Report: #140873

Complaint Review: George W. Bush

  • Submitted: Thu, April 28, 2005
  • Updated: Wed, February 08, 2006
  • Reported By: Sault Ste. Marie Ontario
  • George W. Bush
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
    Washington, District of Columbia
    U.S.A.

George W. Bush Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts. George W. Bush is currently the largest threat there is to International security Washington District of Columbia

*Consumer Comment: So James we need to get out of their country?

*Consumer Comment: James, I agree with you! USA needs to withdraw!

*Consumer Suggestion: The Arrow was sunk in the St. Lawerance

*Consumer Comment: James from Calgary is the one who is "lost" here. ..smoked too much moose poop.

*Consumer Comment: Canada is full of funny comedians

*Consumer Suggestion: Canada does have Fox

*Consumer Comment: Nobody down here "dies because they have no insurance". They may not have health INSURANCE, but healthCARE is available to everyone.

*Consumer Suggestion: Robert how many die in the USA because they have no health insurance & can not be treated?

*Consumer Comment: oink;; I don't think anyone is blaming Canada for 9/11. Although South Park blames Canada for EVERYTHING.

*Consumer Comment: Paul from Ontario, Canada

*Consumer Comment: That reminds me Michael...

*Consumer Suggestion: Dear Michael - we have an "interest" in letting the USA know when we do not agree with them.

*Consumer Suggestion: Dear Michael - we have an "interest" in letting the USA know when we do not agree with them.

*Consumer Suggestion: Dear Michael - we have an "interest" in letting the USA know when we do not agree with them.

*Consumer Comment: funny This is the greatest country on the planet. How many Americans do you see sneaking into Mexico? Or Canada?

*Consumer Suggestion: Time for another "Class Action Lawsuit" eh Patrick

*Consumer Comment: Do you have permission to reprint.

*Consumer Comment: Paul, you are another misinformed Canadian

*Consumer Comment: Quit writing and start reading

*Author of original report: I said Crimes against HUMANITY not crimes against 1 Canadian.

*Author of original report: Ok .. I seem to have gotten quite the Fan_Club.. - what happens in the US has an enormous impact on the rest of the world

*Consumer Comment: Consider The Source

*Consumer Comment: Consider The Source

*Consumer Comment: Consider The Source

*Consumer Comment: Consider The Source

*Consumer Suggestion: How have I been affected.?

*Consumer Comment: SILLY CANADIAN, what is your GOVERNMENT HIDING

*Consumer Comment: SILLY CANADIAN, what is your GOVERNMENT HIDING

*Consumer Comment: SILLY CANADIAN, what is your GOVERNMENT HIDING

*Consumer Comment: SILLY CANADIAN, what is your GOVERNMENT HIDING

*Consumer Suggestion: Make Canada our 51st State

*Consumer Comment: Paul is an idiot What about the abuses of the United Nations themselves.

*Consumer Comment: You must be French

*Consumer Comment: More importantly... Canada has fewer than 50K personnel

*Consumer Comment: Go back to bed Neville.

*Consumer Comment: You're from Canada, what do you care what we here in the U.S do?

*Consumer Comment: You're from Canada, what do you care what we here in the U.S do?

*Consumer Comment: You're from Canada, what do you care what we here in the U.S do?

*Consumer Comment: You're from Canada, what do you care what we here in the U.S do?

*Author of original report: 21 reasons why the US should be declared a Rogue State.

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

As stated in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1)

Adopted on 8 June 1977 by the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law applicable in Armed Conflicts; entered into force 7 December 1979
Article 35 paragraph 3

It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment. IE (Depleted Uranium)
Article 51 paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5 (excerpts)

The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations.

[C]ivilians shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited, [including an] attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Charter of the United Nations

Signed June 26, 1945; came into force October 24, 1945
Article 2 paragraph 3

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
Article 2 paragraph 4

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Article 92

The International Court of Justice shall be the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It shall function in accordance with the annexed Statute, which is based upon the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice and forms and integral part of the present Charter.
Article 93 paragraph 1

All Members of the United Nations are ipso facto parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice.
Article 96 paragraph 1

The General Assembly or the Security Council may request the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on any legal question.

------------------------------------

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan told the BBC on Thursday, 16 September, 2004, that the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.

The UK government responded by saying the attorney-general made the "legal basis... clear at the time". There is a PDF version of attorney general Lord Goldsmith's summerised conclusions posted at

http://images.thisislondon.co.uk/v2/news/Iraq2520Resolution.pdf
------------------------------------

Someone must stop this insanity in my opinion George W. Bush is currently the largest threat there is to International security.

Paul
Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario
Canada
Is this Ripoff Report About you?
Ripoff Report A business' first line of defense on the Internet.
If your business is willing to make a commitment to customer satisfaction Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation? Fix it the right way. Corporate Advocacy Program™

Set the record straight: Arbitration Program

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 04/28/2005 09:50 PM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/george-w-bush/washington-district-of-columbia-20500/george-w-bush-additional-to-the-geneva-conventions-of-12-august-1949-and-relating-to-the-140873. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
Also a victim?
Repair Your Reputation!

Updates & Rebuttals

REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
0Author
40Consumer
0Employee/Owner

#1 Consumer Comment

So James we need to get out of their country?

AUTHOR: Gina - (U.S.A.)

You must be 0ne of the many people who have forgotten 9/11. Oh yeah that's what we're suppost to do, right? We didn't forget about Pearl Harbor did we?. People never forget these things if they have a heart, and though I don't think President Bush (as I have said in other posts) is the greatest president we have had in office, Clinton definitely wasn't either. At least Bush didn't sit back on his butt and do nothing. So what James would you have done when we lost the thousands of people that died in that ONE day? And I don't recall any War ending so quickly. You show me a day when we will have no war, and I'll show you heaven. We live in an evil world were alot of things are accepted and all you can do is cry about the war. How about us (citizens) trying to stop the things that are happening in our own country (ie: Drugs, prostitution, homosexual marriage, abortion, etc). I could see you complaining to some extent if this never happened on our own soil, but it did and I gurantee there would be a bigger uproar and many more terrorist attacks over her after 9/11 if Bush hadn't of taken action, like he did. Or are you one of our citizens who believed he orchestrated it? If so, bring on the proof? Haven't seen any solid proof yet have we? So keep on cutting him down and why don't you run for office since you seem to have all the answers as to what it must be like to be president. I'd say if you were in office during 9/11, you would've ran out of the White House screaming "What do I do, What do I do?" So run for office since you seem to think it's a cake walk.
Respond to this report!

#2 Consumer Comment

James, I agree with you! USA needs to withdraw!

AUTHOR: James - (U.S.A.)

The United States of the Rich, Oh, The United States of America! d**n, I actually got that confused! Th eUSA needs to get their a*s out of Iraq, they were no threat until we invaded their soveriegn country. Put your selves in Iraquis shoes!!! If they invaded us and took our president and killed his two sons, and occupied our nation , we would ALL defend our country! I say, we need to IMPEACH BUSH!
Respond to this report!

#3 Consumer Suggestion

The Arrow was sunk in the St. Lawerance

AUTHOR: James - (Canada)

Robert;

Your post just looks like one "big blob" & also the pile of crap it actually is!

Chuck Yeager was the "official first one" to break the sound barrier... but if you look it up, you will find out that the first "sonic boom" came from the Arrow. The pilot who flew it, was ordered not to go that fast! When he did, flying right over the USA, our Prime Minister... good ol Deifenbaker not only "scrapped the project" but took all 5 Arrows & sunk them in the St. Lawerance, citeing that Canada was not going to have an "aggressive military".

That is only one of the pieces of crap you wrote about! You obviously know little, other than the propaganda that has been taught you.

Paragraphs are so much easier to read there Robert!

I am not going to debate you on "all your issues", as you are clearly lost. Trudeau made our Country bilingual... yes! I don't like it, but what the hay! So a Stop sign has 2 languages! So what? I only read the English anyway & it has nothing to do with the "price of cheese"!

Everyone who reads your garbage will know that Germany during WWII, only used the trucks the USA sold them for civilian purposes & they would not ever use a US vehicle to transport Jews to the deathcamps!

You ask me to be specific as to what was sold to them Robert? Here is a specific for you..."bullets". What does that have to do with the price of cheese either?

The fact is that the USA had "no right" going into Iraq! Their reason for doing it in the "first place" has been proven to be misguided, or not even actual! They have no right there or Afganistan & the longer they stay there, the more bombings go on as "terrorist attacks" are not going to go away until they do finally leave!

It is "quite understandable really", as I am sure a pompas claud like yourself who cannot write in paragraphs could see. If someone invaded "your Country" & set up a new government "for you", would you be one of the terrorists? I bet you would Robert! Even if all you could throw out was a "blob of crap" like the letters you write!

Canada is "much bigger" in land mass than the USA & has more Natural Resources than the USA could even count! When the "chips fall down" on this Continent... it will be Canada that will supply the "patchwork" that supports the USA after they truly "screwed up"!

The USA begins the UN, but cannot even pay their part towards the goal, as they are "way behind" in their contributions to it & still are "pompas enough" to hold Veto Power! Then they go off "half corked" & make decisions to invade Countries "without the UN backing" that they set it up for!

911 was just a "wake up call" & until the good ol USA get's it's head in gear... the threat of another is just around the corner!

That's the point Robert! Not gun control or hospital services or what language signs are written in! The point is your "pompas" attitude! It needs to stop! You need to get out of Iraq!

Period!
Respond to this report!

#4 Consumer Comment

James from Calgary is the one who is "lost" here. ..smoked too much moose poop.

AUTHOR: Patrick - (U.S.A.)

So, a trained penguin, eh James? What, did you suddenly move from Calgary to Antartica (that's the one on the south side of the earth). Because that is the only place you'll find penguins, my friend.

Me thinks thou hast smoked too much moose poop.
Respond to this report!

#5 Consumer Comment

Canada is full of funny comedians

AUTHOR: Robert - (U.S.A.)

James is the best one yet. You remind me of Chekov from Star Trek. Everything ever invented, or thought of, came from Russia. That was according to him. According to you, everything came from Canada. Where are you getting your information from? The first Super Sonic flight was made by Chuck Yeager in the Bell X-1...American. The CAT Scan machine was made by EMI Laboratories, Arizona...American. Next, you'll tell me Canada invented the internet. No, it was not Al Gore either. The US did not sell or give anything to the Germans after they went into Poland. We gave them no trucks at all, ever. They were still using horses to pull their stuff throughout the war. The trucks they did have were civilian, not military. The closest "weapon" derivative they got from one of our companies was the Junkers JU-52. It was a near perfect copy of the Ford Tri-motor used for mail, passenger, and cargo delivery here. They changed the design slightly for use as military aircraft. What weapons did we give or sell to Germany? Name ONE. Out of the many you claim, it should be easy to name ONE. Our troops had problems finding ammo for our weapons during battle, with supply lines being stretched. Wouldn't it have been easier on us if we just used the same stuff you claim we gave the enemy? That is the number one reason we changed all of our calibers after the war. We can use most of the same stuff as our enemies now. In reality, we were too busy GIVING AWAY weapons and other merchandise to Canada, England, and Soviet Union to have been able to give anything to anyone else. Lend-Lease was a joke. We didn't "lend", or "lease" anything to you guys. It was another Big Government Give-away, courtesy of Uncle Sam. As Patrick said, we delivered as much stuff as possible to Germany, from 35K feet. I also did not say Canada does not get FOX. I ASKED if you did yet? Big difference there James. The sky is blue, sea water is salty. That does not mean the sky is salty, and sea water is blue. Why don't I make pretty little paragraphs? Why should I? To make you happy? Nah. When you start getting your facts straight, I'll do my posts in paragraphs. All of your misinformation is too funny to read at one sitting. You don't speak French? Great! I never said you did. Again, sky/sea water. You do, however, have a law that requires ALL signs and paperwork to be in both English and French. We have Cajuns down here. They speak Creole. We do not require anything to be in their language, nor do we require anything to be in Appalachian. There's a language for you. We don't require everyone, including privately owned enterprises, to print everything, so a MINORITY of the population doesn't have to get along with the rest. You are too funny James. You and James from Tupper Lake should start your own company. One can make stuff up, the other can misspell it. Have fun.
Respond to this report!

