The violent crime rate is up in Europe, down in the US. Beyond that, I’m not going to go dig stuff up.

Causes? Mostly cultural change and changes in ethnic mixes. A lot of the cultural change in Europe is a result of the welfare state, just as it is in the United States.

We have lots more guns, so it would hardly be surprising that we have more gun related murder. But when you realize that over half of our murders are not committed with firearms, it becomes clear that the availability of guns isn’t the major factor in the murder rate.

When you see that half of our murders are committed by blacks, who represent 12% or so of our population, it becomes clear that this phenomenon is not going to have a single, simple answer, but rather be a combination of several different causes.

In the United States, murder rates do not correlate will with firearm availaility. They correlate strongly with race, age and sex.

I realize you don’t understand how firearms affect societies. I don’t think anyone can make strongly provable assertions. But we do have firearms here, it is traditional (we are still somewhat of a frontier society – if I drive to the next town to the NE of hear, I have to drive through 150 of uninhabited wilderness). I have a gun for self defense because I sometimes have to go into areas where crime rate is high. I also have several firearms just for fun – one being an AK-47. I have fired a gun in self defense, and like almost all such uses, it was successful and nobody was hurt.

I’m not interested in debating who has the best society. There are too many variables. I like ours. I used to like the British society (but it’s been a long time since I was there and I know there have been significant changes). I lived in France and enjoyed the people there, even as today I detest their government and their bigoted Le Monde.

If you really want to know about street crime rates in cities, I suggest you dig out the information. There have been plenty of articles in a few American magazines with the stats. Some of the articles were written by Brits.

From what I have seen of French and British press today, Europe is rapidly becoming information deprived, with an almost monolithic world view being presented, so you may not find articles there on subjects like these.

Not my problem.

I am an NRA member and supporter, but some people have pretty extreme views on firearms, believing that they are essential to liberty. I think they are important for self defense but anyone who thinks they are going to fend off a tyranny with their weapons hasn’t through it through very carefully. After all, fully automatic weapons were readily available in Iraq under Saddam (they are not readily available in the US), and they didn’t stop the tyranny.

New York City didn’t become safer by arming everybody. In fact, it is one of the cities that prohibits most firearm ownership (although other cities have also seen dramatic drops in violent crime, and those cities do allow firearms). New York City became safer because of better police policies, and the willingness to lock in jail people who prey on their fellow citizens.

In America, many have come to realize that a significant percentage of criminals cannot be rehabilitated, and thus they tend to have long jail terms. This is a psychological reality – these people tend to have personality disorders that there is no known way to alter. This change from a rehabilitative approach has significantly altered crime both by keeping criminals away from the populace and increasing the negative incentive to commit crime.

Demographic changes are also significant, with variatians in the number of young males – and young males are responsible for most violent crime in any society.

As far as Europe goes, it depends a lot on what country you are in. Although European anti-Americanism seems almost universal, there are still dramatic differences in societies and culture in Europe. So what I might say about Britain may be completely wrong about Norway.

Anyway, after a little bit longer I am going to close the comments on this article. I’m tired of Europeans coming in here and nagging me. If you don’t believe my statistics, that’s fine. If you are truly interested, go dig up the statistics like I did.

Statistics can blind you if you use them incorrectly, but they are the only way to learn certain information. Science without statistics is pretty lame, for example.

Put another way, if you don’t use statistics in some areas, you will be fail to learn facts.

As far as your assessment that it’s safer to walk the streets of New York than the streets of Paris, John Moore, I wonder which parts of New York you’re conveniently leaving out… I wouldn’t even compare. Show me the violent crime (you know, like Death ) statistics between the two cities.

Now please, go away – you are wasting my time and your silly assertions just make you look like an idiot.

Once again, you produce absurd assertions with no proof at all.

I am not going to waste my time in detailed refutations of your stuff any more.

I have better things to do than educate a rude, semi-literate 14 year old.

I study in “math” a system not dissimilar from your own I am shure; (most people my age dont know what a semi-colon is) triganometry; pithagerus; quodratic and similtaneous equations etc.

Stephen Hawkings has an IQ of over 200. that is further away from 0 than a glass of water, only on the other side of 100 (average IQ)

similtaneously, the amount of radiation prodused would, if spaced, say, one on each continent, the radiation would spread throughout the globe, as well as a solar blackout from the dust clouds. Very few would survive after all the side effects have been considered, from poluted water to CO2 buildup from lack of sunlight to feed the plants, because they would use up O2 instead of CO2

In some cultures it is considered nomal to have several wemen on the go at one time, and denying this, is denying these people of their heritage.

Yes, if they wish to live in the United States. Furthermore, those cultures also take care of their children – they don’t have absent fathers.

“Their culture sticks them in a cycle” again, you deny them of their culture. Would you like to have their culture forced upon you?

No, their culture is defective. It hurts them a lot more than it hurts me. And we aren’t forcing our culture on them, although many choose it. If we did, in a couple of generations the problem would go away.

“Affermative Acction” started *officialy* in the 60s, but affermative acction has to happen, and “Affermative Acction” is bassed on affermative acction, inherent in the words themselves.

Word play. Pure word play.

” My ancestors were oppressed in Germany and Ireland” you are not of the same race as me, and we all come from the same routes in affrica if you go back enough millions of years, so where do you draw the line, and say “here, you are a different race”?

There are ways that people have historically drawn the line. There are (contrary to the politically correct view) significant genetic subtypes, so that race is not a meaningless concept. However, my issue is with the defective inner city cultures that breed violence, dependence on the state, and many other ills. In the US, those environments are mostly black. But the culture is that does the damage can be adopted by any racial group or any other group, should they choose to live poorly. Furthermore, that culture is not some old, sacred culture. It has developed since 1960.

