10 worst crimes against humanity by US

[varwoche]

Focusing on egregious crimes of commission, in no particular order:

1) slavery
2) treatment of afro-americans post-slavery
3) treatment of native americans
4) replace elected government in Chile with brutal dictatorship
5) replace elected government in Guatemala with brutal dictatorship
6) support Iraq/Saddam in war with Iran, with goal of ongoing bloody standoff (mission accomplished)
7) financial support for Israel while Israel occupies, oppresses, and annexes Palestine
8) refusing to sign ban against land mines
9) arms dealer to the world
10) allow advertising by cigarette manufacturers

Omitted due to (arguable) honor of intention: Vietnam, supporting Islamists in Afghanistan, Iraq war, arming contras in Nicaragua.

Oversights or undersights?

[Benguin]

Are you trying to suggest the US invented slavery? I always thought we in the UK taught them that little practice.

[yersinia29]

Your "slavery" category is shared by most countries on this earth.

Hardly a phenomenon unique to the US

[varwoche]

Originally posted by yersinia29
Your "slavery" category is shared by most countries on this earth.

Hardly a phenomenon unique to the US
Originality wasn't amongst my criteria.

[Dancing David]

So many things that a nation can do wrong, fortunately we are a young nation:

You hit most of the biggies,

Iran, support of the Shah.
Texas, the genocide of mexican Americans in this century.
Support for Sukharno in Indonesia.

[T'ai Chi]

I'd add a-bomb and pollution somewhere in there.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by varwoche

8) refusing to sign ban against land mines


That you include this as one of the top ten is a sign that either you're running out of actually important "crimes" against humanity, or you're just willing to swallow whatever damn anti-american rhetoric that passes your way.

http://www.denbeste.nu/entries/00001658.shtml

The land mine treaty does not ban land mines. Rather, it only bans anti-personel land mines. What will be the effect of this treaty, even if it is scrupulously obeyed (and what are the chances of that)? That people will just use larger mines instead. Wow, what an improvement for humanity. And this is supposed to be some great crime against humanity by the US?


10) allow advertising by cigarette manufacturers


In other words, being a free and open society.

Cigarrettes are terrible, and there are certainly advantages to not allowing cigarette advertising, but it's still ultimately a personal choice to start smoking. Whatever happened to the idea of personal responsibility? Oh, right, not everyone believes in that anymore.

[Tony]

This is a dumb, dumb, dumb thread.










































































Did I mention it was dumb? But the worst crimes commited against humanity EVER, were the writtings of the bible and the koran.

[crackmonkey]

While most of the things you mentioned are bad and some are indeed criminal, this list hardly makes us unique amongst all nations... it's a good thing to reflect upon one's nation's shortcomings. It's misleading to consider them in a vacuum, however. I contend that we're head and shoulders above the rest, despite our flaws.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Classic troll thread.

9) arms dealer to the world

Oh yes, when I see other countries on television, they've always got M-16s in their hands and they're firing them up into the air!

[crimresearch]

Hmmm..lets see...

Slavery:
Found in every corner of history, in common and open practice today, condoned by UN and so called 'civilized' nations today over US objections, started on the North American continent by European nations, largest share of colonial era slaves used by Brazil et al......abolished by US many years ago.

Native Americans:
Arrived on North American continent in distant past, survivng trace of aboriginal people whom the NAs supplanted held hostage against scientific research, currently granted 'sovereign' status upheld as recently as last week by USSC (unlike Australian pre-European peoples, who were officially declared to be non-human (specificallly, non-existent) until mid 1990s, and are still officially declared to be sub-human, i.e. 'not capable of self governance' by OZ PM.


Treatment of Americans wearing Afros:
OK, OK you got us on that one...one of the prices of a free society is letting people choose to wear silly hair styles.
People of color in the US today are so sensitive on the matter, that they prefer to be called African Americans, or People of Color, or often, just 'people'...Sadly there is still an endless supply of patronizing closet-racists who seek to dehumanize and marginalize minorities by referring to them as 'Afro-Americans'.


'Refusal' to sign treaties with bogus names:
The UN has become quite adept at doublespeak naming of treaties and such.
By calling a conference which officially, albeit tacitly, condoned the forced sexual slavery industry in the Czech Republic and other parts of the world, they were able to accomplish the neat trick of supporting the slavers, and simultaneously condemning the US for its anti-slavery strance, with simple sophistry in choice of names...works pretty well for land mine treaties, ecological accords and other PR coverups.

Arms dealer to the world:
Only if by choosing the singular term we really mean "One of several countries which support arms manufacturers, and the ready marketing of their products to anyone who is looking for some weaponry".

Vietnam, Palestine, Chile, Iran, etc.
Yeah, got us there too...I have no idea why the US foolishly persists in acting in their own narrow, self perceived governmental interests when stuck with the remains of European colonial empire building, and military disasters. Lord knows that no other country has ever looked out for themselves, or sought to advance a nationalist agenda.

Cigarettes:
Well, we had to have something to spend our money on once Afros and the massive outlay for hair care products went the way of bell bottoms, steam driven cars....oh yeah, and slavery.

:rolleyes:

Paul

[varwoche]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I'd add a-bomb and pollution somewhere in there.
In the non-specific, it is my view that creating weapons capable of wiping out mankind is amongst the worst crimes; I have a hard time arguing for the bomb.

In the specific, USSR was going to develop the bomb. If you'll pardon me for fast-forwarding, doesn't this logically conclude with the pacifist argument, that it's better for humanity in the long run to allow oneself to be conquered by Hitler or USSR or whoever rather than compete to survive in a brutal world?

I tried (somewhat) to list things that are black and white -- very subjective of course.

I agree wholeheartedly about pollution. I left it off because I couldn't the indictment to a bullet and I was lazy. Here's how I'd word it:

US took insufficient action to reduce fossil fuel consumption despite knowing that world supplies are rapidly diminishing, despite knowing that burning fossil fuel is harmful to the environment and to human health, despite vastly disproportionate usage, and despite financially supporting despotic, theocratic regimes.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs
Classic troll thread.



Indeed. One can only imagine the screaming to be heard if someone were to start a thread listing the top ten crimes of China or Saudi Arabia.

There are many way of looking at the shortcomings of people, cultures and nations.

One is with concern. Recognizing a shortcoming is the first step in enacting change. In doing this, one should be specific as to what the shortcoming is, how it came to be, and what changes could be made to address it. One should also be honest as to if it is really a shortcoming.

Another is cautionary. Recognizing a shortcoming in order that it should not be repeated. In this, it is also important to understand how it came to be, and what, if anything, needs to be done to prevent it from happening again.

