The United States foreign policy is an extremely atrocious policy.

" The United States holds the credit for being the only country in the world, convicted of participating in international terrorism (against the Republic opf Nicaragua), when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1986." A uniqueness of conviction does not mean a unique problem. Saudi Arabia and Iran are well known for funding terrorism too. Also, nothing about that conviction included "terrorism." The conviction was for "Violation of sovereignty," a silly ground, because the NICARAGUA GOVERNMENT HAD NO RIGHT OF SOVEREIGNTY! Nations lose any claim to sovereignty when they do not recognize their own citizens as human beings. The Nicaraguans were well known for imprisoning people solely for political views, engaging in torture of said people, religious persecution, seizure of property (they officially allowed private property, except in the cases of their political opponents, but nevertheless seized it. The US did indeed fund war against Nicaragua, but Nicaragua had given up all right to complain. Analyzing data shows that the US has committed more serious violatons of international law (war of aggression, which is the "supreme international crime" according to the Nuremberg Principles) than any other nation in the modern world. First, which data? Second, "War of aggression" is undefined. Do you mean war of aggression as in we weren't directly attacked first? Then sure, there's plenty of that. Or war of aggression as in declaring war on parties not guilty of something deserving it? Then false, EVERY COUNTRY ON THE FACE OF THIS PLANET violates the rights of it's citizens. As such, they all deserve war declared against them by whoever violates the rights of it's citizens least often. That would be the United States, as there is no nation freer, though I wish there were, and if there were it too would be justified in war with us if it so chose. This does not mean there is an obligation to create such war, but there is a right. The Nuremberg principles are incoherent when one takes into account the wars of aggression being waged by every government domestically against their citizens (specifically wars of plunder, known as taxes, whether direct or otherwise). Ultimately every war the United States engaged in is not aggressive, but defense of a third party. And even assuming such international laws were coherent, guess what? Us violating the most doesn't say anything about our POLICY. It says something about our POWER, that we are able to commit the most. But measure it against the ability, and you'll find many nations with many more crimes they do commit per the number they are able to. The proportion we have the ability for is simply higher is all. " The United States supported Indonesia throughout its campaign to wipe out the population of East Timor." And most of the countries on this planet are, officially or otherwise, supporting China, and thereby indirectly supporting the campaign of Sudan to wipe out the population of Darfur. Need I remind you that the population of East Timor was known for electing pro-Soviet governments, and therefore supporting the Soviets in their campaigns to wipe out the population of whichever spot they were trying to destroy at the moment (be it chechnya or ukriane or....)? What comes around goes around, is not a mark of "extreme" atrocity. And I GUARANTEE that were the power situations reversed, East Timor would have attempted to wipe out the population of not only Indonesia, but also the United States. That is what it's majority votes for FREITLIN as recent as 2001 mean. "The U.S. continues to give mass arms supply (as Clinton did in 1999), to the government of Turkey. What does Turkey do with those arms? Well, as part of its "counterror campaign" it kills thousands (a conservative estimate by Amnesty International) Kurds." And Europe wants to invite Turkey into the European Union. No mark of "Extreme" atrocity there. " The U.S. foreign policy has helped impose sanctions on Cuba, (previously Iraq), and now Iran. All three of these sanctions are grave violations of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Article 50 of the Hague Convention of 1907." And you really think any of those three countries recognize those articles.Do you know you are contradicting yourself? First you state it's wrong to support genocide, now you say it's wrong not to (in the case of Iraq). Or is supplying the governments that go about genocide (or in the case of Cuba, Communism, which is a program for killing a general rather than a specific group of people, or in Iran, theocracy for killing any non-Muslims and any Muslims who aren't pious enough). Not to mention, such sanctions DON'T REALLY VIOLATE THE ARTICLES. Do you know why? When you give supplies to a country that has governments like these, the GOVERNMENT seizes them all. Only the government benefits, and since the government is the guilty party, only the government is being punished by withdrawing these. That and anyone who decides to rely on the government, and thereby supports it, and is therefore guilty. Each of those articles only forbid punishment of innocents, not punishment of the guilty. " The Bush doctrine released in 2002 (National Security Strategy of 2002), for the first time explained the US foreign policy in clearer terms. The Bush doctrine gave the US the right to wipe out any "rogue state." Well, what is a "rogue state"? According to the Bush doctrine a "rogue state" is any state which has the potential to threaten us. Since ANY country CAN threaten us (in the future), the U.S. can attack any country which threatens US hegemony. " And which other country would not make the same provision if they have the power? Not a mark of "extreme" then, in our policy. A mark of extreme power, but the implicit policy is the same. " Most governments in the modern world have killed parts of their own population. However, the U.S. is the ONLY country to commit such massive acts of aggression (the "supreme international crime" according to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson who represented the U.S. during the Nuremberg Tribunals), give enormous arms supply to countries which commit genocide while establishing their own dominance." This is a debate over the extreme nature of POLICY. It is not our policy which makes us unique here, it is our power. When we weren't unique in our power, the Soviets could be observed doing even worse things. More countries are closer to the Soviet model than the US model in terms of policy, therefore, if anything, we are at the extreme end of non-atrocity (sad thing to think of the world, but true :D). Keep to the resolution. Prove something uniquely or abnormally atrocious about our POLICY, not our power. This means, prove something we would be unique or abnormal in even if every country had the same power as us.