The Romans did not invade my country. Their tactics were not to inforce total control and to isolate all the natives. What they did was to interbreed with our population, which eventualy ballanced out, and we started fighting what could be considered civil war with the French.

False. See this or google up 100 other references.

” We certainly do reserve the right to stop those who would do us harm” you live in a very christian contry, but Christ was againt the an eye for an eye philosophy. forgive and forget, as we Brits say.

There is a difference between revenge, retaliation and self defense. Maybe someday you will learn the difference. Maybe you will also realize that Christ also condoned wars under some circumstances.

by destroy the world, I ment destroy the population. Five 15 megaton nuclea bombs would kill almost all life on earth. We may have the bomb, but you have multiple.

Do you just make this stuff up? Please cite a source for your assertion.

Your idea that 5 15 megaton nuclear weapons would kill almost all life on earth is preposterous. There have been many more than that already detonated. If every nuclear weapon now on earth were detonated, the radiation outside of direct fallout zones would not be lethal and would not even make you sick, although it might slightly raise your risk for later cancer.

There have been 1054 nuclear weapons detonated by the United States. The Russians detonated 221 nuclear weapons in the atmosphere. One was a 50 megaton bomb. The U.S. detonated a similar number. That last series of atmospheric nuclear tests was by the French in 1996.

You have multiple thermonuclear warheads also, 384 of them. The French have 449

“Oh? And what am I trying to enforce on whom exactly?” me

“Since you threw in the obligatory hate-Bush comment, I?ll answer that. Bush won the election according to our rules. I really could care less if you don?t like our rules, but I do suspect you don?t have the faintest understanding of what they are and why they got that way.”

I merely implied that Bush got less votes, not less seats.
Like I said, you don’t understand the system. President’s don’t get seats because we don’t have a Parliamentary system. Furthermore, you said more than that: president Bush, who actually had less votes than the opposition, and should not be your president, and if he had not become president, many lives would have been saved.

You implied he should not be our president. Is that because he got fewer (less is incorrect English usage) votes? Beyond that, your assertion is pure speculation. You don’t know what Al Gore would have done.

“I guess it?s that British educational system again.”

I am not a collage, or high school graduate. I am 14. I have studied history to a lower level that most people viewing this, and most of my knowlage I picked up myself. I go to a public school, and constantly have to fight just to learn. if I had an Oxford degree, I would be as highly qualified, if not higher, than a person with a Harvard degree.

My brother went to Oxford. It actually matters which field of study.

But thanks for acknowledging your age. It makes your position easy to understand. I thought I was dealing with a total idiot, rather than one not yet fully developed.

A bit of advice – go around acting like you are superior to everyone else is not going to get you far in life. Furthermore, when you find yourself surrounded by people smarter than yourself (and there are lots of them), you will be in for a big shock. Making unsupportable assertions doesn’t work when dealing with intelligent adults like myself, or intelligent kids. I would strongly suggest you take a course in rhetoric or debate or whatever Brits call it.

And the most intelegent person in the world, Stephen Hawkings, is British, and teaches in England.

I am well aware that Dr. Hawkings is a very intelligent person, and a great cosmologist. There is no evidence that he is the most intelligent person in the world. But let’s say he is… so what?

I am in the british educantional system, and the only flaw with it is that it tries to improve the less intelegent, and tends to ignore the more intelegent ones, and I have what your countery loves, statistics, which prove i am in the top 10% if my year for all achedemic subjects, but you are just going to use that to prove the inadequesy of our education system, but I dbout you can find an american better at maths, or if you must math, than me, ore with a marger vocabulary than me, in a public school, and I will bow down to all your arguments, and kiss your feet if i am ever in the same country as me at any time.

You level of writing and spelling is far worse than that of the average student at my daughter’s school when she was your age. Just out of curiosity, what subjects do you know in math?

I could tell you where people in my family stood, but I’m not going to get into a juvenile contest.

If you really are in the top 10%, then yes, your schools have dramatically deteriorated, which is consistent with reports I have been reading in the British and American literature.

“Their culture sticks them in a cycle” again, you deny them of their culture. Would you like to have their culture forced upon you?

“Affermative Acction” started *officialy* in the 60s, but affermative acction has to happen, and “Affermative Acction” is bassed on affermative acction, inherent in the words themselves.

” My ancestors were oppressed in Germany and Ireland” you are not of the same race as me, and we all come from the same routes in affrica if you go back enough millions of years, so where do you draw the line, and say “here, you are a different race”?

The Romans did not invade my country. Their tactics were not to inforce total control and to isolate all the natives. What they did was to interbreed with our population, which eventualy ballanced out, and we started fighting what could be considered civil war with the French.

” We certainly do reserve the right to stop those who would do us harm” you live in a very christian contry, but Christ was againt the an eye for an eye philosophy. forgive and forget, as we Brits say.

has a french man ever done anything to you? why make fun of the french, when it is their gouvernment you oppose, not the people?

by destroy the world, I ment destroy the population. Five 15 megaton nuclea bombs would kill almost all life on earth. We may have the bomb, but you have multiple.

“Oh? And what am I trying to enforce on whom exactly?” me

“Since you threw in the obligatory hate-Bush comment, I?ll answer that. Bush won the election according to our rules. I really could care less if you don?t like our rules, but I do suspect you don?t have the faintest understanding of what they are and why they got that way.” I merely implied that Bush got less votes, not less seats.