And then there is vilification. Identifying shortcomings with nothing more in mind than to create an emotional reaction. This seems to be that sort of list.

Varwoche, Vancouver B.C. is only a short drive north of the Puget Sound. It's a lovely city, very clean with nice people and a high standard of living. If you moved there and became a citizen, you wouldn't have to taint yourself by association with the evil United States.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by varwoche
In the specific, USSR was going to develop the bomb. If you'll pardon me for fast-forwarding, doesn't this logically conclude with the pacifist argument, that it's better for humanity in the long run to allow oneself to be conquered by Hitler or USSR or whoever rather than compete to survive in a brutal world?


For starters, no. I recognize that I have an obligation to the next generation, and that means insuring that they will not be governed by brutal dictators. While I recognize that the world we pass on will not be perfect, there are some tasks that are valuable in the doing, even if you never see their completion.

Secondly, you present a false dichotomy. It is not an either/or choice between capitulation to dictators and annihilation. Both Hitler and the USSR were defeated. While there are certainly other ideologies that are equally bad, those are challenges to be met by ours and succeeding generations.

[Tony]

Originally posted by varwoche

In the specific, USSR was going to develop the bomb. If you'll pardon me for fast-forwarding, doesn't this logically conclude with the pacifist argument, that it's better for humanity in the long run to allow oneself to be conquered by Hitler or USSR or whoever rather than compete to survive in a brutal world?

Would you let someone rape you instead of fighting back (possibly killing the person) and dealing with the consequences? Would you let someone rape your daughter instead of fighting back and dealing with the consequences?

[varwoche]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Slavery: Found in every corner of history, in common and open practice today, condoned by UN and so called 'civilized' nations today over US objections, started on the North American continent by European nations, largest share of colonial era slaves used by Brazil et al......abolished by US many years ago.
Are you arguing that because slavery was/is common that you don't consider it a crime against humanity?

Please list some civilized nations that condone slavery; I don't know of any.

True, slavery was abolished years ago. I thought it was obvious that the list covered US history, not just current events. Thank you for taking the time to point out, by way of example, that obtuse and/or less-educated readers might require a more thorough explanation.


Native Americans [incomprehensible diatribe snipped]

The fact that native populations in other countries may have been treated worse than in US is irrelevent.


Sadly there is still an endless supply of patronizing closet-racists who seek to dehumanize and marginalize minorities by referring to them as 'Afro-Americans'

This is where your and my dialog concludes. If you want to debate the merits fine, I'm not interested in trading insults.

[crimresearch]

"I tried (somewhat) to list things that are black and white -- very subjective of course. "

Ok, but even so, all we are left with is that the *worst* thing that the US has inflicted on humanity is to act just like other nations in similar positions. Russia built the bomb, we were a little quicker...Britain dumped heroin on the Chinese, we subsidized tobacco, we turned the world into an automobile dependent mess, the Japanese turned it into a TV dependent one, we freed the slaves, and raped the land, the Czechs rebuilt the land, and continue to rape the slaves, and so forth.

Hardly a damning indictment, unless there is a basis for assuming that the US deserves special condemnation for acting as others have, and do.

I have been given rationalizations that the US should be held to a much higher and harsher standard than other countires because of a brief period of economic prosperity which developed a noblesse oblige to act more idealistically than the rest of the human race...

Sorry, I just don't buy that....
Because we couldn't exhaust the natural resources of the European colonies here any faster than the Europeans could, and because the European's greed gave their own colonists no choice but to revolt, and because the timing of external ideologies led to the American revolutionaries adopting a quasi-egalitarian experiment as the antithesis of European royalty, and because geography dictated that when European petty rivalries erupted into world wars we were left with our infrastructure unbombed, it is now our lot to be blamed for European messes in their other former colonies, to be condemend for acting in a self-interested manner, AND to be held responsible for all the world's ills?

Pardon me while I chew on that one.
:rolleyes:

Paul

[crimresearch]

"Are you arguing that because slavery was/is common that you don't consider it a crime against humanity? "

No I am pointing out that YOU don't rate the modern face of slavery as worthy of being considered a crime, as based on your refusal to include it in your list of 'crimes against humanity' and because of your challenge that it is condoned by civilized countries, because *you* 'don't know of any'.
Czech Republic not civilized enough for you? Signatories to the UN commision paper that refused to allow it on the floor not in your reality?

Taking a head in the sand approach to the widespread, obvious, and well documented problem of modern slavery, while refusing to focus on anything but the narrow slice of European slavery that took place in the former colonies for less than a century, is enabling and complicit.

The same thing would apply to the tactic of refusing to address the indigenous people's issue by labelling references as incomprehensible. I suspect that others had no trouble taking the reference to Kennewick Man.
And continuing to label the US a criminal for something it currently doesn't authorize, while excusing worse actions elsewhere as beside the point, is fallacious reasoning at best, and as above, complicit in current abuse by acting as a red herring at worst.

As far as proclaiming abuse, and running away when called on your choice to denigrate minorities by using the outdated and insensitive term 'Afro-American', take your guilty conscience at having your behavior corrected somewhere else, the only way you will find sympathy here is if someone points you to a dictionary. (Ask me if you need to know what words it lies between)

So far, your entire premise is built upon what *you* didn't care to know, didn't care to comprehend, or care to find important enough to include. Stacked deck, fish in a barrel, etc....Unimpressive.

Paul

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
[Cigarrettes are terrible, and there are certainly advantages to not allowing cigarette advertising, but it's still ultimately a personal choice to start smoking. Whatever happened to the idea of personal responsibility?
I do not condone making tobacco illegal. (In fact I support de-criminlalization of most drugs.) I consider the *advertising* criminal for the following reasons combined:

1) It has long been known that nicotene is highly addictive, that smoking kills more people than any other drug, and that many smokers start in their teens
2) US/state laws define certain drugs as legal and others as not, creating an implication that legal drugs are safer than illegal drugs
3) Tobacco is one of the few drugs that is pure downside (no medical value)

Why should it be permissible to *promote* a drug like this, to induce its use?

Ziggurat , to test your intellectual consistency, are you opposed to the restrictions already placed on tobacco and liquor advertising?

[Darat]

Originally posted by varwoche
...snip...

Why should it be permissible to *promote* a drug like this, to induce its use?

Ziggurat , to test your intellectual consistency, are you opposed to the restrictions already placed on tobacco and liquor advertising?

Promotion does not equate with forcing people to use it.

If the promotion is honest I don't see the problem.

The specific problem with tobacco was that for nearly 30 years the promotion was based on a known falsehood.

