Question for Europeans

[gjts00]

This is going to come off as rude and confrontational, I don't mean it that way, I'm just being honest with my opinions. But I'm sure that that's the way that it will be percieved. Duck...You are exactly the type of person that I've been refering to in my most recent posts. IMO that last post of yours in this thread was nothing short of ignorance. FYI, WWII wouldn't have ended the way it did without the involvment of the US. Now I'm NOT saying that the US single handedly won the war. I'm saying it was a team effort, the US needed the rest of the allies as much as the rest of the Allies needed the US.* Aside from the fact that your country got rolled over & made little, if any contribution to the allies winning the war. And how can you say that German domination of Europe in either of their bids for control of the continent in either 14-18 or 39-45 was not a threat to the US? That's absurd. Without a free Europe, the Germans could've economically choked us out. Aside from the fact that it would've only been a matter of time before they invaded the US. It probabloy would've taken decades to stage such an undertaking, but it would've happened none the less. You also speak of a need for a global peacekeeper & in the same breath you bit*h about US foreign policy being motivated mostly by self interest. Are you really that naive??? Even the good guys look out for number one first. To do otherwise would be foolish. How can we (the US) be reasonably expected to play the role that you've described (Duck), without first assuring that our own needs are met?



Other than what I know of you through these boards, I know nothing*. But based on that, I've come to the opinion that you fit into either one of two groups. One, you are very naive/misinformed about the way that the world works. Or two, you are so jealous of the status currently held by the US that no matter what we (the US) does, you will be up on your soap box condeming us.








*Don't forget these parts of my monolgue when/if you reply and quote me Duck.

 

[joespaniel]

A insiders view on Rawanda.

Having served in a combat unit in Somolia in 1993, I can assure you that even the might of the United States Armed Forces cannot stop group A from hating group B, and subsequently both trying to exterminate the other. Wether its racial, religious or just plain political, sometimes there is nothing that can be done to stop it. If you try, one side, or both will resent it and turn on you, killing your "peacekeepers".

We learned a hard lesson in Somolia, one that shapes our intervention policy to this day.

The people you are trying to help have to want it first. Not one side, but all sides have to be done fighting if its a civil war.

In Rawanda, the US opted to provide food and medicine by airlift (you guys forgot that) instead of troops. The warring factions were still fighting, and we could have sent troops to stop it, but which side do we take? How long do we stay there? Till they decide we are interfering and attack us to get at each other? Then what?

That would have been foolish. Our response was the correct one in my humble opinion. Once both sides had a belly full of death, it was feasable to increase aid on the ground, which was done.

Keep in mind that these people do not see things the same as you and I. They have different beliefs, values, religions etc.etc.

In Somolia, all sides agreed to a cease fire, and after the UN fed the starving and healed the sick, we should have left. I know it sounds cruel, but a civil war has to be finished from within, all sides ready to quit. The UN instead engaged in "nation building", something never done before.

12 of 13 factions agreed to go along with this. The 1, Aideed's clan, decided to massacre 64 Pakistani UN troops in an ambush. The US QRF (Quick Reaction Force) was deployed against his militia immeadiately. The 10th Mountain Division was given the job of bringing this man to "justice" in a land of anarchy, without courts of law or any real government, and destroying his militia, which we pretty much did.

But at what cost?

This peacekeeping role should be tempered with caution.

The war in Kosovo was more of a "foriegn" invaision, some will argue otherwise, but it was a clear cut case of aggression. The Kosovars were not plotting to war against Milosavich. They were attacked by a brutal, evil dictator who already started enough conflict elsewhere.

I am proud that the US came to the aid of suffering people there.

I have Russian friends that have a very different view on that, but do admit that Milosavich was a cancer that needed to be removed. Credit to the Serbians that ended his reign of terror.

Anyway, sometimes even our national interest is not the only driving factor. We are capable of some selflessness at times.

