

OK, I should have said "former" enemy.  I was being sarcastic about what
interventionists want to do.


Could we back him without forcing others to back him at the point of a
gun?

Have you considered a non-interventionist policy?  If market reform does
happen, Russia will certainly get *private* capital at *private* risk to
help their economy.  They will even have incentive to do so for the same
reason.  If they don't reform, then our government will probably
consider them enemies anyway and rather spend money to hurt rather than help
them.

Then their's the ideological point.  We want to "win" Russia over to
our type of government -- a type where the rulers can rule without limit
over everyone's finances?




If a $1.6 billion gift was that important to our well being, couldn't it
be raised voluntarilly?  People already give over $100 billion a year to
charity.



It seems instead of gridlock on any scale, we have aid to Russia,
expensive space programs, national charity that doesn't help the poor,
and probably, studies of drunken goldfish.  I think *limited* government
is more key than how democratic it is.


That was an opinion, and libertarians are very big on free speech.


If you are pretty libertarian except on this one issue then you should
be VERY libertarian.  Consider it a compromise.  How much money would
your fellow Russia-aiders have to give to Russia if those you oppose
weren't using the same government machine to steal money from you
and your group for causes you don't support?


People have been saying that for hundreds of years.


All the more reason to depend on the free market which can more
efficiently process information, than to depend on rulers for decisions
on complex issues.


Roger Collins