[Skeptic]

7) financial support for Israel while Israel occupies, oppresses, and annexes Palestine

That's NOTHING! If you think the US is committing a war crime here, just think of the israelis! They deserved everything they get, I tell ya!

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Indeed. One can only imagine the screaming to be heard if someone were to start a thread listing the top ten crimes of China or Saudi Arabia.

Not from me, to the contrary. Both countries are high on my sh** list.


There are many way of looking at the shortcomings of people, cultures and nations. One is with concern. Recognizing a shortcoming is the first step in enacting change ... And then there is vilification. Identifying shortcomings with nothing more in mind than to create an emotional reaction. This seems to be that sort of list.

True, I am critical of America. I am also sick to death of the mindless recitation that it's the greatest country in the world, seemingly without critical thinking.

I want the US to be a better place, and more humble on the world stage.

As to the brevity of my statements, I am expanding as I go here, sorry if it came off cynical, and look forward to thoughtfully discussing any of the particuars with you.


Varwoche, Vancouver B.C. is only a short drive north of the Puget Sound. It's a lovely city, very clean with nice people and a high standard of living. If you moved there and became a citizen, you wouldn't have to taint yourself by association with the evil United States.
Mycroft, that sounds a lot like "America, love it or leave it". I'm dissappointed you would go there because you seem like a sincere, intelligent person. I'll spare you the trite retort.

[LucyR]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

The land mine treaty does not ban land mines. Rather, it only bans anti-personel land mines. What will be the effect of this treaty, even if it is scrupulously obeyed (and what are the chances of that)? That people will just use larger mines instead. Wow, what an improvement for humanity. And this is supposed to be some great crime against humanity by the US?


I think this thread is pointlessly provocative, but I must say I'm not sure of your logic here. Larger mines are naturally more expensive, and are presumably harder to transport and conceal. I don't think they'll ever be seen as more attractive than small anti-personnel mines to many of the countries that like to deploy them. Besides, small mines will often maim, rather than kill. I thought this quality was considered more effective for the purpose of demoralizing the enemy and also wasting his resources.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Tony


Would you let someone rape you instead of fighting back (possibly killing the person) and dealing with the consequences? Would you let someone rape your daughter instead of fighting back and dealing with the consequences?
No and no. I think I may have failed to make my point clear.

Add: Actually, first no = yes if she were hot.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Darat


Promotion does not equate with forcing people to use it.

If the promotion is honest I don't see the problem.

The specific problem with tobacco was that for nearly 30 years the promotion was based on a known falsehood.
Darat, to test your intellectual consistency, are you opposed to the restrictions already placed on tobacco and liquor advertising?

[Rob Lister]

No wait! Refusal to go along with Kyoto should be in there somewhere. If we're limited to only ten, it should probably replace number 1, 2 or 3. I guesss you could bump those down and just drop the existing number 10 but I personally don't think any of the first three really belong anyway.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs
Classic troll thread.

Oh yes, when I see other countries on television, they've always got M-16s in their hands and they're firing them up into the air!
You suffer from what appears to be a common delusion -- that someone else committing the same crime makes it not a crime.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by varwoche

Darat, to test your intellectual consistency, are you opposed to the restrictions already placed on tobacco and liquor advertising?

Umm, added to quibble but I don't think there are actually an 'restrictions' on tobacco or liquor advertising. I think it's more like a strong-armed 'agreement'.

[LucyR]

varwoche,

You might be missing DB's point. I suppose he means they're typically AK-47s or some variant.

Edit: Ok perhaps you weren't. Sorry.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by varwoche

You suffer from what appears to be a common delusion -- that someone else committing the same crime makes it not a crime.

You suffer from what appears to be a common delusion -- that 'crime' is something which an inanimate object or thing, such as a 'nation' can commit.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Skeptic
That's NOTHING! If you think the US is committing a war crime here, just think of the israelis! They deserved everything they get, I tell ya!

The confusion that statement caused me should not go unreported. I know there is sense in it but I just can't figure it.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Hardly a damning indictment, unless there is a basis for assuming that the US deserves special condemnation for acting as others have, and do.

A country benefits when its faults and mistakes are part of the public dialog. Defintely, I am more critical of the US than any country *because it is my country*, not because it's the worst in the world or anywhere near it.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by varwoche

A country benefits when its faults and mistakes are part of the public dialog.

How so?

[Darat]

Originally posted by varwoche

Darat, to test your intellectual consistency, are you opposed to the restrictions already placed on tobacco and liquor advertising?

My "intellectual consistency" needs to be tested? Anyway before I could answer that I would need to know which restrictions you are talking about and I can’t read your mind.

(Edited to add the rest of my comments.)

And let me just go over my previous post.

Promotion does not equate with forcing people to use it.

Do you disagree with this statement? It’s an assertion yes, but I find it hard to belive you want me to support it.

If the promotion is honest I don't see the problem.

To extend this what I am therefore saying is that I cannot promote alcohol with (for example) the concept that it will improve your social life, it will make you better in bed, it will improve your concentration, it will make you live longer all I can promote it with is whatever is known to be truthful.

The specific problem with tobacco was that for nearly 30 years the promotion was based on a known falsehood.

They used to promote tobacco with ideas that it was good for you which the tobacco companies knew without a shadow of a doubt was wrong.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by varwoche
True, I am critical of America. I am also sick to death of the mindless recitation that it's the greatest country in the world, seemingly without critical thinking.

And so you address it with an even more mindless recitation of its “crimes against humanity.” I’m sorry, but I can’t agree that purposeful idiocy on one side of the spectrum is a cure for perceived idiocy on the other.

Originally posted by varwoche
I want the US to be a better place, and more humble on the world stage.

Yes, we must not be so arrogant, clinging to our concepts of soul-less rationalism, capitalism, democracy, and human rights as though their alternatives were not equally valid if requiring a different point of view to see it.

Originally posted by varwoche
Mycroft, that sounds a lot like "America, love it or leave it". I'm dissappointed you would go there because you seem like a sincere, intelligent person. I'll spare you the trite retort.

Which is exactly how I meant it.

I personally think that self-criticism and introspection is an important part of patriotism. Because we are proud of what we are, we should also seek to improve what we are, and that requires identification of areas for improvement. This doesn’t take away from the accomplishments of other peoples, not should it be hampered by recognizing what we have accomplished and should be proud of.

But you take that self-criticism to an absurd extreme. When your criticisms of your country extend to seeing its history only as a succession of crimes against humanity, then you’ve lost any pretext of rational impartiality that would be required to address problems that are real.

Canada is nice. Have you ever seen Vancouver B.C. at dusk?

