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 : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Enigma who wrote (31574)	4/12/1999 10:06:00 AM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116779

DD : The root of the question is, in fact, philosophical. I will restate it. Should various nations/ethnic groups live in their own countries or mixed/integrated with other groups in a single country? Even though I have lived in South Africa, to an extent under both situations, I regret to say that I still can't answer it. Some people agitate vehemently for a "pure" society, others are quite happy to live as a minority group in a "mixed" society --- as I am. Yugoslavia is a "mixed" experiment gone wrong. Under the uniting factor of communism and Tito, the disparate elements were able to stick together. When those factors fell away, the motivation was for a "pure", separate society". For many years, during the separatist war of Croatia and Bosnia, the West did its utmost to keep the federation together. In fact, they sided with Serbia (rump Yugoslavia) and refused to allow arms to the separatists. Only at the end, when Richard Holbrooke, encouraged as you say by Germany, realized that to keep the nations together was an impossible dream, did the West act to break it up. I don't believe one can keep diverse people together against their will --- especially when nationalistic politicians are busy whipping up "independence" fervor. (eg India/Pakistan) On the other hand, countries that "exist", want to remain that way. Violent attempts to break it up are regarded as treason and uprisings are put down ruthlessly eg Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Kurds. The problem in Kosovo is that Serbian nationalism is conflicting with Albanian nationalism and both, in fact, have a legitimate right to the land --- Serbs through history, Albanians through occupancy. Serbs don't want to give up any, Albanians want all. Partition seems the most expedient compromise. The situation is reminiscent of Israel/Palestine where the same piece of land was given by Britain, after WWI, to both the Jews and the Arabs. Damned if they're together, damned if they split. So, it's partitioned and the parties fight forever over the boundaries. But, at least, it's a plan that accommodates both parties. Important to remember, in Kosovo, many Serbs and many Albanians are (or were) both still in favor of living together in a communal society. The split is/was not nearly so cut and dried as Western propaganda would have one believe. Now, if I can perceive all that then, clearly, Madeleine and Bill etc can. But their approach, from Ramboulet, is that the Serbs must simply GET OUT. That doesn't make any sense to me. Neither does the massive armed intervention. It didn't stop the Serbs pushing/cleansing out the Albanians and, after the place is smashed up, it won't help to bring them back. Furthermore, after hostilities like this, it will take generations before the parties could live side-by-side again. Instead of putting water on the fire, the west put gasoline! So, my interpretation is that the violent/unhelpful intrusion of the West was predicated by some other agenda. In fact, there are those who seriously believe (and probably have evidence) that the West has been making mischief on the side of the Albanian separatists for a long time. In due course, as the plan unfolds, we will surely see why. SS