Post by axyz(1) That in the land of England in which private ownership of guns is banned
(except in very few cases where it is highly regulated), there is still a
considerable amount of gun violence. The article states that shootings were
common in Manchester and London, and that this trend is on the rise in Birmingham.
To paraphase, you are saying that the point is not the frequency but that
there is a considerable amount of gun crime and that gun crime is common.
That's pretty contradictory. Morally, any amount of gun crime is
considerable in any society. I'm not saying that we don't have any; I'm
saying that due to the difference in our laws, our rate (considering the
population difference) is much lower that yours.
As for it being "common", what is that supposed to mean? If you are telling
me that means it happens often, then frequency is very much the point. What
do you consider common and how do you apply it to the demographics of the
UK? Inner city Birmingham, Manchester and London have their own problems and
they are not shared by most of the country.
Post by axyz(2) Your claim that there is no worry of gun violence is clearly a false statement.
The only question is whether you made this false statement in a deliberate attempt
to deceive, or as an unintentional display of your ignorance of current events in
your own country. Since you indicated that many Brits heard the story, including
yourself, my assumption leans toward deliberate, but unsuccessful deception
attempt. As for why you would be deliberately attempting to deceive, my guess is
that you dislike the US and are attempting to pass anti-US propaganda, with little
concern for the truth in your crusade.
My opinion is that there is a negligable fear of gun crime among the British
population. I still stand by this. The Birmingham shootings led to media
hype. That is not the same thing as a national fear of something. I
personally have heard more NATIONAL British news agencies report stories
about US gun crime than UK gun crime. If you base your opinions on what we
think of gun crime on its portrayal in our media, bear that in mind.
If I was in the "inner" areas of the 3 main cities I would have a fear of
crime and, to some extent, gun crime. As I say above, most of the UK does
not live in these areas.
As for not liking the US, for what it's worth, my view is that I do not like
the "general apparent attitude" of the US as a nation. The is the main drive
of my beliefs and, I believe, the same reason that America is copping a lot
of flack from the rest of the world at present.
I DO NOT DISLIKE like most of the American way of life (as I've said before,
we have too much common heritage and interest) but dislike the collective
big-headedness of the only superpower - It's unsettling! I'm not bigoted
enough to cast down individuals that I've never met. There is no attempt to
deceive on my part just as I doubt you meant to base your description of our
gun culture on a single article which you didn't back up with an associated
demographic study.
Post by axyzFree choice. If you don't approve, then don't do it and you won't get fat. I don't
approve, so I don't and I'm not fat. If your life means so little to you that you are
willing to give up 20, 25 or even more years of your life and add being unattractive
sexually, just for the thrill of eating too much, then that is your free choice. I enjoy
the feel from lifting free weights and running far more than eating a carton of ice
cream or candy. I also prefer to have the extra time to enjoy a life that even with the
extra years is shorter than I wish it was. But apparently not everyone feels the same
and that is their choice, although in my opinion it is a poor one.
Agreed. But this is all about critisism of the US. The US is, by your
President's admission, an obese nation. I'm glad you see the point of view.
Post by axyzCould you please tell me why the subject of the waistlines of American citizens is so
mesmerizing to the rest of world??? Considering how so many people hate the US, I
would think they would be quite pleased to see large numbers of fat Americans dying
in their 40's from heart attacks. This fascination with the weight of Americans is
totally puzzling to me.
Because fat people are funny and the US has so many of them. We don't like
it that they die early (that's horrible) but it's pretty hilarious that "the
most powerful country on Earth" is made up people who'd be out of breath
from walking down the street. Don't worry about it, the rest of the world
understands the joke.
I don't think the the rest of the world hates the US. It's just that, as you
keep pointing out, you are very powerful and often make a point of showing
this (nuking Japan, the space race etc.). On top of that, you then use the
fear you've created to inflict your will on other nations.
Post by axyzNo, you seem to miss the point. US military technology is primarily intended
to allow the ability to gather military intelligence and fight military targets of
nations, not small groups of terrorists determined to randomly kill civilians
without warning. There are so many options to kill civilians that there is no way
to defend directly. I gave one example above. The list of substances that one can
use to manufacture explosives is amazing - a couple 50 bags of flour can be quite
nasty, especially if tamped and covered with screws, nails and clear glass shards
(don't show up on X-rays and can't be seen in a bleeding wound) in the trunk of a
car parked in a well chosen location. The only way to use this technology to fight
terrorists is to proactively use it against the governments and infrastructures that
allow and in some cases (ie. Saddam Hussein) actually encourage terrorists to
operate, in an attempt to eliminate the problem at the source.