[epepke]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Slavery:
Found in every corner of history, in common and open practice today, condoned by UN and so called 'civilized' nations today over US objections, started on the North American continent by European nations, largest share of colonial era slaves used by Brazil et al......abolished by US many years ago.

Not to mention that slavery in North America started longe before there was a US and was abolished by the US in the context of a Civil War against former English colonied that were trying to secede from the US and who were allied with England against the US.

[JAR]

Originally posted by varwoche
10 worst crimes against humanity by US

Focusing on egregious crimes of commission, in no particular order:

1) slavery
2) treatment of afro-americans post-slavery
3) treatment of native americans
4) replace elected government in Chile with brutal dictatorship
5) replace elected government in Guatemala with brutal dictatorship
6) support Iraq/Saddam in war with Iran, with goal of ongoing bloody standoff (mission accomplished)
7) financial support for Israel while Israel occupies, oppresses, and annexes Palestine
8) refusing to sign ban against land mines
9) arms dealer to the world
10) allow advertising by cigarette manufacturers

Omitted due to (arguable) honor of intention: Vietnam, supporting Islamists in Afghanistan, Iraq war, arming contras in Nicaragua.

Oversights or undersights?
varwoche, are you saying that the U.S. committed the ten worst crimes against humanity or are you listing the ten worst of the crimes the U.S. committed against humanity?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by epepke


Not to mention that slavery in North America started longe before there was a US and was abolished by the US in the context of a Civil War against former English colonied that were trying to secede from the US and who were allied with England against the US.

so 'The North' were not English colonies at one point? I guess they didnt fight a war of secesion?

Personally, I guess that 'The South' were just trying to do the same thing as Washington did a few years earlier, but while Washington is a Hero, 'The South' is a bunch of criminals for daring to secede?

[varwoche]

Originally posted by crimresearch
[BI am pointing out that YOU don't rate the modern face of slavery as worthy of being considered a crime, as based on your refusal to include it in your list of 'crimes against humanity'
May I call your attention to the "US" in the subject? If there is slavery in the US modern-day, it is without my knowledge and I hope you will enlighten.

On the other hand, I welcome you to start a new thread that expands scope to misdeeds of other nations. I can assure you that my objection to modern slavery will be unequivocal.


As far as proclaiming abuse, and running away when called on your choice to denigrate minorities by using the outdated and insensitive term 'Afro-American'...
Staying on top of the politically correct term du jour is not a high priority to me, though I am glad to refer to any group by whatever label they wish. (I've heard objections to "African American" fyi, maybe we both need an update?)

I suppose if I came across someone using the term"colored person", I could assume racism, or I could give benefit of doubt and assume the person is from a different generation or otherwise unaware. I hope that I would look to substance versus semantics before tossing an incendiary term like racist. But that's just me.

[demon]

varwoche, the "arguable" honour of intention of supporting the contras in Nicaragua???

[varwoche]

Originally posted by JAR

varwoche, are you saying that the U.S. committed the ten worst crimes against humanity or are you listing the ten worst of the crimes the U.S. committed against humanity?
The latter. Now that you mention, I can see that the subject is worded in an ambiguous way, though surely the omission of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Rwanda might be an indicator. ;)

[varwoche]

Originally posted by demon
varwoche, the "arguable" honour of intention of supporting the contras in Nicaragua???
Defeating communism? The Sandanistas were no sweethearts?

(Not that I excuse this sorry chapter mind you.)

[WildCat]

Originally posted by epepke


Not to mention that slavery in North America started longe before there was a US and was abolished by the US in the context of a Civil War against former English colonied that were trying to secede from the US and who were allied with England against the US.
Yes, early in the war there was interest among some in the British gov't to ally w/ the Confederacy in order to protect their cotton sources, especially after the US Navy stopped the British ship Trent in order to seize 2 Confederate emmisaries who were traveling to England and France to gain support for the Confederate war effort. There was a furor in Britain over this, but eventually the prisoners were returned and the furor ended. But British textile workers, despite being out of work due to the lack of cotton, would never support the Confederacy due to the slavery issue. As the Confederacy's fortunes waned in the war, British intervention became more and more unlikely.

France was much more interested in supporting the Confederacy, but Napoleon III was too involved in propping up his puppet gov't in Mexico at the time to become actively involved in North America.

More here. (http://www.civilwarhome.com/europeandcivilwar.htm)

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by LucyR

I think this thread is pointlessly provocative, but I must say I'm not sure of your logic here. Larger mines are naturally more expensive, and are presumably harder to transport and conceal. I don't think they'll ever be seen as more attractive than small anti-personnel mines to many of the countries that like to deploy them. Besides, small mines will often maim, rather than kill. I thought this quality was considered more effective for the purpose of demoralizing the enemy and also wasting his resources.

Antipersonel land mines are indeed meant to maim, because it forces the enemy to waste resources. But it's not really hard or even expensive to simply scale up the explosive size to take out a vehicle. And if it can take out a car, it's not anti-personel, even if it can't take out a tank. It's not going to be that much more expensive, concealing anti-vehicle mines isn't really any harder, and I can't really imagine that the fact that you can't carry as many on your back is going to be the deciding factor in any of this. The treaty won't eliminate the use of land mines, and the shift from small to larger land mines isn't really a big improvement (is it really a humanitarian decision to shift the casualties from being maimed to being killed?). It also could simply shift that portion of land mine production to an illegal black market - it's not like land mines require high technology or sophistication. In other words, there's really no reason to think that this treaty is going to help much. In that context, it's absurd to think that our failure to ratify the treaty somehow represents a crime against humanity.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Rob Lister


How so?
You know, learn from history, try not to repeat, that sort of stuff.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by varwoche
Why should it be permissible to *promote* a drug like this, to induce its use?

Ziggurat , to test your intellectual consistency, are you opposed to the restrictions already placed on tobacco and liquor advertising?

Why should it be permissible to advertise? Because adults are adults, and they need to take a little friggin' responsibility for their own actions. The majority of restrictions on tobacco and liquor advertising relate to controlling exposure of the advertising to children, something I'm all in favor of. But there's a damned big difference between something being good or bad public policy and actually being a crime against humanity. And it takes a peculiar kind of delusion to think that bad public policy counts as a crime against humanity. I'm sure there are plenty of arguments for why tobacco advertsing should be further restricted, and those arguments may well be correct, but the logic you use is somewhat like arguing that to have stop signs painted a color other than red would be a crime against humanity.

