Question for Europeans

[allan]

And I think most posters will find that some of the same criticisms they have toward America as outsiders, many of us on the inside have as well. Americans aren't a nation of people who all believe one thing. Our politics can often get nasty and mean precisely BECAUSE we all have such differing opinions of what our government should do (or not do).

Sometimes Americans will get angry at outside criticism however, kind of like the big brother who gives his little brother a hard time, but will not let anyone OUTSIDE the family pick on that same little brother. In other words, we as Americans feel more entitled to criticise our own country than we feel outsiders are. This may not be the best way to look at it, but it is somewhat understandable--I think many Europeans may feel the same way about outside criticism vs. criticism from "within the family".

 

[Beam]

Originally posted by allan
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.

Allan, I do not wager with you because in the Netherlands we have livin proof of exactly that policy.

Suggestion, make guns (I mean gettin rid of them) prio 1. If I would know anyone in the Netherlands with firearms (apart from law enforcers) that would be very bad for reputation.

On drugs, the soft ones are legalized and there is a very rigid policy on hard ones, i.e. it is NOT legalized.

Legalizing does not mean closing your eyes and/or look the other way, it means that we can see in the open what is going on and have control over it. Even French government is now reviewing its policy for softdrugs and will probably legalize it.

 

[andycapp]

Sonorakitch,

You have sought to use a bogus link between gun control measures and crime rates in Australia to support your wider argument on gun control and crime. I have no desire to get involved in your wider discussion on this issue. However, what I do take issue with you about is your statement:

"Australia's rising crime rates are directly a result of the practical ban on firearms"

For the benefit of people reading this thread, I will say clearly there is NO credible evidence to support this assertion by Sonorakitch.

The onus is on you, Sonorakitch, to back up your claim with credible evidence. You have not done so.

Instead you say I have "succumbed" to the Australian media and then later, oddly, you use an article from 'The Sydney Morning Herald' to support your own views - who has succumbed to the media?

You also pluck statistics out to support your case - anyone can do that, it doesn't prove anything, the quote "damn lies and statistics" comes to mind. Maybe, you are an expert Criminologist with a background in statistical analysis - you have given no indication of that thus far!

Your reference to the views of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia and a rather dubious rightwing American journal should be seen for what they are - reliance on organisations that have either, a vested political interest in pushing the view you espouse or happen to support such a view. Neither of these are unbiased or credible.

Let's be clear about this, I don't rely on the media and I make no claim to qualifications in criminology or statistical analysis. I look to the one organisation that has the credibility and resources in criminology and statistical analysis, to make any link between crime rates (up or down) and gun control in Australia - the Australian Institute of Criminology.

One of the Australian Institute of Criminology's specific functions is:

"The compliation and analysis of statistics from relevant sources on patterns of firearms offences and incidents, to provide accurate, timely information to the Australian Police Ministers Council, allowing the identification and review of policy issues as they arise."

Your contention that an Agency such as the AIC would deny the link (you claim) between gun control and rising crime figures, because the Head was appointed by the same administration that enacted the gun control legislation, is absurd and indicates your ignorance of Australia and it's political and administrative structures.

The AIC is a statutory body that reports to both the Commonwealth Attorney General and a board of management with the brief to provide independent and unbiased advice to the Attorney General and the Australian Police Ministers Council.
See http://www.aic.gov.au/institute/

For your conspiracy theory to be valid it would need to involve not only the Australian Commonwealth Government but also the governments of the State's and Territory's of Australia - that's one big conspiracy!

Sonorakitch, a bit of friendly advice, stick to what you know and can substantiate with credible evidence - otherwise people will judge your credibility accordingly.

 

[sonorakitch]

It is ashame you, Mr. Capp, has once again displayed your apparent ignorance on the issue surrounding firearms and data collection, both in the United States and his own country, and deliberately misleading the readers on this thread.

AndyCapp, firstly, the link you provided has absolutely no actual crime statistics for me to review, so I have no choice but to disregard the link, and only comprehend the data provided by your Bureau of Statistics. The links I provided creates the groundwork for a honest and fair debate, not a deliberate misleading portrayal of the facts. Again, your link is inadequate in proving your case, so I suggest you find something else that cites crime rates in Australia were, in actuality, lower in 1998, as you seem to assert.

