NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/power_plays/2001/05/roguenation.html


But suppose the offer was reversed and the United States was seeking to join the European Union? It probably would be refused membership, because it has not yet ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which forbids the execution of minors. The only other holdout country when last I checked was Somalia.

Actually, the United States might also be refused membership because it, along with China and a handful of other execution states, voted at the United Nations against an E.U. proposal for a moratorium on capital punishment for the underage, the insane, and the pregnant. In fact, it might be refused membership because of its addiction to capital punishment across the board, and for its occasional boastfulness about the fact.


Do yourself a favor and look up the date on which the United States actually ratified the 1948 Convention on Genocide (40 years after its passage at the United Nations)

In the late 1970s the U.S. government quite rightly took Iran to the World Court for the crime of diplomatic hostage taking, and secured a judgment in its own favor. A few years later, Nicaragua took the United States to the World Court for the crime of mining its civilian harbors, and secured a judgment in its own favor. On this occasion, Washington refused to recognize the jurisdiction of the court. So it goes.

Oh, BTW, found this site here, where you can also find America's friendly dictators:

http://www.stopusa.org/usinfo.htm

Are you German by chance? :)

Why don't people think the rules should apply to everyone?
I hope everyone on the top who thinks the rules only apply to the little guy gets reincarnated as one of those on the bottom.
It's the Leona Helmsley Syndrome.

This is old news... Everyone knows that USA won't play it fair.

This is old news... Everyone knows that USA won't play it fair.

Maybe its because the USA is the lone superpower at the moment...you know, being all high on power.

And Somalia isnt signing up because it is a nomadic people, it's impossible for the government to enforce because they don't know where their population are going to be one day to the next.

The U.S. makes boasts about capital punishment because we give our people the choice on whether or not they wish to have it in their specific state or not. Not all 50 states in the US have the death penalty, and one thing is certain only the most henious of crimes ever gets the death penalty. We do not, unlike the EU force all the states even if they have elected for a death penalty to rescind it simply because of some faux morale superiorty complex on how killing is supposedly bad and that they should be incarcirated for life.

Many relatives of victims would probably disagree.

The American Government is a big childish bully, that doesn't believe it has to share the planet with others.

The thing is America is a great place with some great people. I've some very good American friends and I'm sure they're just as frustrated at this as we are.

Look at the Michael Moore Farenheit 9/11 documentary for proof, there's plenty of good people there but the wrong ones are in charge!

About your list..you love to post horribly inaccurate lists dont you..I checked it out..Adolf Hitler? Pol Pot? Neither of them were ever on friendly terms with the US government. Especially Pol Pot who was backed by communists in China. Being part Dominican I know the one of Trujillo is full of shit. But you just love your highly inaccurate lists dont you? :headbang:

Not all 50 states in the US have the death penalty (...) No, but the federal government can drag people to court and have them sentenced to death even if they're in a state that doesn't have the death penalty!

We do not, unlike the EU force all the states (...) Yes, you do, in some cases. Just the other way around, forcing a death sentence in a state that doesn't want one. Now, exactly how is that better?

simply because of some faux morale superiorty complex on how killing is supposedly bad and that they should be incarcirated for life.That's not the whole picture. A lot of us don't really mind the idea of frying a couple of mass murderers every once in a while, but we still don't like the death penalty much because some times you don't really know if the guy they put on trial really is the mass murderer. In any system, no matter how good you make it, mistakes will happen as long as people are involved. If you've locked up a guy and you discover 20 years later that you've made a mistake, you can release the man, give him a fat check and a public apology, and he'll still have the rest of his life.

If you've sent a man to the chair, it kind of gets a little harder to fix a mistake, now doesn't it?

No, but the federal government can drag people to court and have them sentenced to death even if they're in a state that doesn't have the death penalty!Yes, you do, in some cases. Just the other way around, forcing a death sentence in a state that doesn't want one. Now, exactly how is that better?

