|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sundubuman
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: seoul
|
 Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 7:09 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
| Quote: |
He should have stated unequivocally that takeing American embassy staff hostage was an act of war, and that if they weren't released within 72 hours that the US would declare war and drop a nuclear bomb on Tehran and destroy Iran.
That's what he SHOULD have done. |
Thank you for stating so truthfully and pointedly why the rest of the world doesn't think highly of America (the righteous) and why it is so similiar to Iran. I am sure your thinking , bigoted and erroneous, is the thinking of the vast majority of beer swilling, freedom loving, belching and credit card slaveholding Americans.
Couldn't have said it better. God help us. Go out and watch another Fighting club video -- oh no, you guys prefer to stay at home where the food bucket is close at hand.
DD
DD |
Oh....so you believe that diplomatic staff being held captive by a revolutionary movement is NOT an ACT OF WAR?
If Carter had done what I would have done, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.
And how is my thinking "bigoted"???? If any bunch of uncivilized assholes were to take hostages of civilian diplomatic workers, I'd say smite their asses, regardless of creed or color. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sundubuman
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: seoul
|
| Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
but I guess that folks like you, who can twist their moral comapass any which way in order to achieve a certain "understanding" of things, see the taking of hundreds of hostages as fair game.
I say kill the hostage takers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sundubuman
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: seoul
|
| Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 7:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| and "slaveholding americans"???? wtf? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| There's no point in trying to make sense of ddeubel any more than there is in trying to make sense of igotthisguitar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I do. Especially since if you walk around Tehran you will see enough one legged, no legged guys begging to make the point clear. U.S. arms and military assistance in the iraqi war is what I mean. It would be more than enough to confirm the U.S. as the "great Satan", if I had a kid forced to go to battle against an enemy supported and abetted by the pocket book and profit (military) mongering of the U. S. of A. Anyone got a good photo of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand to flash????? Oh found one... |
Saw the picture
did you ever see this picture?
The US gave arms to Iraq? Show what you got. Show the US gave weapons.
By the way France Germany and Russia gave far more stuff to Iraq than the US ever did.
Khomeni was at the US well before the US gave any help to Iraq. You got your dates wrong. and indeed Khomeni was trying to spread his revolution well before the US gave anything to Saddam.
It was Khomenis goal to conquer the mideast. That was not because the US helped the Shah come back to power in 1953. And the US helping the Shah doesn't justify Iran's actions in the 1980's and the 1990's or now.
| Quote: |
More later.......Joo, keep whipping up the war rhetoric!!!! Yeah, Al Qaeda is an "offensive" movement but also don't make it into anything but some wackos shouting out. Islam is not made of this stuff, unless it is reacting with a hardon to U. S. actions which totally disregard the integrity of other cultures to run their own affairs and make and think in their own way... |
Oh it is war rhertoric to say that Al Qaeda is an offensive movement. and of course one should never post any thing that shows that Iran has attacked the US.
The problem is not Islam. You are right. The problem is facism. Bathists , Khomeni followers and Bin Laden followers are all fascist bigots.
They are responding to what exactly?
Khomeni wanted to conquer the mideast (and more) . Saddam wanted to conquer the mideast (and become a mideast superpower that would break the west) . Al Qaeda wants to conquer the mideast and they want the Caliphate.
They want the US out of the way cause they can not acheive their goal until US is out of the way.
ddeubel you are such an apologist for everyone out there who has it in for the US.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Sat May 13, 2006 4:50 pm; edited 6 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
ddeubel wrote:
Quote:
He should have stated unequivocally that takeing American embassy staff hostage was an act of war, and that if they weren't released within 72 hours that the US would declare war and drop a nuclear bomb on Tehran and destroy Iran.
That's what he SHOULD have done.
Thank you for stating so truthfully and pointedly why the rest of the world doesn't think highly of America (the righteous) and why it is so similiar to Iran. I am sure your thinking , bigoted and erroneous, is the thinking of the vast majority of beer swilling, freedom loving, belching and credit card slaveholding Americans.
Couldn't have said it better. God help us. Go out and watch another Fighting club video -- oh no, you guys prefer to stay at home where the food bucket is close at hand.