[Nyarlathotep]

Oh boy, just what the board needs, another "Americans are evil and ought to save the world the trouble by shooting themselves in the head" thread. This one distinguishes itself, htough, by throwing in witht he list of reasons things, such as slavery, that occured (and were rectified) long before a single human being alive on this planet was even born. Yipee.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Mycroft
I personally think that self-criticism and introspection is an important part of patriotism. Because we are proud of what we are, we should also seek to improve what we are, and that requires identification of areas for improvement. This doesn’t take away from the accomplishments of other peoples, not should it be hampered by recognizing what we have accomplished and should be proud of.
Well said, I agree 100%.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Why should it be permissible to advertise? Because adults are adults, and they need to take a little friggin' responsibility for their own actions. The majority of restrictions on tobacco and liquor advertising relate to controlling exposure of the advertising to children, something I'm all in favor of. But there's a damned big difference between something being good or bad public policy and actually being a crime against humanity. And it takes a peculiar kind of delusion to think that bad public policy counts as a crime against humanity. I'm sure there are plenty of arguments for why tobacco advertsing should be further restricted, and those arguments may well be correct, but the logic you use is somewhat like arguing that to have stop signs painted a color other than red would be a crime against humanity.
In the context of this thread, no doubt that particular point was a stretch on my part. I do think it's very wrong.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Why should it be permissible to advertise? Because adults are adults, and they need to take a little friggin' responsibility for their own actions. The majority of restrictions on tobacco and liquor advertising relate to controlling exposure of the advertising to children, something I'm all in favor of.
Actually, it's not illegal for tobacco and hard alcohol companies to advertise anywhere. It's just that most broadcast and print media have banned it themselves by refusing to accept it.

There were some local laws restricting such advertising, but IIRC the ones that were challenged in the courts were struck down on constitutional (1st Amendment) grounds.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Tony
Did I mention it was dumb? But the worst crimes commited against humanity EVER, were the writtings of the bible and the koran.
Judaism and Judaism based religions were way too successful for them to not have been beneficial.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Rob Lister


You suffer from what appears to be a common delusion -- that 'crime' is something which an inanimate object or thing, such as a 'nation' can commit.
Generally speaking, what noun do you suggest?

[varwoche]

Originally posted by LucyR
I think this thread is pointlessly provocative...
No doubt, Americans are strongly reactive to the suggestion that the US is a violent country with a violent history, in need of a dose of humility.

Nationalism runs deep. It's easy to see when it's the other guy.

[JAR]

Originally posted by varwoche
No doubt, Americans are strongly reactive to the suggestion that the US is a violent country with a violent history, in need of a dose of humility.

Nationalism runs deep. It's easy to see when it's the other guy.
The U.S. is one of the least nationalistic countries in the world. We don't even have an official language and that is a good thing.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by JAR

The U.S. is one of the least nationalistic countries in the world. We don't even have an official language and that is a good thing. Maybe you're right for all I know. But how can this be measured?

[JAR]

Originally posted by varwoche
Maybe you're right for all I know. But how can this be measured?
Do you think that America is more nationalistic than other countries and do you have any evidence to back it up?

[varwoche]

Originally posted by JAR

Do you think that America is more nationalistic than other countries and do you have any evidence to back it up? It's my impression that US is less nationalistic than most, but I don't really know.

[demon]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by demon:
"varwoche, the "arguable" honour of intention of supporting the contras in Nicaragua???"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by varwoche:
"Defeating communism? The Sandanistas were no sweethearts?

(Not that I excuse this sorry chapter mind you.)"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'The Sandanistas were no sweethearts'
The Sandanista government was responsible for some human rights abuses, but in comparison to the crimes committed by the Contras or the US client regimes in Guatemala and El Salvador, their record was good. They won power in an election judged free and fair by international observers in 1984.
Their record also compares well to the USA during World War 2, which, despite it's home territory not being attacked (unlike Nicaragua), dispossesed and imprisoned an entire ethnic group - Japanese-Americans - as a threat to national security.

'Defeating communism?'

The Cold war was not motivated by freedom or democracy. The USA supported tyrants, and waged wars, which were responsible for as much suffering as Stalinist regimes. Nicaragua is an example: the Contra war cost 30,000 Nicaraguan lives in contrast to a far smaller numbers of victims of human rights abuses by the Sandanistas, who unlike the Contras, won a democratic mandate from the Nicaraguan people.

[varwoche]

If nothing else, I've learned that it's a demanding task to start a provocative, wide-ranging thread and try to keep up with replies in a thoughtful way. Pardon me for lumping some of you together here in this summarized reply.

Benguin, yersinia29, crackmonkey, DangerousBeliefs, and crimresearch stated, in reference to various topics on list, "X did it too" or "X was worse than US" or "X did it first".

This is irrelevent. My post had nothing to do with other countries, nor did I suggest at any time how US ranked versus other countries in any of the categories. But since you mention:

In my view, countries tend to be ruthless, violent, and corrupt entities. Some far moreso than others. Clearly the net crime to humanity by US is not remotely in the same league with the likes of USSR, Nazi Germany, and China.

Amongst democratic nations (again, not in same leage as aforementioned), let's not forget the contributions of colonial Europe for much of the mess in mid-east and Africa.

On other fronts...

Darat, Ziggurat, and Wildcat, it was an inane reach for me to place tobacco advertising on this list. Maybe I'll revist this in the future with a fleshed out argument. I hope you will consider how many people die from smoking, and the percentage that start as teenagers. (Pardon, easy to google, time runs low.)

Ziggurat and LucyR, re landmines, I definitely want to resume this topic once I've done some more research. Ziggurat, do you have reference for your comments re ease/inexpense of upgrading mines?

Rob Lister, Nyarlathotep, and DangerousBeliefs, Skeptic, you display varying degrees of intelligibility, tending towards un.

crimresearch, you are not intelligible nor are you remotely civil.

Tony, what's your opinion, is the thread dumb? ;)

Mycroft, not only an intellectual low (love it or leave it!?), but personal insult? The reason the insult is disappointing is because you and I managed to have a couple of civil discussions about the mideast, despite sharp differences, which unfortunately is a rare commodity.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Oh boy, just what the board needs, another "Americans are evil and ought to save the world the trouble by shooting themselves in the head" thread.

I got the opposite impression. The number of them that seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel to round up the Top 10 list is pretty high.

Seriously, cigarette advertising? Hasn't anyone here been outside the US?

[Outcast]

Originally posted by varwoche
Focusing on egregious crimes of commission, in no particular order:

1) slavery
2) treatment of afro-americans post-slavery
3) treatment of native americans
4) replace elected government in Chile with brutal dictatorship
5) replace elected government in Guatemala with brutal dictatorship
6) support Iraq/Saddam in war with Iran, with goal of ongoing bloody standoff (mission accomplished)
7) financial support for Israel while Israel occupies, oppresses, and annexes Palestine
8) refusing to sign ban against land mines
9) arms dealer to the world
10) allow advertising by cigarette manufacturers

Omitted due to (arguable) honor of intention: Vietnam, supporting Islamists in Afghanistan, Iraq war, arming contras in Nicaragua.