Now that really depends on the crime. Few crimes if any get the Federal Government to swoop in and take over a case. If anything it normally falls to the state to determine if they hand over the suspect or not. If the victim is serving 25 to life in a prison, they do not have to turn him over to the Federal Government, unless this person has done something incredibly vicious to deserve it.


That's not the whole picture. A lot of us don't really mind the idea of frying a couple of mass murderers every once in a while, but we still don't like the death penalty much because some times you don't really know if the guy they put on trial really is the mass murderer. In any system, no matter how good you make it, mistakes will happen as long as people are involved. If you've locked up a guy and you discover 20 years later that you've made a mistake, you can release the man, give him a fat check and a public apology, and he'll still have the rest of his life.

If you've sent a man to the chair, it kind of gets a little harder to fix a mistake, now doesn't it?

Well if this is the case then the whole criminal justice system is a moot point because there is always the possibility that the person might very well be innocent. However if you're on death row for Murder One in the US then your conviction didnt come easily. There is a burden of proof on Murder One cases as high as the Matterhorn. Do some states go overboard on their executions? Perhaps, but thats for a jury of ones peers to decide..and if they decide on the death penalty well thats just too bad for the criminal.

As an American I must say that you are correct we do not play by the rules.

My nation is highly Hipocritical and it is due too the people in power right now.

Roughly half of this country agrees that our foreign policy and domestic policy are completely and utterly out of touch with the will of the people.

Ask any American if they think the government is on the level. The sad fact is that nobody in America gives enough of a shit too do anything about it.

We neglect our one great ability ... the vote. Now with the current administration in power the vote is losing power and the will of the people is becoming less and less relevant.

These sick neo-conservative swine do not realize that they are part of the problem. Take for example the war on terror.
What we have is two sects of religious fundementalists ( the Neo-con scum of the Bush Administration V.S. the fundametlaist muslim scum).

Both are garbage by any stretch of logic however because of a mass fear campaign the more gullible people of America have fallen too the comfort of trading their freedoms for "security" ( take for example the Patriot act).

The real issue is that the average American is a completely and utterly ignorant too any of the pertinent issues.

More over they do not care either way. Here is a funny fact that will make you giggle.

The last election we had the overwhelming majority of people in Urban Areas voted for Kerry where as the Rural areas and smaller communities went for Bush.

The number one reason for voting was " the war on terror " and the people most likely to be hit with terrorist attacks voted for Kerry.

I guess these rural folks thought some member of Al Queda was interested in their corn field or home.

As long as this country is filled with ignorance you will see fascists like Bush and company in power time after time.

I am calling the American people too find out the facts forget about political parties and vote for some new blood in our government enough of the same old ... it does not work.

Look at our standing with the rest of the world. WE ARE THE BAD GUYS!!!!! some would say that is unpatriotic for me too say but it is patriotic.

Being patriotic does not mean you close your eyes too reality.

I am intensely patriotic and it is in our hands too fix the problem . So lets fix it!!!!!!!!!! WAKE UP MY FELLOW AMERICANS . REMOVE THE BLINDERS FROM YOUR EYES AND SEE . Before its too late.

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/power_plays/2001/05/roguenation.html


But suppose the offer was reversed and the United States was seeking to join the European Union? It probably would be refused membership, because it has not yet ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which forbids the execution of minors. The only other holdout country when last I checked was Somalia.

Actually, the United States might also be refused membership because it, along with China and a handful of other execution states, voted at the United Nations against an E.U. proposal for a moratorium on capital punishment for the underage, the insane, and the pregnant. In fact, it might be refused membership because of its addiction to capital punishment across the board, and for its occasional boastfulness about the fact.


Do yourself a favor and look up the date on which the United States actually ratified the 1948 Convention on Genocide (40 years after its passage at the United Nations)

In the late 1970s the U.S. government quite rightly took Iran to the World Court for the crime of diplomatic hostage taking, and secured a judgment in its own favor. A few years later, Nicaragua took the United States to the World Court for the crime of mining its civilian harbors, and secured a judgment in its own favor. On this occasion, Washington refused to recognize the jurisdiction of the court. So it goes.
They also may be denied EU memebership cause they aren't European countries.
Then again neither is Turkey...... :mad:

Oh, BTW, found this site here, where you can also find America's friendly dictators:

http://www.stopusa.org/usinfo.htm
Added to favorits.