DD
DD
Oh....so you believe that diplomatic staff being held captive by a revolutionary movement is NOT an ACT OF WAR?
If Carter had done what I would have done, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.
And how is my thinking "bigoted"???? If any bunch of uncivilized assholes were to take hostages of civilian diplomatic |
workers, I'd say smite their asses, regardless of creed or color. |
Sorry to say but Nuking a country because of hostage taking is just plain idiotic. And for you as a person, to contemplate taking the lives of hundreds of thousands without a moral gulp -- is bigoted. You have the Dirty Harry, big bravado, smashem dead attitude that is inculcated into so many Americans , especially so many who go through the military factory and get a military paycheck (in one way or another). Go watch your bloody WWF or what's that other called -- free for all fighting??? , keep it there but NUKING a country is not something that should even come to mind....................The U.S. also has many hostages at present, Guantanamo is full of innocents (and guilty , true....).
I'm scared for America, so full of guns, armnaments, so full of prisons bursting with criminals, so full of crime and murder, so full of violence, murder, .......take a look at your "home" before gazing out the window into other worlds....
My response to your immorality was totally justified....
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The U.S. also has many hostages at present, Guantanamo is full of innocents (and guilty , true....). |
Guantanamo is full of innocents? The US is full of hostages? 
| Quote: |
| I'm scared for America, so full of guns, armnaments, so full of prisons bursting with criminals, so full of crime and murder, so full of violence, murder, .......take a look at your "home" before gazing out the window into other worlds.... |
US has one of the better human rights records on the planet. The US is one of the more tolerant places on the Planet. You can not say that about the enemies of the US.
| Quote: |
| Behind Algeria, on a score of 110.55, come North Korea, Burma, Indonesia, Libya, Colombia, Syria, Iraq, Yugoslavia and China. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan and Nigeria follow closely. The United Kingdom comes 141st; a good score on a global basis but not so admirable when compared with other rich, industrialised countries - we are seventh out of 23. |
| Quote: |
It scores 10 out of 10 on denial of majority rights because of gassing the Kurds.
A country with a wretched record of human rights abuse could score a maximum total of 190. Saddam Hussein's Iraq proves the winner of the unmodified list - which measures human rights abuses outside of their economic context - with an unadjusted score of 155. |
By the way ddeubel- Khomeni followers , Bin Laden lovers and the Bathists don't have right to their war. Were they to give up their war there would be no problem.
Libya 's Khaddaffy gave up his war for the most part anyway and now no one bothers him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
he US gave arms to Iraq? Show what you got. Show the US gave weapons.
By the way France Germany and Russia gave far more stuff to Iraq than the US ever did.
Khomeni was at the US well before the US gave any help to Iraq. You got your dates wrong.
It was Khomenis goal to conquer the mideast. That was not because the US helped the Shah come back to power in 1953. And the US helping the Shah doesn't justify Iran's actions in the 1980's and the 1990's or now. |
Joo, you must have one of those funny B.A.s Barely Articulate.........the Forrest Gump of geopolitics. You have no sense of history, nor have read anything but the bare minimum (and not even your ABCs are in order.).
I will stop replying, educating you. I hereby declare. Just a waste of time, you aren't putting much effort into it.
But to wit -- Please read the National Security Archive's own reading of internal Government documents (I commend Gopher on his past appraisal of the NSA but for other reasons....they do a great job of bringing the covert world of the U.S. Military complex and govt to the table BUT as they themselves say -- they are thwarted by a government which destroys massive amounts of the public record and which fights tooth and nail through the courts to keep everything which should be public, off the table. ) http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
All the documents are there and you can get re-educated yourself.
Also most disconcerting is how A) so many U.S. manufacturers are based outside the U.S. and can thus, skirt U.S. law and supply countries such as Iraq with military hardware. [in the case of Iraq, they received massive secret amounts of loans/dollars, loan guarantees, cheap grain etc.... B) that despite the knowledge of chemical weapons use, the US, Reagan signing off on it, continued to support Saddam. Even with full knowledge he harboured one of the world's worst terrorists. Even taking Iraq off their terrorist list (true , Iraq expeled Abu Nidal but continued as a refuge for others...