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

to sonorakitch:

During the Cold War, I think there was great justification for the various wars fought. The Domino Theory had very viable arguments, stating that Communism would slowly envelope the world, starting one country at a time. And Vietnam, we were asked to fight on the side of the South. Really, it was the same situation as in Europe, where the UK, France, Belgium, etc. practically begged America for support. So while you support actions during World War II for you own countrymens benifit, you should understand that South Vietnam was hoping for the same outcome as your grandfathers did. Also, you state: " America more and more began to profilate itself as a imperialistic superpower." I ask you, what is a imperialstic state? I would conclude that territiorial gains are a necessity for any state to reach the point of being "imperialistic". It should be noted that America, in the twentieth (and twentifirst) centuries never demanded territory or money. It has generally been to preserve peace and fight communism. Of course, in order to justify most conflicts, there was a genuine threat to the strategic interests of the United States (surely you can understand that!).

Actually i can only but agree here.Basicly i was tottaly wrong here to use words as imperialistic and profilating. (especialy toghether i guess) I think at that time ,i really couldn get the right words for my oppinion.I am actaully glad that you have corrected me on this.So let me put my oppinion in other words:
I want to discuss the viable arguments the Domino theory actually had for this time period .I condemm both actions for this poriod from Russia and America that were responsible for the Domino effect ,beginning from the first use of nuclear bombs.I want you to take it from the eyepoint of the Russians ,could they have had viable arguments stating that capitalism would slowly envelope the world , particulary after the use of the first nuke? As to "system goverment pride" ,both America and Russia were propagandising their views all over the world i think.This is just my oppinion ,i don't think the foureign policy of America was "un-humanly" (or un-human-like) in that time period ,only a bit impulsive.I think both Russia and America got a "bit" caried away.I wonder what diplomacy could have done just before the beginning of the cold war?
But now i think of it ,i don't wan't to state an oppinion here so quickly over this ,so i wan't to just discuss this domino effect matter.

Now, for the conflicts following the Berlin Wall teardown, you state: "America began to play the suppreme judge and police force (sometimes for it's own interrests) within this peace keeping thought ,something it did not always in a consequent matter.I feel that there is a need for a peace keeping nation in this globalizing world ,especcialy a consequent peace keeping nation.One that act's in EVERY conflict that is filled with etnic clensing ,as America not always did. (ex. Rwanda)". This is where I have a disagreement with you. I really object to the role of America as a "consequent peace keeping nation". Frankly, I see no reason other European nations (such as yours), along with every other nation who practices democracy to stand up with the US during such conflicts. We weren't about to get involved with Rwanda; there was absolutely no strategic interest there, and a nation must define the line between intervention and avoidance. I feel the primary role of the United States militarty is to defend its own interests, just as I feel Belgium understands its own military policies. If we were to involve ourselves in every unjust part of the world, we would be in far more places than our military could handle, and the expense of funding such a large military would be astronomical. So, I think in order to have a military intervention in a region of human rights catastrophes, there must be a strategic interest for us. And you really should understand the importance of this.

Ok ,here i don't agree with you.I feel there is a big difference here between Europe and America.it is really because i think that America isn't sometimes consequent in it's foureign policy.America has fought some wars out of so called anti etnic clensing. (i'm feeling that i wont find the right words here to state my oppinion ) Just as example Serbia.The so called strategical interrests in the kosovo war were to fight war crime's and etnic clensing.I just want to ask you ,if it does something like that in Serbia ,why not in Rwanda?You say that the primary role of the U.S is to defend it's own interrests ,but i ask you ,by what means? I'ts my oppinion that America sometimes makes exessive use of its millitary force to defend it's own interrests.
But especialy ,i want to criticise it's constructivenis in it's foureign policy.As for situation's like Iraq ,two exstensive bombing campaigns havn't erradicated the threat from that part of the world.As to say actually more ,i hate a bit America's bombing campaign's.I think we European's have the biggest problem with that ,those long lasting massively destroying and civilian killing bombing campaign's ,that effectively have no use if you don't combine it with an exstensive ground assault.And sometimes to what means we would ask ourselfs?