Oversights or undersights? United Nations, it has done more to spread communist propaganda then any other agency in the world. It has legitimized petty 3rd world thugs. It has kept the Palestine refuges as political prisoners in refugee camps for almost 40 years. It has also worked to undermine the sovereignty of the United States.

[Benguin]

If nothing else, I've learned that it's a demanding task to start a provocative, wide-ranging thread and try to keep up with replies in a thoughtful way. Pardon me for lumping some of you together here in this summarized reply.

The problem is nobody understands what point yoiu are trying to make ... the closest apparent theme to your intention was

Oh boy, just what the board needs, another "Americans are evil and ought to save the world the trouble by shooting themselves in the head" thread.

I can't see anything in that list which makes the US unique, or remarkably different from anywhere else. Very little where the US was the first or worst. And at least 2 points are very debatable as humanist issues in any case.

Are you suggesting the US should be singled out as a special case for criticism against absolute criteria rather than relative criteria? Please clarify ...

[Nikk]

Originally posted by varwoche
It's my impression that US is less nationalistic than most, but I don't really know.

Actually given that there is a distinction between nationalism and patriotism I would say that the US is more nationalistic than many comparable modern nations.

Let me quote from Orwell's "Notes on Nationalism" ......"As nearly as possible, no nationalist ever thinks, talks, or writes about anything except the superiority of his own power unit. It is difficult if not impossible for any nationalist to conceal his allegiance. The SMALLEST SLUR UPON HIS OWN UNIT ( my caps ), or any implied praise of a rival organisation, fills him with uneasiness which he can only relieve by making some sharp retort. ................He will show great sensitiveness about such things as the correct display of flags.........

Your post stirred up those with US nationalist tendencies hence the silliness of some of the responses.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Benguin
The problem is nobody understands what point yoiu are trying to make ... the closest apparent theme to your intention was
Oh boy, just what the board needs, another "Americans are evil and ought to save the world the trouble by shooting themselves in the head" thread.

Are you suggesting the US should be singled out as a special case for criticism against absolute criteria rather than relative criteria? Please clarify ...
You've made it clear that you consider the discussion confusing and lame. Points noted. Obviously it is not mandatory that you continue to participate, but if you so choose...

The topic pertains to the US, so yes, in this thread the US is singled out.

I'm not interested in other countries (in this thread) unless it is your contention that like behavoir of other countries is the reason that a particular behavoir by the US is not criminal. For instance, perhaps you wish to argue that slavery should not be considered a crime against humanity by 19th century standards because the practice was common in other countries. Be my guest.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Outcast
United Nations, it has done more to spread communist propaganda then any other agency in the world. It has legitimized petty 3rd world thugs. It has kept the Palestine refuges as political prisoners in refugee camps for almost 40 years. It has also worked to undermine the sovereignty of the United States.
The actions of the UN are off-topic, unless you are contending that US participation/support for the UN is itself a crime against humanity.

[Benguin]

I'm not interested in other countries (in this thread) unless it is your contention that like behavoir of other countries is the reason that a particular behavoir by the US is not criminal. For instance, perhaps you wish to argue that slavery should not be considered a crime against humanity by 19th century standards because the practice was common in other countries. Be my guest.

Well that's why I asked, because an assertion that the US is somehow manifestly different than other countries in it's present or past conduct would be rather tricky to support, given the examples you present.

Clearly the fact that many other countries did (and still do) practice (for instance) slavery would not make the US history any less shameful in that regard. It would just be ridiculous to single out the US for that, beyond the point that they carried on with it a bit after certain european countries had decided it was an immoral activity.

As far as I can see you are trying to make a point that US has a less than exemplary record on humanism, with particular reference to it's foreign policy. Is that right?

If so (and I agree on that) please explain why they should be different and why it is a point worth making on its own, without reference to some policy inconsistency.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Nikk


Actually given that there is a distinction between nationalism and patriotism I would say that the US is more nationalistic than many comparable modern nations.

Let me quote from Orwell's "Notes on Nationalism" ......"As nearly as possible, no nationalist ever thinks, talks, or writes about anything except the superiority of his own power unit. It is difficult if not impossible for any nationalist to conceal his allegiance. The SMALLEST SLUR UPON HIS OWN UNIT ( my caps ), or any implied praise of a rival organisation, fills him with uneasiness which he can only relieve by making some sharp retort. ................He will show great sensitiveness about such things as the correct display of flags.........

Your post stirred up those with US nationalist tendencies hence the silliness of some of the responses.
Excellent quote.

How can nationalism be measured Nikk, other than by vague impression?

[Outcast]

Originally posted by varwoche

The actions of the UN are off-topic, unless you are contending that US participation/support for the UN is itself a crime against humanity. I meant that creating it was the worst crime against humanity that we have done.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by epepke

The number of them that seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel to round up the Top 10 list is pretty high.

Forgetting cigarette advertising, which I withdrew leaving a top9, I can interpret your comment to mean either: 1) you do not consider certain of the items to be crimes against humanity, or 2) you consider certain of the crimes to be minor (which might speak well for the US), and/or 3) there are bigger crimes that I overlooked. Please clarify.

[Benguin]

Surely creating it was a relatively inoccuous idea with good aims ... the problem is the way it has become.

As far as I can see it just reflects the obscenity and self-interest of a lot of nation states. Maybe that is doing us a service?

[varwoche]

Originally posted by demon
The Sandanista government was responsible for some human rights abuses, but in comparison to the crimes committed by the Contras or the US client regimes in Guatemala and El Salvador, their record was good. [/B]
In composing the list, I was attempting to include items where the underlying facts are incontrovertible, regardless of ideaology, and/or items where I thought I'd be able to bolster the case effectively. I didn't think I could bolster the Contra argument as effectively as Chile, for instance. (Obviously there is a high degree of subjectivity involved, and "10" is arbitrary of course.)

I'm unable to debate the contras with you demon because I share your point of view.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Nikk


Actually given that there is a distinction between nationalism and patriotism I would say that the US is more nationalistic than many comparable modern nations.

Let me quote from Orwell's "Notes on Nationalism" ......"As nearly as possible, no nationalist ever thinks, talks, or writes about anything except the superiority of his own power unit. It is difficult if not impossible for any nationalist to conceal his allegiance. The SMALLEST SLUR UPON HIS OWN UNIT ( my caps ), or any implied praise of a rival organisation, fills him with uneasiness which he can only relieve by making some sharp retort. ................He will show great sensitiveness about such things as the correct display of flags.........

