Cool. I thought it was just frozen burritos.
OUR country, the USA
- Thread starter Thepagoda
- Start date
Hey, if the moralistic leaders of this country make decisions based (at least allegedly) on religion, or perhaps just belief for what is "best" for the population, then how do you explain the state of violent crime here? Why does the US have, for instance, the highest murder rate of ANY country in the world?
Is it perhaps that our leaders make decisions based instead on monetary gain, and the power that comes with it?
Yes, this is rhetorical...
Is it perhaps that our leaders make decisions based instead on monetary gain, and the power that comes with it?
Yes, this is rhetorical...
This is not true, by any stretch. Could i see some figures, or did you just make it up?
I guess that doesn't include the state sponsored murders that the tyrants use.
I agree however, that we are one of the few countries that has honestly reported murders. Most countries won't report that, since they don't want tourism to be hurt.
Oh, by the way, when you visit the philipines becareful which Islands you go to. Oh and when you go to columbia, becareful where you drive, and if you go to anywhere in Africa, good luck. Ukraine? not for me. Russia, well who exactly controls it, the Government or the Mob? As for the state of violent crime, the entire world has it. Go to MExico and get ticketed every 5 miles
If you have ever travelled outside this country you will realize how much safer you feel inside it. It is amazing how much safer it is in the US. Even people from other euro/asia/africa/southamerican countries always tell me how much safer they feel in the US from crime. They know that only have to deal with some criminals but in their countries they may have to deal with criminals and corrupt cops/military etc..
Actually, I have travelled abroad, admittedly only to Canada and Europe, but in both those places I felt more at ease (at least in terms of being frightened of the criminal element) than I do here at home. It's a well-known fact that Washington D.C. is the most dangerous city in the world, with a murder rate 170 times higher than that of the city with the lowest (Brussels, Belgium) (see article here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/153988.stm).
In fact, 9 of the cities mentioned as the 12 most dangerous in the world happen to be in the US.
Now, before everyone tells me to "love it or leave it," I DO love my country, I am just distraught with the current state of affairs here, where we have a central leadership which places more emphasis on pursuing a doctrine of world domination than on educating and protecting its own citizens.
In fact, 9 of the cities mentioned as the 12 most dangerous in the world happen to be in the US.
Now, before everyone tells me to "love it or leave it," I DO love my country, I am just distraught with the current state of affairs here, where we have a central leadership which places more emphasis on pursuing a doctrine of world domination than on educating and protecting its own citizens.
just wanted to restate since the point didn't seem to be made.
We are one of the few countries to accurately report crime.
Also, you are the first person to ever tell me that they felt safer in another country. Kinda Strange. And what makes it even more strange is that I talk to hundreds of people annualy that travel overseas.
So Kashmir, Kabul, Baghdad, Tikrit, Rio(known for it's violence), TJ, Puerto Rico (known for it's violence), Moscow, Ukraine (Known for violence especialy against visitors), Philipines (Muslim controled islands), etc. etc.????? are not in the top 12, gee I guess not everyone reports the truth do they. I think your list is way off. As bad as the crime rate is here it is better than most parts of the world.
I was gunna say the same thing.
I mean, Colombia, Thailand, Brazil all have horrific murder rates. I find it hard to believe that they're nowhere on that list.
It appears they made it up.
This is a sampling of various rates per 100000.
US 5.61
South Africa 114.84
Venezuela 33.20
Ukraine 9.63
Uraguay 6.67
Russia 22.43
Jamaica 44.34
France 4.07
Columbia 69.98
Brazil 22.98
Canada 4.10
These self reported figures from Interpol. They are not necessarily the current year but from 2000, 2001 or 2002. The US figure matches that provided by the DOJ and media collected figures as well.
Hey look, France and Canada are both lower than the US. The french really are lovers not fighters. That's why the Germans love them so much. Come here my little fraughline, I have a bratwurst for you.
So, typical BS tactic. spew some BS and hope no one checks it.
OK, so I have been away for a week, and there seems to be quite a lot of stuff whipped up by this thread. Unfortunately (And I think this is probably my fault for posting too many controversial issues at once) it seems to have digressed after only briefly touching on health care and education/prison (more so). There seems to some concern as to the application of our tax dollars at work. I haven't seen anybody say that they supported the idea that we spend more money on prisons than on education, but I have seen propositions that called for stronger morals instituted by our government. Instituted morals are not something that should necessarily be embraced. this country is foundated on freedom of religion. A lot of people came to this country because they did not believe in the "enforced morals" of their homeland. The USA is not a theocracy and should not regulate the morals of its citizens. So back to prisons and education- those proponents of government assistance with morals, how do you explain the difference between what seems to be public opinion (more money for schools) and reality (more money for prisons). Do you wnat those guys telling you where you can put your penis, or what you should do on sunday? If the answer is yes, I would suggest moving to the theocracy of your choice.