The US government wrote the book on hypocrisy.

President Bill Clinton did not follow the usual practice of telephoning the winner with his congratulations. Perhaps this reluctance derived partly from the fact that Ms. Williams had publicly called him a "weenie" for refusing to put an American signature on the treaty, which (though it was a great triumph as international agreements go) did look a bit threadbare without the assent of the world's largest exporter of arms. In the end, there was a Clintonian compromise. He belatedly made the call of felicitations. But he didn't sign the treaty.
Why do American "liberals" constantly idolise Clinton when he did crap like this?

Do you really think that he is so different from Bush?

The US government wrote the book on hypocrisy.
Really? Where can I find a copy? :D

The U.S. makes boasts about capital punishment because we give our people the choice on whether or not they wish to have it in their specific state or not. Not all 50 states in the US have the death penalty, and one thing is certain only the most henious of crimes ever gets the death penalty. We do not, unlike the EU force all the states even if they have elected for a death penalty to rescind it simply because of some faux morale superiorty complex on how killing is supposedly bad and that they should be incarcirated for life.

Many relatives of victims would probably disagree.

That last sentence is the only possible reason we have the death penalty, because it makes absolutely no sense. It costs a ton of money, it does not deter capital crime (and cannot, logically), and it has killed innocent people.

Which means its only purpose is vengeance for families filled with rage/hate... and killing someone won't bring back their loved one(s).

one thing is certain only the most henious of crimes ever gets the death penalty
Actually we can get the death penalty for marijuana cultivation. (federal omnibus crime bill, 1993)

faux morale superiorty complex on how killing is supposedly bad.
So killing isn't bad?

Many relatives of victims would probably disagree.
Which means nothing at all. You don't become more important than other people just because you've experienced a tragedy, and you obviously become less objective.

Just for the record, I am actually in favor of killing repeat child molestors or murderers, but since 5-10% of the people we execute are later FOUND INNOCENT I don't have enough faith in the criminal justice system to let them have the power of life and death.

Think about that NYNJ - a 1 in 20 or worse chance of getting fried for nothing.

That last sentence is the only possible reason we have the death penalty, because it makes absolutely no sense. It costs a ton of money, it does not deter capital crime (and cannot, logically), and it has killed innocent people.

Which means its only purpose is vengeance for families filled with rage/hate... and killing someone won't bring back their loved one(s).

The only reason that I like the death penalty is that there's no way the offender will re-offend.

I wouldn't have any trouble with massive lobotomy as a form of punishment.

The cost is proportional to the US state's laws on appeals and public defender costs. In Maryland, it costs far, far more to do a death penalty case than it does in Virginia.

Yes, it kills innocent people. So perhaps we should restrict it to cases that are more certain.

For instance, I don't think there's any doubt at all that the two idiots who did the Beltway Sniper thing are guilty. They were caught with the weapon and the customized vehicle and the bullets matched.

If you don't want to kill them, I'm sure you won't mind having their forebrains mashed to a pulp so that they are permanently incapable of deciding so much as what to eat for lunch.

The US government wrote the book on hypocrisy.
No, we plaigerized from the English

Yes, it kills innocent people.
End of conversation, unless you advocate murder or have a way to fix the mistakes of our court system. Knowingly killing innocent people is murder, and we KNOW that under the current system many innocent people are convicted of capital crimes.

End of conversation, unless you advocate murder or have a way to fix the mistakes of our court system. Knowingly killing innocent people is murder, and we KNOW that under the current system many innocent people are convicted of capital crimes.

I believe that it's possible to fix the system. I also think it's possible to streamline things and still fix them.

I also believe that there should be a LOT more life in prison without parole, and that most capital punishment cases should be changed to massive lobotomy.

I believe that it's possible to fix the system. I also think it's possible to streamline things and still fix them.

