Courtesy of BBC News (http://eb.cx/1r):

US prison rate soars even higher

The US prison population has risen further, with one in 138 people now in jail, new official figures reveal.

There are more than 2.1 million US citizens in jail - more than in any other country, the Bureau of Justice Statistics says.

The government says putting and keeping criminals in jail is working. Recent figures have shown violent crime and murder falling.

But critics say less severe ways of approaching crime are being ignored.

The figures show the prison population increased by an estimated 48,452 people - 2.3% - in the year to 30 June 2004.

It means the incarceration rate reached a record of 726 people per 100,000 residents.

The Justice Policy Institute, which advocates alternatives to prison, says it is the highest rate in the world - more than five times that in Britain, and 12 times that in Japan.

The prison population is swelling fastest in the state of Minnesota - up 13.2% over 12 months.

People from some social groups in the US are far more likely to end up in prison.

The figures showed that 12.6% of black males in their late 20s are in prison, compared to 3.6% of Hispanics and about 1.7% of whites.

'Not dangerous'

The continued rise in imprisonment was due to tough policies brought in to tackle high crime rates over the last 20 years, said Paige Harrison, a justice department official who co-wrote the report.

"As a whole most of these policies remain in place," she said.

But Malcolm Young, of the Sentencing Project, which promotes other forms of punishment, said many of those languishing in prison were not dangerous, but low-level drug offenders.

Some critics have said putting lesser offenders in prison with hardened criminals increases the likelihood that they will re-offend on release.

Jason Ziedenberg, of the Justice Policy Institute, said: "Unless we promote alternatives to prison, the nation will continue to lead the world in imprisonment."INCARCERATION RATES

US: 726 people per 100,000
UK: 142
China: 118
France: 91
Japan: 58
Nigeria: 31

Source: Justice Policy Institute

What on earth is going on over there? 726 people per 100,000 in prison?!?!

wow, i thought the UK prison population was escalating out of control, but that is nuts! 2.1 million? so much for the "land of the free"!

whoa!!! unbelievable!! Just keep sweeping it under the carpet....

what's wrong with that, I doubt their victims are complaining that these people are not free to plague them and other innocent hard working people.

If they do the crime - they should do the time.

what's wrong with that, I doubt their victims are complaining that these people are not free to plague them and other innocent hard working people.

If they do the crime - they should do the time.

"But Malcolm Young, of the Sentencing Project, which promotes other forms of punishment, said many of those languishing in prison were not dangerous, but low-level drug offenders"

there is no way they can justify such a high rate of jailing by saying they are all violent criminals or a danger to the public. the sentences for low-level and often "victimless" crimes are draconian.

what's wrong with that, I doubt their victims are complaining that these people are not free to plague them and other innocent hard working people.

If they do the crime - they should do the time.

The US is one of the worst countries in the world for imprisoning people for stupid things. There are people over there in prison for dropping litter!

Prison Works!

Vote Howard!

That is alot. I knew it was high but not that high. Japan has a very low rate.

remember that Simpsons Japan episode--where Homer and Bart go to jail?

Ahem...

For if you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners to be corrupted from their infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded from this, but that you first make thieves and then punish them. Thomas More

kara, a woman for all seasons!

thomas more forgets that the bush govt is littered with lobbyists who want to jail even more people, mostly because they privatised all the jails. its big business locking up a huge amount of people.
zim, i read the case of a guy who was given a life sentence for stealing a disney video from a shop for his kids birthday whilst having a potato peeler in his bag. this was armed robbery, and he had committed a few other similar minor crimes as a youth - end result 15 to life.

If the UK were to jail a similar percentage of our population we would have a prison population well over 400,000 rather than the 75,000 we currently have.

It's quite sad that America condems countries such as China and North Korea, whilst ignoring it's own human rights abuses.