Iraq, Iran both benefited from U. S. arms. Particularly ironic that many came through Israel, another way the U.S. can contravene domestic guidelines.....(and Israel can profit too). Point is, arms have no allegiances......
Also read this Washington Post article -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29
describes past U.S. support of Saddam. Hand in the cookie jar, NO, hand on a murderous knife.
In particular, pasted below, the affadavit of Howard Teicher, a high ranking national security official.........
The US. helped Iraq gain chemical weapons, fed them weapons through front companies (Chile, Italy, S. Korea etc...), ignored atrocities and brought them into the diplomatic community. Introduced Iraqi officials to international arms merchants (for example the infamous Iraqi, Hamdoon). Please read and educate YOURSELF.
| Quote: |
According to a sworn court affidavit prepared by Teicher in 1995, the United States "actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq had the military weaponry required." Teicher said in the affidavit that former CIA director William Casey used a Chilean company, Cardoen, to supply Iraq with cluster bombs that could be used to disrupt the Iranian human wave attacks. Teicher refuses to discuss the affidavit.
At the same time the Reagan administration was facilitating the supply of weapons and military components to Baghdad, it was attempting to cut off supplies to Iran under "Operation Staunch." Those efforts were largely successful, despite the glaring anomaly of the 1986 Iran-contra scandal when the White House publicly admitted trading arms for hostages, in violation of the policy that the United States was trying to impose on the rest of the world.
Although U.S. arms manufacturers were not as deeply involved as German or British companies in selling weaponry to Iraq, the Reagan administration effectively turned a blind eye to the export of "dual use" items such as chemical precursors and steel tubes that can have military and civilian applications. According to several former officials, the State and Commerce departments promoted trade in such items as a way to boost U.S. exports and acquire political leverage over Hussein.
When United Nations weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, they compiled long lists of chemicals, missile components, and computers from American suppliers, including such household names as Union Carbide and Honeywell, which were being used for military purposes.
A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare. |
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
happeningthang
Joined: 26 Apr 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
By the way ddeubel- Khomeni followers , Bin Laden lovers and the Bathists don't have right to their war. Were they to give up their war there would be no problem.
Libya 's Khaddaffy gave up his war for the most part anyway and now no one bothers him. |
So it's a matter of the right to war?? How does that work? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
US has one of the better human rights records on the planet. The US is one of the more tolerant places on the Planet. You can not say that about the enemies of the US.
Quote:
Behind Algeria, on a score of 110.55, come North Korea, Burma, Indonesia, Libya, Colombia, Syria, Iraq, Yugoslavia and China. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan and Nigeria follow closely. The United Kingdom comes 141st; a good score on a global basis but not so admirable when compared with other rich, industrialised countries - we are seventh out of 23.
Quote:
It scores 10 out of 10 on denial of majority rights because of gassing the Kurds.
A country with a wretched record of human rights abuse could score a maximum total of 190. Saddam Hussein's Iraq proves the winner of the unmodified list - which measures human rights abuses outside of their economic context - with an unadjusted score of 155. |
My last post in reply to you JOO. If ignorance is bliss, you got it made....
Please read these 1991 figures from the UN Human freedom index. Enlightening when you put the U.S. next to most of the rest of the developed world........crimes, handguns, abortions, domestic violence etc......not to mention the stupifying environment figures regarding pollution, forest destruction etc....
| Quote: |
THE U.N. HUMAN FREEDOM INDEX
This is a devastating statistic for those who believe that America's greater commitment to individualism translates into greater individual freedom. In reality, the social democracies of Northern Europe are the freest societies in the world.
