Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 4/28/2002 2:19:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/28/2002 4:37:47 PM EDT by Gloftoe]
Link Posted: 4/28/2002 2:37:01 PM EDT
I think it was 1993.....my son was being born at the time and he is 9.
Link Posted: 4/28/2002 11:10:49 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/28/2002 11:22:41 PM EDT
Uhhhh, maybe b/c OKC was a (presumably) act of domestic terrorism INSIDE A SOVEREIGN CONTIGUOUS COUNTRY, while the Jenin battle happened OUTSIDE OF A SOVEREIGN CONTIGUOUS COUNTRY, in an OCCUPIED TERRITORY & REFUGEE CAMP, and was an ACT OF A SOVEREIGN NATION, while OKC was (presumably) the act of a couple of individuals. Apples & Oranges.
Link Posted: 4/28/2002 11:32:40 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/28/2002 11:35:50 PM EDT
Think of the UN in this case as a "neutral" third party in a dispute involving two countries. Each side has friends in other countries wanting to get it all sorted out. An analogy here might be if, say, the Canadians got really mad at us for ruining their culture with our endless TV programming beamed across the border, and called the UN to try and resolve the issue. [:)]
Link Posted: 4/28/2002 11:41:15 PM EDT
Well, if you ask that then you should also ask why we go stick our nose into everyone else's business. We're not exactly the most isolationist minded nation on this planet...
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 3:48:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Gloftoe: I'm just wondering where the UN gets off sticking it's nose in the business?
View Quote
Member countries of the UN willingly offer the UN the power to stick its nose into international affairs.
Top Top