Whats even worse is the prison abuse that is ripe in American Prisons and was highlighted in a documentary last month, it was truly shocking and worse than any abuses of prisoners in Iraq.

the uk's prison population has almost doubled since 1990. the result of authoritarian home offices under both the tories (the vampire bat) and labour (blind as a bat).

in the USA, 10% of all black males aged 25-29 are currently in jail. scary.

does anyone remember the story of Tulia, TExas, where 13% of the adult black population was arrested one night, and subsequently convicted on the word of one undercover cop? the cop was later convicted of perjury and all but 4 of the convicted people were pardoned. the US law and justice system is fucked up.

thomas more forgets that the bush govt is littered with lobbyists who want to jail even more people, mostly because they privatised all the jails. .


In fariness his absent mindedness on this matter may not be helped by the fact that he died over 500 years before Bush was born.

Crime has fallen dramatically in all urban cores of American cities across the board.

A lot of these "criminals" are in jail for non-violent drug offences as well. You have to love the American Style War on Drugs, though they still have one of the highest rates of hard drug usage in the world.

In fariness his absent mindedness on this matter may not be helped by the fact that he died over 500 years before Bush was born.

LOL.

Originally posted by loureed
Crime has fallen dramatically in all urban cores of American cities across the board.

What about the suburbs and countryside though?

I dunno. probalee.

Crime has fallen dramatically in all urban cores of American cities across the board.

Ever thought that if other countries don't need to lock up that many people to have lower crime then America shouldn't either? Humans are humans, no matter where they live. American people are no different to those elsewhere in the world. If they are put in a position where they have alternatives then most people will not commit crimes. America doesn't need to lock up so many people. After all, crime in the UK is much lower than in the US. What the US actually needs to do is think outside the box. Maybe a bit more financial support for the poorest people would stop them committing crimes. Seems to work everywhere else! But no, socio-capitalism doesn't work does it... :crazy:

yea I live in NYC and cops can arrest you for anything even if youre like 14 and dont pay fare in the subway cops dont care. :runaway:

There are people over there in prison for dropping litter!
Ummm . . . no. :|

Ummm . . . no. :|

Ummm . . . yes. Three strikes policy.

The US is one of the worst countries in the world for imprisoning people for stupid things. There are people over there in prison for dropping litter!

so they should. Dropping litter in just not on. :D

zim, i read the case of a guy who was given a life sentence for stealing a disney video from a shop for his kids birthday whilst having a potato peeler in his bag. this was armed robbery, and he had committed a few other similar minor crimes as a youth - end result 15 to life.


I know very little about the American system (in fact nothing) but this sounds like liberal lawyer talk. Oh he didn't mean to do it, his daddy used to hit him when he was little, his girlfriend looked at him funny and he stole a video for his little sons birthday - I'm filling up here.

He stole a video, what was the potatoe peeler for, I don't carry one in my pocket, what if everyone decided to steal a video - how many people will not steal a video now because they fear the consequences.

They seem to have the balance right, here the victims of crime are really struggling with our system, where as criminals are having a field day - just take car crime and how many young offenders keep being released with a caution as an example.

Our criminals need a good dose of fear. Fear of the system, fear of being punished - I am the man to deliver it. I would love to be a judge or Home Secretary - I think I would be known as Judge Zim Flyer (the Hanging Judge). :)

Any highrise projects ahead? ;)

he had a potato peeler because he'd been shopping for one. armed robbery in america is defined as committing a crime with a weapon on you, you dont actually have to use the weapon. for example, say your granny crosses the road without waiting for the traffic lights and has knitting needles in her handbag, she has just committed an armed crime.
and should that guy have stolen the video? no. but is sending someone to prison for 15 to life for doing so proportionate, another hilarious one was a guy who stole a pizza slice and cutlery from a restaurant - armed robbery as the knife and fork could be weapons. $25,000+ a year for jailing someone for stealing something worth pennies.

On the brightside if this trend continues, America will no longer be able to go to war because by 2020 everyone in Dixieland (and her colonies) will be in prison.

Fifteen years for a stolen video, ultra-conservatives in the nineteenth century in both America and Britain were more liberal than that. This is a country that is regressing.

It once could truly style itself as leader of the free world, but no-one outside of the States would take itself seriously in that title anymore.

