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 : Kosovo -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Douglas V. Fant who wrote (9739)	5/25/1999 12:48:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

Fair enough, but the war in Bosnia was aggressively pursued by the Bosnian Serbs; they were the ones who were the greatest offenders, according to most reports, in the ethnic cleansing department; and we were desperate to bring the area some relief, so we allowed Krajina to go unchallenged. In that context, it was at least a defensible decision. In this context, we were trying to stop turmoil before it became ferocious, and trying to limit the impact of conflict on the entire Balkan region. I have several times noted the variety of reasons why some kind of intervention made sense, they are not all humanitarian. Anyway, let us suppose that the two cases were more similar (which I deny). In both cases, there would be arguments pro- and arguments con- intervention, and it would be a tough call with no clear answer. Therefore, if we said "no, I decline to intervene in this instance", and "yes, I will intervene in that instance", it is not hypocrisy, but an exercise of discretion given the indeterminacy of events.....