The United Nation's Human Freedom Index compares the amount of freedom that citizens of different countries enjoy. It considers the right to travel, assemble, and speak; the absence of forced labor, torture and other extreme legal punishment (such as the death penalty); freedom of political opposition, the press and trade unions; an independent judiciary; gender equality; and the legal right to trial, counsel of choice, privacy, religion and sexual practice. |
Found at http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm#Back87
Here is a taste --
| Quote: |
Annual reports of police brutality (per 100,000 people)
United States 92.5
United Kingdom 6.0
France 0.7
Prisoners (per 1,000 people):
United States 4.2
United Kingdom 1.0
Germany 0.8
Denmark 0.7
Sweden 0.6
Japan 0.4
Netherlands 0.4
Death row inmates:
United States 2,124
Japan 38
Europe and Canada 0
Percent of households with a handgun:
United States 29%
Finland 7
Germany 7
Canada 5
Norway 4
Europe 4
Netherlands 2
United Kingdom 1
Looking at the above statistics, one would think that Europe is soft on crime, while the U.S. approach to law and order is based on no-nonsense deterrence. In reality, Europe is relatively crime-free, and the U.S. has the worst crime rate in the world:
Murders committed with handguns annually:
United States 8,915
Switzerland 53
Sweden 19
Canada 8
United Kingdom 7
Murder rate (per 100,000 people):
United States 8.40
Canada 5.45
Denmark 5.17
Germany 4.20
Norway 1.99
United Kingdom 1.97
Sweden 1.73
Japan 1.20
Finland 0.70
Murder rate for males age 15-24 (per 100,000 people):
United States 24.4
Canada 2.6
Sweden 2.3
Norway 2.3
Finland 2.3
Denmark 2.2
United Kingdom 2.0
Netherlands 1.2
Germany 0.9
Japan 0.5
Rape (per 100,000 people):
United States 37.20
Sweden 15.70
Denmark 11.23
Germany 8.60
Norway 7.87
United Kingdom 7.26
Finland 7.20
Japan 1.40
Armed robbery (per 100,000 people)
United States 221
Canada 94
United Kingdom 63
Sweden 49
Germany 47
Denmark 44
Finland 38
Norway 22
Japan 1 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Joo, you must have one of those funny B.A.s Barely Articulate.........the Forrest Gump of geopolitics. You have no sense of history, nor have read anything but the bare minimum (and not even your ABCs are in order.). |
Just cause you say so
| Quote: |
| I will stop replying, educating you. I hereby declare. Just a waste of time, you aren't putting much effort into it. |
You just can't hack it. That is ok I will keep refuting you. I can and and I will reply or no reply the answer will be there.
| Quote: |
| But to wit -- Please read the National Security Archive's own reading of internal Government documents (I commend Gopher on his past appraisal of the NSA but for other reasons....they do a great job of bringing the covert world of the U.S. Military complex and govt to the table BUT as they themselves say -- they are thwarted by a government which destroys massive amounts of the public record and which fights tooth and nail through the courts to keep everything which should be public, off the table. ) |
Prove that the US destroys all the documents
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
| Quote: |
| All the documents are there and you can get re-educated yourself. |
Lets just see
| Quote: |
| Also most disconcerting is how A) so many U.S. manufacturers are based outside the U.S. and can thus, skirt U.S. law and supply countries such as Iraq with military hardware. [in the case of Iraq, they received massive secret amounts of loans/dollars, |
Massive amounts prove it.
| Quote: |
| loan guarantees, cheap grain etc.... |
Loan gurantees like what the EU gives to Airbus.
Cheap grain what a weapon. I will throw a bag of flower at you.
| Quote: |
| B) that despite the knowledge of chemical weapons use, the US, Reagan signing off on it, continued to support Saddam. Even with full knowledge he harboured one of the world's worst terrorists. Even taking Iraq off their terrorist list (true , Iraq expeled Abu Nidal but continued as a refuge for others... |
like the US supported Stalin against Hitler. Maybe cause Khomeni was out to get the US , maybe cause KHomeni was ought to conquer the gulf.
| Quote: |
| Iraq, Iran both benefited from U. S. arms. Particularly ironic that many came through Israel, another way the U.S. can contravene domestic guidelines.....(and Israel can profit too). Point is, arms have no allegiances...... |
and that has to do with what?
I see some support but less than France , Germany or Russia. Yes?
| Quote: |
| In particular, pasted below, the affadavit of Howard Teicher, a high ranking national security official......... |
Ok I agree he is high ranking . what else you got.
| Quote: |
| The US. helped Iraq gain chemical weapons, fed them weapons through front companies (Chile, Italy, S. Korea etc...), ignored atrocities and brought them into the diplomatic community. Introduced Iraqi officials to international arms merchants (for example the infamous Iraqi, Hamdoon). Please read and educate YOURSELF. |
Gain chemical weapons? Fed them weapons?