Sorry if that looked a bit agressive ,but i'm really getting sick of those bombing campaign's ,really sorry ,but as an humanist i can not agree with those exstensive use of bomber's with a high "collateral damage" degree.

 

[joespaniel]

Hi Duck!

I agree, its time to stop bombing. We will have to get down and dirty on this one. Ground ops.

I also may have answered the question about Rawanda vs. Kosovo in my post before yours. Civil war vs. "foriegn".

We must have been typing at the same time.

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

To Gtjs00:

This is going to come off as rude and confrontational, I don't mean it that way, I'm just being honest with my opinions. But I'm sure that that's the way that it will be percieved. Duck...You are exactly the type of person that I've been refering to in my most recent posts. IMO that last post of yours in this thread was nothing short of ignorance.

Other than what I know of you through these boards, I know nothing*. But based on that, I've come to the opinion that you fit into either one of two groups. One, you are very naive/misinformed about the way that the world works. Or two, you are so jealous of the status currently held by the US that no matter what we (the US) does, you will be up on your soap box condeming us.

Listen Gtjs00 ,i don't wanna say that i know everything around here.Nobody in this world can know everything.But i like to discuss the matters state here.As to my oppinions ,they are no certainty ,but are rather flexible.Through the discussions on this thread i have kept some of my oppinions ,and changed some because other point's stated here sounded more liable.And actually ,i think i'm learning some things about america here.I am probablygetting a better representation of America here than on t.v. .As you saying that this come off as rude and confrontational ,i think it does ,but i dont hate you for it.we have different oppinions ,it think we can live with that.but we better don't engage in discussions with eachother ,because it will probably never be constructice.As to naive/misinformed ,who isn't i ask you?
i just wan't to give you some advice ,not because i think i'm beter than you.but just try to use a bit more diplomacy when you engage in discussions.

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

To Joespaniel:

The war in Kosovo was more of a "foriegn" invaision, some will argue otherwise, but it was a clear cut case of aggression. The Kosovars were not plotting to war against Milosavich. They were attacked by a brutal, evil dictator who already started enough conflict elsewhere.

Indeed ,i will argue otherwise here.the Kosovo war was no foureign invasion ,because kosovo was a province of Joegoslavia, and Serbia fought the UCK ,wich was a rebel group fighting for the independence of Kosovo.As to Kosovo ,it was an area inhabitet by two entic groups ,the Albanians and the serbs ,where tose 2 etnic groups fighted eachother.as thus i call this war an etnic conflict ,very similar to the Rwanda war.

I have Russian friends that have a very different view on that, but do admit that Milosavich was a cancer that needed to be removed. Credit to the Serbians that ended his reign of terror.

Indeed ,credit to the serbians that milosovich was captured.It prove's that the U.S bombing campaign effectively had nothing reached but huge infrastructural damage and a substantial civilian kiling.As to Kosovo ,i think it was better kept under Serbian control (note: under an other leader than Milosovish) rather than under Albanian rule. (wich have a high maffia conection)
But indeed ,i agree that milosovich was a cancer that had to be removed.

 

[Håkan Eriksson]

Originally posted by sonorakitch
Boy, this is too bad. I really hoped we all were rid of the presence of Hakan here. Oh well...takes all kinds.

Just another example of how 16 year old ignorant juveniles use politics to slander and criticize nations.

~Chris

You are just beeing ignorant to the turth.

 

[joespaniel]

To the prestigious Duck of Flanders,

I put "foriegn" in quotes to emphasize the confusing state of affairs concerning Kosovo, and its relation to Serbia. Milosavich claimed it was a part of Serbia and his military campaign of ethnic extermination was a domestic affair, a civil war. Its all apples and oranges anyway.

However, the Kosovo situation is different from Rawanda from a military point of view. We had targets to go after in Yugoslavia, like an organized military force, infrastructure (I am not pleased by the damage there,btw, but we can debate that later) and more.

I still cant see what we could have done in Rawanda besides drop food and medicine, which was done. There was no way to stop it while it was happening, short of a massive ground operation. And I doubt that would have solved anything, just postponed it. And endangered too many people, ours and theirs, from each other.

