Is the USA uncivilised?

[Seth]

Laklak

That is almost funny.
The USA interferes in the activities of other countries pretty much at will, and has been known to describe itself as the world's policeman. Personally, I would be most happy for the USA to leave other nations to their own devices. Ecstatic, in fact. But it doesn't.

Um, you might want to check your history file again. The US acts as the world's policeman not because we want to, or have ambitions of empire, we do it because we're ASKED to intervene by helpless governments that cannot protect their own people, or by helpless people being tyrannized and murdered by their own government.

We don't go where we're not wanted unless our own national security demands it, which is a right all nations have.

But I'd be happy to be isolationist and let the socialists of the world stew in their own juices for a century or so. That's the best way to rid the planet of socialism that I know of short of outright war.

And when we "interfere" in ways that don't involve troops, it's almost always by throwing money at a problem in some place far away from America to help people in need. The US is the largest contributor to foreign aid on the planet, and has been for a very, very long time.

[Blind groper]

Laklak

I do not recall the government of Afghanistan, or the government of Iraq asking the USA to invade. In other words, sorry, but you are wrong.

To Seth

National sovereignty does not excuse you from duties of international cooperation. When the United Nations sets up an international agreement to guarantee human rights, there is a duty for its members to ratify, and thus strengthen international human rights. My country does that. Why not the USA?

On guns.
My problem with discussing this with you is that we end up repeating the same things over and over again. You make a point. I shoot it down in flames. Then a month or three later you make the same point again, forcing me to repeat the rebuttal. We get nowhere.

Recently I came across a study by some American academics, who estimated gun ownership over a number of states using surveys. They then related this gun ownership data to murder data, state by state, and found a very strong positive correlation. I was tempted to post the reference, but knew immediately that you would accuse the academics of being hoplophobes and deny the data. Pointless!

[cronus]

Yeah time for a body count

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

[klr]

Laklak

I do not recall the government of Afghanistan, or the government of Iraq asking the USA to invade. In other words, sorry, but you are wrong.

At the time, neither country had a government that was in any way representative or democratic, so that line of objection goes nowhere. It does not therefore mean that the USA was right, it just means that you cannot draw any inferences from pass any judgements, based on the lack of approval from the Afghan or Iraqi governments.

[Warren Dew]

it is important to weed those people out of the gene pool.

A racist AND a eugenicist. Who'd have thought?

Well, it would be the strange to be one and not the other, don't you think?

Not really. Personally, I'm in favor of voluntary eugenics on the part of parents deciding not to have kids who will have major genetic diseases - for example by using preimplantation genetic diagnosis when doing in vitro fertilization - but that's irrespective of race. I don't think the fact that I approve of an acquaintance who used this technique to avoid having a child with cystic fibrosis makes me a racist.

[JimC]

it is important to weed those people out of the gene pool.

A racist AND a eugenicist. Who'd have thought?

Well, it would be the strange to be one and not the other, don't you think?

Not really. Personally, I'm in favor of voluntary eugenics on the part of parents deciding not to have kids who will have major genetic diseases - for example by using preimplantation genetic diagnosis when doing in vitro fertilization - but that's irrespective of race. I don't think the fact that I approve of an acquaintance who used this technique to avoid having a child with cystic fibrosis makes me a racist.

I think Tyr meant the other way round...

[Gallstones]

[pErvinalia]

[Tero]

It doesn't work like that. Some place like Your-rope asks the US: could you bomb Libya or Egypt a bit? And the US says: not Egypt. Can we send you a bill? No!

[JimC]

"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose"

[Seth]

Laklak

I do not recall the government of Afghanistan, or the government of Iraq asking the USA to invade. In other words, sorry, but you are wrong.

There was no government in Afghanistan. The Taliban controlled large parts of the country and they refused to turn over Osama and they refused to expel and dismantle Al Quaeda and the terrorist training camps that trained hostile forces that attacked the US on September 11, 2001. Harboring and supporting terrorists is a belligerent act and the US acted after making diplomatic demands to take custody of those responsible for the 9/11 attack. That made the Taliban, which was not the legitimate or duly-elected government of Afghanistan, a legitimate enemy of the United States, which responded with force as allowed by the international rules of war.

So it's you that is wrong.

To Seth

National sovereignty does not excuse you from duties of international cooperation.

Yes it does when the "duty" purported to exist violates our Constitution or the rights of our citizens.

When the United Nations sets up an international agreement to guarantee human rights, there is a duty for its members to ratify, and thus strengthen international human rights.

Only if the agreement both strengthens international human rights and does not conflict with the rights of US citizens, which this particular agreement does, which is why it hasn't been ratified. Neither the US nor any other county is compelled to sign an "agreement" if it doesn't agree. That's why it's called an "agreement." Derp.

My country does that. Why not the USA?

Your country is full of socialist idiots is my guess. My country refuses to ratify agreements that infringe on the rights of its citizens. Why doesn't your cuntry?

On guns.
My problem with discussing this with you is that we end up repeating the same things over and over again. You make a point. I shoot it down in flames. Then a month or three later you make the same point again, forcing me to repeat the rebuttal. We get nowhere.

Well, if you weren't so obstinately and mendaciously wrong and utterly unwilling to apply reason or logic to the debate we wouldn't have that problem. But since you are, every time you spout some nonsense I'm going to refute it in detail.

Recently I came across a study by some American academics, who estimated gun ownership over a number of states using surveys. They then related this gun ownership data to murder data, state by state, and found a very strong positive correlation. I was tempted to post the reference, but knew immediately that you would accuse the academics of being hoplophobes and deny the data. Pointless!

Of course I would, because my guess it that it's a "study" with a pre-determined conclusion that manipulates the data to achieve the desired result, which happens to be the case with every single anti-gun "study" done in the last 50 years. Gun-haters will go to any lengths, including outright academic fraud, to forward their case. Unfortunately for them, and for you, the facts are amazingly simple: More guns, less crime.

Inconvenient for hoplophobes, but an undeniable fact nontheless.

[Seth]

Yeah time for a body count

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

...almost all of whom were killed by other Iraqis....

[JimC]

Yeah time for a body count

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

...almost all of whom were killed by other Iraqis....

Even if so, the important question is, would there have been more or less if the US had not invaded and deposed Saddam?

A moot point, and I wouldn't try to argue either way...

[Blind groper]

A piece of news just one day old. I could not resist this post. Please note, though. I am having a dig at the US administration. Not the American people.

The United Nations voted 188 to 2 to call for the end to the embargo against Cuba. Dissenting votes were the USA (surprise, surprise) and its sycophant, Israel. 98% of the world's nations want the embargo ended, and yet the US administration, in its arrogance, will not.

This embargo started in March 1958. That is, it has been going 55 years. It has achieved absolutely nothing except harm to the poor people of Cuba. It has kept their economic growth low and kept millions in poverty, totally unnecessarily. It has not changed a thing politically.

Surely, if America opposes communism, it should be to help people. Yet all they are doing is causing terrible harm, for exactly no practical reason. Is this civilised?

[JimC]

It is indeed vindictive, childish and uncivilised.

One can appreciate this rather obvious fact without being a fan of aspects of Cuban society...

(that should go without saying, but I expect a flood of US responses which will amount to nothing except criticisms of Cuba...)