As quoted from <BzMDI7.7JI.2@cs.cmu.edu> by zitsky+@CS.CMU.EDU (Mark Ryan Miller):
> Of course not everyone will agree with me. The invasion of Panama was "to protect the canal treaty". If so, why was that not the focus of Noriega's
> trial or the media coverage?
Is that in fact a CRIMINAL OFFENSE for which he can be tried? If France
continues to violate the GATT rules, can we arrest and try Francois Mitterand?
> As for foreign involvement, I don't hear the Cubans yelling for the US to harrass their country. I don't hear the Puerto Ricans asking to remain a territory.
> I know the Somali's are happy we are there, but I suggest two things: (1) why did we wait so long, and wouldn't the Bosnian's be happy to see us too? and (2) let's see how long the US remains and what they do afterwards.
>
You don't hear the South Africans yelling for the U.S. to harass THEIR country
either. Are you opposed to the anti-apartheid boycotts? I'm not.
YOU may not hear the Puerto Ricans asking to remain a territory, but then I
suspect that your hearing may be somewhat faulty, since there are Puerto
Rican groups which call for commonwealth, statehood and independant status
respectively. So far, the commonwealth faction has had the votes. It's THEIR
choice not yours. If they decide they want to be independant or a state,
they'll let you know when they vote.
> It's amazing to me that citizens of the US will not doubt that crimes occurring
> in other countries are wrong, but when someone tries to tell them of questionable activities in their own country, they shrug it off, ignore it, or tell someone they must be lying or have false information. The 'sense of security and trust' here is sometimes scary.
>
There are plenty of questionable activities in the country. There's no need