As I recall, the US trained the terrorist Bin Laden to do exactly the same
thing to
Russia. Your country was his source and encouragement of terrorism. Also,
what do you
make of large US organisiations pouring funds into the IRA?
Should the US, then, have a regime change?
Post by axyzAnd also, there is no way that you or I will ever know how many other attacks
were successfully thwarted through US intelligence activities. 09-11-01 was
successful. How many were stopped before they became successful?
Fair comment but it seems strange that US, and as a result, world security
has only just been stepped up to today's rediculous levels if America was
aware of the level of threat posed by terrorist groups.
Post by axyzPost by Lea DavidsonThen why is much of the world so annoyed at your actions? It's not for the
benefit of the world. It helps US interests and what most of the US fails to
see is that US interests aren't necessarily what motivates the rest of the
world. Just because your country has a view of how the world should be run
doesn't mean you should enforce it on the planet. If one of the main ideals
of the US is democracy, remember that you are only 4% of the world.
As for most of the world hating us it is natural. We are the biggest and most
powerful. Americans have life easier than most, and it is pure jealousy in many
cases, such as New Squealand. See below for more on Arab dislike of the US.
The biggest?! I don't think so. Now who's making things up?
I'd imagine it is jealously in many cases but I just don't see what most of
the rest of the modern world would have to be jealous about. Most of the
west has it pretty easy, too. As for a
nation's power, that only becomes a concern if they are seen to misuse it. I
think that is the real issue and one which America as a whole tends to
ignore.
Post by axyzI already described a brief method of hiding a clandestine weapons program,
while hiding the construction of this program in the massive amount of
construction in the post-1991 rebuilding of Iraq. It is undoubtedly there, just
well hidden. Until we rip up every building floor, every bridge and every
structure built since 1991 it could be very difficult to find. See below.
Perhaps they could be hidden as you say. This one's personal belief but I
would think that as America has control (if you can call it that) of Iraq,
they would have found something or even some information by now.
More importantly, what of nations who actually admit to having WMD's and
aren't "hiding" them? Are WE a threat that America needs to sort out? Or is
it safe as long as we behave the way the US wants? Now, are you starting to
see what the world's problem is with your policy? If we join the Euro, will
that be perceived as a alliance between the UK and your good friends France?
We both have nukes so will the US start sending ships our way?
Post by axyzPerhaps you should have read what I wrote instead of just cutting it.
Then again you do seem to have a habit of selective editing when it is to
your advantage.
You stated the US hid under our beds for three years from WW2
I responded by pointing out that Germany invaded Poland September 1, 1939
and the US declared war on Japan and Germany December 8, 1941 and asked
how you arrived at three years.
I also pointed out that that the Lend Lease act meant that there was significant
US war material given to England, and there were many US casualties
transporting it across the Atlantic before formal US involvement in the war
started and asked if you were aware of this.
Actually, that wasn't me. Check again!
Post by axyzBasically I pointed out that you posted false statements (Hmmm. notice a
theme developing here?) and you seem to have selectively edited at this point
of the thread.
Later you made a remark that implied that the US lost a key battle in Somalia.
I pointed out that there were 20-30 US soldiers killed and thousands of Somalians
killed, while the US completed the primary objective of the mission despite the
casualties, and then asked you why it would not be considered a US victory???
You seem to have selectively edited again at this point of the thread. Interesting.
Again, not me.
Post by axyzPost by Lea DavidsonEither your country is wrong or you are right and have been very outsmarted.
Either one is nothing for the US to brag about.
There is a third option. The WMD's are well hidden, such as I described. Imagine
the complex that could be sitting underground containing almost all WMD's, inside
a huge factory full of machines making peacetime products, but under one 2000 ton
injection molding machine is the opening. Meanwhile the molding machine is
spewing out plastic trashcans or barrels or some other non-military large plastic
product every 130 seconds, offering no clue to what can be found by simply moving
the machine, a difficult task, but one that can be completed in a few hours. After all,
hiding something is relatively easy, finding it can be hard and usually takes much
longer than it took to hide it. Ask a school age child to hide a toy anywhere in your
house as well as he can and then see if you can find it in less time than he took to
hide it. Saddam Hussein had over ten years to hide his toys.
Most of the west believe that someone is innocent until proven guilty.
Should this not extend to not starting a one-sided war based on a hunch that
there could be facilities for developing WMD's. Even if you are proved to be
right in time, you cannot condone an action which has killed civilians
without hard and fast proof.