“I guess it?s that British educational system again.” I am not a collage, or high school graduate. I am 14. I have studied history to a lower level that most people viewing this, and most of my knowlage I picked up myself. I go to a public school, and constantly have to fight just to learn. if I had an Oxford degree, I would be as highly qualified, if not higher, than a person with a Harvard degree. And the most intelegent person in the world, Stephen Hawkings, is British, and teaches in England. I am in the british educantional system, and the only flaw with it is that it tries to improve the less intelegent, and tends to ignore the more intelegent ones, and I have what your countery loves, statistics, which prove i am in the top 10% if my year for all achedemic subjects, but you are just going to use that to prove the inadequesy of our education system, but I dbout you can find an american better at maths, or if you must math, than me, ore with a marger vocabulary than me, in a public school, and I will bow down to all your arguments, and kiss your feet if i am ever in the same country as me at any time.

John Moore, as a white British man, I would like to point out that, while reading this page, I have seen more racism, specifically from you, than ever before in my life, as well as patriotism, arrogance and blatant ignorance, choosing to point out only the facts that suit you rather than viewing the entire picture.

I admit to patriotism and perhaps a bit of deserved arrogance. But you are going to need facts, not standard leftist cant, to prove racism or blatant ignorance.

here are some examples of, firstly, racism;

“north Africans increase the crime rates – that was true when I lived there” from this, you appear to imply that you have lived in all of France, I highly doubt this, but of course, it is possible, so I will not yet rule this out, but have you considered that maybe it is just that it is only these North Africans that you would allow yourself to see, as your mind omits any possibility of anyone like you being able to commit crimes.

I imply no such thing. But I did read French newspapers and traveled around. I also continue to follow the French crime problem, along with the British problem. While our crime rate is declining significantly, yours is going up dramatically.

It is well known that the highest crime rates in France are in the Arab housing projects around the major cities.. It has been written of by a number of journalists and writers who know. The French certainly know it.. Please explain how presenting this fact is racism. Do you know the definition of racism?

“but the French don’t publish it (probably out of embarrassment)” This is some of the most blatent[sic] racism I have ever heard, as you imply that France should be embaressed[sic] to have a diverse and rich culture, views like yours are what caused Hitler to exterminate the Jews because he viewed them as causing impurities in their culture, which is exactly the message you imply by that statement.

This is one of the worst misreadings[sic] I have encountered.. Are you familiar with the psychological phenomenon of projection? Maybe that causes your bizarre interpretation of my words. My statement about embarrassment of the French is that they don’t want to admit ethnic differences in crime rates. I have no problem with France being diverse – that’s nothing to be embarrassed by. After all, I live in one of the most diverse countries on earth. I grew up in the southwest, in a university environment, which itself was very diverse. The city, and my school, also had many Hispanics and Native Americans. Arizona, where I live, is very diverse, except it has relatively few black people.

“It is also apparently true that the rising crime rate in France and England, at least, is significantly due to problems in immigrant communities. Of course, since immigrant communities in France resemble black ghettos in the US, this is not so surprising”

Have you perhaps neglected the fact that these people are caught due to the improvement in the police, ergo the crime rate appears to increase as the effectiveness of the police force also increases[sic], although, refugees are often contributing to the crime rate caused by these people as they can often be considered to be criminals, and therefore added to this charter due to their mere presence in the country being illegal.

Yes. This was the first excuse of the multiculturalists in the United States when trying to explain away black inner city crime. Unfortunately for them, it was clearly false, because the victimization rates were also highest in the same area. Common criminals are most likely to prey on those nearby. Look at the black homicide rate in the US for example – the fact that a huge percentage of the murders is of black people and the perpetrators are black people cannot be so explained away with a wave of a hand.

“I also disagree that blacks are oppressed in the US. Blacks have a tougher time of some things (such as getting stopped for Driving While Black) but an easier time of others (such as getting into college with much lower scores than whites or Asians). I would hardly call this oppression.”

These people are not given equal opportunities forcing them to resort to crime, (remember, it costs money that they don’t have due to not having the equal opportunities to go to college)

That is total nonsense. Do you really believe that? Where are your statistics? Nobody is forced to resort to crime. Many, many blacks in that situation are not criminals. In fact, most of the criminals in that setting are young males. But many come out of that situation, take advantage of the opportunities presented to them, and become ordinary citizens. If they can do it, why can’t the others.

But you are correct, they are not given equal opportunities. They are given far more than equal opportunities. Corporations are forced to hire minorities even if they cannot find ones with the right qualifications. Universities admit minorities with test scores and grade point averages far below that required of non-minorities (which really means: whites, especially white males, Jews, who in my mind are white anyway, but maybe not in yours, and people of Asian descent). Generous scholarships are available to fund college, even at the most prestigious schools, for minorities. The insanity is that many of the blacks (and other minorities) who take advantage of race based scholarships are from the middle or upper classes, and don’t need assistance. Racial thinking is what causes this silliness – if we are to give certain people advantages, it should be on the basis of need, not race. Oh, perhaps you didn’t know that the United States has a large and rapidly growing black middle class – ordinary citizens who are not criminals and not on welfare.

In addition to this, if they are poor, they are eligible for free medical care, government support (welfare), and many, many special programs.

Nobody is forced to resort to crime. That is an absurd proposition when talking about America or other western countries. There are too many systems to help people without means.

We aren’t oppressing these people. They are oppressing themselves through a subculture (almost always urban) which attacks achievement, glorifies crime, and does not hold fathers accountable for taking care of or even providing for their children. Some of this is due to ill-advised welfare systems. In the inner city in the US, 85% of all black children are illegitimate. It isn’t my fault or our system’s fault that their parents choose to not marry (and generally, the father chooses to not stick around) – it is the fault of this very defective urban subculture. And that single factor – non-presence of a father – is more predictive of failure or criminality of children than any other – race, economic status or educational opportunity. That the incidence is so high in the black inner city is a simple fact, and it is a cultural issue – nobody is forcing those young men to not marry, and nobody is forcing them to have babies by several women whom they then abandon. That is a pathology of the subculture. And it is a new one – the black population of the US, before it was given welfare and all the other opportunities, had a more vibrant and more healthy culture, with the children growing up with values that helped them in their lives. Not anymore.