Your post stirred up those with US nationalist tendencies hence the silliness of some of the responses.
But the U.S. is the best country in the world. The U.S. is currently the only superpower. When someone says, "My country is the best", he might be giving nationalistic propaganda, or he might be telling the truth.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by JAR

But the U.S. is the best country in the world. The U.S. is currently the only superpower. When someone says, "My country is the best", he might be giving nationalistic propaganda, or he might be telling the truth.
What criteria do you use to rate US as the best country?

[JAR]

Originally posted by varwoche
What criteria do you use to rate US as the best country?
The U.S. is the only superpower. The success of the U.S. is amazing. It has survived despite the lack of a united nationality among it's citizens. In Europe people get mad when they don't speak their nationalistic language and live under a government that represents their nationality and even commit acts of violence over it.

In the U.S., most people of Irish ancestry don't speak Gaelic and don't even speak English with an Irish accent and it doesn't bother them, and most people of German ancestry don't speak German and it doesn't bother them. This is because the American country is so superior that it overwhelms non-American nationalist sentiments.

The U.S. also has a great economy. Most territory that is now part of the U.S., was not part of it when it came into existence. In the Civil War, the U.S. won despite taking about 5 times as many casualties as it's enemy, the Confederates. Currently the U.S. has the best military in the world.

The Soviet Union and the Third Reich suppressed opposition to their one party governments. Despite that, the U.S. is still around, and the Soviet Union and the Third Reich aren't. That is more evidence of the U.S.'s superiority.

[jj]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I'd add a-bomb and pollution somewhere in there.
Hunh?

We invented polution?

As far as the A-bomb, I suppose you'd be happier if the Axis invented it first? Yes, it's an unpleasant thing. Now, where would be be with out it?

How do you feel about nuclear power, or is it nucular?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jj

Hunh?

We invented polution?


Did I say the USA invented pollution? No, I did not. At times we do practice it though.


As far as the A-bomb, I suppose you'd be happier if the Axis invented it first? Yes, it's an unpleasant thing. Now, where would be be with out it?


Irrelevant. History did not turn out that way.

[Outcast]

Originally posted by varwoche

What criteria do you use to rate US as the best country? America, must be a great place to live, look at all the people that are dying to get in.:D

Another thing that makes America a great place to live is, we do not blow everything up every two or three generations the way Europe does

[Schizobunny]

Originally posted by Benguin
Are you trying to suggest the US invented slavery? I always thought we in the UK taught them that little practice.

Actually Portugal started african slavery.

[Schizobunny]

Originally posted by varwoche
Focusing on egregious crimes of commission, in no particular order:

1) slavery
2) treatment of afro-americans post-slavery
3) treatment of native americans
4) replace elected government in Chile with brutal dictatorship
5) replace elected government in Guatemala with brutal dictatorship
6) support Iraq/Saddam in war with Iran, with goal of ongoing bloody standoff (mission accomplished)
7) financial support for Israel while Israel occupies, oppresses, and annexes Palestine
8) refusing to sign ban against land mines
9) arms dealer to the world
10) allow advertising by cigarette manufacturers

Omitted due to (arguable) honor of intention: Vietnam, supporting Islamists in Afghanistan, Iraq war, arming contras in Nicaragua.

Oversights or undersights?


You forgot about the treatment of Japanese Americans during World War II.

[Demigorgon]

OMG America is Teh Eval!!!!11!!!

[epepke]

Originally posted by varwoche
Forgetting cigarette advertising, which I withdrew leaving a top9, I can interpret your comment to mean either: 1) you do not consider certain of the items to be crimes against humanity, or 2) you consider certain of the crimes to be minor (which might speak well for the US), and/or 3) there are bigger crimes that I overlooked. Please clarify.

You missed a couple. So, I'll go one by one. I'll not use the arguments that other countries do the same things, nor will I argue that they are justified by ends.

1) slavery

Largely an inherited problem from the times before the US existed, and which the US eventually stopped, at gunpoint.

2) treatment of afro-americans post-slavery

Lamentable, but except for the J. Edgar Hoover wiretappings, which were illegal and evil but not to my mind a crime against humanity, the US has been on the side of improving the quality of life for African-Americans, working against the various States and the people thereof.

3) treatment of native americans

Now, that's a fair one.

4) replace elected government in Chile with brutal dictatorship
5) replace elected government in Guatemala with brutal dictatorship

I'm not going to try to justify these, either.

6) support Iraq/Saddam in war with Iran, with goal of ongoing bloody standoff (mission accomplished)

Lamentable in hindsight, and probably stupid.

7) financial support for Israel while Israel occupies, oppresses, and annexes Palestine

I don't like many of the things Israel is doing, either. However, there's some kind of fantasy land where people imagine that if the US dropped their "support," then all of Israel's nukes would simply vanish, along with their ability to manufacture Uzis.

If I really hated Arabs and Muslims, I'd want the US to stop giving money to Israel. I don't, so I don't.

I think that if the US released its hold on Israel, the ensuing carnage would be like nothing you've ever imagined.

8) refusing to sign ban against land mines

As has been pointed out, this is not a ban against land mines; it's a ban against anti-personnel land mines. Furthermore, signing an agreement plus $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Deploying anti-personnel landmines may be a crime against humanity, but signing agreements is stripey-trousers stuff.

9) arms dealer to the world

Yep. Not necessarily a crime against humanity, unless one believes that arms have no possible peacekeeping use.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Schizobunny


Actually Portugal started african slavery.

Africa started African slavery. Portugal marketed it. Amsterdam provided the logistics.

[Benguin]

Unfortunately, Africa never stopped it.

Was slavery common practice throughout Europe anyway back then? Including traffic of slaves from other nations?

Certain the romans were keen on the idea ... and biblical references suggest it was considered accepted practice back then in other 'civilisations'.

I think Varwoche was keen not see America judged by reference or relative to other states but against some kind of absolute moral yardstick, I'm just not sure if it is logically possible to do that.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Benguin
Unfortunately, Africa never stopped it.

Was slavery common practice throughout Europe anyway back then? Including traffic of slaves from other nations?

It depends on what you count as "slavery." Does the European system of feudalism, according to which serfs belonged to the land, which belonged to the lord, count as slavery? If not, it's pretty close.

Slavery took hold in North America in the first place because of indentured servitude; some indentured servants got out of their obligations by selling their children into slavery. Still, this was long before a US even existed.