Two Iraqis had their car fired upon in the last week by Americans. This was
done in at an improptu US checkpoint which had been set up without warning
to the public - even if a warning was announced, most of the poverty
stricken in Iraq don't get CNN, especially the ones living in mudhuts. The
car caught fire and the US soldiers simply left. The car burned for another
1.5 hours and the bodies were unable to be identified (even the number plate
was melted to nothing). Those were real people who your nation killed
without a thought simply because your politicians have decided a course of
action and you can get away with it (Source: Independent newspaper
25/07/03).
As I say, there are more important issues that get glazed over by talk of
WMD's and the like. Ask yourself if the hostility you are still finding in
Iraq is a from those loyal to Saddam. Some, no doubt is but I can assure you
that you've rubbed a hell of lot of, otherwise benign, people up the wrong
way.
Post by axyzAnd there is also a fourth option. A significant amount of WMD's and related
equipment may have been transported to a bordering nation, such as Syria.
You'd better better invade Syria as well, then. Just in case.
Post by axyzExploiting them for oil???? EXPLOITING???
Perhaps you are not familiar with a concept called trade. <patronising
text snipped>
Post by axyzThe trade of oil between the possessors of oil and the US follows the above
definition. It has evolved into a complicated state of price control through the
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, also known as OPEC, established
in the early 1960's. OPEC regularly increases or slows production to maintain
control of oil prices for the benefit of the member nations, not for the benefit of
the US.
Your claim of US exploitation for oil does little more than demonstrate your total
and complete ignorance of international trade, and thus severely weakens your
entire position by making you look like you are pursuing an agenda, with little
regard for truth, as with the gun violence issue in England I discussed above.
Well, I've already discussed the gun issue and I stand by my comments. You
haven't proved them wrong so don't use that argument to flaw another.
With regard to OPEC, Iraq is a member of OPEC and you've just gone to war
with them! Saddam was well know for not playing by OPEC's rules which caused
instability in oil prices which the US doesn't like. After Saudi Arabia,
Iraq has the second largest oil reserve of any nation but the war was all
about the elusive WMD's, right?
It also seems funny that the Russians are your your new friends after 50
years of cold war since their oil went on the market in the 90's. It doesn't
matter their treatment of Chechnya is similar to what Saddam has to done to
his own people which was the other reason for Gulf War 2. OPEC does still
hold a lot of sway which is why the US is using other measures (Iraq war,
friendship with Russia and Mexico etc.) to weaken OPEC's cartel and reduce
prices. Only about 50-60% of the world's traded oil is now from OPEC. If
Iraq drops out of OPEC after its regime change, this figure drops futher.
The US usues its economic, political and military power to exploit other
nations for their oil. This trend has been on the increase since America
stopped primarilily exporting oil and increased its imports just after WW2.
Post by axyzAs a secondary lesson for you, perhaps you should review and see how many
Arab countries the US had bases in before 09/11/01 despite the recognized
leaders of that country asking us to leave. I believe the governments of every
country we have bases in had given their approval of US forces based within
their borders, such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, etc.
Yes, many of these countries have citizens which may not approve of US military
presence. Are you saying that we should leave these countries if so much as one
Arab citizen in the entire country requests us to leave? This goes back to the
beginning of my response: under either a republic or a democracy, as with any
form of government, even your monarchy, there will always be those who don't
get their way. You can never please everyone.
What does it matter? The US has just proved that whether a population OR
it's recognised leaders don't want you there, you'll go there anyway with a
military presence.
Post by axyzFinally, the Arabs dislike the US for more reasons that you state.
The culture of open sexuality, revealing women's fashions, promotion of alcohol
consumption and accumulation of material possessions, among others, in the US
is so far from adherence to the Islamic code of life of regarding clothing,
marital sex, alcohol consumption, etc. that it is not a shock to see the US labeled
as the great Satan. From an Islamic belief point of view, it is an easily arrived at
logical conclusion.
Plus all the reasons that non Islamic countries disagrees with your
policies, of course.
Post by axyzAlso there's the exploitation factor of Arabs by their own leaders. In most Arab
countries the majority live in poverty, while being ruled by a small extremely
wealthy elite that is not an elected representative and represses any dissent.
Which is exactly what George Bush is doing. As I've already pointed out, the
US doesn't care about the "little people" or even whether they lose their
lives as long as a political/economic situatuion exists which benefits US
presperity.
