Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bot Hack]

The issues in those countries are the same ones here. An ever-growing population directly dependent upon the government. We need to cut back on excess and that means convenience which is almost a sacred right here.

[MonkeyHead]

I would like to think that you guys might have learnt your lesson, and the troops returning home from the middle east at some point in the near future might just reinforce that point. Obama seems much more reluctant thankfully to fling your armed forces at "issues", though I am unsure if this is down to financial or humanitarian concerns. The EU would probably like to think it can sort its own financial troubles without outside pressure, and the USA should leave Pakistan well alone, as should everyone else - its a no-win situation which India will do well to avoid war with over the next decade.

If France can avoid Mali becoming the latest Vietnam I will be suprised, but people need to leave them to make the mistake instead of thinking they can jump in and make some kind of a difference. Thankfully the UK seems to have learnt this from its own adventures in the middle east and isnt providing combatants yet.

Dont forget Syria is still an ongoing issue. I dont expect any nation to treat Algeria any differently than they have Syria.

The issues in those countries are the same ones here. An ever-growing population directly dependent upon the government. We need to cut back on excess and that means convenience which is almost a sacred right here.

I was going to prepare some kind of response to this, but couldn't quite remove my palm from my face in order to do so.

[RedKing]

It's a quandry: on the one hand, after the Bush years the rest of the world would like the US to do a little less "intervening". On the other hand, some of this shit requires genuine intervention (though that need not include dropping 100,000 armed troops on a country).

Other problem? We can't afford it. And the political will isn't there, because the guy in the White House has a (D) next to his name. When the Pres had an (R), they couldn't get enough of nation-building. When he didn't anymore, suddenly they became isolationists again. Funny how that works. (And for the record, the Dems have had their own flip-epiphanies regarding the US role in the world through Clinton-Bush-Obama).

1. Europe, we stay out of. That's why the EU is there.
2. Mali, we're providing intel but that's about it. The less US footprint in the region, probably the better.
3. India-Pakistan....if shit gets real, we unfortunately have to get involved. That's simply too big of a potential clusterfuck to ignore. I don't think we should take a side or arm either side but be fully engaged in trying to prevent all-out war of effect a truce if there is an outbreak of war.

Ultimately, I think the Malinese intervention may be a good thing for the future of EuroCorps, if only to provide to provide a field test case for getting various European forces to cooperate outside of a NATO framework. A robust EuroCorps would be a huge help to the US, because we can let them handle the shit in their regional neighborhood.

[Loud Whispers]

The issues in those countries are the same ones here. An ever-growing population directly dependent upon the government. We need to cut back on excess and that means convenience which is almost a sacred right here.

2. Sources, sources, sources. Veteran posters around here will mostly enforce this themselves, but it bears mentioning: If you come and make some random-ass claim, you better have something to support it, or you will get laughed out of town.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[PanH]

If France can avoid Mali becoming the latest Vietnam I will be suprised, but people need to leave them to make the mistake instead of thinking they can jump in and make some kind of a difference. Thankfully the UK seems to have learnt this from its own adventures in the middle east and isnt providing combatants yet.

It isn't quite Vietnam. There is 750 soldiers currently, and they want to have 2500 soldiers. The main reason (well, what is said), is to protect the thousands of french living in Mali. It's also not meant to be any offensive, only defensive, but on the other hand, french forces also took Gbago's bunker (or with the support of heavy weapons, but we'll probably never know).

[MonkeyHead]

It isnt quite that yet. If we do not learn the lessons of history we are doomed to repeat them, as said someone important once whose name I cant remember. The US intervention in Vietnam started small, after all.

[Trollheiming]

Once again, Loud Whispers. The Harold Shipman and terrorist murders are the pink line. They were removed from the main chart. How can this be made clearer to you? When I pointed out that my chart was essentially yours in a different format, you removed yours, declaring it wrong. This is becoming a farce.

[1][4] No, it is easy to say what caused the decline.

Famous last words. Then you ramble in a wall-of-text non sequitur about American and Trinidad, as if gangs in those countries had the same culture and history as British gangs. 170 gangs in Britain? Small-time compared to America. Murder rates in America are due to many factors, and they've always been higher than Britain's rate because we're a diverse melting pot full of ambitious people wanting to get ahead, and that background causes friction sometimes. Nothing in that verbiage goes to the point. The preceding data in Britain, to compare apples to apples, itself shows crime staying level or rising slightly after the Dublane-inspired bans. Only recently, fifteen years later, has there been a drop. If bans are to be accorded any meaning, it would seem that their effect should be noticeable before 13 years had passed.

And please, absorb the fact that your incessant whining about the terrorist attacks and SHipman being counted in the data is not actually true. The adjusted data without those murder still show level or slight increase for twelve years until a recent fall.

How fake you are Mr. Trollheiming. How fake indeed.

I think you could try more to improve the tone of this thread.

[MonkeyHead]

Murder rates in America are due to many factors, and they've always been higher than Britain's rate because we're a diverse melting pot full of ambitious people wanting to get ahead, and that background causes friction sometimes.

