Romney

[Thumpalumpacus]

Your preference is just as arbitrary, and is based on your existing bias.

I can understand why you would think that. However, the factual base for my comments remains correct and accurate.

[Blind groper]

Thumpa

If you find an error in my data, feel free to post.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Why should I? You'll wave away anything I say if it doesn't agree with your bias.

[Blind groper]

Thumpa

With all due respect, you are the one who has distorted the data. Like trying to tell me that Europe had a higher homicide rate than the US, when only Estonia and Russia had that high rate.

Like trying to tell me that homicide rates cannot be nailed down because of purely subjective legal distinctions between first degree, second degree, and manslaughter. The organisations who compile homicide statistics, comparing countries, certainly disagree with you on that.

Your statements about America having low violent crime rates are something I have not been able to confirm and I am forced to treat them with a massive pinch of salt.

Do not talk to me of 'waving away' things you say when you actively distort good data which does not suit your bias.

[MrJonno]

Measuring 'violent crime' rates is impossible (I would certainly consider pointing a gun at someone to be at the same level as breaking their nose), even measuring rape is not easy measuring corpses is a relatively easy way of comparing crime rates

[Seabass]

"Freely attacks other nations"? You say that as though the U.S. goes around invading countries willy-nilly without provocation or reason. Don't be ridiculous.

That sounds like a semantics argument based the meaning of the words 'freely attacks'. However, the USA has shown little restraint when it comes to interfering with the affairs of other nations.

I agree that the US has adopted that role only since WWII. However, it has adopted it too enthusiastically. And not at the urging of other nations. List all the overseas military adventures. Korea. Cuba. Viet Nam. Laos. Cambodia. Nicaragua. El Salvadore. Grenada. Panama. Iraq. Somalia. Kosovo. Afghanistan.

This list is just the major events. A much longer list of military interventions in other peoples homelands is found on : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_o ... ions#1950s

Of the list above, the only ones justified by the sanction of United Nations and other nations are Korea and Kosovo.

It isn't perfect--far from it in fact--but it's a considerable improvement over the old way, isn't it? I mean do you really expect humanity to suddenly become perfectly peaceful after millenia of perpetual warfare?

It is far from perfect. It is way, way worse than any other nation since WWII, including the Soviet Union. Except for the US, worldwide violence as a whole is dropping drastically. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk

Yet the USA is not playing its part in lowering the violence. It is perhaps the greatest force in the world today for continuing violence in war.

As I pointed out earlier, I am not saying the USA is all bad. It has made some excellent contributions to the world. But this discussion has evolved towards a discussion of the bad things, and the efforts by its defenders to rationalise their way round those bad behaviours.

I've already addressed most of this:

I'm not a fan of muscular foreign policy either, but such is the nature of power, unfortunately. It is an unpleasant side effect of having a huge population, a huge economy, and a history of being dragged into world wars by other nations. Recall, the U.S. was not a superpower until after WWII. It even disarmed almost completely after the first world war, and then had to rearm again when the Axis decided to drag the world into yet another global conflict. It was only after the second world war that the standing army took. It's not like the U.S. just decided to become a superpower for the fuck of it. Fact is, it was dragged kicking and screaming into superpowerdom by those enlightened, peaceful Europeans. And now we're the bad guys. Give me a fucking break.

The U.S. isn't the world's first superpower by the way, and it won't be the last. It is, however, the most peaceful and benevolent superpower to date, without a doubt. Better a democratic superpower than a dictatorship like all those which came previously. When the empires of yore would wage war, they would raze the villages, slaughter the men, rape the women, sell the kids into slavery. At least the U.S. makes an effort to minimize civilian casualties and leave an intact, fledgling democratic government in place when it leaves. It isn't perfect--far from it in fact--but it's a considerable improvement over the old way, isn't it? I mean do you really expect humanity to suddenly become perfectly peaceful after millenia of perpetual warfare? That's naive. Progress takes time; it doesn't happen over night. Believe me, I'd rather do without the wars too, but I try to have realistic expectations, and I try to know a little history and context.