Post by axyzThe misery of those living in poverty is caused by their own leaders who are
quite happy as the wealthy elite and are not particularly interested in solving
their countries internal problems. (Although there are Arab countries such as
Iran and Kuwait with substantial middle classes.)
One of the oldest and best ways of keeping an unhappy population in control is
to unite them against a common enemy. Hitler employed this tactic very
effectively against the Jews; all Germany's internal problems were caused by
the Jews was repeated like a mantra until the people of Germany believed it.
Again, if only you could see how the US does this with it's War on Terrorism
and speak of Axis of Evil and WMD's (look it's even been given an acronym to
make it easier to say). And while the US says it is helping the safety of
the world, what are they doing about the environment, about non-Islamic
terrorism in Ireland and Spain etc.? What about the Chechens?
Of course I see that some of the Arab populations are whipped up into hating
you by their leaders. But when that isn't the case, why is the world
threatened by America's actions? It's because you are clearly using your
power for your own interest even at the expense of others.
Post by axyzNow the leaders of these Arabic nations are employing the same tactic and
cleverly combining it with religious core beliefs through rigid control of the
press, rallying the people against the great Satan, thereby redirecting their
anger from their own uncaring governments to the US.
This is hilarious after some of the things that your government has claimed
in press releases to sway world opinion. The best bit of all is that Bush
claims he's on a mission from God. In the same way your Arab leaders are
trying to unite a split population against a common enemy and avert their
attention from the leader's own greed, the US is traying to sway a split
West (mostly Christian) to join a common cause and avert their attenntion
from it being all for American benefit.
I'm surprised you can see one and not the other!
Post by axyzAlso, US support of Israel is a key reason the Arabs dislike the US. I'm not
about to go into the subject of the Arab-Israeli conflict except to say that the
origination of the recent conflict over ownership of Israeli territory goes back to
British activities when WWI ended and the area of Palestine was awarded as a
British mandate. Had the British not told the Arabs that control of this territory
would be returned to the Arabs and then changed their minds and favored the
creation of a Jewish state perhaps the whole middle east scenario would be
significantly more peaceful today. In short, development of the area in question
was a British responsibility after WWI and the current Arab-Israeli conflict is the
end result of a British political failure.
It is down to British failure, I agree, but there's no need for America to
give Israel weapons which are often used to kill innocent Palestinians, is
there? You know this goes on as well as I do. If you don't then there really
are some propaganda issues in the US. It sounds like Bush may be trying to
resolve this now (in the last day or so) but only because Blair managed to
delay the Gulf War 2 long enough to make the world speak up about the
Arab-Israeli conflict to a point the US couldn't ignore.
Post by axyzAll in all, Arab dislike of the US is a very complicated situation. To falsely label
the root cause as simply "US exploitation for oil" is a clear indication that you
have very little actual knowledge on the subject and that you are simply making
up "facts" to suit your own agenda and then trying to convince people that these
"facts" are true.
US exploitation of oil is clearly not the root of Arab hatred. I've already
demonstrated that the US is abusing it's position with the whole world for
what it wants. In the middle-east this is generally for oil so is one of the
main critisms of American policy perceived by people of that region. I agree
with you that there are a myriad of other factors. Perhaps my original
comment was too sweeping.
Post by axyzPost by Lea DavidsonThis is why so many people don't like watching America get it's own way all
the time. You fought and won a war of Independance against us when we wanted
to control the resources on your land. Now you are doing the same as we did
and controlling the resources of others. This is hypocracy of the highest
order ever known in human history.
Again, we are not stealing these resources at gunpoint and transporting them to
the US! We are utilizing the concept of free trade between nations in order to
obtain them. Should a nation exporting believe they are not getting a fair deal
from the US, they can stop trading, or raise prices. But should they raise prices
too high, the US will simply purchase these resources from another nation
willing to sell for less. This is called free economy. As an example, OPEC has
cut oil production in order to increase oil prices more than once before and is
currently unwilling to increase production to meet US requested levels, in an
attempt to keep oil prices high. As a result, the US is purchasing more oil from
non-OPEC nations such as Russia, Norway and Mexico that are willing to sell
for less.
But when your nation is so large, even your competitive companies easily
become monopolistic in another country. Look at the fast food compaines in
the States. The economies of scale available to McDonalds and the like
completely overwhelm any other potential entrant into the market in a non US
country. I don't have to hypotesise about this - I live outside the US and
have travelled in Europe. Nobody could even touch McDonalds (not even Burger
King and certainly nothing local). The advertising power alone detroys any
hope for other countries. Do you really not see this?