#6 Consumer Suggestion

Canada does have Fox

AUTHOR: James - (Canada)

Robert;

We in Canada have a "good time" laughing at Fox News! Only 1 Province in Canada has a Majority French Population & although we fight with them "constantly", you "lost" people in the USA think French is the norm.

I am in Calgary, & you would be "hard pressed" to find a French speaking person! Yet you go "on & on" showing your ignorance.

If you could write in "paragraphs", it might make reading your garbage much easier.

Health Care, it is better here & I am not in the system, so I will not debate it. I do know that the Cat Scan was in Canada before the USA & that there is nothing the USA has that Canada does not medically.

More guns mean more death from guns & I doubt you can dispute that. Since handguns have been banned in Canada, it is really hard to smuggle them out of New York, where they are "readily available" from a lot of "car trunks".

However, your "put downs" derived from ignorance are not the issue here.

What is an issue is the people like you who have a "macho attitude" & think that your way is the best way & now you need to expand your beliefs to the entire World!

You don't! Just worry about your Country & New Orleans & be "ignorant as you are" about anything outside of your borders!

I will jump on my dogslead & go to the next igloo... surrounded by French, eat "Back Bacon" & have a beer! Then we should all be "happy happy happy" right?

I trained a Penguin to fetch my paper Richard! Now can you do that?
Respond to this report!

#7 Consumer Comment

Nobody down here "dies because they have no insurance". They may not have health INSURANCE, but healthCARE is available to everyone.

AUTHOR: Robert - (U.S.A.)

You're too funny James...

If you cannot pay, you go to the public hospital and the state picks up the tab. The typical Canadian patient in a US doctor's office is not here because they have a fortune saved up. They want to be seen within a month of needing to see a doctor. Good heavens man, your entire country has what, one MRI machine? We have a dozen in every city. You people are going broke with a system that doesn't even work. You say you have cheap medicine. Great...except it's not cheap. It is heavily subsidized by the Canadian taxpayers. Your govenment pays about 80% of the actual cost of the meds. That equates to high taxes. As for your crime rates, yippeedoo. You also speak French. I don't care about that either. When your government confiscated ALL firearms, the rates shot way up, as the criminals still had their guns, while the law abiding had nothing. This is not a debatable point...it is fact. Your crime rates shot up 25% since the Canadian government decided you should be free game for the predators. Our rates have declined since the right to carry laws have been passed in nearly every state. You figure out which states still have the higher rates. You cannot even claim "self defense" if you use a gun to defend yourself against another person trying to kill you. I see you still have murder there...murdered with guns. I guess the criminals didn't get the memo about turning in their guns. As for freedom of speech...sure, as long as you say what the government wants to hear. Do you have FOX News up there yet? I noticed you got CNN and the rest of the socialist propoganda networks as soon as they went on the board. Your government doesn't like what FOX has to say about things. I think it's because they don't espouse a leftist ideology. They don't espouse ANY ideology...maybe that's why they're number 1 down here and gaining worldwide marketshare. Your own Prime Minister had the audacity to say that we caused the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Yeah sure. We made them mad. I guess they make themselves mad too. I see they have killed far more of themselves than they have anyone else. The leftists keep spouting off about 100K dead Iraqis. Where are they? This is a number that was made up by the geniuses in the Moveon.Org crowd. It is not accurate at all. The only person responsible for killing that many Iraqis is Hussein. Keep up the good work though James, I find you enlightening.
Respond to this report!

#8 Consumer Suggestion

Robert how many die in the USA because they have no health insurance & can not be treated?

AUTHOR: James - (Canada)

Seems I hear about that "all the time".

Yes there are longer lines, but emergency services are running at the same levels as your own. If you have the "big bucks", you can move south to get expensive services, as Canadian doctors are not allowed to get the "highest price they can" for care. No health services are lacking here. Do you ever notice how much cheaper drugs are in Canada? Bush sure did. He was not successful in getting drugs from Canada.

Are you compleatly "blind" to the fact that the USA has the "highest crime rate" per capita in the World? I don't know where you get your statistics from, as Canada has had a ban on handguns since the 70's & our crime rate is over 50% less per capita than that in the States. The other Countries you mentioned also have less than 50% of the US crime rate per capita also.

Diplomacy does not have to be delivered out of the "barrel of a gun". Those like you who support the 80 billion just being spent on Iraq "this year", should open your mind to other ways of diplomacy.

Canada does not want a big Military. Let the "war mongers" down south handle that. We don't need to spend our money on issues like that. Canada overall is cleaner, with more social services, & more police per capita because of this. If you are "so proud" you can kill someone today, then cool! Those who live by the sword will die by it. I just hope you don't "splash me".

As far as business goes, you should do some checking on your trade surplus today. It might wake you up.
Respond to this report!

#9 Consumer Comment

oink;; I don't think anyone is blaming Canada for 9/11. Although South Park blames Canada for EVERYTHING.

AUTHOR: Michael - (U.S.A.)

Hey James

Your views are valid. I don't think anyone is blaming Canada for 9/11. Although South Park blames Canada for EVERYTHING.

You are an important ally. Citizens here know that but the politicians aren't so sure. Just like your fatherland France, they were against the war that America is now in. Too bad. We got attacked so we are taking the fight to the bad guys. If France didn't do business with terrorists they wouldn't have to worry about it.
But I digress.

Yeah, my American Gov't teacher was brainwashed. But as a 10th grader sitting there listening to him, it made sense.

I have been to Vancouver, B.C and I really liked it. It is a beautiful city in a beautiful area.

The only thing I can add is that Truman didn't let MacArthur run the commies all the way back to the Great Wall of China. And MacArthur wanted to use some tactical nukes against them.
Politics didn't allow it unfortunately.

Good hell, if you're gonna fight a war FIGHT THE d**n THING!

Anyway, I don't think Canada and America are going to war against eachother any time soon.
Respond to this report!

#10 Consumer Comment

Paul from Ontario, Canada

AUTHOR: James - (U.S.A.)

I support you fully and agree with you. The United States think they own the world and they can do what they want when they want. This is wrong, as they are not speaking for the poor or middle class people here. They are speaking for the rich and super rich people in this country. See, since Nov. 22th, 1963, The United States had a new president- a spokesman to big business and thats it. He had no power, but a great title. His name was Lyndon Baines Johnson who inflicted the U.S. into the Vietnam war. See the United States is now under control by big business. Presidents are puppets! The Bush's are part of big business so they are safe from assassinations! This world is very upsetting!
Respond to this report!

#11 Consumer Comment

That reminds me Michael...

AUTHOR: Robert - (U.S.A.)

Why do the French ke4ep their streets lined with big trees? Because the Germans like to march in the shade. HAHAHAHA! The French....always there when they need us. Canadian healthcare James? That's a laugh. The doctors on our side of the border are backed up trying to get all of your countrymen in to see. It seems you have monstous waiting lines for basic services up there. I think everyone understands what I am talking about when I mention socialized dentistry. Gun control? Your crime rates shot up, as did Australia's, Scotland's, and England's, when your governments imposed the strictest gun laws ever. The only people who ever use them to commit crimes are criminals, and they had no intention of giving theirs up. Diplomacy? Another laugh. Nobody fears Canada because you have no military. You have fewer than 50K in the military up there. "Canadian Bacon" people. Rent it. You are clueless about nearly everything. You do have one thing right though. The US is the world leader in business. Have fun in the Great White North. I'll take personal freedom and keep all of my guns, thank you.
Respond to this report!

#12 Consumer Suggestion

Dear Michael - we have an "interest" in letting the USA know when we do not agree with them.

AUTHOR: James - (Canada)

Michael;

Many people come from the US to live in Canada. Many families would rather raise their children with "less crime".

The US hit France in WWII after Rommel was dead. The war was almost over before the US got there & the US did not save anyone from anything, but sure reaped the benefits from most of the other "destroyed Countries" that did spend years fighting that war, that is for sure. Never they also made money selling weapons to "all involved" during most of the war.

If you were not "filled with Propaganda", you would know a little history pretaining to the US war with Great Britian. The US was offered the 49th Parallel "before" the war broke out. England had too much trouble with Napoleon at the time. It was an offer rejected by the Colonies. Eventually it was accepted. So what exactly did the US win? France merely wanted Canada back, which they did not get either. I only see "one" real winner in that war, nomatter how much "Patriotism" makes you think differently. I suppose you believe that "New York" was simply a name that came out of "thin air". No it could not have anything to do with "York" that is now Toronto, & a city the USA wanted, now could it?

Your History teacher, obviously only got educated in American Propaganda, as during & after WWII, Canada had a much bigger, Army, Air Force & Navy than the USA ever had!

Never mind the fact that Canadians invented & flew the "first supersonic jet fighter", the Avero Arrow, just at the end of WWII, which was "much superior" to anything the USA had developed at the time. But why would the USA want to invade Canada anyway at that point? Even if you could, does that give you the right? What other Country at "that time" would support it?

Patton wanted to go into Russia. Forgetting of course that not only had the Germans failed, but also Napoleon himself, for the exact same reasons. The USA was "so new to war", that Patton had "no idea" what he was talking about, just as the USA had no idea with Vietnam. The Propaganda you learn my friend tells you little of Russian forces at the end of WWII & their war factories that equalled your own.

USA is a great Country, as is Canada. We would be able to keep the "whole continent" a lot safer if the USA would begin to "mind their own business".

Canadians did not push the terrorists to attack. Forget 911, if a nuclear bomb went off in the USA, Canada would be affected. Therefore we have an "interest" in letting the USA know when we do not agree with them. Execially when we as a Country are not so filled with Propaganda, as your citizens are.
Respond to this report!

#13 Consumer Suggestion

Dear Michael - we have an "interest" in letting the USA know when we do not agree with them.

AUTHOR: James - (Canada)

Michael;

Many people come from the US to live in Canada. Many families would rather raise their children with "less crime".

The US hit France in WWII after Rommel was dead. The war was almost over before the US got there & the US did not save anyone from anything, but sure reaped the benefits from most of the other "destroyed Countries" that did spend years fighting that war, that is for sure. Never they also made money selling weapons to "all involved" during most of the war.

If you were not "filled with Propaganda", you would know a little history pretaining to the US war with Great Britian. The US was offered the 49th Parallel "before" the war broke out. England had too much trouble with Napoleon at the time. It was an offer rejected by the Colonies. Eventually it was accepted. So what exactly did the US win? France merely wanted Canada back, which they did not get either. I only see "one" real winner in that war, nomatter how much "Patriotism" makes you think differently. I suppose you believe that "New York" was simply a name that came out of "thin air". No it could not have anything to do with "York" that is now Toronto, & a city the USA wanted, now could it?

Your History teacher, obviously only got educated in American Propaganda, as during & after WWII, Canada had a much bigger, Army, Air Force & Navy than the USA ever had!

Never mind the fact that Canadians invented & flew the "first supersonic jet fighter", the Avero Arrow, just at the end of WWII, which was "much superior" to anything the USA had developed at the time. But why would the USA want to invade Canada anyway at that point? Even if you could, does that give you the right? What other Country at "that time" would support it?

Patton wanted to go into Russia. Forgetting of course that not only had the Germans failed, but also Napoleon himself, for the exact same reasons. The USA was "so new to war", that Patton had "no idea" what he was talking about, just as the USA had no idea with Vietnam. The Propaganda you learn my friend tells you little of Russian forces at the end of WWII & their war factories that equalled your own.

USA is a great Country, as is Canada. We would be able to keep the "whole continent" a lot safer if the USA would begin to "mind their own business".

Canadians did not push the terrorists to attack. Forget 911, if a nuclear bomb went off in the USA, Canada would be affected. Therefore we have an "interest" in letting the USA know when we do not agree with them. Execially when we as a Country are not so filled with Propaganda, as your citizens are.
Respond to this report!

#14 Consumer Suggestion

Dear Michael - we have an "interest" in letting the USA know when we do not agree with them.

AUTHOR: James - (Canada)

Michael;

Many people come from the US to live in Canada. Many families would rather raise their children with "less crime".

The US hit France in WWII after Rommel was dead. The war was almost over before the US got there & the US did not save anyone from anything, but sure reaped the benefits from most of the other "destroyed Countries" that did spend years fighting that war, that is for sure. Never they also made money selling weapons to "all involved" during most of the war.