Prove it. Stop making charges prove it.
| Quote: |
| According to a sworn court affidavit prepared by Teicher in 1995, the United States "actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq had the military weaponry required." Teicher said in the affidavit that former CIA director William Casey used a Chilean company, Cardoen, to supply Iraq with cluster bombs that could be used to disrupt the Iranian human wave attacks. Teicher refuses to discuss the affidavit. |
Wow the US got other nations to provide stuff to Saddam who was fighting Khomeni who was out to conquer the gulf and get the US.
Credits. wow that is a great weapon.
| Quote: |
| At the same time the Reagan administration was facilitating the supply of weapons and military components to Baghdad, it was attempting to cut off supplies to Iran under "Operation Staunch." Those efforts were largely successful, despite the glaring anomaly of the 1986 Iran-contra scandal when the White House publicly admitted trading arms for hostages, in violation of the policy that the United States was trying to impose on the rest of the world. |
Iran was out to get the US and conquer the gulf. Shame on the US for trying to cut off supplies to Iran.
As for Iran Contra if it had led the Khomeni and Saddam destroying each other then it would have been ok.
| Quote: |
| Although U.S. arms manufacturers were not as deeply involved as German or British companies in selling weaponry to Iraq, |
thanks!
and of course not as deeply involved as France or Russia who supplied Iraq with its airforce , and 5700 tanks
| Quote: |
the Reagan administration effectively turned a blind eye to the export of "dual use" items such as chemical precursors and steel tubes that can have military and civilian applications. According to several former officials, the State and Commerce departments promoted trade in such items as a way to boost U.S. exports and acquire political leverage over Hussein. |
Yes duel use items. The US had them and you know what the US wasn't using them for military stuff.
Wow the US sold Iraq duel us items.
| Quote: |
| When United Nations weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, they compiled long lists of chemicals, missile components, and computers from American suppliers, including such household names as Union Carbide and Honeywell, which were being used for military purposes. |
Chemicals- not weapons
computers- wow maybe Saddam could play Starcraft.
But the US did support Saddam against Khomeni who was out to conquer the gulf and who was at war with the US.
| Quote: |
| A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare |
that is true but when the US had them they were not being used for bio weapons.
Plus let me add that many nations have anthrax and most of the duel use items the US sold Iraq were not tightly controlled and almost any nation on earth could have purchase them from the US.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Sat May 13, 2006 6:35 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| happeningthang wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
By the way ddeubel- Khomeni followers , Bin Laden lovers and the Bathists don't have right to their war. Were they to give up their war there would be no problem.
Libya 's Khaddaffy gave up his war for the most part anyway and now no one bothers him. |
So it's a matter of the right to war?? How does that work? |
Put it this way does the US have to accept their war? No the US does not have to . The US is right to force them to give up their war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
My last post in reply to you JOO. If ignorance is bliss, you got it made....
Please read these 1991 figures from the UN Human freedom index. Enlightening when you put the U.S. next to most of the rest of the developed world........crimes, handguns, abortions, domestic violence etc......not to mention the stupifying environment figures regarding pollution, forest destruction etc.... |
the US is has a better human rights index than most.
| Quote: |
THE U.N. HUMAN FREEDOM INDEX
This is a devastating statistic for those who believe that America's greater commitment to individualism translates into greater individual freedom. In reality, the social democracies of Northern Europe are the freest societies in the world. |
Ok Northern Europe is more free. Still the US has a better record than most.
| Quote: |
| The United Nation's Human Freedom Index compares the amount of freedom that citizens of different countries enjoy. It considers the right to travel, assemble, and speak; the absence of forced labor, torture and other extreme legal punishment (such as the death penalty); freedom of political opposition, the press and trade unions; an independent judiciary; gender equality; and the legal right to trial, counsel of choice, privacy, religion and sexual practice. |
the US does pretty good.
A taste of you changing the subject and not proving your charges. Well yes we have seen that before.