Now, I am addressing America. Perhaps you Europeans have failed to provide for your poor, although it is my understanding that you have many of these same sorts of programs.

I would suggest you back up your accusations with information, because I know both from personal experience and reading, and from the vast research my wife has done into the literature while preparing a book on education, that blacks and other minorities get tremendous advantages in going to college, from admissions with lower scores, to pre-college prep classes, to great scholarships. My daughter had a Korean friend whose parents took a Hispanic surname so that she would have an easier time getting into college. It worked.

so therefore they are oppressed as they are stuck within a cycle of poverty;

Their culture sticks them in a cycle. We have tried all sorts of aid to break this without success: Many recent black immigrants do not get caught in this cycle. They come here poor, do not join that inner city welfare culture, and they do okay.

to get a higher paid job, they need to get beter[sic] education, to get better education[sic], they need more money, and to get more money they need either a rich parentage/background or get a better education, which lleads us right back to the beginning[sic], where they don’t get the scholarship[sic] as they canot[sic] be recognized[sic] for something when they have no way to prove it as they have not been able to get the education in the first place and so on.

If you are talking about America, you obviously are unaware of the educational opportunities, the job opportunities, and all the other special advantages given to people purely on the basis of race. The above paragraph is remarkable in how many falsehoods it packs into so few barely intelligible sentences. Tell me why one is twice as likely to be a victim of violent crime in London than in New York City?

“The others who deserve much of the blame are blacks themselves, who adopt a separate culture, have an anti-white attitude, belittle black kids who study hard, and in general demand special treatment from the rest of us.”

First, your first statement here is, even if said with good intentions, racist.

Oh really. Please explain how that statement is racist. I don’t take that insult lightly.

Second, these “blacks” deserve any preferential treatment that can be given to them, considering that your and my ancestors oppressed their ancestors, and they lived in total poverty, with little hope of escape, and their only hope of living free, was to kill. Can you blame these people for being aggressive, when the most of those left are the ones whose ancestors fort against their masters, and children, believe it or not, learn from their parents. I do not wish to offend any African Americans here, I do not presume that all African Americans are prone to violence, merely that many are.

This argument is absurd. My ancestors were oppressed in Germany and Ireland. Does that mean I should get preferential treatment? Does it give me a license to victimize others? Is it right and fair to punish the far removed descendants for the crimes of the ancestors of other people with the same color of skin? Should my daughter be given special privileges because she is descended from a Native American who was persecuted by the British? How about my Japanese sister-in-law? Who does she owe? My half-Japanese nephew? What are his sins? How about my British brother-in-law? Do you have any racial or ethnic diversity in your family? If not, I suggest you present yourself for flagellation.

All your argument does is to remove individual responsibilities from human beings. It is demeaning to them to assume that because their ancestors were mistreated that they cannot behave themselves in a civilized way. It is also patently false, since so many have bettered themselves and are in normal position at all levels of our society.

“If you really want to help, be against Affirmative Action” without your “Affirmative Action”, slavery would never have ended.

Do you actually understand what you are talking about? Affirmative Action started in the late 1960s. Slavery was abolished 100 years earlier. You have proven what I suspected – that you are seriously misinformed.

You would do better to state that specifically discriminating “Affirmative Action” should not be encouraged, as opposed to all “Affirmative Action” not being encouraged,

My terminology is consistent with the usage of the term. In the United States today, Affirmative Action means discrimination.

which we call Human Rights (you may want to note that Americans have had human rights removed) next time use the phrase Human Rights, it may save a lot of bother (and don’t think im a pompous, rich, American stereotype of an English man because of the language I use, because that is, would you believe it, racism.

Actually, you pompous British person, it is not racism, since you are of the same race as I am. But the rest of your sentence is without meaning. What “human rights” have we had removed? You have had removed your right to self defense.

“But there is not a white person alive today who held slaves, and few who still have benefit from the slave holding of their ancestors” many a fortune from slavering still lasts today, its just well hidden under a few hundred years of history. Also, many are at a disadvantage due to their ancestors having been slaves, because their families simply don?t have a financial background.

This is also true in England. Are you hunting down those whose ancestors benefited from slavery and making them pay for it. Again, using this sort of historical grievance opens the door to ridiculous claims. If you think we mistreated the blacks, check with the Indians – we didn’t enslave them but we killed a lot of them and took their land. And so did the British, who also used biological warfare against them, before there ever was a United States.

Shall we give them back all the land we took away *after* we freed the blacks. Land which in some cases was taken by the blacks? Are you seeking reparations from the Romans who conquered your country 2000 years ago and held it in bondage for a few centuries?

