The Curious Case of the Fall in Crime.

[Seth]

Piscator

Yes, England had slavery, but discarded the custom long before the USA did. In fact, slavery was common throughout the world at one stage. New Zealand, before the coming of Europeans did, indeed, have slavery, since the native Maori people frequently enslaved captives from other tribes. The rejection of slavery is one of the marks of increasing civilisation. Noteworthy that the USA took this step long after other western nations.

So? What does that have to do with the American Founders?

But my point was the hypocrisy of your founding fathers in claiming to stand for human rights including liberty when most of them owned slaves. Quoting 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' as some recommendation for the American way of doing things is total crap, since those who wrote those words did not mean a jot of it.

They damn sure did. They were the first to put it down on paper, then they risked their lives over it. Do you think the American Experiment in representative democracy and free enterprise was the common way things were done in the 18th century?
Jeezus. Maybe you'll learn about this shit when you get into high school?

I like to refer to BGs sort of fallacious argument as a "Wayback Machine Fallacy" which I defined as reaching back into history to find malfeasance which is then used to condemn someone or some culture in the present. It's really nothing more than a form of the Ad Hominem Tu Quoque fallacy.

This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.

The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.

[piscator]

Piscator

Yes, England had slavery, but discarded the custom long before the USA did. In fact, slavery was common throughout the world at one stage. New Zealand, before the coming of Europeans did, indeed, have slavery, since the native Maori people frequently enslaved captives from other tribes. The rejection of slavery is one of the marks of increasing civilisation. Noteworthy that the USA took this step long after other western nations.

So? What does that have to do with the American Founders?

But my point was the hypocrisy of your founding fathers in claiming to stand for human rights including liberty when most of them owned slaves. Quoting 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' as some recommendation for the American way of doing things is total crap, since those who wrote those words did not mean a jot of it.

They damn sure did. They were the first to put it down on paper, then they risked their lives over it. Do you think the American Experiment in representative democracy and free enterprise was the common way things were done in the 18th century?
Jeezus. Maybe you'll learn about this shit when you get into high school?

I like to refer to BGs sort of fallacious argument as a "Wayback Machine Fallacy" which I defined as reaching back into history to find malfeasance which is then used to condemn someone or some culture in the present. It's really nothing more than a form of the Ad Hominem Tu Quoque fallacy.

This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.

The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.

He's just drawing a circle around things he doesn't like to support a conclusion he's formed based on his a priori New Zealish nationalism/exceptionalism. Brits and Britoids often long for the good olde days when they ruled the waves and have, throughout their history, traditionally resented anyone who had more or better anything than them. Look at them and the French if you need another example...

BG is just another Commonwealthian with a wedge up his ass because America is now the Hegemon, casting about for valid excuses for why he feels that way. Truth is, he's just being an old sod in a world that's grown up.

[Blind groper]

Actually, Seth, my comments about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" were in response to your earlier remark quoting that phrase as evidence of the superiority of the American political system. I am not using it to denounce the current system, just your stupid utterances.

[Seth]

Actually, Seth, my comments about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" were in response to your earlier remark quoting that phrase as evidence of the superiority of the American political system. I am not using it to denounce the current system, just your stupid utterances.

It's not my "stupid utterance," it's a direct quote from the Declaration of Independence. And America is superior, which is why it's the world's number one superpower and economic engine. It's why we build fences and put out guards to keep people OUT, because so many of them want to come here and have a chance at the American dream.

New Zealand's nice place I hear, but it's quite literally a backwater in the middle of the ocean that nobody really cares about, which is why it's not under pressure from it's competitors and enemies. It's insignificant in the world political game, which makes it safe and comfortable in it's obscurity and isolation. You don't have to face borders with drug cartels and Marxist revolutionaries and Islamic terrorists on the other side trying to figure out how to kill you like both Europe, Asia and the Americas do. You don't have to play the dangerous game of international geopolitics where making a mistake means people dying, perhaps by the billions.

You can sit there in splendid (and it is splendid) isolation and be passed by and therefore not have to worry about the things that make being a world superpower quite difficult.