Its far worse in America's Death Camps though. In fact I recall one state senator saying that "after a certain period of time on death row, questions of innocence alone should not be enough to reprieve an inmates life"

Executed on a Technicality: Lethal Injustice on America's Death Row, by Professor David Dow, is a behind-the-scenes look at the death penalty through the lens of an attorney who formerly supported capital punishment. Dow, who teaches at the University of Houston Law Center and founded the Texas Innocence Network, provides case histories illustrating serious flaws in the death penalty system. He uses these cases to guide readers through a web of coerced confessions, incompetent representation, racist juries, and unfair judges, all of which he believes contribute to the arbitrariness of capital punishment.

In many cases, obscure technicalities in the law prevented courts and juries from hearing evidence that would have prevented an execution or a death sentence. Dow relates the case of one man who was executed because the jury never heard from two eyewitnesses who swore he was not the murderer. In another case, a man was allowed to represent himself despite the fact that his mental imbalance - as evidenced by his attempts to issue a subpoena to Jesus Christ and dressing as a cowboy during the trial - was obvious. (Beacon Press, April 2005). See Resources.

he had a potato peeler because he'd been shopping for one. armed robbery in america is defined as committing a crime with a weapon on you, you dont actually have to use the weapon. for example, say your granny crosses the road without waiting for the traffic lights and has knitting needles in her handbag, she has just committed an armed crime.
and should that guy have stolen the video? no. but is sending someone to prison for 15 to life for doing so proportionate, another hilarious one was a guy who stole a pizza slice and cutlery from a restaurant - armed robbery as the knife and fork could be weapons. $25,000+ a year for jailing someone for stealing something worth pennies.

not to sound like a total nazi on this one, but I still can't see what the problem is, both offenders have had previous, they are habitual criminals who have not learnt from their mistakes and caused like all criminals do - great pain to their victims.

Earlybird's right. Instead of just jailing people as a solution to crime they should look at what turns people to crime and solve those issues.

Ever thought that if other countries don't need to lock up that many people to have lower crime then America shouldn't either? Humans are humans, no matter where they live. American people are no different to those elsewhere in the world. If they are put in a position where they have alternatives then most people will not commit crimes. America doesn't need to lock up so many people. After all, crime in the UK is much lower than in the US. What the US actually needs to do is think outside the box. Maybe a bit more financial support for the poorest people would stop them committing crimes. Seems to work everywhere else! But no, socio-capitalism doesn't work does it... :crazy:

Quite interesting.

So do you not place any blame at all on the person committing the crime!?! The rest of society should be penalized for their deviance? If a man has the guts to potentially hurt others through physical violence or gunpoint for money, then he should also have the chutzpah to control his own life, get a job, and raise proper children.

I don't believe human beings are that formulaic. You can't say John Doe+poverty+growing up in ghetto= drugdealer


Most crime in American cities are contained in specific areas. The poor tend to rob each other, even though the wealthier areas have more valuables. Even though Tampa, FL is the 3rd most dangerous city with a population under 5 million or something, I've never been robbed or anything.

You are like 10x more likely to be robbed, mugged, pickpocketed, etc. in London, Paris, and other major European cities than New York City.

You are like 10x more likely to be robbed, mugged, pickpocketed, etc. in London, Paris, and other major European cities than New York City.

You are a dozen times more likely to be a victim of a crime in NYC than any city in Europe. Yes, ANY city in Europe. You are also nearly FIFTY times more likely to be murdered in NYC and about TWENTY times more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted. Prisons don't work. Never have, never will. Other countries have learned this but for some reason the US is insisting on going backwards in everything it does at the moment. Crime rates in the US are much higher than here and a higher percentage of those crimes are classified as violent. Which system would YOU say works? If a person breaks the law in the US the crime is more likely to escalate to something worse. Why? Because criminals think "well, I'm already screwed so I might as well take the next step".

WTF is up with my country?! Drugs laws that are so harsh are largely responsible, as well as laws that tend be harder on minority communities and easier on wealthy suburbanite (read, WHITE) populations.

You know that war against drugs? You know when it was started? When drugs started entering the suburbs. No one gave a shit if Hispanics or Blacks were ruining their lives in the inner city, but in the suburbs, GOD no, we can have our white kids doing drugs!