As for crime, I see that there is some dispute about the numbers. everybody knows that stats can lie. hopefully everybody knows that the way the stats are collected will also dramatically affect the results. So I encourage everybody to read the article that the BBC posted (linked by Mr. Rubberpoliceman) because it has statistics about specific cities. the rebuttal to this artifact, put forth by Mr. DRB also has relevent information. OK, so maybe the US is not the worst nation in the world, but why don't we examine what everybody globally considers our coevals: Other developed nations. The nations on the list that fall below the US in terms of murder rates per capita are France and Canada, the only other truly 1st world nations on the list. (Go ahead dismiss the frenchies for being lovers, but it might not be so funny to offer your murdered friends bratworst.) So what are the implications? the implications are that the USA is not dealing with the crime problem as well as other peer nations, and a failure to adress those problems will only widen the gap.
So on a much happier note, the economy has really taken a boost in the arm from this war, GOOD JOB GW! the DOW has been consistently falling. Also the requested $75 billion is only 11% of the total education expenditures for 2002 (includes post-secondary aid, numbers culled from this site: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/Budget02/Summary/ ). Amazing, we can truly expect to leave no child behind... and spend tax surpluses wisely.
As for crime, I see that there is some dispute about the numbers. everybody knows that stats can lie. hopefully everybody knows that the way the stats are collected will also dramatically affect the results. So I encourage everybody to read the article that the BBC posted (linked by Mr. Rubberpoliceman) because it has statistics about specific cities. the rebuttal to this artifact, put forth by Mr. DRB also has relevent information. OK, so maybe the US is not the worst nation in the world, but why don't we examine what everybody globally considers our coevals: Other developed nations. The nations on the list that fall below the US in terms of murder rates per capita are France and Canada, the only other truly 1st world nations on the list. (Go ahead dismiss the frenchies for being lovers, but it might not be so funny to offer your murdered friends bratworst.) So what are the implications? the implications are that the USA is not dealing with the crime problem as well as other peer nations, and a failure to adress those problems will only widen the gap.
So on a much happier note, the economy has really taken a boost in the arm from this war, GOOD JOB GW! the DOW has been consistently falling. Also the requested $75 billion is only 11% of the total education expenditures for 2002 (includes post-secondary aid, numbers culled from this site: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/Budget02/Summary/ ). Amazing, we can truly expect to leave no child behind... and spend tax surpluses wisely.
Statistics can lie most certainly but let's take into consideration the source of the two sets put forth here. I have read the BBC article and they list NO SOURCES as to where the data came from or who was responsible for collecting and interpeting that data. Also if the results had not come out the way they did could they have used the fancy tag line thus increasing hits and reads on that particular article. The Interpol figures are very well documented as to source and considered accuracy by country. There is no conclusion reached by Interpol just a representation of the numbers as provided by various nations. Again the numbers provided for the US match very closely with the figures published by the DOJ and other US organizations.
The implications are that this country does have a murder problem that is greater than most developed nation. BUT the variation is not that great nor did it widen from 1995 to 2000. It actually narrowed with the vast majority of developed nations. How many more people does the US have than any other developed nation in the world?
I agree statistics can and almost always are misleading. Admittedly, I often fall into the same behavior used by the media: i.e. trying to find stats to support a specific belief. Seek and ye shall find, they say; and you can make the numbers say anything you want.
This is all sort of getting away from the issue though. What I really wished to elucidate was that there IS indeed a problem with crime in this country, and that it cannot be seen as an isolated phenomenon. It is indeed directly related (I think, at least) to the general malaise among the populace which can ultimately be attributed to ignorance. It doesn't seem to be a mere coincidence that nations (such as Switzerland, Norway, Belgium, etc.) which place more emphasis (i.e. funding) on such niceties as education, foreign aid, health care, etc., have conversely lower rates of crime and higher standards of living.
What about this radical idea: Shouldn't a "first-world" nation on this industrialized planet spend MORE (many times more, even) to educate it's own citizens than it does to kill citizens of other nations? Why shouldn't teaching be elevated from its marginalized position in this society, so that it actually becomes a desirable profession with respectable pay? Then maybe we can get to work on a reality TV show about teachers...all their inside drama and office romance...it'll make more money than American Idol!
Ok, end rant...
This is all sort of getting away from the issue though. What I really wished to elucidate was that there IS indeed a problem with crime in this country, and that it cannot be seen as an isolated phenomenon. It is indeed directly related (I think, at least) to the general malaise among the populace which can ultimately be attributed to ignorance. It doesn't seem to be a mere coincidence that nations (such as Switzerland, Norway, Belgium, etc.) which place more emphasis (i.e. funding) on such niceties as education, foreign aid, health care, etc., have conversely lower rates of crime and higher standards of living.