I find it humorous that you would so quickly dispel any claim that your "Institute of Criminology" is a non-bias outlet for information. It is a well known fact down under that Professor Richard Fox is a radical left-winger, which occupies the Chairmanship of the Board. Government entities such as these, which are assembled under the direction of government, and compromising of various professors and "staticians" are notoriously left-wing. So in keeping with your claim of supporting my evidence as "dubious right-wing sources", I hereby do the same and declare your information "left-wing".

I am not quite sure if you are attempting to discredit my factual and statistic evidence I have provided, or merely disagreeing with my connection to gun restrictions placed directly preceeding the aforementioned rise in crime. I would like you to clear this muddy water for me, and I will be happy to respond in kind; a civil matter indeed.

AndyCapp, a bit of friendly advice, stick to what you know and can substantiate with credible evidence - otherwise people will judge your credibility accordingly.

~Chris

P.S.~ Again, here is the link referring to the crime statistics.
http://www.law.ecel.uwa.edu.au/crc/...report_1998.pdf
Again, do you dispute this data as incorrect?
The site, by the way, is an established University in Australia, hardly a "right-wing" enterprise!

 

[sonorakitch]

AndyCapp,

I looked at your site much closer, and navigating through a maze, I finally found some interesting information for your review.

It seems that homicides committed by handguns are significantly greater in 2000 than in 1996. I would like to share this with all on the thread:

the link: http://www.aic.gov.au/research/hmonitor/stats/handgun.html

Also, it appears homicide in general is actually increasing in the majority of states over the last 5 years.

http://www.aic.gov.au/research/hmonitor/stats/hvr.html

And yet again, it appears that your prison populations are soaring since 1980, having no apparent affect following your confiscation of firearms.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2000/sec5.html
In fact, here is a direct quote for your "interpretation":
Between 1983 and 1999, the overall imprisonment rate increased from 91.6 to 148.4 per 100 000 relevant population. This represents an average annual rate of growth of 5% in the total number of prisoners.

I was unable to locate theft and rape statistics. Maybe you could locate another excellent source to support the notion crime continues to rise, even more dramatically, than before your firearms debacle? I would love to further my knowledge on this subject, and I do suggest you do the same, sir.

~Chris

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Some Americans don't realise that Switerland and Austria allow firearms and have much lower crime rates than the states -and don't think that these aren't highly urbanised countries!

The main reason Holland (it isn't properly legal for cannabis, supplying and having large amounts of it can wind you up into trouble) ASWELL as the whole of Europe has anti-drugs laws is because America is fighting a war vs drugs.

I have explained my views on drugs elsewhere...this post was to deal with a bet that american crime rates would be at european levels if drugs were legalised in the US...well our crime rates would fall too because alot of European countries would take the opportunity to legalise drugs then.

 

[allan]

"I have explained my views on drugs elsewhere...this post was to deal with a bet that american crime rates would be at european levels if drugs were legalised in the US...well our crime rates would fall too because alot of European countries would take the opportunity to legalise drugs then."

Hmmm.... Didn't think of that. But either way, right now my take on drug laws in Europe is they don't seem to be as fanatical over there about enforcing them as they do here. What are the penalties for possession or sales of different stuff in, say, Holland? I'd guess the "risk" factor in sales is probably lower, whether or not that is reflected in the price I don't know....

 

[andycapp]

Originally posted by sonorakitch
It is ashame you, Mr. Capp, has once again displayed your apparent ignorance on the issue surrounding firearms and data collection, both in the United States and his own country, and deliberately misleading the readers on this thread.

I have made no claims about a link between gun control and crime in either the United States or Australia - you have. I have said there is no credible evidence for your claim that:

"Australia's rising crime rates are directly a result of the practical ban on firearms "

The onus is on you Sonorakitch to prove your claim - you haven't.

I have said that the organisation with the credibility and expertise to make any link between gun control and rising crime rates in Australia is the Australian Institute of Criminology - it has not done so.

The only person guilty of deliberately misleading the readers on this thread is you - you've been caught in the act!

AndyCapp, firstly, the link you provided has absolutely no actual crime statistics for me to review, so I have no choice but to disregard the link, and only comprehend the data provided by your Bureau of Statistics.

I never mentioned providing you with crime statistics to review - I suggest you more thoroughly read my post again - maybe you will then comprehend what I am saying.

The links I provided creates the groundwork for a honest and fair debate, not a deliberate misleading portrayal of the facts.