Look at the subject.
| Quote: |
| A COMPARISON OF THE U.S. TO OTHER RICH NATIONS |
| Quote: |
Annual reports of police brutality (per 100,000 people)
United States 92.5
United Kingdom 6.0
France 0.7
Prisoners (per 1,000 people):
United States 4.2
United Kingdom 1.0
Germany 0.8
Denmark 0.7
Sweden 0.6
Japan 0.4
Netherlands 0.4
Death row inmates:
United States 2,124
Japan 38
Europe and Canada 0
Percent of households with a handgun:
United States 29%
Finland 7
Germany 7
Canada 5
Norway 4
Europe 4
Netherlands 2
United Kingdom 1
Looking at the above statistics, one would think that Europe is soft on crime, while the U.S. approach to law and order is based on no-nonsense deterrence. In reality, Europe is relatively crime-free, and the U.S. has the worst crime rate in the world:
Murders committed with handguns annually:
United States 8,915
Switzerland 53
Sweden 19
Canada 8
United Kingdom 7
Murder rate (per 100,000 people):
United States 8.40
Canada 5.45
Denmark 5.17
Germany 4.20
Norway 1.99
United Kingdom 1.97
Sweden 1.73
Japan 1.20
Finland 0.70
Murder rate for males age 15-24 (per 100,000 people):
United States 24.4
Canada 2.6
Sweden 2.3
Norway 2.3
Finland 2.3
Denmark 2.2
United Kingdom 2.0
Netherlands 1.2
Germany 0.9
Japan 0.5
Rape (per 100,000 people):
United States 37.20
Sweden 15.70
Denmark 11.23
Germany 8.60
Norway 7.87
United Kingdom 7.26
Finland 7.20
Japan 1.40
Armed robbery (per 100,000 people)
United States 221
Canada 94
United Kingdom 63
Sweden 49
Germany 47
Denmark 44
Finland 38
Norway 22
Japan 1 |
[/quote]
Ok how many nations are in the world DD?
The US is still one of the best. Thanks for proving nothing
By the way the US has a drug problem which leads to high crime rates.
There is racism in the US however perhaps no country in the world tries harder to combat it than the US.
The US still has a good human rights record.
So why don't you show that the US has a bad human rights record I mean compared with most nations in the world. You won't show it cause you can't .Which is pretty much the case with all your other charges.
Yes the US has more social problem than many nations , but the US still has one of the better human rights records in the world.
I see Japan on your list. Well lets compare Japans' attitude toward immgrantion with that of the US.
The US is not perfect, but the US is pretty good. Why don't you show otherwise? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
happeningthang
Joined: 26 Apr 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| happeningthang wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
By the way ddeubel- Khomeni followers , Bin Laden lovers and the Bathists don't have right to their war. Were they to give up their war there would be no problem.
Libya 's Khaddaffy gave up his war for the most part anyway and now no one bothers him. |
So it's a matter of the right to war?? How does that work? |
Put it this way does the US have to accept their war? No the US does not have to . The US is right to force them to give up their war. |
Couldn't the Khomeni followers, Bin Ladenists and Bathists argue that they don't have to accept the USA's war?
And what 'war' are we talking about anyway? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| happeningthang wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| happeningthang wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
By the way ddeubel- Khomeni followers , Bin Laden lovers and the Bathists don't have right to their war. Were they to give up their war there would be no problem.
Libya 's Khaddaffy gave up his war for the most part anyway and now no one bothers him. |
So it's a matter of the right to war?? How does that work? |
Put it this way does the US have to accept their war? No the US does not have to . The US is right to force them to give up their war. |
Couldn't the Khomeni followers, Bin Ladenists and Bathists argue that they don't have to accept the USA's war?
And what 'war' are we talking about anyway? |
The US is only at war with them cause they won't give up theirs.
Khaddafy gave up his war for the most part the US does't bother him anymore.
There is no comparions between the Bathists, Bin Laden followers and Khomeni lover what they fight for is evil. they fight to conquer the whole mideast and more.
No the US is just fighting a war to force mideast regimes and elites to stop inciting violence , funding Al Qaeda teaching hate and planning terror.
They don't have a right to do so without the US hitting them with everything and anything the US can come up with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