I can believe I am more likely to be pickpocketed in a European City than an American one, but a person is more likely to be raped or murdered in the latter. Pick which is more important to you lou reed.

Yes, violent crime is higher in the US, but murders and rapes are not as commonplace as petty crime such as muggings and house robberies.


People do not get randomly murdered. People do not go shopping for a microwave and get shot for no reason. They tend to be personal affairs or gang related.

I would happily pick America's situation over Europe's.

Originally posted by gothicform
thomas more forgets that the bush govt is littered with lobbyists who want to jail even more people, mostly because they privatised all the jails. its big business locking up a huge amount of people.

Where do you come off saying that? I don't like being confrontational, usually, but seriously...I live here. You don't. loureed's wrong...people do turn to crime because of poverty and bad education. If anyone doesn't believe me I invite them to come stay with me for a week and show them things that will make them think they've gone back in time...better yet...contact me on MSN...my email's right here on SSC. I can tell you things that have happened that shocks someone living in another part of my own country (DonQui). I never, ever reply on British government threads unless it's gone to something off-topic because I don't live there and I don't know anything about it. Until you live here and see for yourself what goes on...don't tell me I'm wrong.

Where do you come off saying that? I don't like being confrontational, usually, but seriously...I live here. You don't. loureed's wrong...people do turn to crime because of poverty and bad education. If anyone doesn't believe me I invite them to come stay with me for a week and show them things that will make them think they've gone back in time...better yet...contact me on MSN...my email's right here on SSC. I can tell you things that have happened that shocks someone living in another part of my own country (DonQui). I never, ever reply on British government threads unless it's gone to something off-topic because I don't live there and I don't know anything about it. Until you live here and see for yourself what goes on...don't tell me I'm wrong.

i think you are being unreasonable with the "until you live here" bollocks.

you can comment on british politics, that you choose not to, or that you are ignorant of it, gives you no right to tell others not to comment on US politics or presume that others are ignorant of the USA.

the usa is a nation on the world stage as is the UK, criticism comes with the territory, if you dont like it, then that's your problem.

and people come with varying degrees of knowledge regarding other nations, just cos someone resides within a nation is no guarantee that they will be more knowledgable than an outsider about that nation. if you are actually more knowledgeable, you will present that knowledge in the form of reasoned arguments, rather than just say "oh i live here so dont you dare tell me i am wrong!" like a spoilt brat. it may be that someone within a nation has more anecdotal evidence to contribute, but this is just a different form of information, rather than a monopoly on information about the nation itself.

anyway...

Yes, violent crime is higher in the US, but murders and rapes are not as commonplace as petty crime such as muggings and house robberies.


People do not get randomly murdered. People do not go shopping for a microwave and get shot for no reason. They tend to be personal affairs or gang related.

I would happily pick America's situation over Europe's.


But muggings and house robberies arnet commen either.

The chance of you gettign mugged by a stranger at any point in you lifetime in the UK is less than 1 in 30. In three quarters of the times that it does happen - there are no injuries incured . It hardly makes a big differcne to your daily life.

Murder maybe be even rarer but the fact that the uSA has a 600% or so higher murder rate than the UK does make a huge differcne to some the small numbers of family members effetced.

People get randomly murdered - though it is rare. In any case just becasue most murders are domestic doesnt make them remote and somethign that only happens to criminals. Completely normal peope get angry and can murder. A lot of domestic killing is not planned and easy access to guns increases the likelihood of deth when things get out of hand.


From what I can gather the UK rate of muggings appears to be about 1.3 times those of the USA with most of Europe haveing sigincantly lower rates than the uSA. If you think that its worth having 6 times as many people mudered for that you obvoodulsy have a very cheap view of human life.

Before we start labeling people as "spoilt brats," I hope that everyone cools it for a bit. I don't see this going in a good direction at the rate we are going.

What I think that Kara is trying to get across here is our frustration at the myopic depiction of several British forumers on the reality of the United States. I am not just talking about this thread. I am talking about the unfounded assertions that insinuate that Americans are idiotic and have no idea of how horrible their evil country is.