I also believe that there should be a LOT more life in prison without parole, and that most capital punishment cases should be changed to massive lobotomy.
I don't think you've thought through this lobotomy idea. This would very likely SPARE the criminal from having to understand what he did, or where he is...it would neuter the punishment.

Sure, he lost something, but he wouldn't have the brains to understand it properly so what's the point, Dr. Mengele?

I don't think you've thought through this lobotomy idea. This would very likely SPARE the criminal from having to understand what he did, or where he is...it would neuter the punishment.

Sure, he lost something, but he wouldn't have the brains to understand it properly so what's the point, Dr. Mengele?

I don't believe that rehabilitation works.
I don't believe that punishment is an appropriate response to crime, as you can't recover what's lost in the crime (most of the time).

But, I can make sure he never, ever does it again. I can lower recidivism to zero. The current system has recidivism as high as 70 percent across all crime. If I reduce that to zero, how much will that save society in general?

Can you imagine a year in which crime drops dramatically, if only because no one who gets caught ever repeats their crime?

I'm not sure as to whether this thread is a flame bait (by the title) or an actual attempt at discussion (the content of the first post.) Or flame bait again by the second post...

In what way exactly is the death of innocent people an acceptable price to pay for the death of guilty ones?

I am in full agreement with Wong Cock - the US, as it is at present, is a rogue nation. It refuses to ratify UN proposals on whim, it uses its power to veto proposals contrary to its interests, it is a world leader (the ONLY First World leader) in executing people. It wages war, it tortures prisoners, it backs dictators when they are convenient and destroys their countries when they are inconvenient. It does not acknowledge international law, it deliberately flouts the criticism of the global community.

If America were a hundredth its size and situated somewhere east of the Mediterranean, we would long have invaded it to put a stop to these actions. America as it is now would have done so too. Assuming the smaller America had oil, that is.

I don't believe that rehabilitation works.
Many people find religion (lesser of two evils) in prison, or simply decide that living in hell for 5 years isn't something they want to repeat. I agree that anyone who repeatedly kills or commits a violent rape is worthless, I just value innocent people (like me and you) too much to say "Oh fuck it, so some innocents get cooked"


But, I can make sure he never, ever does it again. I can lower recidivism to zero. The current system has recidivism as high as 70 percent across all crime. If I reduce that to zero, how much will that save society in general?

Can you imagine a year in which crime drops dramatically, if only because no one who gets caught ever repeats their crime?
What you're describing is far beyond anything even Hitler and Stalin dreamed up. I have to ask; are you still in grade school or something? I don't mean to be insulting, but it's perfectly normal to think in such simplistic ways when one is twelve...as an adult, though, your attitute carried to it's obvious conclusion would get YOU executed :-p

This is old news... Everyone knows that USA won't play it fair.
Sadly, while it may be old news to you and I, plenty of Canadians and Americans really DON'T know this...and don't care to.

I'm 44. I'm a lawyer, which is why I'm tired of splitting hairs and would like to simplify the system.

The US government wrote the book on hypocrisy.
I doubt that....I'm fairly sure every single empire has added a chapter to that book...they just happen to be the current empire. You think a new one won't rise up once they're gone that will be just as hypocritical?

Why do American "liberals" constantly idolise Clinton when he did crap like this?

Do you really think that he is so different from Bush?
I think it's a case of "the lesser of two evils". As a Canadian, I just think it's funny that Americans believe there is such a huge difference between American liberals and conservatives....they're only difference is how far right they lean...

(Though our Liberals aren't all that left either...)

End of conversation, unless you advocate murder or have a way to fix the mistakes of our court system. Knowingly killing innocent people is murder, and we KNOW that under the current system many innocent people are convicted of capital crimes.
Mistakes happen. No system is perfect. Some people die from eating pesticides left over on their fruits. Some people die from faulty seatbelts. You can't protect everyone, but as long as the system works the vast majority of the time, the system is good.

YIKES! in 1935!!