What about this radical idea: Shouldn't a "first-world" nation on this industrialized planet spend MORE (many times more, even) to educate it's own citizens than it does to kill citizens of other nations? Why shouldn't teaching be elevated from its marginalized position in this society, so that it actually becomes a desirable profession with respectable pay? Then maybe we can get to work on a reality TV show about teachers...all their inside drama and office romance...it'll make more money than American Idol!
Ok, end rant...
Is this going to be a theme with your posts, where you just abnoxiously state untrue facts and jargon...or were you planning on forming an actual debate sometime?
I haven't seen much more than assertions from you either Mr. Burly Surly, but in any event the total defense spending for 2003 including outlays, sourced from the DoD website ( http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2003/fy03_greenbook.pdf ) is $775.18 Billion US. the 2000-2001 budget for education was (numbers taken from aforementioned US gov website) 678.2 billion. So there are the numbers to support the statement that the US spends more on defense than it does on education. If you don't believe the numbers, look at where I got them: From the US Government's sites. Education is a wonderful thing...
from Stellite:
RUSSIA AND CHINA SHOULD SPEND MORE THAN KILLING OTHERS AS WELL AS THEIR OWN PEOPLE. FRANCE AND GERMANY SHOULD STOP PROLIFIRATING WHICH CAUSES COUNTLESS DEATHS. WHO IS GOING TO CAST THE FIRST STONE?
You are correct, the U.S. is not alone in creating insular policies that lead to trouble both at home and abroad. As far as casting the first stone, the heads in Washington never hesitate when there are issues such as oil rights, mineral rights, access to land for pipelines, etc.. When such economically lucrative interests are present, U.S. foreign policy is always on the cutting edge. It just bothers me that the nation with the greatest might on earth, both in economic and military terms, doesn't seem to want to take the lead in effecting any change for the betterment of human life on the planet if there isn't a dividend involved somewhere. Call it idealistic...
RUSSIA AND CHINA SHOULD SPEND MORE THAN KILLING OTHERS AS WELL AS THEIR OWN PEOPLE. FRANCE AND GERMANY SHOULD STOP PROLIFIRATING WHICH CAUSES COUNTLESS DEATHS. WHO IS GOING TO CAST THE FIRST STONE?
You are correct, the U.S. is not alone in creating insular policies that lead to trouble both at home and abroad. As far as casting the first stone, the heads in Washington never hesitate when there are issues such as oil rights, mineral rights, access to land for pipelines, etc.. When such economically lucrative interests are present, U.S. foreign policy is always on the cutting edge. It just bothers me that the nation with the greatest might on earth, both in economic and military terms, doesn't seem to want to take the lead in effecting any change for the betterment of human life on the planet if there isn't a dividend involved somewhere. Call it idealistic...
I was talking about the fact that he labled our "defense budget" as the "kill citizens of other nations budget"
Its jargon. Period. I hate reading it.
Sorry man, didn't mean to be abnoxious. And I don't think my assertion about the "kill citizens of other nations" budget was that far off. This war we are waging at present isn't doing anything to "defend" the united states, because Iraq was not an imminent threat. The pretenses for the war have been fabricated, and if you need proof of that, just look at the stories of forged documents used to provide proof of Iraq's nuclear program (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030331fa_fact1). There is much more proof, such as the US gov'ts illegal surveillance of UN delegates, etc.. I will find sources for that if you desire.
The documents you're referring to were not forged by the U.S. You can bet that if they were, they certainly would have been alot better fakes. Iraq's threat to the U.S. was and still may be very real.
We're uncovering chemical suits daily now, you know. Saddam Hussein isnt safe in charge of anyone. Tell me how we'd be doing the responsible thing by leaving him in charge.
If there were surveillance on UN delegates...what would that prove?
You need to consider some facts, instead of just spouting off about conspiracy theories pal.
You think that saddam wouldnt sell some anthrax to someone wanting to dump it in a US water supply? You;d have to be crazy. We have only security to gain from this war, while Europe has big oil to lose. Thats why the foreign opposition is there. Check this very board for the figures.
I think that the major issue at hand here is that the real reasons for the war are not what people say they are. I have posted on several different threads here about the non-uniform approach to this so called "axis of evil." A mojor contention is that the Iraq situation seems to be doing two things wrong:
1. Using pretext that falls through when the logic is applied to other nations worldwide with lack of natural resources. The fact that Iraq seems to fit the boot seems to be an excuse that be sold to sympathetic people rather than the real motive.