No, you selectively quoted sources that share your views - none of which can be described as credible or unbiased. You also selectively pluck statistics from credible sources but put your own spin on what those statistics mean.

You expect me and the other readers of this thread to accept that you have greater expertise and credibility in criminology and statistical analysis than the Australian Institute of Criminology -

Again, your link is inadequate in proving your case, so I suggest you find something else that cites crime rates in Australia were, in actuality, lower in 1998, as you seem to assert.

You don't get it do you? I don't have a case to prove, you do - you made the claim not me.

I have made no assertion that crime rates were lower in 1998 - I have made no claims about crime rates! I defy you to show that I have.

I find it humorous that you would so quickly dispel any claim that your "Institute of Criminology" is a non-bias outlet for information.

I'm glad you're finding humour in this discussion - reading some of your posts I've had a few belly laughs myself.

The Australian Institute of Criminology is a widely respected organisation and the foremost authority in Australia regarding criminology and statistical analysis of crime - your wild claims about it's bias are, predictably, unsupported by any facts.

It is a well known fact down under that Professor Richard Fox is a radical left-winger, which occupies the Chairmanship of the Board. Government entities such as these, which are assembled under the direction of government, and compromising of various professors and "staticians" are notoriously left-wing.

I'm not sure why you think you're entitled to slander Professor Fox. Once again you make a wild claim with no supporting evidence.

The irony of your claim is that the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, is widely regarded as the most rightwing PM in Australia's history and he had no problem assigning the AIC (under the Chairmanship of Prof. Fox) the role of providing policy advice about firearms/crime to the Australian Police Ministers Council.

You didn't read the link I gave setting out the AIC's charter, role and accountability structures or, if you did, you clearly didn't understand them.

And your wild claim that "statisticians are notoriously left wing has about as much credibility as saying you can judge a persons political views by virtue of their eye colour.

Once again Sonorakitch you do your own credibility no good by making these wild claims

So in keeping with your claim of supporting my evidence as "dubious right-wing sources", I hereby do the same and declare your information "left-wing".

Sonorakitch this is childish - and reveals much about your ability to carry out a discussion such as this in a mature way.

I am not quite sure if you are attempting to discredit my factual and statistic evidence I have provided, or merely disagreeing with my connection to gun restrictions placed directly preceeding the aforementioned rise in crime. I would like you to clear this muddy water for me, and I will be happy to respond in kind; a civil matter indeed.

I have stated why it is I take issue with you, I have made it crystal clear a number of times.

I will say it again, your claim that "Australia's rising crime rates are directly a result of the practical ban on firearms" has no basis in fact.

AndyCapp, a bit of friendly advice, stick to what you know and can substantiate with credible evidence - otherwise people will judge your credibility accordingly.

Hardly original Sonorakitch! I do stick to what I know - and I know that you have made a number of wild claims you can't substantiate - you've been caught in the act.

Have the good sense and grace to admit that you have made a mistake and move on in your discussions on this thread - that truly would increase your credibility

~Chris

P.S.~ Again, here is the link referring to the crime statistics.
http://www.law.ecel.uwa.edu.au/crc/...report_1998.pdf
Again, do you dispute this data as incorrect?
The site, by the way, is an established University in Australia, hardly a "right-wing" enterprise!

I never said it was, the problem is the way you interpret their statistics.

Sonorakitch, as I said in my earlier post I have no desire to engage in a wider debate about gun control with you or anybody else - my issue with you is strictly in relation to your statement about Australia.

I would strongly encourage you to further your knowledge about gun control in Australia and the issues that led to the current regulation.

I have made my point on this issue and have nothing further to say about it.

I look forward to discussions with you on other subjects.

 

[Lucozade33]

"What annoys me about Americans is the arrogance of many of its people (yes I have been to US): hey you little old english how does it fell to be in this land of freedom and justice for all. I also dislike the way americans glorify and their history: this really bugs me."