“It is ironic that you are posting from France of all places … France, the country which actively worked to keep the Fascist/Stalinist regime of Saddam Hussein in power so you could sell things to him. France which rejoices in telling the world how to behave, even as its importance in the world has faded from a major power and centre of diplomacy and science in the 19th century to an irrelevant, corrupt, but nuclear armed, little country whose only good characteristic is its food and art! France, which still intervenes in Africa for colonialist reasons. France, which until WW-II had many colonies, all of which were brutally ruled?” Firstly, of what I know, American leaders have post-poned[sic] attacking these so-called fascists for the sole reason that this way, they could a)sell weapons to them and b)keep hold of oil

When this oil began to be threatened, guess what happened? The[sic] son of the person who sold the weapons to them, comes along and finishes daddy’s war, he comes along to get rid of these weapons, which didn’t exist anymore,

As we say in the west, you are all hat and no cattle. Bush Sr. did not sell weapons to Iraq – he invaded Iraq – don’t you remember? He drove them out of Kuwait with help from your betters in British society – your soldiers. As for the weapons, every intelligence service in the world thought they were there, including yours, the French and the Italians. The Iraqi generals thought that their flanking divisions had chemical weapons ready to fire (remember the 45 minutes – THEY believed it). I defy you to present a method that would have determined the true status of those weapons. I would also point out that we did find weapons and weapons programs that violated UN sanctions. The most deadly poison on earth is botulinum toxin. An Iraqi scientist was told to hide the seed-stock for that in his refrigerator, where we found it (Hanz Blix, of course, did not). Another Iraqi scientist was ordered to bury parts of a uranium separation centrifuge, along with the plans, in his rose garden. Research on ricin toxin (which Al Qaeda keeps trying to use in London) was carried on in Iraq until the invasion started. Iraq had three prohibited missile systems under development – two IRBM’s which could have targeted Israel and parts of Europe, and a cruise missile system. He attempted to purchase IRBM’s from North Korea but was foiled in that attempt by the U.S. The North Korean’s kept the down payment. There was an extremely dangerous amount of biological agents which Iraq could not show had been destroyed. This included enough Anthrax spores and botulinum toxin to kill everyone on earth. This material still hasn’t been accounted for.

and Bush has, in-fact, tried to put a leash on the world by attempting to enforce a fascist dictatorship over the world

ROFLMAO. You’d better look over your shoulder. Fascism only works when there is a secret police to keep the people in check. Our world-wide thought police are after you, but you can save yourself by putting tin foil around your small cranium. This is frankly the most ridiculous assertion I have ever run into in blogging.

by making sure that all possible world powers are snubbed[sic] out before they are any real threat.

Just which world powers are we “snubbing out?” I assume by this you mean something other than insulting them out of doors. We certainly do reserve the right to stop those who would do us harm. And we have done so with Iran and the Taliban. Hopefully the people of Iran will rise up and achieve freedom without our having to attack Iran. But I suppose you would be perfectly happy with a nuclear armed Iran, right?

At least The French have morals,

ROLMAOOAO – Only on days when the sun rises in the west. The French government has been the most deceitful and self-interested government of all the western democracies. They lied to us about their intent with regard to Iraq, promising that they would support the second resolution and then, months later, reneging. During the time we were fighting in Iraq, France invaded two countries in Africa without asking for the UN approval you insist we get. There is a reason we are angry with the French and make fun of the country. It is immature and corrupt. It cares not for freedom in the world, and it would rather put its head in the sand and ignore the very real threat of terrorists armed with weapons of mass destructions (Al Qaeda was caught in Jordon this week as they were preparing an attack that would have killed 20,000 with poison gas). But someday Al Qaida will blow up the TGV and maybe the French will wake up.

they don’t support the murder of 17,000 innocent Iraqi people (yes, those are the latest figures, most of which were INNOCENT civilians) I don’t know about you, but I personally think this is completely immoral. It is an attempt to be the playground bully of the world, holding the biggest sack of sweets, and only has the biggest sack, because they kill everyone else with them. America has nuclear weapons in plenty, enough to destroy the entire world, but won’t let anyone else have any

I’m not going to waste my time answer these fantasies in detail. You should know that France sold 13 times as many weapons to Iraq as the United states, while the USSR sold over 50 times as many. The US accounted for only 1% of Iraqi military related purchases. Denmark sold more than we did.

You are right about our nuclear weapons policy. We’ve got the bomb (like you do) and we don’t trust a lot of other countries with it. If you have any connection to reality, you wouldn’t either. Oh, and we do not have enough to destroy the world, but I wouldn’t expect you to understand quantitative issues.

Are you really so insane that you think we should let everyone have nuclear weapons? I think you may be, which is really, really pathetic. You don’t approve of individuals having firearms, but you would let Saddam or Iran have nuclear weapons? Don’t you see how utterly idiotic (not to mention suicidal) this is?

And you are imagining we are enforcing a fascist dictatorship over the world? What nonsense. I think you have a fascism fetish – it pops up all over the place where sensible people, even those who agreed with your opinion, would find better words.

I don’t know where you got the 17,000 innocent Iraqi number, since the Iraqi human rights organizations only found 3000. But it doesn’t matter, because in the last year far fewer Iraqi human beings died than they would have under Saddam, and if you have access to any unbiased information, you will know that. Furthermore, if you know anything about military technology (and I know a lot and have used it), you know that the United States was exceedingly careful in this campaign. Our Rules of Engagement cost the lives of American troops in order to protect the innocent. Furthermore, many of those claimed as “innocent” were not. But of course innocent people died. Hell, in Iraq, innocent people were killed every day, some just for the fun of it by Saddam’s insane sons. I haven’t noticed you condemning Saddam lately. Or the Iranian Mullahs. Or any of the other bloody dictators of the world. How about Castro, do you love him? How about the Chinese, who not only have capital punishment, but have roving vans to carry out executions in a way that the body parts can be preserved for transplantation into the elite if they need them?

And the French have great morals. They left us the Vietnam quagmire because their colonial rule was so brutal. If you look around the world, you will find former British colonies in general are far better off and more likely to be free and prosperous than former French colonies. Also, the French were being bribed by Saddam through the UN Oil for Foods program, so it was they who had a monetary interest in Iraq, not us. I am curious what morality you imagine rules French foreign policy.

