Archive through December 11, 1999 - Second Chechen War

kissie — Sun, 12 Dec 1999 00:37:00 +0000

Kir Yakovlev, In the end, it all boils down (for me, at least) to the question whether or not the massive, systematic killings of Albanians alleged by a number of sources did take place. And But let's say, it is "only" 2108. How many you would say is "enough"? As mentioned: After an extensive inquiry involving the team of experts from 14 countries, the Hague Tribunal found 2108 bodies, while Carla del Ponte claims that the number includes Albanians, Serbs and other non-Albanians. Apart from that, chief prosecutor of the Tribunal admits that even after this extensive inquiry it was not yet established how these people were killed. The UN Seat in New York circulates a number of 300 Albanians killed. This means that the remaining victims - 1808 - are non-Albanians. However, it is strange that Carla del Ponte did not express much interest in the victims of the NATO bombing in Kosmet. Contrary to the 2108 mostly unidentified victims, hundreds of people killed in NATO bombing were all identified. Enough to warrant 70+ days of bombing of the country fighting internal insurgency by KLA?
As to what started this conflict. I said, that even Moscow bombings wouldn't warrant Army troops. And here what comes from analysts: 7 August 1999 The conflict begins with an invasion of the Botlikh region of Dagestan by militants from Chechnya. An estimated 1,000 - 1,200 fighters seize several villages and small towns on the Chechen-Dagestani border.
P.S. Why, it's real cute, it's like saying that 50,000 Americans had died in Vietnam because we were after Vietnamese bamboo. Yeah, really, what you were after there, anyways?;o)
P.P.S. On the second thought - whatcha said about attitudes? - "let them talk" sobaka layet, veter nosit? as they say in Russia? (not quite translatable; in a word, "let them talk") - applicable to all the arguments, including mine and Yours and those of Russia, USA, Europe (my Govt. keeps silent, good), so why botha.

kiryakovlev — Sun, 12 Dec 1999 00:24:00 +0000

Igor - Well, my (American, in US) company has dozens of Canadian workers. If they would be the Jerry Springer types, we wouldn't hire them...The brain-drain is from the north to the south, not the other way around.
And, Fenriz, I don't have time to dig up the stats right now, but here is one quote from an article I had saved for some reason:
(http://www.eb-mag.com/registrd/issues/9905/0599out.htm)
"The U.S. deficit in the value of goods traded with Canada--the nation that is by far our largest trade partner--increased only a relatively small 3.0%").
Anyway, back to the oily topic. Before WWI, oil and other natural resources were enormously more important than they are now. Still, if that would be the only, or even one of a few major factors, the war would never have happened. Even by then it was clear that building advanced technologies and spreading trade networks are the keys to economic success. The ethnic strife in Central Europe, the thrist of France for territorial rematch with Germany, the lack of concerted diplomatic and trade policies, idiotic (I'm sorry, but what happened then justifies the term) panslavist policies of Russia - these all are much less "material", but, unfortunately, much more "agressive" factors...

igor — Sat, 11 Dec 1999 23:39:00 +0000

KIR Only time will tell. The West was after the oil during WW1 and British Petroleum even had money printed up.

igor — Sat, 11 Dec 1999 23:35:00 +0000

I would like to say that most Canadians of any signicant intelligence do not want to be part of the States and the ones that do are mostly the beer swilling Jerry Springer type crowd. Clinton cannot be believed for any thing he says especially since he could not come clean on whether or not he got a BJ.

kiryakovlev — Sat, 11 Dec 1999 23:33:00 +0000

Igor-
If there are polticians in Washington, D.C. who consider the Caspian oil reserves a factor in the Chechen situation, they have to be hospitalized immediately.
To risk igniting a major, major conflict, to destabilize a nuclear power over OIL??

Why, it's real cute, it's like saying that 50,000 Americans had died in Vietnam because we were after Vietnamese bamboo.

The absurdity of proportion is one thing. Another thing - the natural resources are of lesser and lesser importance with every passing year (not a good news for Russia, by the way). If some Russian politicos are basing THEIR actions on the oil factor, they should (after checking out of the hospital) stop the waste, take all the money that would be spent on further bombing, and distribute as grants to small high-tech companies. Maybe one of them will become a first Russian Infosys (an Indian software firm that reached $300/share on NASDAQ this Thursday).

fenriz_culto — Sat, 11 Dec 1999 23:32:00 +0000

igor,
I have seen videos some time ago, but I choose to stay from emotions when forming my opinions. With or without seing it I perfectly realize what the terrorists are all about and how they should be dealt with.

Fenriz

fenriz_culto — Sat, 11 Dec 1999 23:28:00 +0000

Kir Yakovlev,

I spend a lot of time in both countries, and in my view the differences are superficial
You are not alone. May I add that I spent a singificant time in Cuba as well.

Especially if we compare
comparable things: say, Western Ontario and Minnesotta, Seattle and Vancouver
Would you like me to give you an extensive list of "superficial" differences?

I usually find US ways more to my liking, but it's a matter of taste..
Sure

the US-Cuba issue is HUGELY more
irritating to Washington than anything Canada could say or do on Chechnya or Kosovo. And look:
neither Canada, nor Europeans pay any attention.
As I have stated, Cuba relations is rather exception (Canada would suffer great losses if it would stop trading with Cuba; it wouldn't by verbally condemming Russia). It's true that only USA and Israel support economic blocade, and other countries wisely chose to stay away from it.
I don't want to go into details of 1959-1962 to explain why USA alone has such a big grunge on Cuba.

And the trade thing goes both ways, of course: Canada is our biggest (by far) trade partner
Of course, it's incorrect. Canada is 5th largest US's trade partner

Fenriz

kiryakovlev — Sat, 11 Dec 1999 23:20:00 +0000

To "igor" - Da amerikanets ya, amerikanets! (American, American!)Of Russian extraction, obviously - hence the name and the residues of language...

To "kissie" - Well, apparently, I am neither a politician nor a writer
The latest number quoted without objections from Russian observers was "10,000 during the Serbian cleansing drive". But let's say, it is "only" 2108. How many you would say is "enough"? Right now, with Kosovo being under international control, some ugly stuff still happens (today, a Pole was killed by an explosive device confiscated from the KLAmen. But we certainly don't have hundreds, or even dozens of people being killed every day.

igor — Sat, 11 Dec 1999 23:19:00 +0000

Fenriz Just wondering if you checked out sight?

igor — Sat, 11 Dec 1999 23:16:00 +0000

As far as Chemical weapons go NATO dropped uranium depleted bombs and they also used clustr bombs. I was watching C-SPAN during the KOSOVO conflict and there was agroup of analysts and one of them said that US was going to test Russia..s response to a provokation they had planned in Russia s east .Well I guess we can see the response. US could not care less about Chechen people but the oil in the Caspian region as witnessed by pipe deal with Azeraijian, Georgia and Turkey. That area is in Russia s interest and they should defend it.