Hehehe...this is a funny statement...a highlight of this post, I must say

Tis a bit of a silly argument though, isn't it? I mean, granted, stereotypes based on nationality are very rarely true, but moreover the basic and simple ironies of every action in life would naturally led the above quoted Briton to a band of "Hicks" and hillbillies who alter his opinion of Americans for the worse. When in reality the vast majority of Americans have the same problems, concerns and even (oh, no....dread I say it?) yes...oh yes...national pride! Still, some of our constituional monarchist friends overseas would disagree with me, but whose to say you just hadn't met the right people. God knows, living in Hammersmith, you met some crazy punk nationalists who a little too proud of being English...so its not just us...its only a bit amplified over here due to the wide range of ethnicity. ( Not that Europe isn't ethnically diverse, but it's really nowhere near the other side of the pond.) :crazyeyes

What annoys me about Americans is the arrogance of many of its people (yes I have been to US): hey you little old english how does it fell to be in this land of freedom and justice for all. I also dislike the way americans glorify and their history: this really bugs me.

 

[sonorakitch]

AndyCapp,

I agree, this argument is not solving anything. For some reason, you seem to assert I am making a connection between rising crime rates and the newly enacted gun bans in Australia. For some reason, you have spent your time discrediting my sources, while providing one source, which also supports the notion that crime has increased (which you did not address). So I am not sure; my original claim was that gun controls were a direct result of rising crime rates. You disregard my assertion by only providing one source which neither supports nor disputes my claim, while providing clear data on the rising criminal activity.

"none of which can be described as credible or unbiased. "
I suppose you are also referring to your Bureau of Statistics?

"I never mentioned providing you with crime statistics to review - I suggest you more thoroughly read my post again - maybe you will then comprehend what I am saying. "

I actually understand what you are saying. You are discrediting my statement while not providing any solid factual basis for doing so. You have referred me to a governmental website, which further provides the crime rate increases Australia has experienced. You do mention that this entity disputes connections to gun controls, and I stated there was obviously an agenda at work. You did not provide credible evidence to dispute my claim, and you provided no reference to the standing position of the Board of Criminology. So while I recognize your enthusiasm, I have no choice but to maintain my orininal statement; which has been cited in the numerous sources I have above, and even more across your continent.

"You don't get it do you? I don't have a case to prove, you do - you made the claim not me."

Actually, this is false. You cannot dispute a statement by one without providing evidence to the contrary. It is called a rebuttal, and it is necessary in order for a fruitful discussion. Merely stating my claim as wrong and providing a link that further supports the effects of what is globally known as "gun controls".

"I have made no assertion that crime rates were lower in 1998 - I have made no claims about crime rates! I defy you to show that I have."

So I suppose you do admit they were significantly higher, one year following the gun controls.

"I've had a few belly laughs myself."

Well, at least I have been entertaining.

"And your wild claim that "statisticians are notoriously left wing has about as much credibility as saying you can judge a persons political views by virtue of their eye colour. "

Actually, there is nothing wrong with this. Certain occupations inherantly have largely differing ideologies. Developers are right wing, professors are left. Trial attorneys are left wing, insurance salesmen are right. Doctors are left wing, gun nuts are right. Of course, these are indeed stereotypes, but it is an accepted nature of the jobplace.
There is voting records (exit polls) that substantiate these claims.

So in keeping with your claim of supporting my evidence as "dubious right-wing sources", I hereby do the same and declare your information "left-wing".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sonorakitch this is childish - and reveals much about your ability to carry out a discussion such as this in a mature way."

Actually, I was just practicing exactly what you accused me of. Not childish at all.

Well, it has been a decent argument. I understand your message, but I disagree with the messenger. I have provided data illustrating the rising crime rates, oddly, since the establishment of strict gun laws. I have made the claim that there is a distinct connection. You have provided one source that you say disputes this, although it cannot be found. So I hope we can move this debate to a higher level.

~Chris

 

[Dogberry_Old]

This is supposed to be a thread in which Europeans & others can express their views & opinions about the US, yet you want to turn it into one about your pet issues. One reason why I... despite being an owner of firearms.. will never support your positions.. is the almost obessesive-compulsive behavior I see on
your side when it comes to this area. There is just no real rational discussion on this subject.. as far as you are concerned.

Tell me.. do you make love to these things ? They seem almost iconistic to some people. I personally like people better than objects.. esp. objects such as pistols .. whose main purpose is almost solely to do violence to other people . You ought to start focusing on the animate as opposed to the inanimate things in your surround. And above all ... quit subjecting yourself to delusions of violence. If violence comes .. you will handle it.. but stop thinking & obessessing about it otherwise.