We just spent 87 billion dollars and 600 American lives to liberate Iraq. We will never get that paid back. First, we are not levying reparations against them or taking their oil revenue. Second, it would take a long time to earn that much oil revenue because Iraq has a rather low production rate. Third, look up the term “fungible” in a dictionary. It applies to oil. It means that no matter who we buy oil from, it comes from a general pool that all producers are contributing to. The people who had a strong interest in keeping Iraqi oil off the market were its neighbors and Russia, because Iraqi oil would reduce their profits. It always amazes me the willingness of people to import evil motives into Americans. I guess its just envy or something. George Bush is a moral man. He isn’t a thief and he doesn’t make money off of this (unlike the French politicians). But so many people thing he is the devil incarnate. It just shows that propaganda works on those who don’t bother to inform themselves.

Frankly, I think you, like the French, are just unhappy because the United States, instead of listening to France like a good former colony, chose to defend itself. You are unhappy that the US is the pre-eminent power in the world and Britain isn’t (even though we consider Britain our best ally and friend).. Nobody can make a better case for our invasion of Iraq than Tony Blair – have you listened to his reasoning?

I believe that this is more than enough racism to prove you a racist hypocrite.

Name calling is much more fun than providing facts and logic, isn’t it. I believe there is more than enough evidence to pronounce you extremely ignorant and surprisingly rude. First, you have failed dramatically to prove either racism (check your dictionary) or hypocrisy. In fact, I haven’t seen a feeble attempt to prove hypocrisy, so I’m a bit baffled by it.

As for patriotism, arrogance and blatant ignorance, here are a few more points I wish to make clear, mainly to do with arrogance;

“Personally, I think we should do our best to be race blind.” Can I just say that you should keep with your own ideals, and not to try to enforce them on others when you can not manage to achieve your own ideals.

Oh? And what am I trying to enforce on whom exactly? Oh, you mean trying to get Iraq to achieve a democracy instead of the horrible regime they were under? Or do you have some other silly idea? Frankly, some values are better than others. You may be a complete cultural relativist and not recognize that, but I know for sure that a democracy is far better than Saddam’s government. If you don’t, you are pathetic. I know for a fact that democracy is better than Communism. Is it arrogant to assert that Saddam’s government was worse than ours or yours?

“This article is primarily about violent crime. However, the vast majority of criminals in the US come from fatherless families, or families without the biological father. This is especially true in inner-city black communities, where the welfare state has taken the place of fatherhood, and 85% of all children are illegitimate!”

Doesn’t this imply that their must be a major problem in American society that causes all this, also, the more outwardly violent (i.e. more public, gruesome etc. examples) are more likely to be caught than those who do this type of activity in a secluded way (i.e. covering their tracks etc.) meaning that they are less likely to be caught due to being less violently inclined due to your evidence.

Oh, once again the silly “more likely to be caught” nonsense. Like I say, study the correlation between victimization rates and conviction rates by race. It will blow that argument to pieces. I provided the information, too bad you didn’t understand its meaning.

Also, what this implies specifically is what I stated. There is a major problem in a subculture of America – the black, inner-city subculture in particular. This is not a problem for most Americans or even most blacks. It is a problem of a particular set of people in a particular area. You also have subcultures with serious problems. So does France. In England, there is a growing subculture of non-ethnic people on the dole, and it is developing the same social pathologies as our black inner-city culture.

“Examples include “white” invention of slavery (it was common in Africa before Europe used it, and it was Africans who captured and sold the slaves to the European and American slavers)” the Europeans may not have started the slavery in Africa, but they certainly encouraged it, and they did enslave the natives of the areas were the plantations were found, as well as across all of North America, and there was absolutely no slavery there before British, Portuguese and French settlers, though the French were more civil, and for some time Canada was a safe haven for Natives escaping captivity or death from the English.

Your point? Actually it was Britain and the Catholic Church that ultimately were largely responsible for the abolition of slavery. But in the United States, we fought a war where 600,000 of our citizens died, and that war freed the slaves. My point, in context, is that those who claim we invented slavery were wrong. You are wrong about there being absolutely no slavery before the settlers. They Mayans were brutal slaveholders in Mexico. A number of American Indian tribes had slaves, although they usually only kept female slaves and killed the male. Slaveholding was common among Arabs for a long time. The only reason you don’t see a lot of black or mixed blood people in most Arab states was because they castrated the male slaves (as they do today in the Sudan) and killed any children of the females.

Another point you might be interested in is that slavery is still underway in the Sudan, where Muslim northerners are enslaving Christian and animist black southerners. This is not routine oppression, but full chattel slavery. Why don’t you go try to stop it?

” It is safer to walk the streets of New York City than the streets of Paris” your crime figures do not refer entirely to street crime. Please get me some figures which refer entirely to street crime.

Look them up yourself. I have work to do, and I am not going to look it up for every rude visitor who pops up. Especially when you have proven yourself incapable of interpreting the information I already came up with. The information isn’t hard to find.

” The United States did not engage in colonialism. Don’t blame us – go after the French, Belgians, Portuguese and British.” the French, Belgians, Portuguese and British are your ancestors, therefore more you than us, and you are the direct descendents of these French, Belgians, Portuguese and British who invaded America, so yes, you should blame yourselves, because many disreputable Brits settled in America after making a fortune from taking advantage of others, and showing many of the traits we see today in your great president Bush, who actually had less votes than the opposition, and should not be your president, and if he had not become president, many lives would have been saved. Ergo, the slavers are not us, but you.

In the past, Britain provided a superior education than America to its citizens. That is no longer true (facts again easy to find) but you are certainly a shining example of that lack of adequate education. How do you know if I am the ancestor of a former slave holder? Do you know my ancestry? If not, why should I be guilty? If so, why should I be guilty? I guess I owe the Brits a lot because I am a descendant of William the Conqueror – where do you want me to deliver the gold?

