I was alive in the 70s. My questions is, why exempt the US? If it is that wrong, it is that wrong for everyone. Or perhaps there need to be safeguards (for everyone). I think there was a consensus that whats his name needed to be tried for what happened in Bosnia... what we are saying right now is we can do this kinda stuff and not be punished. Makes it sound like we plan to do this kinda stuff if you ask me.
Dana Jerry Johnson writes: > Dana, > > Were you alive at all in the 70s? > > Did you hear anything that came out of the United Nations during that period? > > they were so anti-American, it seemed as though every single ill in the world was > cause for a resolution against the US. > > If I had any say in the US government, I would not give that entity _any_ power over > US citizens. > > Just my thoughts, > Jerry Johnson > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/07/03 11:41AM >>> > > without our money. It's a decision on your part. How is what we are doing > > in this instance wrong. morally or legally? Should we not expect some > > return on our investment? > > The US isn't saying "be nice to our local interests" which might be a > reasonable quid pro quo. It's saying "the law against genocide does not > apply to us." Apart from the arrogance of the position, it makes one wonder > why the US thinks it is at risk of being charged with war crimes... > > Dana > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