I think Varwoche was keen not see America judged by reference or relative to other states but against some kind of absolute moral yardstick, I'm just not sure if it is logically possible to do that.

Surely, but what is interesting is that he did such a weak job of it.

[Segnosaur]

Most of the points have already been well addressed by others....

Originally posted by varwoche

3) treatment of native americans


Did you know that native americans have also been mistreated by other native americans? Some of the wars fought in the Americas pre-columbus were bloody. (At the first TAM, one of the presenters compared the % of deaths in war by the American indian and compared it with casulty figures in other countries, and the Native american figures were much higher.)

Originally posted by varwoche

4) replace elected government in Chile with brutal dictatorship


Although the Americans supported the overthrow, a few things should be remembered:
- The actual overthrow was done by the Chileans themselves
- The previous government had been elected with far less than 50% of the vote
- The previous government was not as popular as some might think. Many of their reforms were problamatic, and the socialist government had gone back on many of the agreements prevous governments had made. (If you can blame the U.S. for going back on treaties, then shouldn't Chile be heald to the same standard?)

Originally posted by varwoche

6) support Iraq/Saddam in war with Iran, with goal of ongoing bloody standoff (mission accomplished)


Iran was a theocracy and a brutal dictatorship. Do you think the middle east and the world would be better off had the U.S. let Iran win?

Originally posted by varwoche

7) financial support for Israel while Israel occupies, oppresses, and annexes Palestine


You do know that the U.S. also gives a substantial amount of aid to other countries (such as Egypt)?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by varwoche

Mycroft, not only an intellectual low (love it or leave it!?), but personal insult? The reason the insult is disappointing is because you and I managed to have a couple of civil discussions about the mideast, despite sharp differences, which unfortunately is a rare commodity.

I agree with the desire to elevate the level of discussion, however I still take issue with this statement.

If you wish civil discussions that involve actual exchange of and considerations of ideas, then you also need to take responsibility for your own end of the conversation. It doesn’t make sense to me that you would start a thread interpreting United States history as a succession of “crimes against humanity” and then moan about the responses you get as not being “intellectually high” enough for your tastes. You started the thread, you set the tone. If you want better, try again.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Did you know that native americans have also been mistreated by other native americans? Some of the wars fought in the Americas pre-columbus were bloody. (At the first TAM, one of the presenters compared the % of deaths in war by the American indian and compared it with casulty figures in other countries, and the Native american figures were much higher.)

See, in Charlevoix, Vol. I, p. 235, the history of the first war which the French inhabitants of Canada carried on, in 1610, against the Iroquois. The latter, armed with bows and arrows, offered a desperate resistance to the French and their allies. Charlevoix is not a great painter, yet he exhibits clearly enough in this narrative the contrast between the European manners and those of savages, as well as the different sense which the two races had of honor. .

"When the French," says he, "seized upon the beaver-skins which covered the Indians who had fallen, the Hurons, their allies, were greatly offended at this proceeding; but they set to work in their usual manner, inflicting horrid cruelties upon the prisoners, and devouring one of those who had been killed, which made the Frenchmen shudder. Thus the barbarians prided themselves upon a disinterestedness which they were surprised at not finding in our nation, and could not understand that there was less to reprehend in stripping dead bodies than in devouring their flesh like wild beasts."

Charlevoix, in another place (Vol. I, p. 230), thus describes the first torture of which Champlain was an eyewitness, and the return of the Hurons into their own village.

"Having proceeded eight leagues," says he, "our allies halted and having singled out one of their captives, they reproached him with all the cruelties that he had practised upon the warriors of their nation who had fallen into his hands, and told him that he might expect to be treated in like manner, adding that if he had any spirit, he would prove it by singing. He thereupon chanted his war-song, and all the songs he knew, but in a very mournful strain," says Champlain, who was not then aware that all savage music has a melancholy character. "The tortures which succeeded accompanied by all the horrors which we shall mention hereafter, terrified the French, who made every effort to put a stop to them but in vain. The following night, one of the Hurons having dreamt that they were pursued, the retreat was changed to a real flight, and the savages never stopped until they were out of the reach of danger. "The moment they perceived the huts of their own village, they cut themselves long sticks, to which they fastened the scalps which had fallen to their share, and carried them in triumph. At this sight, the women swam to the canoes, where they took the bloody scalps from the hands of their husbands and tied them round their necks. "The warriors offered one of these horrible trophies to Champlain; they also presented him with some bows and arrows, the only spoils of the Iroquois which they had ventured to seize, en- treating him to show them to the King of France."
Champlain lived a whole winter quite alone among these barbarians, without being under any alarm for his person or property.



Source. (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/ap_d.htm)

[Luke T.]

10 worst crimes against humanity by US:

1. Michael Jackson World Tour (real sorry about that, kids)

2. Disco

3. Drive-thru wedding chapels

4. Schaeffer beer

5. Cosmopolitan

6. Olestra

7. AMC Pacer

8. The belief you can lose weight without dieting or exercise.

9. Laser pointers

10. De_Bunk

[Darat]

Ok Luke you've convinced me, the USA does deserve to be utterly and totally destroyed.

[crimresearch]

Can't argue with those...

Although the individuals responsible should be hunted down, the rest of the US should be made to eat haggis, drink Peroni, and listen to David Hasselhoff records, as some form of atonement.

Although on a positive note, Australia has taken steps to ban laser pointers.

Paul

[Benguin]

Can we keep Chicago out of it please?

I wouldn't survive without weekly Springer ...

[uruk]

Did some one just come to realisation that people are basicaly screwed up?

[epepke]

Originally posted by Luke T.
4. Schaeffer beer

Oh, no. Schaeffer is the best cheap beer around. Better than Budmilloors.

[JAR]

I said earlier in this thread that the Union took five times as many casualties as the Confederacy during the Civil War, and that is incorrect. It was actually less than five times as many casualties. I came up with the five times statistic by dividing the total casualties listed for Union soldiers by the total casualties listed for Confederates on page 163 of the 1995 World Almanac and Book of Facts.

I found out that the number for total Confederate casualties did not include wounds that were not mortal in it, while the number for total Union casualties did include wounds that were not mortal in it, so the writer of that section really didn't know the total number of Confederate casualties, though he implied that he did when he listed a total.

I found this out when I was looking over the casualty numbers again and noticed a blank space with a line through it where the number of wounds that were not mortal for Confederate casualties was. I thought to myself, "How did the person who compiled these statistics know the total casualties for Confederates when he didn't know how many non-mortal casualties there were for Confederates?" Then I found out that he, she or them had come up with a number for the total Confederate casualties just by adding up the battle deaths and other deaths for Confederate soldiers, but not the non-mortal casualties.