Dog

 

[sonorakitch]

Dog,

If you have been following this, you would realize I never brought the issue of firearms to the table. I initially responded to Rye's comments, and then Duck and I had a good argument. Then it was brought up again by (i think) AndyCapp. Just a reasonable debate that did evolve from something entirely different. I have no control over that. I have only responded to posters directly questioning me. I have never brought any topic of gun control "out of the blue" to this thread. I think, if you realize this, you may understand why it has evolved in this way.

Needless to say, I see your point. Do not expect an apology, however. I see it my duty to debate on this thread with those whom I disagree with. I agree it has become tiresome...and you aren't the one typing all this! I suspect the argument is dead though.

So, in short, review the thread and find I never introduced an argument; only rebutted. You should understand this.

And to answer your question: I have never made love to my firearms. In fact, I have never thought about it. And I also like people better than objects. And it only happens to be one of my many pet positions. However, aren't these threads designed to provoke conversation between peoples for enlightenment purposes?

Well, if you really object, than I suggest you not read it anymore!

~Chris

P.S.- Dog, didn't you say this on page 6? :

Nice to see that this thread is still going...
& 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.

 

[Dogberry_Old]

The thing.. I guess that I found irritating that in responding the criticism about Gun Laws ..or the number of easy availible firearms in the US.. is that you went into a way too-long exigesis as opposed to explaining the situation ( & your views ) in a short paragraph or two. Then as part of the conversation you seemed to end up taking what looked like a cheap shot at another country because their laws don't mimic ours...disregarding the fact that their history & traditions don't mimic ours either.

In my view, this thread is to let others explain how they see us ( & believe me there have been some "cheap shots" there too.. no names mentioned ), not vice-versa.

My own views on "Gun-Control" are decidedly mixed. In some parts of this country .. I would like to see them all confiscated.. in others, I would not care if they were totally .. & I mean totally, unregulated. Some people are responsible & able to use some judgement... others are not.

I have met more than my share of "Second Admendment Crazies" .. & in all cases these violent fantasies, that I spoke of, are imbedded in their characters to one degree or another.

Thanks again for your reasoned & measured response.

Dog

P.S. Perhaps it's my browser, but the way this MB works sure seems to suck, sometimes.

 

[MrPresident]

I'm from the great land of England (which I'm not sure I would completely class as European but for arguments sake..) and there is hardly any America-hating going on here. There is the obviously envy of the America but apart from that nothing. In fact some people argue we, British are closer to our American "cousins" than our European "friends".

What I want to know is do the Americans hate the French like we do? And while I'm at it, contrary to popular belief the British do not hate the Germans. They are far too similar to us for that. It is more of a competitve relationship where each side is a little envious of the other. And by the way, to any German football fan I have my duty as an Englishman to say:

Germany 1 England 5

Thank you Mr Owen!

 

[redtom]

Reasons for hating the US
America is abusing its rights as a super-power. In the past it has
1)Toppled pro-Soviet democracies - Iran etc.
2)Election fixing - "Dubya" Bush
3)No real opposition as Democrat's are inseparable from Republicans.
4)No multi-party system.
5)Killed innocent people for no gain, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, etc.
6)Supported Fascist governments, Germany, Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua etc.
7)Attacked system of governments it doesn't understand, Cuba etc.
8)Encouraged business within countries that abuse human rights, only for profit, China, Cuba (Fascist government-Bastita), Iran, Saudi Arabia, Burma etc.
9)Has not attacked goverments that have massacred - USSR (pre-1945), Burma, Iran, Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua.
10)Supported aggressive powers, Germany, Argentina etc.
11)Two sided foreign policy, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, other Arab countries. etc.
12)Pointless trade embargo's that only kill the poor and children-Cuba, Iraq etc. (This also causes greater support for the regime)
13)Supported people against there oppressors then left before an overthrow - Afghanistan (pre-2001/9/11), Iraq (after the Gulf War), Spain (Franco)
14)Armed the enemy of its ally, tried to make isolated make its ally isolated - Falklands War
15)Supporting Israel, pisses Arabs off.
16)Never involved in a war until late, then taking the glory.
17)Trans-National-Corporations - Monopolising, price fixing etc.
18)Killing American Indians.
19)Attacking imperial powers, whilst holding an empire.
20)Having a racial heirachy.
21)Corrupt government.
22)The worlds biggest polluter
23)No socialism.
24)Fat.
25)Ignorant
26)Isolationist
27)Non-cultural
28)Religious extremism
29)Gun laws
30)Death sentencing.
31)Rebelled against the British
32)Simple jealousy.