I am not rationalizing, I am being rational. A rational person expects human violence to taper, rather than cease abruptly. The world has always had superpowers, and it will probably always have superpowers, at least into the foreseeable future. Thankfully, empires are becoming less violent and imperialistic with time, but it's a slow process that won't happen overnight. If you actually believe humanity is ready right now for peace on earth, except for those violent, bloodthirsty Americans, then you are naive and idealistic in the extreme. If the U.S. hadn't stepped into the superpower role, surely some other country, potentially far worse would have. Remember what happened the last time the U.S. was isolationist? The Germans tried their hand at imperialism, and seventy million people died in a world war.

Yes, world violence is dropping drastically, and the U.S. is a part of that drop. It's a bit unfair to compare U.S. foreign policy to that of say, New Zealand, population four million. It would be more appropriate to compare its behavior to former British, French, Spanish, Soviet, Roman, Mongolian, etc, empires. In that light, the U.S. comes out pretty favorably. Its wars, generally speaking, are relatively minor by comparison, most of them involve coalitions of democratic allies, and they are usually prosecuted in a more ethical manner with an emphasis on minimization of civilian casualties and post-war stability.

I agree that the US has adopted that role only since WWII. However, it has adopted it too enthusiastically. And not at the urging of other nations.

No the other nations didn't ask for it, they only dragged the U.S. kicking and screaming into superpower status by starting two fucking World Wars, as I stated earlier.


Lastly, if you actually believe the U.S. is worse than the fucking U.S.S.R., then frankly, you're nuts, and there is really no common ground on which we can have a rational discussion. I suppose you'll break out the Chomsky youtube videos next...

[Blind groper]

If you actually believe humanity is ready right now for peace on earth, except for those violent, bloodthirsty Americans, then you are naive and idealistic in the extreme.

That is not what I said.
If you check my earlier post, you will note that I pointed out that I had no problem with Americans, who are merely human. My problem is with the American system, and with the American administration. As for being ready for peace on Earth - well, that is the trend. Currently, the only wars are minor 'brush wars' (basically civil wars) and those in which the USA is involved. The percentage of the male population which, in any one generation, dies in war, has been dropping for a very long time, as professor Stephen Pinker pointed out in my earlier reference. Without those wars started by the US government, the numbers would drop a lot further.

I have no problem with the USA going to war to help another country, but only if it is the mandate of the United Nations. When the US makes a unilateral decision to invade someone else's country, without the support of the rest of the civilised world, then the US is in the wrong.

if you actually believe the U.S. is worse than the fucking U.S.S.R., then frankly, you're nuts

That is quantifiable by the simple expedient of counting the number of overseas military adventures each has been involved in. Since WWII, the US wins hands down.

[PsychoSerenity]

"Freely attacks other nations"? You say that as though the U.S. goes around invading countries willy-nilly without provocation or reason. Don't be ridiculous.

That sounds like a semantics argument based the meaning of the words 'freely attacks'. However, the USA has shown little restraint when it comes to interfering with the affairs of other nations.

It sounded like sarcasm to me, - was it not?

[Blind groper]

Measuring 'violent crime' rates is impossible (I would certainly consider pointing a gun at someone to be at the same level as breaking their nose), even measuring rape is not easy measuring corpses is a relatively easy way of comparing crime rates

It is nice to see someone exhibiting some genuine wisdom.
Congratulation, Mr. Jonno. I genuinely appreciate sound and rational comments like yours.

I tried to find some objective and empirical data on violent crime rates, country by country. What I got was Wiki, which said : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime

"The comparison of violent crime statistics between countries is usually problematic, due to the way different countries classify crime.[2] Valid comparisons require that similar offences between jurisdictions be compared. Often this is not possible because crime statistics aggregate equivalent offences in such different ways that make it difficult or impossible to obtain a valid comparison."

And no comparative statistics.

[Warren Dew]

Text of Romney's speech last night, for those who are interested:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/04/2 ... of-speech/

[Coito ergo sum]

If you want to compare the six or eight lowest homicide, tiny blips of countries, with the 330,000,000 strong, immensely varied, United States, then you're making an inappropriate comparison. The tiny country of Denmark, for example, cannot be considered a fair comparison to the huge nation of 50 separate states, most of which are bigger in size and/or population than Denmark.