Canada - The US Army and G-2 intelligence developed a comprehensive plan for the invasion and conquest of Canada. In February 1935, the War Department arranged a Congressional appropriation of $57 million dollars to build three border air bases for the purposes of pre-emptive surprise attacks on Canadian air fields. In August 1935, the US held its largest peacetime military manoeuvres in history, with 36,000 troops converging at the Canadian border south of Ottawa, and another 15,000 held in reserve in Pennsylvania. The plan also authorized the immediate first use of poison gas against Canadians and to use strategic bombing to destroy Halifax if it could not be captured.

Do yourself a favor and look up the date on which the United States actually ratified the 1948 Convention on Genocide (40 years after its passage at the United Nations)

How many genocides did the United States carry out in those 40 years?

Well the USA installed brutal dictatorships in Brazil, some countries in latin america, south korea, vietnam, Iran and as as some in the near east...


Edit : forgot about all those incidents in south america as well...

Which wouldnt be considered "genocide" but some of the countries had democratic governments overthrown by military guntas with covert and not so covert yankee help...

:p Of COURSE we're a rogue state. Why, don't you know God is on our side? And, naturally, we're gonna shove democracy down EVERYBODY'S throat. Ain't it great?
Seriously, though, I have to agree that we could be a LITTLE less arrogant. Unfortunately, our news programs over here only cover OUR side of issues, not anyone else's, so we tend to be woefully ignorant of world events/ideas. Sorry, I didn't vote for the jackass we have running this mess.

I propose a compromise.

Every person on death row in the US shall be deported to the EU, preferably the enlightened French. You can have our rapists, our drug dealers, our mass murders and child molestors, who are yearning to be free.

Then, the enlightened and civilized governments of Europe, which are so much better than the USA, can prove how wrong we are about the death penalty and ownership of personal firearms. I mean once these poor, mistreated people are living in a civilized country all their problems will vanish and they'll become productive members of your society, right?

Believe me, our country will spring for the plane tickets and even a modest say, $20,000 cash each to get them started in your lands. Providing they never come back, that is...

;)

I propose a compromise.

Every person on death row in the US shall be deported to the EU, preferably the enlightened French. You can have our rapists, our drug dealers, our mass murders and child molestors, who are yearning to be free.

Then, the enlightened and civilized governments of Europe, which are so much better than the USA, can prove how wrong we are about the death penalty and ownership of personal firearms. I mean once these poor, mistreated people are living in a civilized country all their problems will vanish and they'll become productive members of your society, right?

Believe me, our country will spring for the plane tickets and even a modest say, $20,000 cash each to get them started in your lands. Providing they never come back, that is...

;)

That's an incredibly good idea. We must add, however, that we expect them to be treated like the innocents the Europeans believe them to be - and that none of them will be imprisoned on arrival - indeed, none of them will be imprisoned at all unless for some reason they commit another crime.

whatever george bush said , america is not in europe

Most people accuse the United States of being a rogue state due to its actions in the Cold War.
I ask you, do you honestly believe the United States was the only country activley taking part in acts of espionage during this time period?

Before condemning the United States, go read about what the Soviet Union did during the Cold War. And then wonder about who you would rather have won that war.


Afterwards, you can look at any empire in history that defied common standards to bolster itself:
The Tang Dynasty in China
The Islamic Caliphates
Charlegmane's Empire
The Roman Empire
The Byzantine Empire
The Sassanid Empire
Russia
Napelon's France
Great Britain
Mauryan India

And I can go on and on and on and on...

YIKES! in 1935!!

Canada - The US Army and G-2 intelligence developed a comprehensive plan for the invasion and conquest of Canada. In February 1935, the War Department arranged a Congressional appropriation of $57 million dollars to build three border air bases for the purposes of pre-emptive surprise attacks on Canadian air fields. In August 1935, the US held its largest peacetime military manoeuvres in history, with 36,000 troops converging at the Canadian border south of Ottawa, and another 15,000 held in reserve in Pennsylvania. The plan also authorized the immediate first use of poison gas against Canadians and to use strategic bombing to destroy Halifax if it could not be captured.