So until NZ spends as much as the US does supporting, protecting and defending OTHER NATIONS, much less our own country, I can confidently assert American exceptionalism all I like and be perfectly correct.

[Clinton Huxley]

Good old New Zealand - Blighty had more support from NZ than from anyone else in the Commonwealth (or the EU) during the Falklands Kerfuffle and we will be expecting at least a Corp from the Kiwis should Gibraltar kick off

[Blind groper]

Thanks, Clinton.

To Seth.

Yes, New Zealand is small and isolated, and that is the way we like it. When you are small, you cannot become arrogant.

And no, the USA is not some kind of protector of other nations. Apart from a few countries making $$$$ out of the USA, frankly we would all much prefer you kept your nose out of our affairs and left us alone. We would all be much better off.

[Seth]

Thanks, Clinton.

To Seth.

Yes, New Zealand is small and isolated, and that is the way we like it. When you are small, you cannot become arrogant.

And therefore your opinion on the complexities, difficulties and proper policies of running a nation of 300 million people is of limited applicability and utility, is it not?

And no, the USA is not some kind of protector of other nations.

Um...all of Europe ought to disagree with you, given the trillions of dollars and decades of work donated by the people of the United States to keep the Soviets from making all of them speak Russian and/or German.

Apart from a few countries making $$$$ out of the USA, frankly we would all much prefer you kept your nose out of our affairs and left us alone. We would all be much better off.

Actually I completely agree with you. I'd like it if we withdrew our military from the rest of the planet and told every ingrate deadbeat nation we've ever helped that we're going to sit the next one out and they can fight their own fights and feed (or not feed) their own people from now on.

From your mouth to Obama's ears....

But that doesn't change the fact that the US is and has been the free world's policeman and military defender for more than 60 years.

[Blind groper]

Seth
The USA has been more the global version of Al Capone than police. It blundered into Viet Nam, and left the nation in tatters after killing 2 million people. Ditto Iraq. Right now, it has stirred up a hornet's nest in Afghanistan, and is preparing to walk out leaving that nation poised for civil war. It went into Somalia with good intentions, and ran out with its tail between its legs, and a lot more damage and dead bodies than if it had never entered.

World police is a joke. World mafia, yes.

[Seth]

Seth
The USA has been more the global version of Al Capone than police. It blundered into Viet Nam, and left the nation in tatters after killing 2 million people.

Which "2 million people" precisely? I think you mean that the Viet Cong and Chinese killed two million South Vietnamese citizens AFTER the US left the theater, which they would have done anyway even if nobody opposed their invasion of a sovereign nation simply because they were Communists who believe that no life is important, only the will of the Marxist elite is important and anyone that disagrees must be liquidated, just like Pol Pot did.

Ditto Iraq.

Horseshit. The vast majority of collateral casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan were killed by Iraqis and Afghans, not US troops.

Right now, it has stirred up a hornet's nest in Afghanistan, and is preparing to walk out leaving that nation poised for civil war.

And whose decision was that? That fucking lying sack of shit Barack Obama's that's who.

It went into Somalia with good intentions, and ran out with its tail between its legs, and a lot more damage and dead bodies than if it had never entered.

And whose fault was that? That fucking lying sack of shit William Jefferson Clinton's, that's who.

World police is a joke. World mafia, yes.

Whatever. Just don't ask for help if somebody decides to fuck you up down there on your pissant little history-of-slavery and oppression filled speck in the ocean.

[Blind groper]

Seth

Viet Nam was a disaster. The American intervention involved a war in which 50,000 Americans died, and 2 million Vietnamese died. Not after the war, but during.

In Iraq we do not know exactly how many died. The American military quote a little over 100,000, but they are limited by the bodies they counted. Most people who died (yes, mainly at the hands of fellow Iraqis, but this was not happening till the USA blundered in) were buried quickly by their families, as is Islam custom, and were never seen by the US military. Various independent researchers carried out surveys to try to estimate the number who died, and the results vary between 1 and 3 million. The thing is that those people would still be alive if the USA had not intervened. Saddam Hussein was an evil bastard, but he had the country under control, and people were not dying until the US stuck its unwelcome nose in.

