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 : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (34168)	4/9/1999 11:34:00 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 108807

My perception is that the Kosovars are not actually citizens of Yugoslavia, at least not in their own minds. I get a little fuzzy on the history, after the break-up of the Ottoman empire, speaking fuzzily, things got carved up according to physical boundaries, not cultural ones. I don't like the fact that empires and nations devolve into cultural nation-states, but it's a fact, nonetheless. People seem to be happiest with their own kind, although we know what horrors that can lead to.

To: epicure who wrote (34168)	4/9/1999 11:50:00 AM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

"A country has a right to kill its own citizens." Did Nazi Germany have a right to kill its own Jews? Was it just the Polish Jews and the Hungarian Jews, etc., that it did not have the right to kill? Seriously: suppose Nazi Germany had never expanded, and put only German Jews in the oven. Should we have reacted or not? If we should have reacted, then in what way should we have reacted? It is true that the principle of non-interference into other countries' internal affairs makes for fewer headaches. But there is non-interference, and there is non-interference.... Bombing is an extreme case, of course. (Although bear in mind that the bombing of Yugoslavia is not a unilateral US action; it is a NATO action.) What about UN peacekeeping missions, for example? They too are often viewed as exercises in "interference." BTW, in Rwanda, the US opposed expanding the peacekeeping contingent that was already there, even though the local UN commander was pleading for more troops, who might have been able to stop the slaughter. This was right after the debacle in Somalia, and the US was wary of any more involvement in Africa. jbe