If you were not "filled with Propaganda", you would know a little history pretaining to the US war with Great Britian. The US was offered the 49th Parallel "before" the war broke out. England had too much trouble with Napoleon at the time. It was an offer rejected by the Colonies. Eventually it was accepted. So what exactly did the US win? France merely wanted Canada back, which they did not get either. I only see "one" real winner in that war, nomatter how much "Patriotism" makes you think differently. I suppose you believe that "New York" was simply a name that came out of "thin air". No it could not have anything to do with "York" that is now Toronto, & a city the USA wanted, now could it?

Your History teacher, obviously only got educated in American Propaganda, as during & after WWII, Canada had a much bigger, Army, Air Force & Navy than the USA ever had!

Never mind the fact that Canadians invented & flew the "first supersonic jet fighter", the Avero Arrow, just at the end of WWII, which was "much superior" to anything the USA had developed at the time. But why would the USA want to invade Canada anyway at that point? Even if you could, does that give you the right? What other Country at "that time" would support it?

Patton wanted to go into Russia. Forgetting of course that not only had the Germans failed, but also Napoleon himself, for the exact same reasons. The USA was "so new to war", that Patton had "no idea" what he was talking about, just as the USA had no idea with Vietnam. The Propaganda you learn my friend tells you little of Russian forces at the end of WWII & their war factories that equalled your own.

USA is a great Country, as is Canada. We would be able to keep the "whole continent" a lot safer if the USA would begin to "mind their own business".

Canadians did not push the terrorists to attack. Forget 911, if a nuclear bomb went off in the USA, Canada would be affected. Therefore we have an "interest" in letting the USA know when we do not agree with them. Execially when we as a Country are not so filled with Propaganda, as your citizens are.
Respond to this report!

#15 Consumer Comment

funny This is the greatest country on the planet. How many Americans do you see sneaking into Mexico? Or Canada?

AUTHOR: Michael - (U.S.A.)

How many French does it take to defend France? Don't know. It's never been tried!

Old but funny joke. To be fair, the French helped us out with the British during the American Revolution. However, the first time we saved their butts from the Germans we should have called it even. The second time we should have said "too bad, learn to speak German"

This is the greatest country on the planet. How many Americans do you see sneaking into Mexico? Or Canada? Good hell. Sure we have your problems but I wouldn't live anywhere else. My American Government teacher was right when he said we should have invaded Canada during WW2. We had more than enough troops to do it and all the Canadian troops were overseas.

So to those that b***h about American keep bitching. It's your right. But the rest of us have the right not to listen.

America is strong. That means other countrys FEAR us. This is ALWAYS a good thing. It keeps them in line. And if things here really twist you then LEAVE!. No one is stopping you.

Remember, never has a country done so much good for so many and asked for so little in return.

Yes, I mean the good ol' U.S of A. God bless her and the troops that defend her.

P.S. If you wanna read more mindless drivel about President Bush and America go to this link.

http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff154773.htm
Respond to this report!

#16 Consumer Suggestion

Time for another "Class Action Lawsuit" eh Patrick

AUTHOR: James - (Canada)

Patrick;

Sue sue sue! I am sure you can fill your pockets with this one as well! Do you have permission? Hah!

How about this little piece of copyright?:

"Little Boy Blue... go blow your horn."

Now you can get me too. I reprinted it. Or you can follow it's advise.

As for those "Canadian comments", I would advise Americans to check the figures before they comment.

Canadian, US trade is the highest per capita in the world. Something both countries benefit from & something neither would be able to live "very well" without.

However Canada did not send troops to Vietnam, or to Iraq. We are not always in agreement. Once in a while, Canada has to give you a good talking to in matters such as:

Health Care

Gun Control

Drug Laws & Crime Levels (per capita)

What laws apply only to people who live in the USA (thank God).

Diplomacy

World opinion.

Canadians "as a whole" generally need to listen to Americans involving business, & taxation, as "overall the USA" seems to have a more "pro business" attitude than we do in many cases.

Forums such as this are a "good way" of doing that.

A little less "name calling" & a little more intelligent discussion is what could be seen as useful. Don't you think?
Respond to this report!

#17 Consumer Comment

Do you have permission to reprint.

AUTHOR: Patrick - (U.S.A.)

What I want to know is, do you have permission to reprint copywrited material?
Respond to this report!

#18 Consumer Comment

Paul, you are another misinformed Canadian

AUTHOR: Clay - (U.S.A.)

Paul,

I am too a Canadian but now is proud to be an American.

You need to quit listening to CBC and understand where the world is.

I was embarressed to come from Canada when the Iraq war started because of the idiot Chretian and the abslute lack of respect everything America has done for Canada.

As one of the other posts mentioned the U.N. is one of the most corrupt organizations ever seen. but oh yeah we were supposed to listen to them and get all of our directions from people who received money from terrorists.

You mention Kofi Anan? Hello!!! He is right in the middle of the oil scandal.

Lastly how come no one mentions about all the women and children slaughtered by Saddam Hussein? obviously because them President Bush wouldn't be so off base!

The UN is a sham so don't bother trying to quote International law from the U.N.

I am ashamed you are a Canadian.
Respond to this report!

#19 Consumer Comment

Quit writing and start reading

AUTHOR: James - (U.S.A.)

I stopped reading your rant as soon as I encountered the part about JFK starting the war in Vietnam in 1962. As a graduate of both the JFK Special Warfare Center at Fort Bragg and the US Army Command and General Staff College, I want to anyone reading your bullshit that you have no idea what you're talking about. Be advised: Air Force Tech Sgt. Richard B Fitzgibbon, Jr. murdered in Vietnam by a fellow airman on June 8, 1956, has been formally recognized by the Pentagon as the first American to die in that war.

With this decision, the Defense Department set Nov. 1, 1955 as the earliest qualifying date for inclusion on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. It says this is the date the MAAG was officially established. Eight other pre- 1961 casualties are already listed on the memorial.

The first death of an American serviceman in Vietnam occurred Sept. 26, 1945. OSS Major A. Peter Dewey was killed in action by the Communist Vietminh near Hanoi.

You've entered into a discussion of United State military history, and have come totally unarmed and unprepared. However, that's the norm for Canadians, isn't it? And I want to note for the record that you have still not addressed the atrocities of your own nation that I brought up earlier. Again, go back to bed Neville. Your multi-page ramblings are a waste of bandwidth.

Finally, you're a hypocrite and a coward. You drive a US made SUV? Why? Did someone hold a gun to your head? (Whoops, no not in Canada - I forgot) Are you not allowed to sell it? Do the French not make anything you like? Hell, Toyota makes a GREAT product. So, you like the American products, but not Americans? Fine with me, keep sending those (devalued) Canadian dollars our way.
Respond to this report!

#20 Author of original report

I said Crimes against HUMANITY not crimes against 1 Canadian.

AUTHOR: Paul - (Canada)

US Iraq Military Vets "are on DU death row, waiting to die."

By James Denver
4-29-5

"Im horrified. The people out there - the Iraqis, the media and the troops - risk the most appalling ill health. And the radiation from depleted uranium can travel literally anywhere. Its going to destroy the lives of thousands of children, all over the world. We all know how far radiation can travel. Radiation from Chernobyl reached Wales and in Britain you sometimes get red dust from the Sahara on your car."

The speaker is not some alarmist doom-sayer. He is Dr. Chris Busby, the British radiation expert, Fellow of the University of Liverpool in the Faculty of Medicine and UK representative on the European Committee on Radiation Risk, talking about the best-kept secret of this war: the fact that, by illegally using hundreds of tons of depleted uranium (DU) against Iraq, Britain and America have gravely endangered not only the Iraqis but the whole world.

For these weapons have released deadly, carcinogenic and mutagenic, radioactive particles in such abundance that-whipped up by sandstorms and carried on trade winds - there is no corner of the globe they cannot penetrate-including Britain. For the wind has no boundaries and time is on their side: the radioactivity persists for over 4,500,000,000 years and can cause cancer, leukemia, brain damage, kidney failure, and extreme birth defects - killing millions of every age for centuries to come. A crime against humanity which may, in the eyes of historians, rank with the worst atrocities of all time.

These weapons have released deadly, carcinogenic and mutagenic, radioactive particles in such abundance that there is no corner of the globe they cannot penetrate - including Britain. Yet, officially, no crime has been committed. For this story is a dirty story in which the facts have been concealed from those who needed them most. It is also a story we need to know if the people of Iraq are to get the medical care they desperately need, and if our troops, returning from Iraq, are not to suffer as terribly as the veterans of other conflicts in which depleted uranium was used.

A Dirty Tyson

Depleted uranium is in many ways a misnomer. For depleted sounds weak. The only weak thing about depleted uranium is its price. It is dirt cheap, toxic, waste from nuclear power plants and bomb production. However, uranium is one of earths heaviest elements and DU packs a Tysons punch, smashing through tanks, buildings and bunkers with equal ease, spontaneously catching fire as it does so, and burning people alive. Crispy critters is what US servicemen call those unfortunate enough to be close. And, when John Pilger encountered children killed at a greater distance he wrote: "The childrens skin had folded back, like parchment, revealing veins and burnt flesh that seeped blood, while the eyes, intact, stared straight ahead. I vomited." (Daily Mirror)

The millions of radioactive uranium oxide particles released when it burns can kill just as surely, but far more terribly. They can even be so tiny they pass through a gas mask, making protection against them impossible. Yet, small is not beautiful. For these invisible killers indiscriminately attack men, women, children and even babies in the womb-and do the gravest harm of all to children and unborn babies.

A Terrible Legacy

Doctors in Iraq have estimated that birth defects have increased by 2-6 times, and 3-12 times as many children have developed cancer and leukaemia since 1991. Moreover, a report published in The Lancet in 1998 said that as many as 500 children a day are dying from these sequels to war and sanctions and that the death rate for Iraqi children under 5 years of age increased from 23 per 1000 in 1989 to 166 per thousand in 1993. Overall, cases of lymphoblastic leukemia more than quadrupled with other cancers also increasing at an alarming rate. In men, lung, bladder, bronchus, skin, and stomach cancers showed the highest increase. In women, the highest increases were in breast and bladder cancer, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.1

On hearing that DU had been used in the Gulf in 1991, the UK Atomic Energy Authority sent the Ministry of Defense a special report on the potential damage to health and the environment. It said that it could cause half a million additional cancer deaths in Iraq over 10 years. In that war the authorities only admitted to using 320 tons of DU-although the Dutch charity LAKA estimates the true figure is closer to 800 tons. Many times that may have been spread across Iraq by this years war. The devastating damage all this DU will do to the health and fertility of the people of Iraq now, and for generations to come, is beyond imagining.

The radioactivity persists for over 4,500,000,000 years killing millions of every age for centuries to come. This is a crime against humanity which may rank with the worst atrocities of all time.

We must also count the numberless thousands of miscarried babies. Nobody knows how many Iraqis have died in the womb since DU contaminated their world. But it is suggested that troops who were only exposed to DU for the brief period of the war were still excreting uranium in their semen 8 years later and some had 100 times the so-called safe limit of uranium in their urine. The lack of government interest in the plight of veterans of the 1991 war is reflected in a lack of academic research on the impact of DU but informal research has found a high incidence of birth defects in their children and that the wives of men who served in Iraq have three times more miscarriages than the wives of servicemen who did not go there.

Since DU darkened the land Iraq has seen birth defects which would break a heart of stone: babies with terribly foreshortened limbs, with their intestines outside their bodies, with huge bulging tumors where their eyes should be, or with a single eye-like Cyclops, or without eyes, or without limbs, and even without heads. Significantly, some of the defects are almost unknown outside textbooks showing the babies born near A-bomb test sites in the Pacific.

Doctors report that many women no longer say Is it a girl or a boy? but simply, Is it normal, doctor? Moreover this terrible legacy will not end. The genes of their parents may have been damaged for ever, and the damaging DU dust is ever-present.