You dont know much about the UK do you... 

[mainiac]

So, my question is, what should the US do about it? I for one don't think we should get involved; we tried that for a half-century, and being world police doesn't pay well.

Au contraire.  In terms of safety from war the world has been growing far more safe while the US was playing world policeman: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/15/think_again_war?page=0,0

[Trollheiming]

You dont know much about the UK do you... 

I watched both Sherlock Holmes movies, so actually I consider myself quite versed. Allo, guvna.

[Leafsnail]

Britain didn't seem to solve its murder rate with a gun ban.
http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/england-full.png

I think we've gone over this graph quite a lot already in other threads

[Loud Whispers]

Once again, Loud Whispers. The Harold Shipman and terrorist murders are the pink line. They were removed from the main chart. How can this be made clearer to you? When I pointed out that my chart was essentially yours in a different format, you removed yours, declaring it wrong. This is becoming a farce.

Now I am interested in your pink line as much as the next average Joe, but your data is wrong. There's no getting around that fact. You are using falsified data and calling everyone else a liar for pointing that out.

[1][4] No, it is easy to say what caused the decline.

Famous last words. Then you ramble in a wall-of-text non sequitur about American and Trinidad, as if gangs in those countries had the same culture and history as British gangs. 170 gangs in Britain? Small-time compared to America.

1. You really don't know anything about the UK.
2. We have organized crime and petty crime. A gang in the UK means to us hoodlums, thug and muggers.
Except when it doesn't.
"London was the first city documented as the world's gang capital."
It's a good thing our criminals didn't try to disobey the law or anything, otherwise we'd be living in a society where everyone but law abiding citizens get to shoot people!
The gun ban hit them hard rather effectively. Nowadays the big criminals tend to get their guns from American import
*Also note, even that's rare. Law enforcement has gotten more effective. Hence the lowest crime in the past 30 years. Our police walk around unarmed.

Our petty criminals don't find it easy to kill people. Stab wounds are a lot easier to save someone from than a gunshot to the head. And they're rarer - you can flee from anyone with a knife, you can't if they've got a firearm.

Murder rates in America are due to many factors, and they've always been higher than Britain's rate because we're a diverse melting pot full of ambitious people wanting to get ahead, and that background causes friction sometimes.

REALLY don't know the UK then.

Nothing in that verbiage goes to the point. The preceding data in Britain, to compare apples to apples, itself shows crime staying level or rising slightly after the Dublane-inspired bans. Only recently, fifteen years later, has there been a drop.

Unless you look at the graph given by the Office of National Statistics. By the way my main point about guns being used in homicides - where I pointed to gang violence, is that your country's gangs are using them to murder. And this is an upward trend; whereas ours has been a decreasing. And this isn't a drop after 15 years of increases - this is 30 years of decreases.

If bans are to be accorded any meaning, it would seem that their effect should be noticeable before 13 years had passed.

/Unless there are significant numbers of weapons still in circulation. But of course, instant results MUST be expected otherwise it does not compute.

And please, absorb the fact that your incessant whining about the terrorist attacks and SHipman being counted in the data is not actually true. The adjusted data without those murder still show level or slight increase for twelve years until a recent fall.

/Unless you look at the graph provided by the Office of National Statistics.

I think you could try more to improve the tone of this thread.

Would you like to say I'm whining about an event where lots of people died one more time? I feel like it could improve the tone of this thread.

[Leafsnail]

Once again, Loud Whispers. The Harold Shipman and terrorist murders are the pink line. They were removed from the main chart. How can this be made clearer to you? When I pointed out that my chart was essentially yours in a different format, you removed yours, declaring it wrong. This is becoming a farce.

Yeah, the pink line is valid.  They include the Harold Shipman murders (which actually happened over a long period of time but were discovered all at once), a few mass manslaughter events and the bombings, if I remember correctly.

The thing is though, even without the pink line you can see a reversal in the trend.  Particularly following the 2003 act that included a raft of new measures (although it may also be to do with the stronger investment put into policing allowing our previously existing laws to actually be enforced).

Murder rates in America are due to many factors, and they've always been higher than Britain's rate because we're a diverse melting pot full of ambitious people wanting to get ahead, and that background causes friction sometimes.

This is precious.

[PTTG??]

So, my question is, what should the US do about it? I for one don't think we should get involved; we tried that for a half-century, and being world police doesn't pay well.

Au contraire.  In terms of safety from war the world has been growing far more safe while the US was playing world policeman: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/15/think_again_war?page=0,0

Sure, fewer wars. But there is that one war in what's-it-called, Afghanistan, I think, that's been going on for more than a decade. And then there's the fact that we spend absurd quantities of money. Not that I value cash over human life- but surely, there are better ways to turn money to happy, healthy people than buying bombs with it.

[Trollheiming]

I like how this graph leaves out the 2003 gun control law because it would hurt its case

The 1997 law criminalized ownership of all non-historical handguns, so how much more could you want?