trace the missing: often they are presumed dead, when in fact they are refugees living some place in Russia and/or in other CIS countries...I prefer to go with the most conservative estimates (which are still too high, in humanitarian terms). The figure of 350,000 seems improbable, IMO: that is almost half of the pre-war population of Chechnya. 2) In the former Soviet Union (and in Tito's Yugoslavia, which followed the Soviet model of state organization), the word "autonomy" had a specific meaning. "Major" nationalities had full "union republics"; "minor" nationalities had "autonomous" republics, regions, or districts, located within the full union republics. But in the former Soviet Union, many of these borders were highly artificial, and were constantly being redrawn (e.g., Khrushchev gave the Crimea to Ukraine as a birthday present). Some former "autonomous republics" (Kazakhstan, Kirgizstan) were later elevated to full republic status. In the perestroika period, the idea gained currency that it was not fair to divide nationalities into "major" and "minor", and a movement began, in which Chechnya participated, to elevate all autonomous republics to the level of union republics. But then the Soviet Union collapsed, and the "autonomies" were left to the tender mercies of the republics, which were now recognized as fully sovereign states by the international community. Their question was, and is: why does the West recognize the legitimacy of former full Soviet republics, but deny all legitimacy to us? Valid question, in my opinion. 3) The newspaper piece you cite on slavery in the Sudan refers to "charnel houses" (skeleton depositories), when what is meant is clearly "brothels". Nitpicking aside, the article of course chronicles an ongoing disgrace. My problem with U.S. foreign policy is that 1) it picks & chooses which ongoing disgraces it gets indignant about, and 2) it too often falls prey to what I call the Lone Cowboy Syndrome. I do not think that Clinton is the only President to have been guilty of this. He is, alas, following in the footsteps of many of his predecesors.... jbe