Blue on Blue

What the governments of America and Britain have done to the people of Iraq they have also done to their own soldiers, in both wars. And they have done it knowingly. For the battlefields have been thick with DU and soldiers have had to enter areas heavily contaminated by bombing. Moreover, their bodies have not only been assaulted by DU but also by a vaccination regime which violated normal protocols, experimental vaccines, nerve agent pills, and organophosphate pesticides in their tents. Yet, though the hazards of DU were known, British and American troops were not warned of its dangers. Nor were they given thorough medical checks on their return-even though identifying it quickly might have made it possible to remove some of it from their body. Then, when a growing number became seriously ill, and should have been sent to top experts in radiation damage and neurotoxins, many were sent to a psychiatrist.

Over 200,000 US troops who returned from the 1991 war are now invalided out with ailments officially attributed to service in Iraq-thats 1 in 3. In contrast, the British governments failure to fully assess the health of returning troops, or to monitor their health, means no one even knows how many have died or become gravely ill since their return. However, Gulf veterans associations say that, of 40,000 or so fighting fit men and women who saw active service, at least 572 have died prematurely since coming home and 5000 may be ill. An alarming number are thought to have taken their own lives, unable to bear the torment of the innumerable ailments which have combined to take away their career, their sexuality, their ability to have normal children, and even their ability to breathe or walk normally. As one veteran puts it, they are on DU death row, waiting to die.

Whatever other factors there may be, some of their illnesses are strikingly similar to those of Iraqis exposed to DU dust. For example, soldiers have also fathered children without eyes. And, in a group of eight servicemen whose babies lack eyes seven are known to have been directly exposed to DU dust.

They too have fathered children with stunted arms, and rare abnormalities classically associated with radiation damage. They too seem prone to cancer and leukemia. Tellingly, so are EU soldiers who served as peacekeepers in the Balkans, where DU was also used. Indeed their leukemia rate has been so high that several EU governments have protested at the use of DU.

The Vital Evidence

Despite all that evidence of the harm done by DU, governments on both sides of the Atlantic have repeatedly claimed that as it emits only low level radiation DU is harmless. Award-winning scientist, Dr. Rosalie Bertell who has led UN medical commissions, has studied low-level radiation for 30 years. 2 She has found that uranium oxide particles have more than enough power to harm cells, and describes their pulses of radiation as hitting surrounding cells like flashes of lightning again and again in a single second.2 Like many scientists worldwide who have studied this type of radiation, she has found that such lightning strikes can damage DNA and cause cell mutations which lead to cancer.

Moreover, these particles can be taken up by body fluids and travel through the body, damaging more than one organ. To compound all that, Dr. Bertell has found that this particular type of radiation can cause the bodys communication systems to break down, leading to malfunctions in many vital organs of the body and to many medical problems. A striking fact, since many veterans of the first Gulf war suffer from innumerable, seemingly unrelated, ailments.

In addition, recent research by Eric Wright, Professor of Experimental Haematology at Dundee University, and others, have shown two ways in which such radiation can do far more damage than has been thought. The first is that a cell which seems unharmed by radiation can produce cells with diverse mutations several cell generations later. (And mutations are at the root of cancer and birth defects.) This radiation-induced genomic instability is compounded by the bystander effect by which cells mutate in unison with others which have been damaged by radiation-rather as birds swoop and turn in unison. Put together, these two mechanisms can greatly increase the damage done by a single source of radiation, such as a DU particle. Moreover, it is now clear that there are marked genetic differences in the way individuals respond to radiation-with some being far more likely to develop cancer than others. So the fact that some veterans of the first Gulf war seem relatively unharmed by their exposure to DU in no way proves that DU did not damage others.

The Price of Truth

That the evidence from Iraq and from our troops, and the research findings of such experts, have been ignored may be no accident. A US report, leaked in late 1995, allegedly says, The potential for health effects from DU exposure is real; however it must be viewed in perspective... the financial implications of long-term disability payments and healthcare costs would be excessive.3

Clearly, with hundreds of thousands gravely ill in Iraq and at least a quarter of a million UK and US troops seriously ill, huge disability claims might be made not only against the governments of Britain and America if the harm done by DU were acknowledged. There might also be huge claims against companies making DU weapons and some of their directors are said to be extremely close to the White House. How close they are to Downing Street is a matter for speculation, but arms sales makes a considerable contribution to British trade. So the massive whitewashing of DU over the past 12 years, and the way that governments have failed to test returning troops, seemed to disbelieve them, and washed their hands of them, may be purely to save money.

The possibility that financial considerations have led the governments of Britain and America to cynically avoid taking responsibility for the harm they have done not only to the people of Iraq but to their own troops may seem outlandish. Yet DU weapons werent used by the other side and no other explanation fits the evidence. For, in the days before Britain and America first used DU in war its hazards were no secret.4 One American study in 1990 said DU was linked to cancer when exposures are internal, [and to] chemical toxicity-causing kidney damage. While another openly warned that exposure to these particles under battlefield conditions could lead to cancers of the lung and bone, kidney damage, non-malignant lung disease, neuro-cognitive disorders, chromosomal damage and birth defects.5

A Culture of Denial

In 1996 and 1997 UN Human Rights Tribunals condemned DU weapons for illegally breaking the Geneva Convention and classed them as weapons of mass destruction incompatible with international humanitarian and human rights law. Since then, following leukemia in European peacekeeping troops in the Balkans and Afghanistan (where DU was also used), the EU has twice called for DU weapons to be banned.

Yet, far from banning DU, America and Britain stepped up their denials of the harm from this radioactive dust as more and more troops from the first Gulf war and from action and peacekeeping in the Balkans and Afghanistan have become seriously ill. This is no coincidence. In 1997, while citing experiments, by others, in which 84 percent of dogs exposed to inhaled uranium died of cancer of the lungs, Dr. Asaf Durakovic, then Professor of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine at Georgetown University in Washington was quoted as saying, The [US governments] Veterans Administration asked me to lie about the risks of incorporating depleted uranium in the human body. He concluded, uranium does cause cancer, uranium does cause mutation, and uranium does kill. If we continue with the irresponsible contamination of the biosphere, and denial of the fact that human life is endangered by the deadly isotope uranium, then we are doing disservice to ourselves, disservice to the truth, disservice to God and to all generations who follow. Not what the authorities wanted to hear and his research was suddenly blocked.

During 12 years of ever-growing British whitewash the authorities have abolished military hospitals, where there could have been specialized research on the effects of DU and where expertise in treating DU victims could have built up. And, not content with the insult of suggesting the gravely disabling symptoms of Gulf veterans are imaginary they have refused full pensions to many. For, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the current House of Commons briefing paper on DU hazards says it is judged that any radiation effects from possible exposures are extremely unlikely to be a contributory factor to the illnesses currently being experienced by some Gulf war veterans. Note how over a quarter of a million sick and dying US and UK vets are called some.

The Way Ahead

Britain and America not only used DU in this years Iraq war, they dramatically increased its use-from a minimum of 320 tons in the previous war to at minimum of 1500 tons in this one. And this time the use of DU wasnt limited to anti-tank weapons-as it had largely been in the previous Gulf war-but was extended to the guided missiles, large bunker busters and big 2000-pound bombs used in Iraqs cities. This means that Iraqs cities have been blanketed in lethal particles-any one of which can cause cancer or deform a child. In addition, the use of DU in huge bombs which throw the deadly particles higher and wider in huge plumes of smoke means that billions of deadly particles have been carried high into the air-again and again and again as the bombs rained down-ready to be swept worldwide by the winds.

The Royal Society has suggested the solution is massive decontamination in Iraq. That could only scratch the surface. For decontamination is hugely expensive and, though it may reduce the risks in some of the worst areas, it cannot fully remove them. For DU is too widespread on land and water. How do you clean up every nook and cranny of a city the size of Baghdad? How can they decontaminate a whole country in which microscopic particles, which cannot be detected with a normal geiger counter, are spread from border to border? And how can they clean up all the countries downwind of Iraq-and, indeed, the world?

So there are only two things we can do to mitigate this crime against humanity. The first is to provide the best possible medical care for the people of Iraq, for our returning troops and for those who served in the last Gulf war and, through that, minimize their suffering. The second is to relegate war, and the production and sale of weapons, to the scrap heap of history-along with slavery and genocide. Then, and only then, will this crime against humanity be expunged, and the tragic deaths from this war truly bring freedom to the people of Iraq, and of the world.

References

1. The Lancet volume 351, issue 9103, 28 February 1998.

2. Rosalie Bertells book Planet Earth the Latest Weapon of War was reviewed in Caduceus issue 51, page 28.

3. http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_tabl1
. htm#TAB L_Research Report Summaries

4. www.wagingpeace.org/articles/02.01/020117moret.htm
The secret official memorandum to Brigadier General L.R.Groves from Drs Conant, Compton and Urey of War Department Manhattan district dated October 1943 is available at the website www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/Leuren-Moret-Gen-Grove s21feb03.htm

5. http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_iitab11.
htm#tab L_research report summaries

Further information

The Low Level Radiation Campaign hopes to be able to arrange a limited number of private urine tests for those returning from the latest Gulf war. It can be contacted at: The Knoll, Montpelier Park, Llandrindod Wells, LD1 5LW. 01597 824771. Web: www.llrc.org

James Denver writes and broadcasts internationally on science and technology.
Respond to this report!

#21 Author of original report

Ok .. I seem to have gotten quite the Fan_Club.. - what happens in the US has an enormous impact on the rest of the world

AUTHOR: Paul - (Canada)

This is not the only forum I've posted this to.. Please bear with me while I try to answer all of your questions at the same time.

Over the last 6.hrs I've sent this same post out to every major Forum I could find I chose ripoffreport.com because of the 3.million PLUS readers per day and I want as many people as I can to read this post.

Everytime you post a rebutal it bumps this thread to the top of the list which is exactly what I want.. I don't care if your attacking me personally It still gets this message placed at the top, And now if I may be so bold as to quote Noam Chomsky's Canadian Dimension, January/February 2005 (Volume 39, Number 1)

I think it says alot about world perspectives. Based on a talk delivered in Toronto on November 4, 2004 and most likely copyrighten for fair use.. please read this carefully and deliver your rebutals based on it's content & not my nationality.

I've posted 3 quotes One from the Geneva Conventions the second by Richard Du Boff and now this one by Noam Chomsky.

It goes without saying that what happens in the US has an enormous impact on the rest of the world and conversely: what happens in the rest of the world cannot fail to have an impact on the US, in several ways. First, it sets constraints on what even the most powerful state can do. And second, it influences the domestic US component of the second superpower, as the New York Times ruefully described world public opinion after the huge protests before the Iraq invasion.

Those protests were a critically important historical event, not only because of their unprecedented scale, but also because it was the first time in hundreds of years of the history of Europe and its North American offshoots that a war was massively protested even before it was officially launched.

We may recall, by comparison, the war against South Vietnam launched by JFK in 1962, brutal and barbaric from the outset: bombing, chemical warfare to destroy food crops so as to starve out the civilian support for the indigenous resistance, programs to drive millions of people to virtual concentration camps or urban slums to eliminate its popular base.

By the time protests reached a substantial scale, the highly respected and quite hawkish Vietnam specialist and military historian Bernard Fall wondered whether Viet-Nam as a cultural and historic entity would escape extinction as "the countryside literally dies under the blows of the largest military machine ever unleashed on an area of this size" particularly South Vietnam, always the main target of the US assault.

And when protest did finally develop, many years too late, it was mostly directed against the peripheral crimes: the extension of the war against the South to the rest of Indochina hideous crimes, but lesser ones.

It's quite important to remember how much the world has changed since then as almost always, not as a result of gifts from benevolent leaders, but through deeply committed popular struggle, far too late in developing, but ultimately effective.

One consequence was that the US government could not declare a national emergency, which should have been healthy for the economy, as during World War II when public support was very high.

Johnson had to fight a guns-and-butter war, buying off an unwilling population, harming the economy, ultimately leading the business classes to turn against the war as too costly, after the Tet Offensive of January 1968 showed that it would go on a long time.

The memoirs of Hitler's economic Czar Albert Speer describe a similar problem. The Nazis could not trust their population, and therefore could not fight as disciplined a war as their democratic enemies, possibly affecting the outcome seriously, given their technological lead.

There were also concerns among US elites about rising social and political consciousness stimulated by the activism of the 60s, much of it reaction to the miserable crimes in Indochina, then at last arousing popular indignation.