Since you threw in the obligatory hate-Bush comment, I’ll answer that. Bush won the election according to our rules. I really could care less if you don’t like our rules, but I do suspect you don’t have the faintest understanding of what they are and why they got that way.

I’m curious about the “many lives would have been saved” comment. Is that a net reduction in killings, or just different people who would have been killed? Because Iraqis, even with this month’s uprising, are dying at a significantly lower rate than before we invaded.

Also, if you do not favor our invasion of Iraq, then you must favor Saddam Hussein’s continued rule. Please justify that position.

I can tell you are in the top 5% of your country, culturally , because only 5% of your population owns a passport.

I’ll accept that statistic because I am not going to bother to look it up. But people don’t own passports because they are culturally superior. They own them if they want or need to go places which require them. Any American can go to Mexico (which is a radically different country) or Canada without a passport. I happened to have traveled a lot more than that, partly as a result of work, partly as pleasure, and partly as a soldier. Furthermore, the United States is a huge place, and there is a lot of traveling to e done within it, and a lot of diversity to be found here. But I do go to Mexico periodically (it’s only 3 hour drive away), and I don’t need my passport for that.

On a separate issue, allowing guns can not in any way lower the number of homicides, and anti-arms laws should be enforced in all countries, and for the record, there is no such thing as the death sentence here, and is a terribly inhumane thing, and no matter what anyone says in films, made by Americans, no one can be but to death, even for mass homicide.

Why do you always have to put multiple issues in one sentence? I guess it’s that British educational system again.

You have no idea what you are talking about on guns, but that’s not surprising. You should be interested to know about the great increase in muggings and home invasions in Britain since guns were outlawed. Here in Arizona, where it is legal to kill anyone who burgles your home if it is occupied, people don’t break into occupied homes. Ain’t it funny how that incentive works. The result is many fewer confrontations between homeowners and burglars, and when they do occur, frequently it results in a reduction in the number of burglars. Having personally fired a weapon in self defense in the United States, I know what firearms are good for. And no, nobody was hurt, because I did fire those shots. Otherwise I would have been badly hurt or killed.

Somewhere up above you mumbled some nonsense about Americans losing civil rights. I have no idea what you mean. But you folks just lost a right we consider precious: the right to self defense. I have firearms, and I carry one in my car for self defense, and I use others for target practice just for fun. You don’t have the right to do that. If a gang of burglars decides to break into your house and rape your wife or daughter, there’s not a damn thing you can do about it. If they do that in my house, there’s a good chance they will end up in jail and a significant change their blood will stain my carpet. I am not ashamed of that.

And it turns out you are right on one little fact. The law for which England had the death penalty until recently was thrown out as part of the EU process. Of course, I didn’t get that from movies (because I know the difference between fiction and fact – something you should practice), I got it from reading. There was an obscure law making it a capital offense to inhibit the movement of the Royal Navy. It lasted until the EU forced Britain to get rid of it.

As for your lack of death penalty, the criminals certainly know that. I wouldn’t brag about it though, but then that’s a difference of culture. You are free to have your opinion, and we are free to kill people who are wasting oxygen.

here are some examples of, firstly, racism;

“north Africans increase the crime rates – that was true when I lived there” from this, you appear to imply that you have lived in all of France, I highly doubt this, but of course, it is possible, so I will not yet rule this out, but have you considered that maybe it is just that it is only these North Africans that you would allow yourself to see, as your mind omits any possibility of anyone like you being able to commit crimes.

“but the French don’t publish it (probably out of embarrassment)” This is some of the most blatent racism I have ever heard, as you imply that France should be embaressed to have a diverse and rich culture, views like yours are what caused Hitler to exterminate the Jews because he viewed them as causing impurities in their culture, which is exactly the message you imply by that statement.

“It is also apparently true that the rising crime rate in France and England, at least, is significantly due to problems in immigrant communities. Of course, since immigrant communities in France resemble black ghettos in the US, this is not so surprising” Have you perhaps neglected the fact that these people are caught due to the improvement in the police, ergo the crime rate appears to increase as the effectiveness of the police force also increaces, although, refugees are often contributing to the crime rate caused by these people as they can often be considered to be criminals, and therefore added to this charter due to their mere presence in the country being illegal.

“I also disagree that blacks are oppressed in the US. Blacks have a tougher time of some things (such as getting stopped for Driving While Black) but an easier time of others (such as getting into college with much lower scores than whites or Asians). I would hardly call this oppression.” These people are not given equal opportunities forcing them to resort to crime, (remember, it costs money that they don’t have due to not having the equal opportunities to go to college) so therefore they are oppressed as they are stuck within a cycle of poverty;
to get a higher paid job, they need to get beter education, to get better educatiopn, they need more money, and to get more money they need either a rich parentage/background or get a better education, which lleads us right back to the begining, where they don’t get the scholorship as they canot be recognised for something when they have no way to prove it as they have not been able to get the education in the first place and so on.

“The others who deserve much of the blame are blacks themselves, who adopt a separate culture, have an anti-white attitude, belittle black kids who study hard, and in general demand special treatment from the rest of us.” First, your first statement here is, even if said with good intentions, racist. Second, these “blacks” deserve any preferential treatment that can be given to them, considering that your and my ancestors oppressed their ancestors, and they lived in total poverty, with little hope of escape, and their only hope of living free, was to kill. Can you blame these people for being aggressive, when the most of those left are the ones whose ancestors fort against their masters, and children, believe it or not, learn from their parents. I do not wish to offend any African Americans here, I do not presume that all African Americans are prone to violence, merely that many are.