I feel the same way as you do. I would like to see my country use its power wisely, and to allieviate suffering in the world. To help people in trouble. To protect people from war, and ethnic cleansing.

But the truth is cruel, sometimes it is not possible.

 

[St. Augustain]

Is Justice in the interest of the stronger ?

When discussing the proper relation of U.S. foreign or internal policy to the rest of the world or in this case Europe, I suggest you examine whether there policy is just or not. First you have to know what is justice? In the arguments I have been reading so far justice seems to be defined as in the interest of the strongest state i.e. America. Is this definition of justice correct?

Quote : "Even the good guys look out for number one first. To do otherwise would be foolish. How can we -the US- be reasonably expected to play the role that you've described -Duck-, without first assuring that our own needs are met?" (gjts00)

Self-interest is not the principle upon which the internal affairs of individual states are run why then should it be the main principle of a countries foreign policy.

A child is not born into the world as an individual; they are members of a family. Allow me to use this analogy when it comes to the formation of states. People do not come together to make a state out of individual interest in some sort of social contract, they are instead thrown together from birth of necessity by natural need for each other. We are the ‘social animal’.

This natural need for each other and for the other’s welfare seems to be thrown out the window when it comes to affairs between states. The reason for this may be in something I wrote in another thread called the best civ. I tried to stop an argument between various people about who’s real life nation is best, but I think I failed. The arguments I’ve read in this thread have been much better than those on the other so I hope you forgive the preaching tone of my next quotation. I am of course in character:


Nationhood
A Letter to All Peoples,

My people, we have all fallen for a myth: the Myth of Nationhood.
Inside the game nations indeed do exsist with certian STEROTYPICAL values. In reality is this infact true? Are we not one people in our HUMANITY ! A so called nation is infact just a collection of individuals who are trust together by the necessities of life. People are by nature societal not national. Is not nationhood a created idea of a people who want to create stronger ties to each other. This fiction in the modern world is Very dangerious look at the Nazis, Stalin's idea of Communism, British imperialism even US foregin policy to a lesser extent.The list is endless. Nationalism seems to be of use only in sporting events.

Our achievement, those things about which everyone has national pride in are in actual fact achievements of the spirit of Humanity. No state has the right to say they were responsible for a discovery or invention. All such achievements were made by people 'standing upon the sholders of giants'. Where would Shakerspeare be without Sophicles or spaceflight without the achievements of various scientists around the globe.

Let us end the bickering about the greatness of various nations. It has no possible value besides that of inflaming the sentements of imaginary nationalism. If you wish to discuss the sterotypes of nationalism keep it inside the game where it exsists.

I am Roman by convention, Christian by choice, Human by Nature.

Peace be with you.

 

[basta72]

I posted this message in the "Questions for americans" thread earlier, but I guess it´s more suitable here. (sorry for double posting)


Very interesting thread!

This is my humble response to this thread, I now that it´s a long one but I hope you read it.

Im happy, but not very surprised, that almost every American who has posted here are positive towards Europeans (except France, for some reason). It really makes me glad, actually. Considering that ALOT of the Europeans in this forum has posted more or less negative messages regarding the US in other threads (myself included).

I know that many many many europeans doesn´t like US foreign policy or (what I would like to call) "cultural imperialism" and other things. When I say "cultural imperialism" I think of McDonalds, Hollywood and other "fast food like" fenomenons that in many cases competes with very old traditionbased cultural patterns that alot of people consider to be a higher level of culture then for instance McDonalds. I think that most Europeans dont want their culture to be replaced by an american look-a-like culture. NOTE: Im not saying that the american culture is a bad or low level culture!

I am just saying that culture is what makes Europe, US, China and so on to what it is. That is why most of you like Europe and most of us like US (we do!).

Darn, I am starting to get off-topic with this culture talk...