We learn from the last sections of the Pentagon Papers that after the Tet offensive, the military command was reluctant to agree to the President's call for further troop deployments, wanting to be sure that "sufficient forces would still be available for civil disorder control" in the US, and fearing that escalation might run the risk of "provoking a domestic crisis of unprecedented proportions.

The Reagan administration the current administration or their immediate mentors -- assumed that the problem of an independent aroused population had been overcome, and apparently planned to follow the Kennedy model of the early 1960s in Central America.

But they backed off in the face of unanticipated public protest, turning instead to clandestine war employing murderous security forces and a huge international terror network.

The consequences were terrible, but not as bad as B-52s and mass murder operations of the kind that were peaking when John Kerry was deep in the Mekong Delta in the South, by then largely devastated. The popular reaction to even the clandestine war, so called, broke entirely new ground. The solidarity movements for Central America, now in many parts of the world, are again something new in Western history.

State managers cannot fail to pay attention to such matters. Routinely, a newly elected President requests an intelligence evaluation of the world situation. In 1989, when Bush I took office, a part was leaked. It warned that when attacking much weaker enemies the only sensible target the US must win decisively and rapidly. Delay might undercut political support, recognized to be thin, a great change since the Kennedy-Johnson years when the attack on Indochina, while never popular, aroused little reaction for many years.

The world is pretty awful today, but it is far better than yesterday, not only with regard to unwillingness to tolerate aggression, but also in many other ways, which we now tend to take for granted. There are very important lessons here, which should always be uppermost in our minds for the same reason they are suppressed in the elite culture.

We might tarry for a moment to recall Canada's role in the Indochina wars, some of the worst crimes of the last century. Canada was a member of the International Control Commission for Indochina, theoretically neutral, in fact spying for the aggressors.

We learn from recently released Canadian archives that Canada felt some misgivings about some specific USA military measures against [North Vietnam], but supports purposes and objectives of USA policy in opposing North Vietnamese aggression of [a] special type. This Vietnamese aggression against Vietnam must not be allowed to succeed, not only because of the possible consequences in Vietnam, still not facing the threat of extinction at this time, but also because if Vietnam survives as a viable cultural and historic entity, the aggression of the Vietnamese might set a precedent for other so-called liberation wars.

The concept of Vietnamese aggression in Vietnam against the American defenders of the country has interesting precedents, which out of politeness I will not mention. It is particularly striking because the Canadian observers surely were aware that at the time there were more US mercenaries in South Vietnam as part of the invading US army than there were North Vietnamese even if we assume that somehow North Vietnamese are not allowed in Vietnam.

And the US mercenaries, along with the far greater US army, were threatening South Vietnam with extinction by mass terror operations right at the heart of the country, while the North Vietnamese aggressors were at the periphery, mainly trying to draw the invading forces to the borders, at a time when North Vietnam too was being bombed. That remained true, according to the Pentagon, until many years after these Canadian government reports.

The diplomatic historians who have explored the Canadian archives have not reported any misgivings about the attack against South Vietnam, which by the time of these internal communications, was demolishing the country. The distinguished statesman Lester Pearson had gone far beyond.

He informed the House of Commons in the early 1950s that aggression by the Vietnamese against France in Vietnam is only one element of worldwide communist aggression, and that Soviet colonial authority in Indochina appeared to be stronger than that of France that's when France was attempting (with US support) to reconquer its former Indochinese colonies, with not a Russian anywhere in the neighborhood, and not even any contacts, as the CIA had to concede after a desperate effort to find them. One has to search pretty far to find more fervent devotion to imperial crimes than Pearson's declarations.

Without forgetting the very significant progress towards more civilized societies in past years, and the reasons for it, let's focus nevertheless on the present, and on the notions of imperial sovereignty now being crafted.

It is not surprising that as the population becomes more civilized, power systems become more extreme in their efforts to control the great beast (as the Founding Fathers called the people). And the great beast is indeed frightening: I'll return to majority views on major issues, which are so far to the left of the spectrum of elite commentary and the electoral arena that they cannot even be reported another fact that teaches important lessons to those who do not like what is being done in their names.

The conception of presidential sovereignty crafted by the radical statist reactionaries of the Bush administration is so extreme that it has drawn unprecedented criticism in the most sober and respected establishment circles. These ideas were transmitted to the President by the newly appointed Attorney-General, Alberto Gonzales who is depicted as a moderate in the press.

They are discussed by the respected constitutional law professor Sanford Levinson in the current issue of the journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Levinson writes that the conception is based on the principle that "There exists no norm that is applicable to chaos." The quote, Levinson comments, is from Carl Schmitt, the leading German philosopher of law during the n**i period, who Levinson describes as the true minence grise of the Bush administration. The administration, advised by Gonzales, has articulated a view of presidential authority that is all too close to the power that Schmitt was willing to accord his own Fhrer, Levinson writes.

One rarely hears such words from the heart of the establishment.

The same issue of the journal carries an article by two prominent strategic analysts on the transformation of the military, a central component of the new doctrines of imperial sovereignty: the rapid expansion of offensive weaponry, including militarization of space joined apparently by Canada -- and other measures designed to place the entire world at risk of instant annihilation.

These have already elicited the anticipated reactions by Russia and recently China. The analysts conclude that these US programs may lead to ultimate doom. They express their hope that a coalition of peace-loving states will coalesce as a counter to US militarism and aggressiveness, led by China. We've come to a pretty pass when such sentiments are voiced in sober respectable circles not given to hyperbole. And when faith in American democracy is so slight that they look to China to save us from marching towards ultimate doom. It's up to the second superpower to decide whether that contempt for the great beast is warranted.

Going back to Gonzales, he transmitted to the President the conclusions of the Justice Dept that the President has the authority to rescind the Geneva Conventions -- the supreme law of the land, the foundation of modern international humanitarian law. And Gonzales, who was then Bush's legal counsel, advised him that this would be a good idea, because rescinding the Conventions substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution [of administration officials] under the War Crimes Act of 1996, which carries the death penalty for grave breaches of Geneva Conventions.

We can see right on today's front pages why the Justice Department was right to be concerned that the President and his advisers might be subject to death penalty under the laws passed by the Republican Congress in 1996 and of course under the principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal, if anyone took them seriously.

Two weeks ago, the NY Times featured a front-page story reporting the conquest of the Falluja General Hospital. It reported that Patients and hospital employees were rushed out of rooms by armed soldiers and ordered to sit or lie on the floor while troops tied their hands behind their backs. An accompanying photograph depicted the scene. That was presented as an important achievement. The offensive also shut down what officers said was a propaganda weapon for the militants: Falluja General Hospital, with its stream of reports of civilian casualties. And these inflated figures inflated because our Dear Leader so declares were inflaming opinion throughout the country and the region, driving up the political costs of the conflict. The word conflict is a common euphemism for US aggression, as when we read on the same pages that the US must now rebuild what the conflict just destroyed: just the conflict, with no agent, like a hurricane.

Let's go back to the picture and story about the closing of the propaganda weapon. There are some relevant documents, including the Geneva Conventions, which state: Fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service may in no circumstances be attacked, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict. So page one of the world's leading newspaper is cheerfully depicting war crimes for which the political leadership could be sentenced to death under US law.

No wonder the new moderate Attorney-General warned the President that he should use the constitutional authority concocted by the Justice Department to rescind the supreme law of the land, adopting the concept of presidential sovereignty devised by Hitler's primary legal adviser, the true minence grise of the Bush administration, according to a distinguished conservative authority on constitutional law, writing in perhaps the most respectable and sober journal in the country.

The world's greatest newspaper also tells us that the US military achieved nearly all their objectives well ahead of schedule, leaving much of the city in smoking ruins. But it was not a complete success. There is little evidence of dead packrats in their warrens or the streets, which remains an enduring mystery. The embedded reporters did find a body of a dead woman, though it is not known whether she was an Iraqi or a foreigner, apparently the only question that comes to mind.

The front-page account quotes a Marine commander who says that It ought to go down in the history books. Perhaps it should. If so, we know on just what page of history it will go down, and who will be right beside it, along with those who praise or for that matter even tolerate it. At least, we know that if we are capable of honesty.

One might mention at least some of the recent counterparts that immediately come to mind, like the Russian destruction of Grozny 10 years ago, a city of about the same size. Or Srebrenica, almost universally described as genocide in the West. In that case, as we know in detail from the Dutch government report and other sources, the Muslim enclave in Serb territory, inadequately protected, was used as a base for attacks against Serb villages, and when the anticipated reaction took place, it was horrendous. The Serbs drove out all but military age men, and then moved in to kill them. There are differences with Falluja.

Women and children were not bombed out of Srebrenica, but trucked out, and there will be no extensive efforts to exhume the last corpse of the packrats in their warrens in Falluja. There are other differences, arguably unfair to the Serbs.

It could be argued that all this is irrelevant. The Nuremberg Tribunal, spelling out the UN Charter, declared that initiation of a war of aggression is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole hence the war crimes in Falluja and Abu Ghraib, the doubling of acute malnutrition among children since the invasion (now at the level of Burundi, far higher than Haiti or Uganda), and all the rest of the atrocities.

Those judged to have played any role in the supreme crime -- for example, the German Foreign Minister were sentenced to death by hanging. The Tokyo Tribunal was far more severe. There is a very important book on the topic by Canadian international lawyer Michael Mandel, who reviews in convincing detail how the powerful are self-immunized from international law.

In fact, the Nuremberg Tribunal itself established this principle. To bring the n**i criminals to justice, it was necessary to devise definitions of war crime and crime against humanity. How this was done is explained by Telford Taylor, chief counsel for the prosecution and a distinguished international lawyer and historian:

Since both sides in World War II had played the terrible game of urban destruction the Allies far more successfully there was no basis for criminal charges against Germans or Japanese, and in fact no such charges were brought... Aerial bombardment had been used so extensively and ruthlessly on the Allied side as well as the Axis side that neither at Nuremberg nor Tokyo was the issue made a part of the trials.

The operative definition of crime is: Crime that you carried out but we did not. To underscore the fact, n**i war criminals were absolved if the defense could show that their US counterparts carried out the same crimes.

Taylor concludes that to punish the foe especially the vanquished foe for conduct in which the enforcer nation has engaged, would be so grossly inequitable as to discredit the laws themselves. That is correct, but the operative definition also discredits the laws themselves, along with all subsequent tribunals. Taylor provides this background as part of his explanation of why US bombing in Vietnam was not a war crime.

His argument is plausible, further discrediting the laws themselves. Some of the subsequent judicial inquiries are discredited in perhaps even more extreme ways, such as the Yugoslavia vs. NATO case now being adjudicated by the International Court of Justice. The US was excused, correctly, on the basis of its argument that it is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Court in this case. The reason is that when the US finally signed the Genocide Convention (which is at issue here) after 40 years, it did so with a reservation stating that it is inapplicable to the United States.

In an outraged comment on the efforts of Justice Department lawyers to demonstrate that the President has the right to authorize torture, Yale Law School Dean Howard Koh said that "The notion that the president has the constitutional power to permit torture is like saying he has the constitutional power to commit genocide." The President's legal advisers, and the new Attorney-General, should have little difficulty arguing that the President does indeed have that right if the second superpower permits him to exercise it.

The sacred doctrine of self-immunization is sure to hold of the trial of Saddam Hussein, if it is ever held. We see that every time that Bush, Blair, and other worthies in government and commentary lament over the terrible crimes of Saddam Hussein, always bravely omitting the words: with our help, because we did not care. Surely no tribunal will be permitted to address the fact that US presidents from Kennedy until today, along with French presidents and British Prime Ministers, and Western business, have been complicit in Saddam's crimes, sometimes in horrendous ways, including current incumbents and their mentors.

In setting up the Saddam tribunal, the State Department consulted US legal expert Prof. Charif Bassiouni, recently quoted as saying: "All efforts are being made to have a tribunal whose judiciary is not independent but controlled, and by controlled I mean that the political manipulators of the tribunal have to make sure the US and other western powers are not brought in cause. This makes it look like victor's vengeance: it makes it seem targeted, selected, unfair. It's a subterfuge." We hardly need to be told.