[Seth]

Seth

Viet Nam was a disaster.

Yes, it was.

The American intervention involved a war in which 50,000 Americans died, and 2 million Vietnamese died. Not after the war, but during.

The American intervention was made at the explicit request of the South Vietnamese government, and we responded in order to try to limit the spread of Communism and the enslavement of the people of South Vietnam, who didn't want to be Communists. The problem was not the motivations for the war, they were perfectly valid exercises of international geopolitical self-interest. The problem was that the fucking Communists in the United States government refused to unleash the dogs of war and refused to let our military do what military's are supposed to do, which is to defeat the enemy in as short a time and with as little loss to our own troops as possible.

In Iraq we do not know exactly how many died.

And why is that? Because almost all of the civilians who died were killed by other Iraqis.

The American military quote a little over 100,000, but they are limited by the bodies they counted. Most people who died (yes, mainly at the hands of fellow Iraqis, but this was not happening till the USA blundered in)

The FUCK it wasn't. Saddam killed as many as 250,000 of his OWN people in the years leading up to his invasion of Kuwait. He nerve-gassed the Kurds, his sons abducted, raped and murdered countless little girls and boys. His regime was a bloody abattoir from the beginning and it got much worse after his invasion of Kuwait and his defeat in the first Gulf War. In those 12 years he was having his cock sucked by the UN and US he exterminated hordes of people, and that was on top of the millions killed in his war with Iran. Shiites have been killing Sunnis and Sunnis have been killing Shiites since shortly after that fuckwit Mohammad started his fuckwittery in 610 AD.

were buried quickly by their families, as is Islam custom, and were never seen by the US military. Various independent researchers carried out surveys to try to estimate the number who died, and the results vary between 1 and 3 million.

Sucks to be a Muslim doesn't it?

The thing is that those people would still be alive if the USA had not intervened. Saddam Hussein was an evil bastard, but he had the country under control, and people were not dying until the US stuck its unwelcome nose in.

Complete, utter, revisionist, ignorant bullshit.

Saddam killed more than 250,000 Kurds in the 1980's, with WMDs, long before the US responded to his belligerent invasion of Kuwait.

Go read some fucking Middle East history sometime.

[Blind groper]

Seth

As I said in my previous post (which you conveniently overlooked), Sadddam Hussein was a nasty bastard. He was responsible for many thousands of deaths of his fellow countrymen.

But, and this is important, for every death under Hussein, in the 25 odd years of his reign, there were at least ten deaths in the few short years the USA intervened.

Hussein was a butcher. The USA was a super-butcher, killing many times the number of people Hussein was responsible for. Compared to American influence, Saddam was a piker, killing very few. The US invasion was the biggest killer, by far.

Sadly, this has not ended. The withdrawal of the USA has not stopped the killings, and the nefarious and lethal influence of America persists to this day, making Iraq a lethal place to live.

[Seth]

Seth

As I said in my previous post (which you conveniently overlooked), Sadddam Hussein was a nasty bastard. He was responsible for many thousands of deaths of his fellow countrymen.

Try hundreds of thousands.

But, and this is important, for every death under Hussein, in the 25 odd years of his reign, there were at least ten deaths in the few short years the USA intervened.

So what? They were mostly killed by other Iraqis in sectarian violence and terrorist attacks. There is no causal link to the US presence.

Hussein was a butcher. The USA was a super-butcher, killing many times the number of people Hussein was responsible for.

Lie.

Compared to American influence, Saddam was a piker, killing very few. The US invasion was the biggest killer, by far.

Lie.

Sadly, this has not ended. The withdrawal of the USA has not stopped the killings, and the nefarious and lethal influence of America persists to this day, making Iraq a lethal place to live.

Which is proof that the US is not responsible for Muslims killing Muslims and Muslims killing other people in Iraq.