“If you really want to help, be against Affirmative Action” without your “Affirmative Action”, slavery would never have ended. You would do better to state that specifically discriminating “Affirmative Action” should not be encouraged, as opposed to all “Affirmative Action” not being encouraged, which we call Human Rights (you may want to note that Americans have had human rights removed) next time use the phrase Human Rights, it may save a lot of bother (and don’t think im a pompous, rich, American stereotype of an English man because of the language I use, because that is, would you believe it, racism.

“But there is not a white person alive today who held slaves, and few who still have benefit from the slave holding of their ancestors” many a fortune from slavering still lasts today, its just well hidden under a few hundred years of history. Also, many are at a disadvantage due to their ancestors having been slaves, because their families simply don?t have a financial background.

“It is ironic that you are posting from France of all places … France, the country which actively worked to keep the Fascist/Stalinist regime of Saddam Hussein in power so you could sell things to him. France which rejoices in telling the world how to behave, even as its importance in the world has faded from a major power and centre of diplomacy and science in the 19th century to an irrelevant, corrupt, but nuclear armed, little country whose only good characteristic is its food and art! France, which still intervenes in Africa for colonialist reasons. France, which until WW-II had many colonies, all of which were brutally ruled?” Firstly, of what I know, American leaders have post-poned attacking these so-called fascists for the sole reason that this way, they could a)sell weapons to them and b)keep hold of oil
When this oil began to be threatened, guess what happened? the son of the person who sold the weapons to them, comes along and finishes daddy’s war, he comes along to get rid of these weapons, which didn’t exist anymore, and Bush has, in-fact, tried to put a leash on the world by attempting to enforce a fascist dictatorship over the world by making sure that all possible world powers are snubbed out before they are any real threat. At least The French have morals, they don’t support the murder of 17,000 innocent Iraqi people (yes, those are the latest figures, most of which were INNOCENT civilians) I don’t know about you, but I personally think this is completely immoral. It is an attempt to be the playground bully of the world, holding the biggest sack of sweets, and only has the biggest sack, because they kill everyone else with them. America has nuclear weapons in plenty, enough to destroy the entire world, but won’t let anyone else have any.

I believe that this is more than enough racism to prove you a racist hypocrite.

As for patriotism, arrogance and blatant ignorance, here are a few more points I wish to make clear, mainly to do with arrogance;

“Personally, I think we should do our best to be race blind.” Can I just say that you should keep with your own ideals, and not to try to enforce them on others when you can not manage to achieve your own ideals.

“This article is primarily about violent crime. However, the vast majority of criminals in the US come from fatherless families, or families without the biological father. This is especially true in inner-city black communities, where the welfare state has taken the place of fatherhood, and 85% of all children are illegitimate!” Doesn’t this imply that their must be a major problem in American society that causes all this, also, the more outwardly violent (i.e. more public, gruesome etc. examples) are more likely to be caught than those who do this type of activity in a secluded way (i.e. covering their tracks etc.) meaning that they are less likely to be caught due to being less violently inclined due to your evidence.

“Examples include “white” invention of slavery (it was common in Africa before Europe used it, and it was Africans who captured and sold the slaves to the European and American slavers)” the Europeans may not have started the slavery in Africa, but they certainly encouraged it, and they did enslave the natives of the areas were the plantations were found, as well as across all of North America, and there was absolutely no slavery there before British, Portuguese and French settlers, though the French were more civil, and for some time Canada was a safe haven for Natives escaping captivity or death from the English.

” It is safer to walk the streets of New York City than the streets of Paris” your crime figures do not refer entirely to street crime. Please get me some figures which refer entirely to street crime.

” The United States did not engage in colonialism. Don’t blame us – go after the French, Belgians, Portuguese and British.” the French, Belgians, Portuguese and British are your ancestors, therefore more you than us, and you are the direct descendents of these French, Belgians, Portuguese and British who invaded America, so yes, you should blame yourselves, because many disreputable Brits settled in America after making a fortune from taking advantage of others, and showing many of the traits we see today in your great president Bush, who actually had less votes than the opposition, and should not be your president, and if he had not become president, many lives would have been saved. Ergo, the slavers are not us, but you.

I can tell you are in the top 5% of your country, culturally , because only 5% of your population owns a passport.

On a separate issue, allowing guns can not in any way lower the number of homicides, and anti-arms laws should be enforced in all countries, and for the record, there is no such thing as the death sentence here, and is a terribly inhumane thing, and no matter what anyone says in films, made by Americans, no one can be but to death, even for mass homicide.

I could not find the data to do so.

John

Scott

Only someone not familiar with America would deny the radical differences in living conditions and attitudes between inner city blacks and the rest of the country.

There are many works which have detailed the pathologies of the inner city black culture. I am sure you can find them if you are interested. Those inner city blacks lead successful lives are fighting against a large set of disadvantages, most of which are from that culture.

Do you have such data ?

If you use the term “our” culture however, you must mean something else than “American” culture. It could be that you identify with some part of European culture, or with something you feel to be western culture rooted in antiquity, or with the particular culture your own ancestors were a part of.

But how would you exclude inner city blacks from American culture ? As true as it may be that here is a population segment with much higher crime level than in the remainder of the population, yet they are still a part of American society.

I see them rather as a segment of the American population displaying relatively extreme characteristics (you could indeed make up a list of characteristics or criteria describing population segments, and chart the totality of American population against them, and no doubt you will find the population you describe as “inner city blacks” lumped together at some spot on this chart).

It would do much to clarify your thought,I think, if you could define or describe what “American culture” and “our culture” is to you, and how “American culture” differs from “American society”, and I would also better understand your meaning.