The pretext for US-UK aggression in Iraq is what is called the right of anticipatory self-defense, now sometimes called preemptive war in a radical perversion of that concept. The right of anticipatory self-defense was affirmed officially in the Bush administration National Security Strategy of September 2002, declaring Washington's right to resort to force to eliminate any potential challenge to its global dominance. The NSS was widely criticized among the foreign policy elite, beginning with an article right away in the main establishment journal Foreign Affairs, warning that the new imperial grand strategy could be very dangerous.

Criticism continued, again at an unprecedented level, but on narrow grounds: not that the doctrine itself was wrong, but rather its style and manner of presentation. Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright summed the criticism up accurately, also in FA. She pointed out that every President has such a doctrine in his back pocket, but it is simply foolish to smash people in the face with it and to implement it in a manner that will infuriate even allies. That is threatening to US interests, and therefore wrong.

Albright knew, of course, that Clinton had a similar doctrine. The Clinton doctrine advocated "unilateral use of military power" to defend vital interests, such as "ensuring uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources," without even the pretexts that Bush and Blair devised. Taken literally, the Clinton doctrine is more expansive than Bush's NSS. But the more expansive Clinton doctrine was barely even reported. It was presented with the right style, and implemented less brazenly.

Henry Kissinger described the Bush doctrine as revolutionary, pointing out that it undermines the 17th century Westphalian system of international order, and of course the UN Charter and international law. He approved of the doctrine but with reservations about style and tactics, and with a crucial qualification: it cannot be a universal principle available to every nation. Rather, the right of aggression must be reserved to the US, perhaps delegated to chosen clients. We must forcefully reject the principle of universality: that we apply to ourselves the same standards we do to others, more stringent ones if we are serious.

Kissinger is to be praised for his honesty in forthrightly articulating prevailing doctrine, usually concealed in professions of virtuous intent and tortured legalisms. And he understands his educated audience. As he doubtless expected, there was no reaction.

His understanding of his audience was illustrated again, rather dramatically, last May, when Kissinger-Nixon tapes were released, over Kissinger's strong objections. There was a report in the world's leading newspaper. It mentioned in passing the orders to bomb Cambodia that Kissinger transmitted from Nixon to the military commanders. In Kissinger's words, A massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. Anything that flies on anything that moves." It is rare for a call for horrendous war crimes what we would not hesitate to call genocide if others were responsible to be so stark and explicit.

It may be more than rare; it would be interesting to see if there is anything like it in archival records. The publication elicited no reaction, refuting Dean Koh. Apparently, it is taken for granted in the elite culture that the President and his National Security Adviser do have the right to order genocide.

Imagine the reaction if the prosecutors at the Milosevic Tribunal could find anything remotely similar. They would be overjoyed, the trial would be over, Milosevic would receive several life sentences, the death penalty if the Tribunal adhered to US law. But that is them, not us. The distinction is a core principle of the elite intellectual culture in the West and in fact, throughout history quite generally.

The principle of universality is the most elementary of moral truisms. It is the foundation of Just War theory and in fact of every system of morality deserving of anything but contempt. Rejection of such moral truisms is so deeply rooted in the intellectual culture as to be invisible. To illustrate again how deeply entrenched it is, let's return to the principle of anticipatory self-defense, adopted as legitimate by both political organizations in the US, and across virtually the entire spectrum of articulate opinion, apart from the usual margins.

The principle has some immediate corollaries. If the US is granted the right of anticipatory self-defense against terror, then, certainly, Cuba, Nicaragua, and a host of others have long been entitled to carry out terrorist acts within the US because there is no doubt of its involvement in very serious terrorist attacks against them, extensively documented in impeccable sources, and in the case of Nicaragua, even condemned by the World Court and the Security Council (in two resolutions that the US vetoed, with Britain loyally abstaining).

The conclusion that Cuba and Nicaragua, among many others, have long had the right to carry out terrorist atrocities in the US is of course utterly outrageous, and advocated by no one. And thanks to our self-determined immunity from moral truisms, there is no fear that anyone will draw the outrageous conclusions.

There are still more outrageous ones. No one, for example, celebrates Pearl Harbor day by applauding the fascist leaders of Imperial Japan. But by our standards, the bombing of military bases in the US colonies of Hawaii and the Philippines seems rather innocuous.

The Japanese leaders knew that B-17 Flying Fortresses were coming off the Boeing production lines, and were surely familiar with the public discussions in the US explaining how they could be used to incinerate Japan's wooden cities in a war of extermination, flying from Hawaiian and Philippine bases -- to burn out the industrial heart of the Empire with fire-bombing attacks on the teeming bamboo ant heaps, as retired Air Force General Chennault recommended in 1940, a proposal that simply delighted President Roosevelt.

That's a far more powerful justification for anticipatory self-defense than anything conjured up by Bush-Blair and their associates -- and accepted, with tactical reservations, throughout the mainstream of articulate opinion.

Fortunately, we are once again protected from such politically incorrect conclusions by the principled rejection of elementary moral truisms.

Examples can be enumerated virtually at random. To add one last one, consider the most recent act of NATO aggression prior to the US-UK invasion of Iraq: the bombing of Serbia in 1999. The justification is supposed to be that there were no diplomatic options and that it was necessary to stop ongoing genocide. It is not hard to evaluate these claims.

As for diplomatic options, when the bombing began, there were two proposals on the table, a NATO and a Serbian proposal, and after 78 days of bombing a compromise was reached between them formally at least: it was immediately undermined by NATO. All of this quickly vanished into the mists of unacceptable history, to the limited extent that it was ever reported.

What about ongoing genocide to use the term that appeared hundreds of times in the press as NATO geared up for war? That is unusually easy to investigate. There are two major documentary studies by the State Department, offered to justify the bombing, along with extensive documentary records from the OSCE, NATO, and other Western sources, and a detailed British Parliamentary Inquiry All agree on the basic facts: the atrocities followed the bombing; they were not its cause. Furthermore, that was predicted by the NATO command, as General Wesley Clark informed the press right away, and confirmed in more detail in his memoirs.

The Milosevic indictment, issued during the bombing -- surely as a propaganda weapon, despite implausible denials -- and relying on US-UK intelligence as announced at once, yields the same conclusion: virtually all the charges are post-bombing. Such annoyances are handled quite easily: the Western documentation is commonly expunged in the media and even scholarship. And the chronology is regularly reversed, so that the anticipated consequences of the bombing are transmuted into its cause. I have reviewed the sordid tale in detail elsewhere, and will skip it here.

There were indeed pre-bombing atrocities, about 2000 killed in the year before the March 1999 bombing, according to Western sources. The British, the most hawkish element of the coalition, make the astonishing claim hard to believe just on the basis of the balance of forces that until January 1999, most of the killings were by the Albanian KLA guerrillas, attacking civilians and soldiers in cross-border raids in the hope of eliciting a harsh Serbian response that could be used for propaganda purposes in the West, as they candidly reported, apparently with CIA support in the last months.

Western sources indicate no substantial change until the bombing was announced and the monitors withdrawn a few days before the March bombing. In one of the few works of scholarship that even mentions the unusually rich documentary record, Nicholas Wheeler concludes that 500 of the 2000 were killed by Serbs. He supports the bombing on the grounds that there would have been worse Serbian atrocities had NATO not bombed, eliciting the anticipated crimes. That's the most serious scholarly work. The press, and much of scholarship, choose the easier path of ignoring Western documentation and reversing the chronology. It's an impressive performance, instructive too, at least for those who care about their countries.

It is all too easy to continue. >But the unpleasantly consistent -- record leaves open a crucial question: how does the great beast react, the domestic US component of the second superpower?

The conventional answer is that the population approves of all of this, as just shown again by election of George Bush. But as is often the case, a closer look is helpful.

Each candidate received about 30% of the electoral vote, Bush a bit more, Kerry a bit less. General voting patterns details are not yet available -- were close to the 2000 elections; almost the same red and blue states, in the conventional metaphor. A few percent shift in vote would have meant that Kerry would be in the White House. Neither outcome could tell us much of any significance about the mood of the country, even of voters. Issues of substance were as usual kept out of the campaign, or presented so obscurely that few could understand.

It is important to bear in mind that political campaigns are designed by the same people who sell toothpaste and cars. Their professional concern in their regular vocation is not to provide information. Their goal, rather, is deceit. Their task is to undermine the concept of markets that we are taught to revere, with informed consumers making rational choices (the tales about entrepreneurial initiative are no less fanciful).Rather, consumers are to be deceived by imagery. It has hardly surprising that the same dedication to deceit and similar techniques should prevail when they are assigned the task of selling candidates, so as to undermine democracy.

That's hardly a secret. Corporations do not spend hundreds of billions of dollars in advertising every year to inform the public of the facts say, listing the properties of next year's cars, as would happen in an unimaginable market society based on rational choice by informed consumers. Observing that doctrine of the faith would be simple and cheap. But deceit is quite expensive: complex graphics showing the car with a sexy actress, or a sports hero, or climbing a sheer cliff, or some other device to project an image that might deceive the consumer into buying this car instead of the virtually identical one produced by a competitor.

The same is true of elections, run by the same Public Relations industry. The goal is to project images, and deceive the public into accepting them, while sidelining issues for good reasons, to which I'll return.

The population seems to grasp the nature of the performance. Right before the 2000 elections, about 75% regarded it as virtually meaningless, some game involving rich contributors, party managers, and candidates who are trained to project images that conceal issues but might pick up some votes probably the reason why the stolen election was an elite concern that did not seem to arouse much public interest; if elections have about as much significance as flipping a coin to pick the King, who cares if the coin was biased? Right before the 2004 election, about 10% of voters said their choice would based on the candidate's "agendas/ideas/platforms/goals"; 6% for Bush voters, 13% for Kerry voters.

For the rest, the choice would be based on what the industry calls qualities and values. Does the candidate project the image of a strong leader, the kind of guy you'd like to meet in a bar, someone who really cares about you and is just like you? It wouldn't be surprising to learn that Bush is carefully trained to say nucular and misunderestimate and the other silliness that intellectuals like to ridicule.

That's probably about as real as the ranch constructed for him, and the rest of the folksy manner. After all, it wouldn't do to present him as a spoiled frat boy from Yale who became rich and powerful thanks to his rich and powerful connections. Rather, the imagery has to be an ordinary guy just like us, who'll protect us, and who shares our moral values, more so than the windsurfing goose-hunter who can be accused of faking his medals.

Bush received a large majority among voters who said they were concerned primarily with moral values and terrorism. We learn all we have to know about the moral values of the administration by reading the pages of the business press the day after the election, describing the euphoria in board rooms not because CEOs are opposed to gay marriage.

Or by observing the principle, hardly concealed, that the very serious costs incurred by the Bush planners, in their dedicated service to power and wealth, are to be transferred to our children and grandchildren, including fiscal costs, environmental destruction, and perhaps ultimate doom. These are the moral values, loud and clear.

The commitment of Bush planners to defense against terrorism is illustrated most dramatically, perhaps, by their decision to escalate the threat of terror, as had been predicted even by their own intelligence agencies, not because they enjoy terrorist attacks against Americans, but because it is, plainly, a low priority for them -- surely as compared with such goals as establishing secure military bases in a dependent client state at the heart of the world's energy resources, recognized since World War II as the most strategically important area of the world, a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history. It is critically important to ensure that profits beyond the dreams of avarice to quote a leading history of the oil industry flow in the right directions: to US energy corporations, the Treasury Department, US high tech (militarized) industry and huge construction firms, and so on. And even more important is the stupendous strategic power.

Having a firm hand on the spigot guarantees veto power over rivals, as George Kennan pointed out over 50 years ago. In the same vein, Zbigniew Brzezinski recently wrote that control over Iraq gives the US critical leverage over European and Asian economies, a major concern of planners since World War II.

Rivals are to keep to their regional responsibilities within the overall framework of order managed by the US, as Kissinger instructed them in his Year of Europe address 30 years ago. That is even more urgent today, as the major rivals threaten to move in an independent course, maybe even united. The EU and China became each other's leading trading partners in 2004, and those ties are becoming tighter, including the world's second largest economy, Japan. Critical leverage is more important than ever for world control in the tripolar world that has been evolving for over 30 years.

In comparison, the threat of terror is a minor consideration though the threat is known to be awesome; long before 9-11 it was understood that sooner or later, the Jihadist terror organized by the US and its allies in the 1980s is likely to combine with WMD, with horrifying consequences.

