>
>Well I am hardly with Dave or Chris on this stuff. Positive to self
>determination but defeatist between Moscow and the Islamic Fundamentalists.
>However Rob raises and interesting question in that the west who have
>"supported" Yeltsin in lack of anything else now are faced with a real
eal dilema.
And the main imperialist powers (especially Germany and the US) might find themselves
in and escalating rivalry over this stuff.
Bob
- Original Message -
From: Rob Schaap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 2:53 PM
Subje
Well my position on Chechnya hasnt changed since 1995, though this
list did not exist then. While Russia is not an imperialist country,
we cannot condone its invasion of a former republic which has
expressed its desire to separate. As for dividing Boris and Bill, the
division goes much deeper
G'day Chris'n'Dave,
I'm with Chris on Chechnya (well, we were due an agreement, I reckon - and
I don't see how threatening to withold funds that only ever find their way
into aparatchik/mob/financier pockets is gonna hurt too many), but leaving
the little matter of murder on a grand scale aside f
Chris:
>> The way it achieves a pure and in practice entirely abstract political
>> position is too subtle for Dave to summarise in English here?
Dave:
>Up yours too Burford
Ah, the answer has arrived. In English.
But what has this to do with the oppression of the Chechens by Yeltsin's
g
Up yours too Burford
> Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 08:25:56 +
> To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: Chris Burford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: M-TH: Chechnya - the revolutionary answer
> Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> At 17:14 0
At 17:14 09/11/99 +, you wrote:
>Super reply Chris. Keep it up.
>You might note that the point of surveying the various brands of
>socialism in CM was to characterise their class standpoint. What's
>your's Chris?
>As for Chechyna, the LCMRCI has along with several other groups put
>out a st
At 14:32 15/10/99 PDT, you wrote:
>
>
>>Trouble with this theory is that, back during Yeltsin's first war against
>>Chechnya, Clinton's U.S. backed Russia all the way. The imperialists
>>know their comrades-in-blood when they see them in action.
>>
>>Walter Daum
>>
>>
>
>Well, it is never difficul
>Trouble with this theory is that, back during Yeltsin's first war against
>Chechnya, Clinton's U.S. backed Russia all the way. The imperialists
>know their comrades-in-blood when they see them in action.
>
>Walter Daum
>
>
Well, it is never difficult to mouthe support for one and give it to an
Trouble with this theory is that, back during Yeltsin's first war against
Chechnya, Clinton's U.S. backed Russia all the way. The imperialists
know their comrades-in-blood when they see them in action.
Walter Daum
Did they Walter? I doubt it. More of a realization that a military
confro
Trouble with this theory is that, back during Yeltsin's first war against
Chechnya, Clinton's U.S. backed Russia all the way. The imperialists
know their comrades-in-blood when they see them in action.
Walter Daum
On Wed, 06 Oct 1999 15:13:10 PDT Macdonald Stainsby said:
>
[...]
>
>Actually, Bo
11 matches
Mail list logo