I had a look at the Wiki list of homicide rates. The only European countries with a higher homicide rate than the USA were Russia and Estonia. Estonia would have nearly zero effect on the overall European average, which makes Russia the force that skews the average.

So I do not have to pick the 'six or eight lowest homicide'. I just need to pick Europe as a whole excluding Russia.

If you think Russia is the comparison you want to make, and take pride in saying America has fewer murders than Russia, then go ahead. That is like me taking pride in the fact that I am smarter than a Down's Syndrome person.

I haven't taken pride in anything, unless you want to also suggest that you have taken pride in having a far higher violent crime rate (unless you exclude a single racial group).

[Warren Dew]

I haven't taken pride in anything, unless you want to also suggest that you have taken pride in having a far higher violent crime rate (unless you exclude a single racial group).

Indeed. If we're allowed to be racist, then we can claim the U.S. murder rate is 7 times lower - below that of New Zealand and most other nations with strong gun laws - by excluding that race Tyrannical doesn't care for.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm

[Seabass]

If you actually believe humanity is ready right now for peace on earth, except for those violent, bloodthirsty Americans, then you are naive and idealistic in the extreme.

That is not what I said.
If you check my earlier post, you will note that I pointed out that I had no problem with Americans, who are merely human. My problem is with the American system, and with the American administration. As for being ready for peace on Earth - well, that is the trend.

Yes, and that trend looks like a slope, not a steep drop-off.

Currently, the only wars are minor 'brush wars' (basically civil wars) and those in which the USA is involved. The percentage of the male population which, in any one generation, dies in war, has been dropping for a very long time, as professor Stephen Pinker pointed out in my earlier reference. Without those wars started by the US government, the numbers would drop a lot further.

I have no problem with the USA going to war to help another country, but only if it is the mandate of the United Nations. When the US makes a unilateral decision to invade someone else's country, without the support of the rest of the civilised world, then the US is in the wrong.

if you actually believe the U.S. is worse than the fucking U.S.S.R., then frankly, you're nuts

That is quantifiable by the simple expedient of counting the number of overseas military adventures each has been involved in. Since WWII, the US wins hands down.

Well, you've chosen a very simplistic metric. Which is fine if your purpose is to malign and vilify one side. But most people would not equate Iran/contra or the backing of a coup with, for example, the famine genocide of six million Ukrainians.

[Seabass]

Measuring 'violent crime' rates is impossible (I would certainly consider pointing a gun at someone to be at the same level as breaking their nose), even measuring rape is not easy measuring corpses is a relatively easy way of comparing crime rates

It is nice to see someone exhibiting some genuine wisdom.
Congratulation, Mr. Jonno. I genuinely appreciate sound and rational comments like yours.

I tried to find some objective and empirical data on violent crime rates, country by country. What I got was Wiki, which said : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime

"The comparison of violent crime statistics between countries is usually problematic, due to the way different countries classify crime.[2] Valid comparisons require that similar offences between jurisdictions be compared. Often this is not possible because crime statistics aggregate equivalent offences in such different ways that make it difficult or impossible to obtain a valid comparison."

And no comparative statistics.

"Wisdom" does not mean "agrees with me".

[Thumpalumpacus]

Thumpa

With all due respect, you are the one who has distorted the data. Like trying to tell me that Europe had a higher homicide rate than the US, when only Estonia and Russia had that high rate.

Except that I didn't say that. I think you have me confused with someone else. Link where I said that, please, or retract ... assuming you've any integrity to admit error of any sort.

Like trying to tell me that homicide rates cannot be nailed down because of purely subjective legal distinctions between first degree, second degree, and manslaughter. The organisations who compile homicide statistics, comparing countries, certainly disagree with you on that.

Cite this source of yours, please. Your demonstrated ignorance on legal definitions renders any claim of yours suspect.

Your statements about America having low violent crime rates are something I have not been able to confirm and I am forced to treat them with a massive pinch of salt.

I'm forced to assume that you cannot master the art of clicking on a link.

Do not talk to me of 'waving away' things you say when you actively distort good data which does not suit your bias.

You tossing about "bias" is like Stalin whining about rights.

eta: On second thought, don't bother. You're a waste of my time. I've better things to do. Go wallow in your ignorance; I'm done here.