Notice that the crucial issue with regard to Middle East oil about 2/3 of estimated world resources, and unusually easy to extract -- is control, not access. US policies towards the Middle East were the same when it was a net exporter of oil, and remain the same today when US intelligence projects that the US itself will rely on more stable Atlantic Basin resources, including Canada, which forfeited its right to control its own resources in NAFTA.

Policies would be likely to be about the same if the US were to switch to renewable energy. The need to control the stupendous source of strategic power and to gain profits beyond the dreams of avarice would remain. Jockeying over Central Asia and pipeline routes reflects similar concerns.

There are plenty of other illustrations of the same ranking of priorities. To mention one, the Treasury Department has a bureau (OFAC, Office of Foreign Assets Control) that is assigned the task of investigating suspicious financial transfers, a crucial component of the war on terror. OFAC has 120 employees. Last April, the White House informed Congress that four are assigned to tracking the finances of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, while almost two dozen are dedicated to enforcing the embargo against Cuba incidentally, declared illegal by every relevant international organization, even the usually compliant Organization of American States.

From 1990 to 2003, OFAC informed Congress, there were 93 terrorism-related investigations with $9000 in fines; and 11,000 Cuba-related investigations with $8 million in fines. No interest was aroused among those now pondering the puzzling question of whether the Bush administration -- and its predecessors -- downgraded the war on terror in favor of other priorities.

Why should the Treasury Department devote vastly more energy to strangling Cuba than to the war on terror? The US is a uniquely open society; we therefore have quite a lot of information about state planning. The basic reasons were explained in secret documents 40 years ago, when the Kennedy administration sought to bring the terrors of the earth to Cuba, as historian and Kennedy confidante Arthur Schlesinger recounted in his biography of Robert Kennedy, who ran the terror operations as his highest priority. State Department planners warned that the very existence of the Castro regime is successful defiance of US policies going back 150 years, to the Monroe Doctrine; no Russians, but intolerable defiance of the master of the hemisphere.

Furthermore, this successful defiance encourages others, who might be infected by the Castro idea of taking matters into their own hands, Schlesinger had warned incoming President Kennedy, summarizing the report of the President's Latin American mission. These dangers are particularly grave, Schlesinger elaborated, when "the distribution of land and other forms of national wealth greatly favors the propertied classes and the poor and underprivileged, stimulated by the example of the Cuban revolution, are now demanding opportunities for a decent living." The whole system of domination might unravel if the idea of taking matters into one's own hands spreads its evil tentacles.

Recall the concern of Canadian neutral observers in the ICC over the possible precedent of Vietnamese aggression in Vietnam, traceable to similar roots, we learn in the US documentary record. And quite a common feature of aggression, subversion, and state-sponsored international terrorism masked in Cold War rhetoric when those pretexts were available.

Successful defiance remains intolerable, ranked far higher as a priority than combating terror, just another illustration of principles that are well-established, internally rational, clear enough to the victims, but not perceptible among the agents who describe the events and debate the reasons. The clamor about revelations of Bush administration priorities by insiders (Clarke, O'Neil), and the extensive 9-11 hearings in Washington, are just further illustrations of this curious inability to perceive the obvious, even to entertain it as a possibility.

Let's return to the great beast. US public opinion is studied with great care and depth. Studies released right before the election showed that those planning to vote for Bush assumed that Republican Party shared their views, even though the Party explicitly rejected them. Pretty much the same was true of Kerry supporters, unless we give a very sympathetic interpretation of occasional vague statements that most voters had probably never even heard. The major concerns of Kerry supporters were economy and health care, and they assumed that he shared their views on these matters, just as Bush voters assumed, with comparable justification, that Republicans shared their views.

In brief, those who bothered to vote mostly accepted the imagery concocted by the PR industry, which had only the vaguest resemblance to reality. That's apart from the more wealthy, who tend to vote their class interests. Though details are not yet available, it is a reasonable surmise that the wealthy may have expressed their gratitude to their benefactors in the White House with even higher votes for them in 2004 than in 2000, possibly accounting for much of the small differences.

What about actual public attitudes? Again, right before the election, major studies were released reporting them and when we look at the results, barely reported, we see right away why it is a good idea to base elections on deceit, very much as in the fake markets of the doctrinal system. Here are a few examples.

A considerable majority believe that the US should accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and the World Court; sign the Kyoto protocols; allow the UN to take the lead in international crises (including security, reconstruction, and political transition in Iraq); rely on diplomatic and economic measures more than military ones in the war on terror; and use force only if there is strong evidence that the country is in imminent danger of being attacked, thus rejecting the bipartisan consensus on pre-emptive war and adopting a rather conventional interpretation of the UN Charter.

A majority even favor giving up the Security Council veto. Overwhelming majorities favor expansion of purely domestic programs: primarily health care (80%), but also aid to education and Social Security. Similar results have long been found in these studies, carried out by the most reputable organizations that monitor public opinion.

In other mainstream polls, about 80% favor guaranteed health care even if it would raise taxes a national health care system is likely to reduce expenses considerably, avoiding the heavy costs of bureaucracy, supervision, paperwork, etc., some of the factors that render the US privatized system the most inefficient in the industrial world.

Public opinion has been similar for a long time, with numbers varying depending on how questions are asked. The facts are sometimes discussed in the press, with public preferences noted but dismissed as politically impossible. That happened again on the eve of the 2004 elections. A few days before (Oct. 31), the NY Times reported that there is so little political support for government intervention in the health care market in the United States that Senator John Kerry took pains in a recent presidential debate to say that his plan for expanding access to health insurance would not create a new government program what the majority want, so it appears. But it is politically impossible and there is too little political support, meaning that the insurance companies, HMOs, pharmaceutical industries, Wall Street, etc., are opposed.

It is notable that these views are held by people in virtual isolation. They rarely hear them, and though the question is not asked in the published polls, it is likely that respondents regard their own views as idiosyncratic. Their preferences do not enter into the political campaigns, and only marginally into articulate opinion in media and journals. The same extends to other domains, and raises important questions about a democratic deficit in the world's most important state, to adopt the phrase we use for others.

What would the results of the election have been if the parties, either of them, had been willing to articulate people's concerns on the issues they regard as vitally important? Or if these issues could enter into public discussion within the mainstream? We can only speculate about that, but we do know that it does not happen, and that the facts are scarcely even reported. It seems reasonable to suppose that fear of the great beast is rather deep.

The operative concept of democracy is revealed very clearly in other ways as well. Perhaps the most extraordinary was the distinction between Old and New Europe in the run-up to the Iraq war. The criterion for membership was so sharp and clear that it took real discipline to miss it. Old Europe the bad guys were the governments that took the same stand as the large majority of the population. New Europe the exciting hope for a democratic future were the Churchillian leaders like Berlusconi and Aznar who disregarded even larger majorities of the population and submissively took their orders from Crawford Texas.

The most dramatic case was Turkey, where, to everyone's surprise, the government actually followed the will of 95% of the population. The official administration moderate, Colin Powell, immediately announced harsh punishment for this crime. Turkey was bitterly condemned in the national press for lacking democratic credentials. The most extreme example was Paul Wolfowitz, who berated the Turkish military for not compelling the government to follow Washington's orders, and demanded that they apologize and publicly recognize that the goal of a properly functioning democracy is to help America. Small wonder that the liberal press hails him as the Idealist-in-Chief leading the crusade for democracy (David Ignatius, veteran Washington Post correspondent and editor), a vocation well grounded in the rest of his gruesome record, kept carefully under wraps.

In other ways too, the operative concept of democracy is scarcely concealed. The lead think-piece in the NY Times on the death of Yasser Arafat opened by saying that the post-Arafat era will be the latest test of a quintessentially American article of faith: that elections provide legitimacy even to the frailest institutions. In the final paragraph, on the continuation page, we read that Washington resisted new national elections among the Palestinians because Arafat would win and gain a fresher mandate and elections might help give credibility and authority to Hamas as well.

In other words, democracy is fine if the results come out the right way; otherwise, to the flames. That is the quintessential faith. The evidence is so overwhelming it is pointless even to review it at least, for those who care about such matters as historical fact, or even what is conceded publicly.

To take just one crucial current example of the same doctrines, a year ago, after other pretexts for invading Iraq had collapsed, Bush's speech writers had to come up with something to replace them. They settled on what the liberal press calls the president's messianic vision to bring democracy to Iraq, the Middle East, the whole world. The reactions were intriguing.

They ranged from rapturous acclaim for the vision, which proved that this was the most noble war in history (Ignatius), to critics, who agreed that the vision was noble and inspiring, but might be beyond our reach: Iraqi culture is just not ready for such progress towards our civilized values. We have to temper the messianic idealism of Bush and Blair with some sober realism, the London Financial Times advised.

The interesting fact is that it was presupposed uncritically across the spectrum that the messianic vision must be the goal of the invasion, not this silly business about WMD and al-Qaeda, no longer credible to elite opinion. What is the evidence that the US and Britain are guided by the messianic vision? There is indeed evidence, a single piece of evidence: our Leaders proclaimed it. What more could be needed?

There is one sector of opinion that had a different view: Iraqis. Just as the messianic vision was unveiled in Washington to reverent applause, a US-run poll of Baghdadis was released. Some agreed with the near-unanimous stand of Western elite opinion: that the goal of the invasion was to bring democracy to Iraq. One percent. Five percent thought the goal was to help Iraqis. The majority assumed the obvious: the US wants to control Iraq's resources and use its base there to reorganize the region in its interest. Baghdadis agree that there is a problem of cultural backwardness: in the West, not in Iraq.

Actually, their views were more nuanced. Though 1% believed that the goal of the invasion was to bring democracy, about half felt that the US wanted democracy but would not allow Iraqis to run their democracy without U.S. pressure and influence. They understand the quintessentially American faith very well, perhaps because it was also the quintessentially British faith while Britain's boot was on their necks.

They don't have to know the history of Wilsonian idealism, or Britain's noble counterpart, or France's civilizing mission, or the even more exalted vision of Japanese fascists, and many others probably also close to a historical universal. Their own experience is enough.

It is not unusual for those at the wrong end of the club to have a clearer picture of reality than those who wield it.

At the outset I mentioned the notable successes of popular struggles in the past decades, very clear if we think about it a little, but rarely discussed, for reasons that are not hard to discern.

Both recent history and public attitudes suggest some pretty straightforward and quite conservative strategies for short-term activism on the part of those who don't want to wait for China to save us from ultimate doom. We enjoy great privilege and freedom, remarkable by comparative and historical standards.

That legacy was not granted from above: it was won by dedicated struggle, which does not reduce to pushing a lever every few years. We can of course abandon that legacy, and take the easy way of pessimism: everything is hopeless, so I'll quit. Or we can make use of that legacy to work to create in part re-create the basis for a functioning democratic culture, in which the public plays some role in determining policies, not only in the political arena from which it is largely excluded, but also in the crucial economic arena, from which it is excluded in principle.

These are hardly radical ideas. They were articulated clearly, for example, by the leading twentieth century social philosopher in the US, John Dewey, who pointed out that until industrial feudalism is replaced by industrial democracy, politics will remain the shadow cast by big business over society. Dewey was as American as apple pie, in the familiar phrase.

He was in fact drawing from a long tradition of thought and action that had developed independently in working class culture from the origins of the industrial revolution -- Such ideas remain just below the surface, and can become a living part of our societies, cultures, and institutions.

But like other victories for justice and freedom over the centuries, that will not happen by itself. One of the clearest lessons of history, including recent history, is that rights are not granted; they are won. The rest is up to us.
Respond to this report!

#22 Consumer Comment

Consider The Source

AUTHOR: Cory - (U.S.A.)

Consider the source. The guy lives in Canada for pete's sake. They tried to make the national language french.
Respond to this report!

#23 Consumer Comment

Consider The Source

AUTHOR: Cory - (U.S.A.)

Consider the source. The guy lives in Canada for pete's sake. They tried to make the national language french.
Respond to this report!

#24 Consumer Comment

Consider The Source

AUTHOR: Cory - (U.S.A.)

Consider the source. The guy lives in Canada for pete's sake. They tried to make the national language french.
Respond to this report!

#25 Consumer Comment

Consider The Source

AUTHOR: Cory - (U.S.A.)