--->This is why people attack the US.

But I do agree some good things have happened because of America, but only a few.

Redtom

 

[gjts00]

Originally posted by redtom
Reasons for hating the US
America is abusing its rights as a super-power. In the past it has
1)Toppled pro-Soviet democracies - Iran etc.
2)Election fixing - "Dubya" Bush
3)No real opposition as Democrat's are inseparable from Republicans.
4)No multi-party system.
5)Killed innocent people for no gain, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, etc.
6)Supported Fascist governments, Germany, Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua etc.
7)Attacked system of governments it doesn't understand, Cuba etc.
8)Encouraged business within countries that abuse human rights, only for profit, China, Cuba (Fascist government-Bastita), Iran, Saudi Arabia, Burma etc.
9)Has not attacked goverments that have massacred - USSR (pre-1945), Burma, Iran, Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua.
10)Supported aggressive powers, Germany, Argentina etc.
11)Two sided foreign policy, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, other Arab countries. etc.
12)Pointless trade embargo's that only kill the poor and children-Cuba, Iraq etc. (This also causes greater support for the regime)
13)Supported people against there oppressors then left before an overthrow - Afghanistan (pre-2001/9/11), Iraq (after the Gulf War), Spain (Franco)
14)Armed the enemy of its ally, tried to make isolated make its ally isolated - Falklands War
15)Supporting Israel, pisses Arabs off.
16)Never involved in a war until late, then taking the glory.
17)Trans-National-Corporations - Monopolising, price fixing etc.
18)Killing American Indians.
19)Attacking imperial powers, whilst holding an empire.
20)Having a racial heirachy.
21)Corrupt government.
22)The worlds biggest polluter
23)No socialism.
24)Fat.
25)Ignorant
26)Isolationist
27)Non-cultural
28)Religious extremism
29)Gun laws
30)Death sentencing.
31)Rebelled against the British
32)Simple jealousy.

--->This is why people attack the US.

But I do agree some good things have happened because of America, but only a few.

Redtom

Well Redtom, a *few* of the points that you've mentioned are on the mark. But...The majority of them are straight-up bullsh1t! I read your entire post. And it left me wondering...What bathroom wall did you read that particular line of thought on? Not only are most of your issues misguided, they are quite self-contradicting as well. Welcome to Civfanatics & congratulations on one of the most ignorant posts that I've ever read in these forums (and based on the company that puts you in, that's saying a lot). As for the points that you've made along the *gjts00 imitates a whiney childs voice* *he's bigger than me & he's picking on me* line; stop with the jealous ranting already. Exploiting one's own strengths & advantages is human nature, plain & simple. That's the way it's always been, as well as the way it's always going to be (survival of the fittest, to the victors go the spoils, etc...). I mean think man, if you're not doing what's in your own best interest, you're a fool IMO. So get over it. If it wasn't the US doing these things, it would be somebody else doing them. And from what I've seen in my own lifetime, the US is probably the best candidate for the top dog job, when all of the options are considered.



P.S. I noticed that you're Brittish. Maybe you should take a closer look at some of the sh*t that your government's pulled throughout history! What your government has done to the Scotts & is still doing to the Irish, is no less barbaric than what the US government did to the indians. My point here is...People who line in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Or for our religious members...Let he among you without sin cast the first stone.



P.P.S. Our allies have benefited quite a bit from the successes of the US by riding our shirt tales. We're not that selfish.



P.P.P.S. And since you're dredging up old threads, i think that you should find & read the "Is America a bad country?" thread written by a Canadian journalist in the 1970's.

 

[Juize]

Originally posted by gjts00




Well Redtom, a *few* of the points that you've mentioned are on the mark. But...The majority of them are straight-up bullsh1t! I read your entire post. And it left me wondering...What bathroom wall did you read that particular line of thought on? Not only are most of your issues misguided, they are quite self-contradicting as well. Welcome to Civfanatics & congratulations on one of the most ignorant posts that I've ever read in these forums (and based on the company that puts you in, that's saying a lot). As for the points that you've made along the *gjts00 imitates a whiney childs voice* *he's bigger than me & he's picking on me* line; stop with the jealous ranting already. Exploiting one's own strengths & advantages is human nature, plain & simple. That's the way it's always been, as well as the way it's always going to be (survival of the fittest, to the victors go the spoils, etc...). I mean think man, if you're not doing what's in your own best interest, you're a fool IMO. So get over it. If it wasn't the US doing these things, it would be somebody else doing them. And from what I've seen in my own lifetime, the US is probably the best candidate for the top dog job, when all of the options are considered.



