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: pezz who wrote (44163)	4/28/1999 11:36:00 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Respond to of 67261

>To my knowledge [the African massacre] has not been a topic of discussion on these threads while I have been reading them.< This is not the point, pezz. We have been discussing “genocide” and whatnot, and in this context your “never again” should have applied if you hold to the common meaning of these words. When a person's “never again” is not merely a “catchy slogan”, and when that person is faced with the very thing he by those words claims he will never tolerate, then simply saying ‘oh well, we should have helped the Africans. Too bad' simply is inconsistent with the principle. You see, I happen to believe your “never again” is indeed but a catchy slogan. Had you embraced it as a true principle, you would have been incensed from the beginning and you would be to this very day. It is not your principle, pezz. For you, it is but a “catchy slogan.” Actually, it is but a catchy slogan for most. >“Well [your view that we intervene only when direct interests are threatened] is consistent with your view of "never again" SO we agree to disagree here.< And my view of never again is consistent with the common view of all reasonable English speaking peoples. >I disagree [that we are not bombing Kosovo because of a compelling principle]. This is expensive, potentially divisive and we have no other possible motives.< Dear me, pezz. Surely you are not so naive. Clinton did not consult with his top military advisors on this matter, and he did not consult with Congress in any meaningful way. He rushed headlong into Serbia during a time when it was most useful to him. It is very possible that as with Sudan, Afghanistan and even Iraq, Clinton here is merely “wagging the dog.” Were he a man of principle, he would have intervened militarily in many other places in the world. There are other possible motives for the bombing other than the motive you see. >I don't think the analogy [of two men in a fight] holds any water. Rape camps and the slaughter of civilians is not akin to two men fighting. [It is more] like a man raping a woman. Fire away I say!< You must reduce the matter to its essentials. There was a time when the Kosovo Albanians were in a position of strength and where Serb women were raped, tortured and killed en mass, etc. Essentially the Albanians and Serbs are but two duelling men. >The slaughter of civilians is more than "our" values it has to do with human values.< Sure, pezz. Those “civilians” did not arrive in Kosovo in accordance with those “human” values of yours. And today they represent a force from which the Kosovo “Liberation” Army directly receives much of its power. They collectively represent a threat to the sovereignty of the FRY. When a group of people rise up to challenge their rulers, they must be prepared to give their lives. What happened in Serbia was that a group challenged their rulers and then lost. Instead of accepting their lot, they continued to press politically and then militarily. Well fine, but the more they press, the more they subject themselves to rape and destruction. They must be prepared to exert might enough to achieve their objectives. If they cannot do this, then they have no moral right to require other nations to help them. And other nations have no moral obligation to help them. I do not justify the killing and rape of women. Nevertheless the Albanians are not innocents. Their presence in Serbia represents a threat to Yugoslavian integrity. Both they and the Serbs are at fault for their mess. Let them deal with it. >The consequences of our actions determine these actions.< The likely consequences of our strategy should determine our strategy. Whether we should apply military force should apply to our principles. If we should determine our very interests are directly threatened, then we should defend our interests regardless of our enemy's strength. Johannes said: “…it is reasonable that we use different tactics in dealing with stronger enemies. But our philosophical position and intent toward such enemies should be the same as they are for weaker enemies. “ Pezz said: “Ok I accept that we negotiate with the Russians and bomb the Serbs. Looks like we agree after all.” The Russians have not made a direct threat to American interests, and neither have the Serbs. Therefore we should bomb neither. Nor should we negotiate with the Russians as a tactical effort to destroy them. Your statement is baffling. Yet I unfortunately must allow that we agree to disagree on this issue.