Consider the source. The guy lives in Canada for pete's sake. They tried to make the national language french.
Respond to this report!

#26 Consumer Suggestion

How have I been affected.?

AUTHOR: Paul - (Canada)

Every time I drop a gallon of gas in my American made gassguzling SUV that was made by an almost Bankrupt General Motors & assembled overseas..

Are Americans so narrow minded that they can't see the effect of their actions reflected around the world.

Yes I feel ripped off I have friends posted in Iraq looking for WMD that never exsisted and fighting a war that never should have happened without the aproval of the UN.

Do you think for a minute that there would actually have been a coalition formed if the Austrailians and the Canadians would have known from the start that there was no Iminent Threat?
Respond to this report!

#27 Consumer Comment

SILLY CANADIAN, what is your GOVERNMENT HIDING

AUTHOR: Tom - (U.S.A.)

BTW you moron, this is a consumer complaint board, perhaps you should complaint about the massive cover up of the corruption your government is doing.

Please you silly little boy, move on with you meaningless canadian life. No one here cares what a canadian thinks or does.
Respond to this report!

#28 Consumer Comment

SILLY CANADIAN, what is your GOVERNMENT HIDING

AUTHOR: Tom - (U.S.A.)

BTW you moron, this is a consumer complaint board, perhaps you should complaint about the massive cover up of the corruption your government is doing.

Please you silly little boy, move on with you meaningless canadian life. No one here cares what a canadian thinks or does.
Respond to this report!

#29 Consumer Comment

SILLY CANADIAN, what is your GOVERNMENT HIDING

AUTHOR: Tom - (U.S.A.)

BTW you moron, this is a consumer complaint board, perhaps you should complaint about the massive cover up of the corruption your government is doing.

Please you silly little boy, move on with you meaningless canadian life. No one here cares what a canadian thinks or does.
Respond to this report!

#30 Consumer Comment

SILLY CANADIAN, what is your GOVERNMENT HIDING

AUTHOR: Tom - (U.S.A.)

BTW you moron, this is a consumer complaint board, perhaps you should complaint about the massive cover up of the corruption your government is doing.

Please you silly little boy, move on with you meaningless canadian life. No one here cares what a canadian thinks or does.
Respond to this report!

#31 Consumer Suggestion

Make Canada our 51st State

AUTHOR: Bob - (U.S.A.)

If we were to make Canada our 51st State then Paul would have standing to complain. As a Canadian citizen, he does not get to enjoy the same freedoms we have. It's one thing for us to critize the US, but those in the frozen north need to thaw out their brains before weighing in on the issue.
Respond to this report!

#32 Consumer Comment

Paul is an idiot What about the abuses of the United Nations themselves.

AUTHOR: John - (U.S.A.)

Paul_

What about the abuses of the United Nations themselves.

France continued to do business with Iraq when the UN had sanctions against them. What happened to them? nothing.

The leader of the United nations was caught with his hands in the cookie Jar in the Oil fo Food program. What hapopened to him? Nothing.

You are probably some democrat who is actually from the US trying to bad mouth the republicans because by distorting and lying about the facts is the only way that a democrat will have a chance for lying.

In 2000, Bill clinton, Al Gore, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and other democrats say that social security is in trouble. Now that George Bush is trying to get the parties together to form a Bi-partisan committee to address it, now these same people are saying that there is no problem. What a bunch of 2 faced idiots we have in the senate.

But I am not going to try to explain this to an idiot who "claims" to be from Canada and attacking our government. No one from the US attacks your government like that. I like how people from other countries take advantage of our freedoms on web sites like this and then bad mouth us in return.
Respond to this report!

#33 Consumer Comment

You must be French

AUTHOR: Dean - (U.S.A.)

Michael, keep in mind these people are probably French, or have close ties. We have all learned much about the French in the past couple of years.
Respond to this report!

#34 Consumer Comment

More importantly... Canada has fewer than 50K personnel

AUTHOR: Robert - (U.S.A.)

Why should we care about your opinion on anything that concerns our country. Canada has fewer than 50K personnel in it's entire military.

If it wasn't for the US, Canada wouldn't even have a chance if a pissed off eskimo tribe went on the warpath. Tell ya what Paul, stay on your side of the border and keep paying those great taxes and surcharges for everything.

We'll stay down here and make sure the world is free from the badguys so you can run your yap.

By the way, the people who scream the loudest about being misunderstood and innocent are generally the worst offenders in any prison. The same goes with terrorists.
Respond to this report!

#35 Consumer Comment

Go back to bed Neville.

AUTHOR: James - (U.S.A.)

[sarcasm on] Thank you Mister Chamberlain! [sarcasm off] Hopefully your grasp of history is such that you understand the reference.

I want to note for the record that these comments came not from a US citizen, but from a citizen of a nation that has enjoyed the protection of the United States for almost 200 years - since the conclusion of the War of 1812. It came from a citizen of a nation that continues to be known as a haven for cowards and draft dodgers. But most importantly, it came from a citizen of a nation that committed wartime atrocities against the servicemen of the United States of America.

This is a link to the roster of American POWs that died in prison at Halifax during the War of 1812. For whatever reason, the Canadians seem to conveniently overlook this dirty little part of their own history when they enter into these high moral discussions regarding the US.

http://www.udata.com/users/hsbaker/halifax3.htm

So go back to bed, Neville. The armed forces of the United States are still on alert and protecting your pathetic a*s. You're welcome!
Respond to this report!

#36 Consumer Comment

You're from Canada, what do you care what we here in the U.S do?

AUTHOR: Michael - (U.S.A.)

I really don't see how what you wrote is a rip-off. And since you claim to be from Canada, what do you care what we here in the U.S do?
Respond to this report!

#37 Consumer Comment

You're from Canada, what do you care what we here in the U.S do?

AUTHOR: Michael - (U.S.A.)

I really don't see how what you wrote is a rip-off. And since you claim to be from Canada, what do you care what we here in the U.S do?
Respond to this report!

#38 Consumer Comment

You're from Canada, what do you care what we here in the U.S do?

AUTHOR: Michael - (U.S.A.)

I really don't see how what you wrote is a rip-off. And since you claim to be from Canada, what do you care what we here in the U.S do?
Respond to this report!

#39 Consumer Comment

You're from Canada, what do you care what we here in the U.S do?

AUTHOR: Michael - (U.S.A.)

I really don't see how what you wrote is a rip-off. And since you claim to be from Canada, what do you care what we here in the U.S do?
Respond to this report!

#40 Author of original report

21 reasons why the US should be declared a Rogue State.

AUTHOR: Paul - (Canada)

21 reasons why the US should be declared a Rogue State.

1. In December 2001, the United States officially withdrew from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, gutting the landmark agreement-the first time in the nuclear era that the US renounced a major arms control accord.

2. 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention ratified by 144 nations including the United States. In July 2001 the US walked out of a London conference to discuss a 1994 protocol designed to strengthen the Convention by providing for on-site inspections. At Geneva in November 2001, US Undersecretary of State John Bolton stated that "the protocol is dead," at the same time accusing Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Sudan, and Syria of violating the Convention but offering no specific allegations or supporting evidence.

3. UN Agreement to Curb the International Flow of Illicit Small Arms, July 2001: the US was the only nation to oppose it.

4. April 2001, the US was not re-elected to the UN Human Rights Commission, after years of withholding dues to the UN (including current dues of $244 million)-and after having forced the UN to lower its share of the UN budget from 25 to 22 percent. (In the Human Rights Commission, the US stood virtually alone in opposing resolutions supporting lower-cost access to HIV/AIDS drugs, acknowledging a basic human right to adequate food, and calling for a moratorium on the death penalty.)

5. International Criminal Court (ICC) Treaty, to be set up in The Hague to try political leaders and military personnel charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. Signed in Rome in July 1998, the Treaty was approved by 120 countries, with 7 opposed (including the US). In October 2001 Great Britain became the 42nd nation to sign. In December 2001 the US Senate again added an amendment to a military appropriations bill that would keep US military personnel from obeying the jurisdiction of the proposed ICC.

6. Land Mine Treaty, banning land mines; signed in Ottawa in December 1997 by 122 nations. The United States refused to sign, along with Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, Egypt, and Turkey. President Clinton rejected the Treaty, claiming that mines were needed to protect South Korea against North Korea's "overwhelming military advantage." He stated that the US would "eventually" comply, in 2006; this was disavowed by President Bush in August 2001.

7. Kyoto Protocol of 1997, for controlling global warming: declared "dead" by President Bush in March 2001. In November 2001, the Bush administration shunned negotiations in Marrakech (Morocco) to revise the accord, mainly by watering it down in a vain attempt to gain US approval.

8. In May 2001, refused to meet with European Union nations to discuss, even at lower levels of government, economic espionage and electronic surveillance of phone calls, e-mail, and faxes (the US "Echelon" program),

9. Refused to participate in Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)-sponsored talks in Paris, May 2001, on ways to crack down on off-shore and other tax and money-laundering havens.

10. Refused to join 123 nations pledged to ban the use and production of anti-personnel bombs and mines, February 2001

11. September 2001: withdrew from International Conference on Racism, bringing together 163 countries in Durban, South Africa

12. International Plan for Cleaner Energy: G-8 group of industrial nations (US, Canada, Japan, Russia, Germany, France, Italy, UK), July 2001: the US was the only one to oppose it.

13. Enforcing an illegal boycott of Cuba, now being made tighter. In the UN in October 2001, the General Assembly passed a resolution, for the tenth consecutive year, calling for an end to the US embargo, by a vote of 167 to 3 (the US, Israel, and the Marshall Islands in opposition).

14. Comprehensive [Nuclear] Test Ban Treaty. Signed by 164 nations and ratified by 89 including France, Great Britain, and Russia; signed by President Clinton in 1996 but rejected by the Senate in 1999. The US is one of 13 nonratifiers among countries that have nuclear weapons or nuclear power programs. In November 2001, the US forced a vote in the UN Committee on Disarmament and Security to demonstrate its opposition to the Test Ban Treaty.

15. In 1986 the International Court of Justice (The Hague) ruled that the US was in violation of international law for "unlawful use of force" in Nicaragua, through its actions and those of its Contra proxy army. The US refused to recognize the Court's jurisdiction. A UN resolution calling for compliance with the Court's decision was approved 94-2 (US and Israel voting no).

16. In 1984 the US quit UNESCO (UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) and ceased its payments for UNESCO's budget, over the New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO) project designed to lessen world media dependence on the "big four" wire agencies (AP, UPI, Agence France-Presse, Reuters). The US charged UNESCO with "curtailment of press freedom," as well as mismanagement and other faults, despite a 148-1 in vote in favor of NWICO in the UN. UNESCO terminated NWICO in 1989; the US nonetheless refused to rejoin. In 1995 the Clinton administration proposed rejoining; the move was blocked in Congress and Clinton did not press the issue. In February 2000 the US finally paid some of its arrears to the UN but excluded UNESCO, which the US has not rejoined.

17. Optional Protocol, 1989, to the UN's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aimed at abolition of the death penalty and containing a provision banning the execution of those under 18. The US has neither signed nor ratified and specifically exempts itself from the latter provision, making it one of five countries that still execute juveniles (with Saudi Arabia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria). China abolished the practice in 1997, Pakistan in 2000.

18. 1979 UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. The only countries that have signed but not ratified are the US, Afghanistan, Sao Tome and Principe.

19. The US has signed but not ratified the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which protects the economic and social rights of children. The only other country not to ratify is Somalia, which has no functioning government.

20. UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966, covering a wide range of rights and monitored by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The US signed in 1977 but has not ratified.

21. UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948. The US finally ratified in 1988, adding several "reservations" to the effect that the US Constitution and the "advice and consent" of the Senate are required to judge whether any "acts in the course of armed conflict" constitute genocide. The reservations are rejected by Britain, Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, Greece, Mexico, Estonia, and others.

Foreign aid given to less fortunate countries measured by the percentage of their gross domestic products. The top three are Denmark (1.01%), Norway (0.91%), and the Netherlands (0.79), The three worst: USA (0.10%), UK (0.23%), Australia, Portugal, and Austria (all 0.26).

Copyright, Richard Du Boff.
Respond to this report!
Ripoff Report Recommends
ZipBooks Accounting Software

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.