Actually the plan was created later down the line in the 30s. Incase Britian fell to the Nazi's and somehow Canada decided to go Axis as a switch.

No, but the federal government can drag people to court and have them sentenced to death even if they're in a state that doesn't have the death penalty!

Yes, you do, in some cases. Just the other way around, forcing a death sentence in a state that doesn't want one. Now, exactly how is that better?

That's not the whole picture. A lot of us don't really mind the idea of frying a couple of mass murderers every once in a while, but we still don't like the death penalty much because some times you don't really know if the guy they put on trial really is the mass murderer. In any system, no matter how good you make it, mistakes will happen as long as people are involved. If you've locked up a guy and you discover 20 years later that you've made a mistake, you can release the man, give him a fat check and a public apology, and he'll still have the rest of his life.

If you've sent a man to the chair, it kind of gets a little harder to fix a mistake, now doesn't it?

Actually the Federal Government can only intervene in a case if it is a Federal Offense. And that is only possible if certain conditions are met, like with the D.C. Sniper who crossed state lines.

Actually now with DNA evidence it becomes very unlikely they will convict the wrong felon. And they almost never convict the wrong mass murderer because of the way mass murderers act. Mass Murderers follow cycles and those cycles rarely stop unless the murderer is either arrested for the murders or arrested on unrelated charges look at the BDK murderer. He commited over a dozen murders in the 70s stopped for 20 years and then started again and they believe the only reason he started again was because they believe the guy who is commiting the murders was in jail for unrelated crimes for 20 years.

And if you send the guy to the chair you don't have to fix the problem and don't have to pay any money for a wrongful arrest. Also most people who might be wrongly commited of one crime are usually guilty of commiting another crime so in the end it all works out.

That last sentence is the only possible reason we have the death penalty, because it makes absolutely no sense. It costs a ton of money, it does not deter capital crime (and cannot, logically), and it has killed innocent people.



Actually the determint of crime is impossible to judge because if I was going to commit a murder and decide not to because of the possible consequences I wouldn't go and tell the police "Hey you guys did all right. I was going to commit murder but im not now because of the death penalty!" because I would be arrested for conspiracy to commit murder then.

Also the death penalty isn't designed to deter spur of the moment crimes. It won't stop someone from shooting a clerk in a liquor store because he got spooked when the alarm was tripped. Though it is quite possible it would stop people who were planning to commit premediated and plotted out murder like someone trying to murder his wife for the insurance money.

About your list..you love to post horribly inaccurate lists dont you..I checked it out..Adolf Hitler? Pol Pot? Neither of them were ever on friendly terms with the US government. Especially Pol Pot who was backed by communists in China. Being part Dominican I know the one of Trujillo is full of shit. But you just love your highly inaccurate lists dont you? :headbang:


Adolf Hitler was named Times "Man of the Year". And before the war, he got a lot of support from the West, including America. Lots of American companies like General Motors (Opel) earned a nice profit for supplying to the German Elite and Army.

Pol Pot was supported by America because he was against Vietnam. (Remember Osama bin Laden?) Also, the Government in Cambodia was overthrown with the Help of America, then they had chaos that brought Pol Pot (who said explicitely that he was not a communist) to power. Even after that Pol Pot was supported by America. He became an embarrassment after the killing fields became publicly known.

And BTW, China was backed by America against the Soviets in the hope to break China away from the Communist Bloc.

Trujillo:
http://www.jlhs.nhusd.k12.ca.us/Classes/Social_Science/Latin_America/Dominican_Republic.html

Why, don't you know God is on our side?


If he is on your side, why do you have to ask his blessing every time you stop eating or shooting someone?

Adolf Hitler was named Times "Man of the Year". And before the war, he got a lot of support from the West, including America. Lots of American companies like General Motors (Opel) earned a nice profit for supplying to the German Elite and Army.