First, I voted for Kerry. I am angered by the direction that this is country is taking. But, as much as I dislike Bush, comparisons to Hitler are absurd. Do you know how many people Hitler killed? 6 million directly. If we starting including the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, that died due to secondary causes, Hitler was an evil evil man. Hitler killed gays, Jews, and everyone in between. As much as I think Bush is making life hostile in this country for those who, like me, are not religious fundamentalists, to compare Hitler with Bush not only is idiotic, but is also an insult to the tens of millions of people affected by Hitler's murderous rampage. I am sorry, but this is something I will not debate about. The comparison is ludicrous. That being said, certain forumers, without naming any names, have time and time agin, in this thread and others, frequently asserted a myopic representation of America and Americans. Worse, they often insinuate that America is full of idiotic dolts who are incapable of understanding what a shit hole this country is. What Kara is trying to say is that before labeling us as idiots and then offering your own and inherently limited impression of the US, at least acknowledge that American forumers, by virtue of living here, can at least be intelligent debaters on America.

This myopic representation by a handful of forumers bothers me in two respects. First, it ignores a world history that places Britian among the league of world's most brutal countries. I love the modern UK. Why else would I even be posting on this forum? Britons on this forum are witty, fun loving individuals who have a maturity to have logical debates without resorting to the name calling that exists on other forums. When I compare British and American society, British society is the one that I hope the United States can aspire to, namely a strongly secular and liberal state in which the influence of the Church on the state is what it should be: NONE.

However, before certain forumers go off on anti-American tirades, I ask you to put your own history at the forefront to evaluate the appropriate level of vitriol to lunge at us. As much as I am disgusted at this so called "War on Terrorism," and the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians that have died as a result, it does not even come close to the brutality of the British Empire. Hands down, the British Empire was among the most brutal political entities to exist. Literally, millions of Africans were displaced to the colonies. Your imperial pursuits involved the slaughter of natives. In the 1950s, less than half a century ago, Britain brutally and with much blood spilt put down the Mau Mau rebellion against colonial rule in Kenya. Britain carved up Africa and allowed a system in South Africa discriminating against blacks to take hold. Native Americans were slaughtered during colonial pursuits in the Americas. Britian is also responsible for much tension in the Middle East, namely the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. What did you think would happen if the same tiny plot of land was promised to two groups? Had Britain not acted out of self interest, perhaps there would be peace in the Middle East. The whole reason why Saddam was able to gas hundreds of thousads of Kurds was because the British had the amazing foresight to create a country in 1921 that included several ethnic groups. In terms of the brutal, inexcusable trauma inflicted on hundreds of millions of lives in the world, Britain has no equal. The modern day USA will NEVER be able to match Britain's imperial brutality.

But enough of this aspect of my argument. As I said, the modern day UK is a vibrant, liberal society that has atoned for its wrongs and has become in my opinion the economic and political powerhouse in Europe. So, on two my second critique of certain forumers' posts, namely, that the representation of certain British forumers of the United States is not only horifficly biased, but leaves very little room for Americans such as Kara and me to defend what we feel is right in this country. This stinging criticism is flawed because when it comes down to it, British society is not all that different from American society. Comments here and in other threads have made it seem like that because Bush won, the USA is turning into some ignorant cesspool of Bible-thumping religious dimwits. This fails to acknowledge the HUGE liberal population that exists in this country. Kerry garnered 48% of the vote in 2004. I live in a state where gay marriage is legal. My homosexual friends can now show their love for each other with the ultimate commitment, marriage. As far as I can tell, gay marriage is not legal anywhere in the UK. We are not all country bumpkin cowboys. Even the conservative Americans I disagree with are capable individuals who have the ability to rationally reach a conclusion. We are not so ill-informed as you think.