The only thing that could affect that power is the government of the country
in question. They can impose rules or impose import duties on your
commoditites but then they'll always be worried about what you might do with
your giant media machine or massive army. Have you not noticed that the
baddies in your movies don't have Russian accents anymore?
As for OPEC, I've already explained there's a bit more to it than your
dictionary definition.
Post by axyzAgain, your claims that this is exploitation or controlling resources only
demonstrates your complete ignorance of the concepts of economics and
international trade.
Far from it. YOU demonstate that you cannot see that US media, military and
economic policy walk hand in hand. You think each is separate and don't see
how each can be used to benefit the other. The startling thing is you are
able to see when other people are doing it.
Post by axyzYou are pursuing an agenda, and you aren't about to let an
inconvenience like the truth stand in your way, are you? Then again, perhaps you
truly are ignorant enough to actually believe the garbage that you have posted.
I believe what I say it because I don't sort the politics of the world into
convenient little boxes like you do. Perhaps you should stop reading the
American textbook theories of how the world works and actually scratch the
surface once in a while to look below.
Post by axyzSo which one is it; do you actually believe the false statements you post, or do
you just post them here in the hopes that others will?
They're not false and you repeating that they are doesn't make them any more
so. If what I'm saying is so wrong than how come the rest of the world
questions your country's actions for exactly the reasons I'm stating, every
single day in the news? I don't know if you guys get to see much news from
other nations (I truly don't) and whether any pro-US spin is put on them.
One of the things I have learned from being a member of the European Union
is to empathise with the opinions of other countries and see what their
point of view is.
Post by axyzIf france had an issue, they could have abstained from voting. That would be
not supporting the war. But to state that france's answer would be "no" no
matter the circumstance was nothing more than a display Chirac's severe case
of DeGaulle Syndrome.
Agreed. It was pretty pathetic and did nothing for their popularity here.
Post by axyzFrance is just a back-stabbing nation that masquerades as an ally when it is to
their benefit.
This is what you guys do, as well.
Post by axyzI can see why you British hate them. Did you know that
during your
Post by axyzwar with Argentina over the Falkland Islands, france actually sent technicians to
Argentina in order to provide support for the french Exocet missiles Argentina
was launching at your warships in attempts to kill your husbands, brothers and
fathers? What an ally!
I didn't know that but can believe it to be true. Did you hear the one about
the UK helping the US to develop the atom bomb then America running off with
all the secrets and leaving the UK without it? I agree with you; it's funny
how allies can stab you in the back when it suits them.
Post by axyzIt is especially irritating when you consider how
many of
Post by axyzour soldiers are buried in france (and your soldiers too - you can tell their graves
because they are the ones covered with spray paint graffiti) because france is a
nation of cowards that actually surrendered with a 1,000,000 man army and
2/3 rds of the country still under their control.
Britain and France have too much history to ever become good friends.
However, I have been to France several times and have been welcomed there.
They generally are back-stabbers, though, and prove it with alarming
regularity.
Post by axyzWait until the Iraq situation cools down and the Iraqi's realize that france was in
favor of Saddam Hussein staying in Iraq. Iraq won't export bags of sand, much
less oil to france! We'll all have a good laugh at france's expense, just as the US is
now at the effects of US consumer boycotts of french products. You Brits should
boycott them by refusing to buy their crappy little cars; England is about the only
country their cars have even marginally succeeded in.
Yeah, I'm sure the new regime will be pro-US and anti-France, just as
America would like.
America doesn't know anything about cars. I'm not waving the flag of the
non-existant UK car industry here, it's just that you have no idea. I don't
like Fench cars, either but they are still better that the "gas-guzzling"
hearse-looking, automatics you muppets drive round in.
Post by axyzFinally, there is much the US can learn from Britain. The US is very quick to
forgive other nations. We were trading partners with Japan 25 years after WWII,
and many citizens of Japan vacation in the US and vice versa without much
thought given to the fact that they attacked Pearl Harbor or how we mercilessly
firebombed Tokyo until half the city burnt to the ground and then nuked two of
their cities off the face of the planet.
Japan are your good friends now that they do things your way. This further
backs everything I've said. And your comments go to show who really has the
racist agenda with their sentiments about other countries. The Japs were
wrong with what they did. You used nukes and you, personally glorify it! How
can that make you so righteous and not quantify what I've been saying?
Post by axyzPerhaps Britain can help us by
teaching
Post by axyzAmerica to hate the French continuously for the next 1000 years.
The French can teach you that all on their own. Now go and grizzle some more
because someone doesn't agree with America.