Anyhow, It´s important to understand that when a European criticize US or says that he doesn´t like the american point of view, or something similar. DOESN`T mean that he hates or dislike americans. I can almost certainly assure you that 95% (or more) of the europeans like americans just as much as they like anybody else, regardless of what you read in these posts. The opposite is also true.

I live in Sweden and there are some frequent posters from Sweden in this forum that criticize US. I did read somewhere in this thread that a person was evaluating his point of view against Sweden (to a more negative view) because of these posters, please dont. I have never in my whole life heard anybody in this country who has said that he/she hates of even dislikes the american people. But I have heard alot of people saying that they disklike that death penalty is being used in the US, how sad it is that your wellfare system is non-existant or very poor, crazy gunlaws, the use of personal landmines and so on and so on. But that´s a BIG diffrence and we love you anyway. (although we hope that you reconsider the death penalty and the use of landmines )

My point is that we are all of diffrent point of views, Europeans, Americans and people from Sweden (even the French). We all have our idea on what´s right and what´s wrong. But I dont think that anyone (rest of the world excluded) can say that they hate americans or europeans. And that the criticizism are not against the people of the nations.

Europe and America is as close friends as they could be and it will always remain that way, but we doesn´t completely agree with each other and we never will. Unless it will be impossible to differ US from Europe or Europe from US and we dont want that, because then all the beauty in our diversity will be gone.

:love2:

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

To St. Augustain:

I thank you for that reply ,as i think it is realy well thought and nicely written ,something i can't say of my English.And it's a bit on the same line as my oppinions ,so i tottaly agree on it.

I also agree on the sociological oppinion's you have over nationalism.Patriotism to my oppinion is not a possitive force in this world.

You could hope that one day aliens would attack so that we would havee a mutual enemy.


as to:

Is Justice in the interest of the stronger ?

you raised a good question here

 

[sonorakitch]

Duck,

"You could hope that one day aliens would attack so that we would havee a mutual enemy."

Don't we have one now?

~Chris

 

[CurtSibling]

Hmmmm. I wouldn't say Europeans hate Americans?
How can we?

I don't hate any race. None of my friends do either.
I have made a few silly jokes a few in the past,
but the humour is lost in the typed word.

One thing before we begin.
I HATE RACISM, it is inferior thinking.

Americans sometimes amuse me, sometimes they disgust me.
More often than not they make me proud to know em!

There are some fellows I have came across on the forums who seem to have some flawed axes to grind.
They don't know history or have forgotten our past. But they should realise we Europeans and Americans share many bonds:

1. We are all European/Americans, it's interchangable.
America is a land of many colours, hence why the USA's
and Europe's cultures facsinate the world!

2. We all love freedom, Americans defend thier freedom.
America and Europe are proud of our way of life and liberty.
As a Scot, I know the value of liberty! Another thing we have in common with the USA!

3. We are NATO allies, are we not?
In ww1 and ww2, many American boys died to rescue europe
from the nazi war machine. In the UK we never forget that.
We fought Hitler during 1940, and we cheered to see your GIs
and Airmen come here in 1943-45.
You arrived in the nick of time, and we always cover your back.
If that is not friendship what is it?

4. If we hate you, how come so many British and European ladies married or dated "Dashing" American military men?
My dear old Granmothers, who are dead now, used to say The US soldiers were much loved by the UK public and brought great music and a new culture, a needed morale boost to us.

5. The liberated nations also cheered your troops as heroes,
The UK/US alliance is powerful, have we ever let each other down?

6. Do you think the Germans are not grateful for your help in defeating the horrendous nazi regime?

7. Don't you think France is not proud to have stood along side you in the liberation parades in Paris?

8. US dollars regenerated a wrecked Europe, How can we hate a mighty nation who helps?

9. All nations have strong culture but for music and film, USA has revolutionised the world, Why would anyone complain? I don't!

10. In Europe some can bemoan the sterotypical American image, but it is just a stereotype. Such things are only there till you talk to some of the cool people like Brandon and Ilspana who are sensible and proud Amercians! I can vouch for them!