Examples
Humanitarian problem
China - US trading policy is good, not embargo
North Korea - Not too happy with them, but not bombing them YET
Almost every African nation - Ignored
Saudi Arabia - Big oil trading partner
Pakistan - Great ally, especially in war in Afghanistan
On this front there is also the use of torture (against the geneva convention, and the US constitution) that US allies (if not the US itself), sponsored by the US, on captured and suspected terrorists
Arms and Weapons of Mass Destruction
North Korea - has admitted to having Nuclear program, they are on back burner
Russian arms stockpiles and scientists in highly unstable, fragmented former Russian states - were in the limelight in the late 90s, now behind the curtain of terror
Iran - known to have chemicle weapons, not bombed yet
India - Nuclear state, but not islamic
Pakistan - Also Nuclear, but allied
I'm sure there are more where that list came from
Crazy dictators
North Korea - we haven't bombed them yet
Saudi Arabia - Fairly instable regime installed by USA
African nations ranging from Senegal, Sierra Leone and Malawi to Rwanda and Somalia
past dictators that we have supported
Suharto, Indonesia - Installed by CIA (after Sukharno's assination) Stole billions of dollars from the country until the people ousted him.
Josef Mobutu, Congo - Took control of Zaire after CIA sponsored assination of Patrice Lumumba. responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths and theft of billions of dollars from the country
2. Polarizing the world. The US decided on this war because on the foundation that the Iraq was developing Weapons of Mass Destruction, and that inspections were not making headway. Because the USA decided to go at this alone, and without the support of the UN it reduced the effectivity of what could most effectively combat terrorism in the future, a league of nations with a common goal. In addition to basically telling the UN to piss off, the US also (with the second consecutive war against an islamic nation) made Muslim nations feel threatened. In addition this preemptive war further destabilizes the world by letting suspect nations in "the axis of evil" to feel threatened by US hegemony anytime. The acts of imperialism by the US led to the terrorist attacks in the first place, further acts of aggression are only going serve to solidify further motives for borderline terrorists.
If the removal of Saddam were truly humanitarian in nature, it might be a different story, but I think that it is simply convenient for the government to point and say he's a bad guy. truth is, he is a bad guy, but he is only one snake in the pit. he just happens to be the snake coiled around the oil lamp.
1. Using pretext that falls through when the logic is applied to other nations worldwide with lack of natural resources. The fact that Iraq seems to fit the boot seems to be an excuse that be sold to sympathetic people rather than the real motive.
Examples
Humanitarian problem
China - US trading policy is good, not embargo
North Korea - Not too happy with them, but not bombing them YET
Almost every African nation - Ignored
Saudi Arabia - Big oil trading partner
Pakistan - Great ally, especially in war in Afghanistan
On this front there is also the use of torture (against the geneva convention, and the US constitution) that US allies (if not the US itself), sponsored by the US, on captured and suspected terrorists
Arms and Weapons of Mass Destruction
North Korea - has admitted to having Nuclear program, they are on back burner
Russian arms stockpiles and scientists in highly unstable, fragmented former Russian states - were in the limelight in the late 90s, now behind the curtain of terror
Iran - known to have chemicle weapons, not bombed yet
India - Nuclear state, but not islamic
Pakistan - Also Nuclear, but allied
I'm sure there are more where that list came from
Crazy dictators
North Korea - we haven't bombed them yet
Saudi Arabia - Fairly instable regime installed by USA
African nations ranging from Senegal, Sierra Leone and Malawi to Rwanda and Somalia
past dictators that we have supported
Suharto, Indonesia - Installed by CIA (after Sukharno's assination) Stole billions of dollars from the country until the people ousted him.
Josef Mobutu, Congo - Took control of Zaire after CIA sponsored assination of Patrice Lumumba. responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths and theft of billions of dollars from the country
2. Polarizing the world. The US decided on this war because on the foundation that the Iraq was developing Weapons of Mass Destruction, and that inspections were not making headway. Because the USA decided to go at this alone, and without the support of the UN it reduced the effectivity of what could most effectively combat terrorism in the future, a league of nations with a common goal. In addition to basically telling the UN to piss off, the US also (with the second consecutive war against an islamic nation) made Muslim nations feel threatened. In addition this preemptive war further destabilizes the world by letting suspect nations in "the axis of evil" to feel threatened by US hegemony anytime. The acts of imperialism by the US led to the terrorist attacks in the first place, further acts of aggression are only going serve to solidify further motives for borderline terrorists.
If the removal of Saddam were truly humanitarian in nature, it might be a different story, but I think that it is simply convenient for the government to point and say he's a bad guy. truth is, he is a bad guy, but he is only one snake in the pit. he just happens to be the snake coiled around the oil lamp.