P.S. I noticed that you're Brittish. Maybe you should take a closer look at some of the sh*t that your government's pulled throughout history! What your government has done to the Scotts & is still doing to the Irish, is no less barbaric than what the US government did to the indians. My point here is...People who line in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Or for our religious members...Let he among you without sin cast the first stone.



P.P.S. Our allies have benefited quite a bit from the successes of the US by riding our shirt tales. We're not that selfish.



P.P.P.S. And since you're dredging up old threads, i think that you should find & read the "Is America a bad country?" thread written by a Canadian journalist in the 1970's.

And _SOMEBODY_ wander why miko nor me didn't answer to the original question...

Normal mod would give a warning for gjts for his offensive comments.
But not AofA. (S)He is in the same mood as gjts when (S)he reads this...
so wait for banning, R-Tom.

 

[gjts00]

Originally posted by Juize


And _SOMEBODY_ wander why miko nor me didn't answer to the original question...

Normal mod would give a warning for gjts for his offensive comments.
But not AofA. (S)He is in the same mood as gjts when (S)he reads this...
so wait for banning, R-Tom.

As always, we have Juize. The rebel without a clue. I now have a question for you (Juize)...Do you (& your like) just expect to be able to p1ss people off & not have them react?!?!? Grow up & play the game by the rules. Moral of the story...Don't knock me down & expect less than me coming up swinging. Besides, if my actions warrant a mod warning/ ban/ suspension, Redtom's warrant the same as well, for trolling (if I understand the rules governing that particular issue correctly).

 

[sonorakitch]

I figure once they both slap a few years on they will understand a bit more about the world around them.

I'm with you, gjts00...from one member of the top of the food chain to another.

~Chris

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by gjts00
What your government has done to the Scotts & is still doing to the Irish,

Now this is what bugs me, the infamous ignorance of middle America concerning anything beyond their borders, which, thankfully, not all of America suffers from. I once read an article that said when questioned, some high school pupils couldn't name a single country in Asia. it's quite shocking to me, and I assume to many other Europeans. Europe has always been, whether for good purposes or sinister ones, with things beyond it's borders, and still is.

Anyway, to clarify the point, The British government is doing nothing to The Irish. Most people in Northern Ireland don't want to join a united Ireland. The British government is not "oppressing" them in any way. The only oppressors are the terrorists on both sides who are so argumentatively bankrupt that they feel they have to kill people. If there was a majority in favour of unification, then I daresay this whole matter woul have been settled years ago, but there isn't, and that's why the situation is so difficult. Alas, I digress.

I'm not sure whether your little rant on how Britain was opressing the Irish was formed from basic ignorance regarding the subject, or whether you had fallen victim to the propoganda that Republican terror groups use on Irish Americans to aquire funds, but it highlights something distressing.

Another thing that bugs me is this GWB style attitude that I often encounter from Americans that if you actually criticise America's actions in any way then you are some sort of subversive. Thankfully, the Ameicans I encounter on this board seem to be almost entirely enlightened and intelligent, but the nonsense I have encountered on some boards was distressing, to say the least.

Some of America's domestic policies woul appear somewhat backward to a European, esp. capital punishment, which has been abolished in most European countries for 40 years or more. However, it's America's choice to do whatever it wants with itself. Some Europeans will use these issues simply to rant on about how utterly terrible Ameica, etc, but others will argue them simply because they want to see the best for their ally, and not be stuck with policies that they see as backward.

America's foreign policy is obviously something that concerns Europeans greatly, and is an area in which I believe that Euopeans need to be outspoken. I have never believed that true allies will simply go along with what one of their friends does blindly, "because it's their decision". I think as allies it's our responsiblity to give advice and say what we think you should be doing in this area, etc, not that you have to follow that advice. America can't simply be seen as a county that should be left alone from outside opinions. If you assume the role of supreme upholder of The Western world, I don't think you can.

Anyway, I've probably written far too much, anyway, so I'll leave it there. Hope it makes some sense.