Havoc
|
IMDB rating: 5.30 Plot: In Los Angeles, Allison Lang is a bored girl from an upper class dysfunctional family that acts and dresses like a slut. Her wealthy boyfriend and friends are totally influenced by the hip-hop culture, behaving like rappers, dressing and imitating their lifestyle. When they decide to drive to East L.A. for fun, they meet a Latin gang of drug-dealers and Allison and her best friend Emily become fascinated with their “gangsta” lifestyle. Later they return to the ghetto to visit and excite Hector and his friends, expecting to join their 16th Street gang. When the guys propose them to have sex as a form of initiation, they change their mind, leading to a tragic consequence. |
Actors: Biehn Michael,Gordon-Levitt Joseph,O’Leary Matt,Rodriguez Freddy,Vogel Mike,Cruz Raymond,Tatum Channing,Vasquez Johnny,Robledo Luis,Hennings Sam,Crime,Drama,Romance,
Why wasn't Napoleon hanged or shot the first time he was defeated?
Napoleon was first exiled to Elba in the Mediterranean. He escaped and caused more havoc and misery until he was defeated at Waterloo. The second time he was exiled to St. Helena in the South Atlantic where he was kept until he died in 1821.
The guy was a 19th century Hitler.
Why didn’t they hang him the first time around?
I’ve always wondered the same thing.
ihml | Feb 05, 2010
They risked turning him into a martyr and also he wasn’t a bad person, he was just a general, and a good one at that.
Michael | Feb 05, 2010
On what charge. There was no international law. And as it was the British who won we always stick to the law.
Joan of arc was burnt at the stake after being found guilty of Heresy. She was of course totally innocent and I suspect we didn’t want to make the same mistake again.
There is plenty of evidence that Napoleon died of lead poisoning from the wall coverings used in his room on the island.
Ashcan | Feb 05, 2010
It never ceases to amaze me how little some people, especially TEACHERS, know about history. In NO WAY was Bonaparte like Hitler. Hitler was interested in CONQUEST. Napoleon was dedicated to defending the French Republic against the European royalists who were hell bent on the destruction of the republic and the return of the Bourbon family to the throne.
The first major action in which Napoleon had a significant role was the expulsion of the BRITISH from the FRENCH port of Toulon. That doesn’t sound like conquest to me. The invasion of other European countries happened because he found it necessary to chase down and destroy armies that had amassed and threatened France. After every battle, Napoleon begged for peace, which neither the British, Austrians, or Russians would agree to.
Even Napoleon’s invasion of Russia was an attempt to force Czar Alexander to live up to the terms of the peace treaty he had signed after Napoleon had whipped his tail a few times.
Even after defeat and capture, Napoleon was afforded the courtesy and respect given to a "British General Officer, not currently in employ." The royalists had no desire to create a martyr and build more sympathy for republican revolution.
Try studying history instead of listening to brainwashed teachers.
John H | Feb 05, 2010
Hanging Napoleon would have set a very dangerous precedent in international relations as well as international justice.
At the time, leaders of nations – kings and Emperors, were seen as responsible only to god for their actions – the idea of Divine right of kings. The killing of a king was seen as the act of Regicide – and illegal because only god could judge a king – and condemn a king.
The murders of legitimate kings such as Charles 1 of England as well as Louis XVI of France was widely condemned as the murder of the legitimate ruler of the leader of the state. Any attempt to hold Napoleon accountable for his actions as well as to publicly trial and execute him, would have set a dangerous precedent – and would have justified the actions of the French revolutionaries in the public execution of Louis XVI of France. To execute Napoleon in 1815 – just twenty years after the execution of Louis XVI of France – would have brought back memories of the French Revolution.
While the legitimacy of Napoleon Bonaparte was doubted in the international sphere by Britain. Napoleon was still crowned Emperor and recognised as the legitimate ruler in France by all except the deposed Bourbon royal family. The legitimacy of Napoleon as a monarch was strengthened by the fact that Alexander 1 of Russia, now one of the heroes for deposing Napoleon – had dealt with Napoleon at Tilsit – at the expense of Austria and Prussia.
Napoleon was also seen as legitimate for his marriage to the daughter of the Emperor of Austria. And the fact that they had a son – who was crowned king of Rome, made the public execution of Napoleon even more problematic for Austria. To publicly execute Napoleon – a recognised member of the house of Habsburg – would have brought protests from Austria.
To execute Napoleon Bonaparte would have also made Napoleon a martyr in some ways for those that believed that Napoleon spread the ideals of the french revolution. Execution of Napoleon would have made it very hard for the deposed bourbons – led by the new king Louis XVIII – to come back to france and rule with any legitimacy. Already hated by the public, the execution of Napoleon would have made France very vulnerable to another revolution and undermined the very stability and the status quo that the international community sought.
Also i dont think that Napoleon was the 19th Century Hitler. To compare Hitler and Napoleon is completely wrong and ill-informed.
Big B | Feb 05, 2010
That’s not how things were done in the early 19th century.
There was no concept of war crimes or war criminals, and Napoleon was a Head of State. Executing him or even putting him on trial would have set a dangerous precedent for monarchs of nations defeated in any future wars.
Napoleon’s downfall was largely due to the failure of his international diplomacy – the crowned heads of Europe just didn’t regard Napoleon as ‘one of them’ – royalty (or even aristocracy) by birth.They therefore regarded any treaties or promises made with him as non-binding,as they were agreed to under duress. However, this snobbery worked both ways. Conventional thinking was that royalty/aristocracy were better than the Common People by definition and birth.Executing a defeated enemy would have been regarded as an ignoble act, beneath the dignity of the victors.
ammianus | Feb 06, 2010