Dana,

Liberia is in the middle of a civil war.  Why should we intervene? Should we
have intervened in Somalia?  I don't think so.  I don't think we should
intervene in Liberia either.

Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dana Tierney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: US threatens Caribbean Countries


> The reason seems obvious to me. Much as I hate to say it, the members of
> the administration are afraid of charges being brought against them. Which
> says a lot about their sincerity. Me, I am waiting to see what we do in
> Liberia. Are we still in favor of freeing the oppresssed when there is no
> oil involved?
>
> Dana
>
> Angel Stewart writes:
>
> > "SO now the United States of America, a country that prides itself as
> > being democratic, just and humane, has decided to cut off military aid
> > to several dozen countries whose only sin is to have supported, without
> > reservation, a court established to punish sadistic and inhumane goons
> > found guilty of serious and reprehensible crimes against humanity,
> > genocide among them.
> >
> > Of course, the world's only remaining superpower is putting forward an
> > argument that the International Criminal Court (ICC) could be used as a
> > vehicle to subject American military personnel to frivolous, politicised
> > and trumped-up charges. But any reasonable and objective reading of the
> > court's statutes would show that such care has been taken to prevent
> > precisely this kind of manipulation as to render it almost impossible.
> >
> > What, then, is really irking America? The answer lies in the ideological
> > bent of the present Bush administration, which overturned the Clinton
> > administration's support of the court in keeping with its increasingly
> > unilateralist view of the world most vividly underscored, of course, by
> > its decision to invade Iraq in spite of the protests of even some of its
> > traditional and long-standing allies.
> >
> > What was, perhaps, just as significant as the American decision to
> > plunge ahead regardless was the Bush administration's attitude towards
> > those who opposed its pre-emptive strike against Saddam Hussein and his
> > regime. Rather than see the objections of, say, France and Germany, as a
> > genuine difference of opinion to which as sovereign, independent
> > countries they were entitled, government spokesmen, led by the American
> > president, left no doubt that they viewed the objections as nothing
> > short of treachery.
> >
> > Put badly, what the administration was saying was that as far as the war
> > against Iraq was concerned either you were with us or against us,
> > whatever your concerns about the rightness of the invasion.
> >
> > Thinly-veiled threats were issued, which led to a round of diplomatic
> > fence-mending which even now has not seen final construction. And here
> > now, in the matter of the ICC, the United States is not only venting its
> > fury by withdrawing military aid from targeted countries, but seeking to
> > scuttle the court even before it gets off the ground-America's perceived
> > rather than real interests being invoked to give succour to all those
> > power-mad leaders to whom not only human life but entire populations
> > mean nothing.
> >
> > Ironically, much of the so-called free world has long looked at America
> > as the leader of what has turned out to be an ongoing fight against
> > tyranny. Now that image has been tarnished with America emerging, in the
> > words of this country's former president, ANR Robinson, as just another
> > "bully". Mr Robinson has called on the countries affected, mainly poor
> > and so-called Third World, to unite and fight, and while the battle may
> > ultimately prove to be unequal, the fact remains that the regime now in
> > power in the United States seems bent on putting up major roadblocks
> > between itself and other nations. It may well come, in the fullness of
> > time, to rue these days of wrath." - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Go bush go.
> > One wonders why America really doesn't want an International Criminal
> > court that could bring dictators and war criminals to justice regardless
> > of where they are in the world.Does it have something to gain by
> > supporting these individuals?
> >
> > -Gel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
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
                                

Reply via email to