Pol Pot was supported by America because he was against Vietnam. (Remember Osama bin Laden?) Also, the Government in Cambodia was overthrown with the Help of America, then they had chaos that brought Pol Pot (who said explicitely that he was not a communist) to power. Even after that Pol Pot was supported by America. He became an embarrassment after the killing fields became publicly known.

And BTW, China was backed by America against the Soviets in the hope to break China away from the Communist Bloc.

Trujillo:
http://www.jlhs.nhusd.k12.ca.us/Classes/Social_Science/Latin_America/Dominican_Republic.html


..So two private non-government control companies now equal open support by the US government? Being man of the year does not mean your a friend of the US government. You do know what it takes to be considered man of the year right?

As for Cambodia, Pol Pot was most assuredly communist backed. As for instablity in Cambodia, okay the US didnt make it better, but that was caused by the blatant fact the NVA invaded the country and used them as a supply base to assist in their war in South Vietnam.

Actually the plan was created later down the line in the 30s. Incase Britian fell to the Nazi's and somehow Canada decided to go Axis as a switch.


Ummmmmm no, it was dated 1935 bucko. I read the memo.

Ummmmmm no, it was dated 1935 bucko. I read the memo.

Its really a conspiracy theory anyway..you do a search online for it and you get different decades for the planned invasion. One being the 1920s and the other being the 1930s.

YIKES! in 1935!!

Canada - The US Army and G-2 intelligence developed a comprehensive plan for the invasion and conquest of Canada. In February 1935, the War Department arranged a Congressional appropriation of $57 million dollars to build three border air bases for the purposes of pre-emptive surprise attacks on Canadian air fields. In August 1935, the US held its largest peacetime military manoeuvres in history, with 36,000 troops converging at the Canadian border south of Ottawa, and another 15,000 held in reserve in Pennsylvania. The plan also authorized the immediate first use of poison gas against Canadians and to use strategic bombing to destroy Halifax if it could not be captured.

Suprising, but not shocking.
It is revealing that in case after case, until after 1815, every time America got into a war, there was an invasion of Canada. This is rarely mentioned in the textbooks, mainly because we lost every war with Canada, and also because these invasions look too much like land grabs.
the whole article (http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north324.html)

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/power_plays/2001/05/roguenation.html

But suppose the offer was reversed and the United States was seeking to join the European Union? It probably would be refused membership, because it has not yet ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which forbids the execution of minors. The only other holdout country when last I checked was Somalia.

Actually, the United States might also be refused membership because it, along with China and a handful of other execution states, voted at the United Nations against an E.U. proposal for a moratorium on capital punishment for the underage, the insane, and the pregnant. In fact, it might be refused membership because of its addiction to capital punishment across the board, and for its occasional boastfulness about the fact.

Do yourself a favor and look up the date on which the United States actually ratified the 1948 Convention on Genocide (40 years after its passage at the United Nations)

In the late 1970s the U.S. government quite rightly took Iran to the World Court for the crime of diplomatic hostage taking, and secured a judgment in its own favor. A few years later, Nicaragua took the United States to the World Court for the crime of mining its civilian harbors, and secured a judgment in its own favor. On this occasion, Washington refused to recognize the jurisdiction of the court. So it goes.

Ever heard of something called "The Cold War?" Look it up. You need to understand the environment of the time to understand the "Geo-Politics" of the time.

Adolf Hitler was named Times "Man of the Year". And before the war, he got a lot of support from the West, including America. Lots of American companies like General Motors (Opel) earned a nice profit for supplying to the German Elite and Army.

Pol Pot was supported by America because he was against Vietnam. (Remember Osama bin Laden?) Also, the Government in Cambodia was overthrown with the Help of America, then they had chaos that brought Pol Pot (who said explicitely that he was not a communist) to power. Even after that Pol Pot was supported by America. He became an embarrassment after the killing fields became publicly known.

And BTW, China was backed by America against the Soviets in the hope to break China away from the Communist Bloc.

Trujillo:
http://www.jlhs.nhusd.k12.ca.us/Classes/Social_Science/Latin_America/Dominican_Republic.html

Time of the Man just means the person has made a major impact on the world that year and has dynamically changed it. Which Hitler cleary did in Germany.