You see, Some mad people try and have a go at america's "big-headedness" or "ignorance" but you can't judge a nation from a few individuals, Travel broadens the mind. Seeing the world is a great cure for needless jingoism.

ABOUT CURRENT EVENTS, from a European's eyes.
I am not political, but I feel anger at some CFs attitudes...
Ignorance is not limited to any one nation, it is a problem for all.
I think America's current actions are just, and the EVIL of terrorists is Europe's problem also,

1. This is OUR FREEDOM IN DANGER, from mindless
hate-filed morons who would attack a great nation,
and destroy a beautiful monument to civilisation.
And to take so many good lives away.
This sickening affront cannot be ignored!

2. These monsters threw down the gauntlet to the USA "and" Europe, hell, the whole damn world, on sept 11.
Defacing a great city, killing thousands whose only crime was being there, and enraging the world's great powers.

3. I can say the UK will not back down until the criminals who attacked the sane world are totally destroyed.
350 of our people died, 86 other nations lost irreplacable lives, This is war.

4. If there is arrogance and ignorance it is to be found in the dank holes in which the evil fiends of Al Queda hide.
"They" will be swept from history...but we should not follow thier path of stupidity.
We have to fight the hate,
Or the world will be of Osama's dark vision, and not of the sane people of the earth.

I say again, without any daft references to who is "bigger" or "greater", I cannot hate Americans!
We are too inter-linked for that!

Sometimes you are silly, sometimes very naive, but like any family, we can never be against our favourite and special cousins across the Atlantic. Our history is entwined.
As a European I welcome Americans, like I would any friend from the wide world.

We are Humans, we all bleed red, we all cry and laugh.

Does this answer the question?

 

[sonorakitch]

CurtSibling,

I commend you on an excellent post. Despite the bickering and slander, arguments and differences, your post sums it up.

Thank you.

~Chris

 

[andycapp]

Originally posted by sonorakitch


Australia's rising crime rates are directly a result of the practical ban on firearms. In the very following year of the legislation, armed robbery when up something like 40%. Murders were about even. Why? Most murders worldwide kill each other. There are statistics available for all this; again do a search. I can probably dig up the Australia stuff if you would like.

~Chris

Although I am neither an American or European I think a constructive discussion based (as far as possible) on facts and conducted with curtesy is a good way to break down stereotypes and ignorance between different cultures.

It is with this in mind that I raise the issue quoted above. It is a fallacy to connect any rise in crime rates in Australia with the tougher gun controls that the Federal and State Governments adopted in response to the Port Arthur massacre. This is an argument the NRA and Australian gun lobbyists have used to promote their own agenda's and has NO factual basis.

The connection between rising crime rates in Australia (they vary from State to State and in some have dropped) and gun control measures has NOT been supported by any credible evidence from bodies such as the Australian Federal Police, the various State Police Forces, the Australian Institute of Criminology, the National Crime Authority or the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

The purported link between gun laws and rising crime rates in Australia is at best, misinformed, and at worst, deliberate lies used to promote a political agenda.

 

[SunTzu]

Good post curt!
What ticks most americans off, is the harsh words that we get if we do something and if we don't do something. Like Afghanistan, we're getting kicked around by many people cause we're attacking.
But we would also get kicked around if we didn't attack them.
If we didn't do anything in Kosovo we would've been kicked around. We were kicked around by doing things.
People say that the bullets from the A-10 Warthogs are killing people today....
Its a double-edged sword. It would be better if everyone would make up their minds, on if they will hate us for doing this or not doing this.
Whenever a country helps another there's always other plans.
Like the Marshall Plan, we wanted to help Europe get on its feet again, and we also wanted to help europe get on its feet again to protect against communism.
We've been helping in the middle east forever! I'm not sure what we want in return of peace. Gas Prices are already low here.

 

[sonorakitch]

Well, AndyCapp, looks like you have succumed to your media as well. Look, why do you think all of your agencies are denying this rise in crime? Because the heads have been put there by the same administration who enacted gun controls! Of course they will deny it. Here is what I have found:

OBSERVABLE FACT AFTER 12 MONTHS OF DATA





Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%.


Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%.


Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44%. (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)


In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%!


The steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms that occurred during the previous 25 years became an increase in the last 12 months.


The steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms that occurred during the previous 25 years became an increase in the last 12 months.


There has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of-the-elderly.


At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm".


From 1910 to present, homicides in Australia have averaged about 1.8-per-100,000 or lower, a safe society by any standard.


The ban has destroyed Australia's standings in some international sport shooting competitions.


The membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association has increased by 200% in response to the ban and in an attempt to organize against further controls, which are expected.


Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain why no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns". Their response has been to "wait longer".

So instead of blaming "agenda pushing" as the source, why don't you look into the situation a little closer? Maybe it will shed some light for you...

Read this. This disputes your claim that your Bureau of Statistics disregards the rising crime rate:
http://www.ssaa.org.au/ilanov99.html

Why don't you read this, which came directly from the Sydney Herald:
http://www.sightm1911.com/docs/guncrimesoars.htm

You might look at this too.
http://www.watchmanjournal.org/000134.html

I don't understand...do you dispute these statistics? You think they have been made up?

And of course, if you still seek to disregard the facts, here is a very reputable link, with your entire crime statistics in PDF format.
http://www.law.ecel.uwa.edu.au/crc/stats/stats_report_1998.pdf

Enlightened yet?

~Chris

 

[allan]

Re: Duck's and Sonorakitsch's debate about crime and why it is higher here:

One factor neither of you have considered is the "War on Drugs" in the US (most of the same drugs are illegal in much of Europe, but laws are not as enforced with the intensity they often are here). Because of this "war", the price of these substances are very high. Because of this, you have two primary motivations for crime: a) the addicted user, who resorts to paying for his next fix by robbing people, often at gunpoint, and b) the greedy seller, who will try to grab more "territory" for sales by force--hence all the "driveby" hits and such, which don't always get their man but do claim bystanders.

I would wager $1000 that if we legalize drugs in the US, our crime rates would be comparable to Europe's (if not less), WITHOUT gun control.

As to the death penalty (also bantered about here)--as a libertarian, I believe the ONLY "death penalty" allowed should be that imposed by an intended victim against an aggressor. That is the only rational reason to kill someone, in defense of yourself or others. After the fact, the point is really moot. Not that I shed any tears for Ted Bundy or Tim McVeigh or whomever, BUT there have been recent cases that have proven that our legal system sometimes convicts the wrong man--and while you can let a man out of prison if you determine he's innocent, you CAN'T bring someone back from the dead.... That really is the only reason I oppose the death penalty, an issue that divides not only our small group of libertarians here, but Americans in general.

As for executing someone who is mentally ******** (happened in Texas), I think THAT is an atrocity.

 

[sonorakitch]

Alan,

You bring up an excellent point. I did mention the drug war, but only in the context of our governments' inability to control a strictly regulated and/or illegal product. I agree with you, as far as marijuanna is concerned; I think it should be legal. I wouldn't personally like to see heroin/cocain, etc. legalized, but it would probably also reduce crime.

About the death penalty, I agree with you on some aspects, but I like to look at it as if we are defending citizens when an execution occurs. There is always the minute chance one could escape, and rampage again. Consider the death of Tom Mix, here in Arizona, when three thugs escaped from the fed. penn and had a flat. A nice elderly couple stopped to help them alongside the road, where they were subsequently butchered and left to rot in the morning sun. My opinion: make sure they're guilty, then execute them fast, and only for hanus crimes. Otherwise, I agree with you.

Good post.

~Chris

 

[Dogberry_Old]

& with some very good discussions ( for the most part ). I am happy to be a citizen of the USA with all the rights & responsibilities that implies. We do however, owe our friends across the world a hearing & need to listen to their ideas & constructive criticisms.

Dog

P.S. .. I make no secret of where I live & anybody that wants to show up on my doorstep "raging & storming" is invited to do so. Make sure that your affairs are in order first.