We "invaded" Iraq because Saddam invaded Kuwait, an ally of ours with whom we had a defense treaty. Then we "invaded" Iraq again after 12 years of fuckwittery by Saddam and 14 violations of UN sanctions because it was necessary to do so before he developed the nuclear, biological and chemical warfare weapons of mass destruction that Saddam deliberately and calculatedly PRETENDED he was making precisely in order to look like the big man on campus. He did a great job of convincing EVERYONE in the Coalition that he actually had WMDs and was developing nukes and biowar weapons, and we know for a fact that he DID have Sarin-filled artillery shells by the thousands, because he used them on the Kurds in the 1980s. The remnant of that supply of Sarin weaponry was moved to Syria just before the 2nd invasion under the guise of "earthquake relief" to Syria, which is why none were found by Coalition troops.

The fact that he lied about his WMD programs and went to great trouble and expense to make it LOOK LIKE he was doing what he was accused of doing doesn't make the restoration of hostilities necessitated by his constant violation of the cease-fire agreement improper or anything but fully legitimate.

Iraq was a lethal place to live long before the US went in, and it will remain a lethal place to live as long as there are Muslim fanatics killing other Muslim fanatics and wrestling for political control. And you know what? I don't give a flying fuck about Iraq or what happens to the people there. I hope they ALL kill each other off and leave the country vacant for some civilized culture to make use of.

[Blind groper]

Seth

As I pointed out, Saddm was in charge for 25 years and he killed lots of people. By the USA was in charge for just a few years, and the number killed over that short time was roughly ten times the numbers killed by Saddam.

Yes, most were killed by fellow Iraqis, but the point is that this level of killing did not happen until the USA moved in. The American impact was indirect, but every bit as powerful and murderous as if it was American bullets.

And no. You did not invade to save Kuwait. The regime of Bush senior took military action for that reason, but stopped short of invasion. When they achieved the objective of 'liberating' Kuwait, they stopped.

The "real" Iraq war was at the instigation of Dubya - George W. Bush the maniac. There was no justification for that invasion, except a lean and false claim of weapons of mass destruction. The main Iraq war was totally unjustified, and resulted albeit indirectly, in the deaths of somewhere between 1 and 3 million Iraqis. The makes George Dubya Bush one of the worst mass murderers in history.

The USA was not exactly crowned in glory.

[Seth]

Seth

As I pointed out, Saddm was in charge for 25 years and he killed lots of people. By the USA was in charge for just a few years, and the number killed over that short time was roughly ten times the numbers killed by Saddam.

Nice pettifoggery there. The US was never "in charge" of Iraq, and those who were killed were killed by their own countrymen. Not our problem I'm afraid. It's up to Iraqis to sort out who's in charge and to decide to live together in peace. Our job is just to keep them from being a pestilence on the rest of the planet.

Yes, most were killed by fellow Iraqis, but the point is that this level of killing did not happen until the USA moved in. The American impact was indirect, but every bit as powerful and murderous as if it was American bullets.

America "moved in" because Saddam invaded Kuwait.

And no. You did not invade to save Kuwait. The regime of Bush senior took military action for that reason, but stopped short of invasion. When they achieved the objective of 'liberating' Kuwait, they stopped.

Yup. That was a major military blunder.

The "real" Iraq war was at the instigation of Dubya - George W. Bush the maniac. There was no justification for that invasion, except a lean and false claim of weapons of mass destruction.

That every political and intelligence operative in the Coalition believed to be true based on credible evidence that turned out to have been manufactured by Saddam himself in order to convince everyone that he was developing nukes and other WMD's. Not a good idea to be that kind of poseur.

The main Iraq war was totally unjustified,

The "main Iraq war" was totally justified and should have been undertaken the FIRST time Saddam disobeyed a UN resolution and obstructed UN WMD inspectors. We gave him 12 years and 14 chances to comply. We waited far too long to take him out.

and resulted albeit indirectly, in the deaths of somewhere between 1 and 3 million Iraqis.

Murdered by other Iraqis.

The makes George Dubya Bush one of the worst mass murderers in history.

Mindless horseshit.

The USA was not exactly crowned in glory.

We disagree. Fortunately we have the military might so we don't give a flying fuck what a bunch of isolated island twits think about it.