Yeah they made money before the war after the war started the American HQ of the companies no longer controlled those subsidaries. Using your reasoning everywar the U.S. was in or any country for that matter was supporting the enemy beforehand because there is going to be someone in Country A trading with Country B that will help the eventual war effort.

Mistakes happen. No system is perfect. Some people die from eating pesticides left over on their fruits. Some people die from faulty seatbelts. You can't protect everyone, but as long as the system works the vast majority of the time, the system is good.

So, it would be okay for a trucker to deliberately run his truck over a pedestrian or two every once in a while, as long as he allowed say 20 or so to cross the road unharmed for every time he squashed one? I think not.

um no. See that is a blantant act with criminal intent its not a random accident.

As for Cambodia, Pol Pot was most assuredly communist backed. As for instablity in Cambodia, okay the US didnt make it better, but that was caused by the blatant fact the NVA invaded the country and used them as a supply base to assist in their war in South Vietnam.

I believe he's talking about post-war, after the NVA united Vietnam again. The Khmer Rouge made border incursions, repeatedly, into Vietnamese territory based on some ridiculous border dispute centuries old already. The Vietnamese invaded, I suspect because they were sick of having their southern, borderland farmers and expat citizens in "Democratic Kampuchea" killed.

THIS is where the US backed Pol Pot. Because Pol Pot was, if anything, more of an ultra-nationalist agroprimitivist loon who posed little danger to anyone but his own countrymen, whereas Vietnam was a strong socialist state, and it offered our government a chance to give the Vietnamese a little additional kick in the pants (as if the tons of bombs, mines, and toxic waste we dumped on their country wasn't enough).

As for Cambodia, Pol Pot was most assuredly communist backed. As for instablity in Cambodia, okay the US didnt make it better, but that was caused by the blatant fact the NVA invaded the country and used them as a supply base to assist in their war in South Vietnam.

I believe he's talking about post-war, after the NVA united Vietnam again. The Khmer Rouge made border incursions, repeatedly, into Vietnamese territory based on some ridiculous border dispute centuries old already. The Vietnamese invaded, I suspect because they were sick of having their southern, borderland farmers and expat citizens in "Democratic Kampuchea" killed.

THIS is where the US backed Pol Pot. Because Pol Pot was, if anything, more of an ultra-nationalist agroprimitivist loon who posed little danger to anyone but his own countrymen, whereas Vietnam was a strong socialist state, and it offered our government a chance to give the Vietnamese a little additional kick in the pants (as if the tons of bombs, mines, and toxic waste we dumped on their country wasn't enough).

The US supported Pol Pot once in 1969, but this was more or less the CIA attmepting to overthrow the NVA friendly Sihanouk government. When Pol Pot fails they shift over to Lon Nol. Who they endorse. Pol Pot however was a stepchild to the Communists.

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/pot.htm

If you look at what Pol Pot's actual ideology was, you would realize it had rather little to do with Marxism - a fact the Khmer Rouge themselves readily admitted, in both rejecting urban living and engaging in extreme, reactionary nationalism. The whole "back to the countryside" thing that went on is rather anathema to the whole Communist idea, which is to seize control of industry and production and harness it for the needs of the people, not to reject it like a bunch of Luddites.

Anyway, what I said still stands though - in the 1979 Vietnam-Cambodia conflict, the US backed Cambodia. By then, Lon Nol was ooooold news.

"It is reported that the Khmer Rouge are receiving military backing from China and the US. It is also reported that a former deputy director of the CIA visits Pol Pot's operational base in November 1980. During 1980 the World Food Program supplies the Khmer Rouge with food worth US$12 million.

Meanwhile, Pol Pot's wife, Khieu Ponnary, goes insane. He will divorce her and in 1985 remarry a much younger second wife with who he will have a daughter. "

From that page you linked to.

um no. See that is a blantant act with criminal intent its not a random accident.

Deliberately killing somebody is never a random accident. The key word here is intent. You can't call something an accident if it was intentional.