As much as it pains me to say this, on certain issues, Bush and conservatives are right. For example, I am a young Hispanic male. I am tired of liberals saying "awww, poor Hispanics, they have the odds stacked against them, here, have a couple more welfare checks." My parents grew up in the crime ridden south Bronx. My parents know of people they grew up with who have been killed in gang violence or AIDS due to drug use. My parents worked their asses off to put themselves through uni and professional school, and have provided me with a life style that is above average in this country. I am tired of liberals making excuses for minority communities. This is but one example of where, as a person who voted for Kerry, I agree with Bush. Before you start making insinuations that a) Kerry voters and b) conservatives should be lumped into the idiot category, please at least acknowledge that things are more complex than you suggest

Sorry for this rant. But enough is enough. The USA is not some huge lumbering ape that is going to destroy the world. At the height of its power, the brutality of Britain makes even the most agregious of American trangressions look like child's play. And before you start thread stating suggesting that Americans are ignorami living in a fascist state rulled by a Hitler-type fascist, please look at the complexity of British society, and at least acknowledge that we have as equally complex a society.

I know very little about the American system (in fact nothing) but this sounds like liberal lawyer talk. Oh he didn't mean to do it, his daddy used to hit him when he was little, his girlfriend looked at him funny and he stole a video for his little sons birthday - I'm filling up here.

He stole a video, what was the potatoe peeler for, I don't carry one in my pocket, what if everyone decided to steal a video - how many people will not steal a video now because they fear the consequences.

They seem to have the balance right, here the victims of crime are really struggling with our system, where as criminals are having a field day - just take car crime and how many young offenders keep being released with a caution as an example.

Our criminals need a good dose of fear. Fear of the system, fear of being punished - I am the man to deliver it. I would love to be a judge or Home Secretary - I think I would be known as Judge Zim Flyer (the Hanging Judge). :)

and I for one would vote for/support you. :cheers:

From what I can gather the UK rate of muggings appears to be about 1.3 times those of the USA with most of Europe haveing sigincantly lower rates than the uSA. If you think that its worth having 6 times as many people mudered for that you obvoodulsy have a very cheap view of human life.

What I said came out looking crass. I don't think gang murders or personal vendettas can be remedied with an increase in welfare checks. Easy access to guns certainly has much to do with it, but it's a different issue.

As much as it pains me to say this, on certain issues, Bush and conservatives are right. For example, I am a young Hispanic male. I am tired of liberals saying "awww, poor Hispanics, they have the odds stacked against them, here, have a couple of more welfare check." My parents grew up in the crime ridden south Bronx. My parents know of people they grew up how have been killed in gang violence or AIDS due to drug use. My parents worked their asses off to put themselves through uni and professional school, and have provided me with a life style that is above average in this country. I am tired of liberals making excuses for minority communities.

I agree. My dad came to Tampa from Vietnam with like 16 bucks in his pocket. He has owned several sucessful restaurants for over 15 years. It's really not that hard to get out of the ghetto. If you don't fall pray to drug abuse and find a stable working partner, you can find an affordable prefabricated house in the suburbs with good schools for your children.

Then you're children will get Masters and doctorates and take care of you in your old life.

Ummm . . . yes. Three strikes policy.
Ummm, no. Three strike policies only apply to certain kinds of severe crimes. Littering does not count as a severe crime.

The US is one of the worst countries in the world for imprisoning people for stupid things. There are people over there in prison for dropping litter!

One guy went to jail for 25 years for stealing a slice of Pizza. (Three strikes your out law).

i think you are being unreasonable with the "until you live here" bollocks.

you can comment on british politics, that you choose not to, or that you are ignorant of it, gives you no right to tell others not to comment on US politics or presume that others are ignorant of the USA.

the usa is a nation on the world stage as is the UK, criticism comes with the territory, if you dont like it, then that's your problem.

and people come with varying degrees of knowledge regarding other nations, just cos someone resides within a nation is no guarantee that they will be more knowledgable than an outsider about that nation. if you are actually more knowledgeable, you will present that knowledge in the form of reasoned arguments, rather than just say "oh i live here so dont you dare tell me i am wrong!" like a spoilt brat. it may be that someone within a nation has more anecdotal evidence to contribute, but this is just a different form of information, rather than a monopoly on information about the nation itself.

anyway...


Yeah but Gothic doesn't know and neither do you cuz you don't live there...you have more knowledge in a localised area than you would looking in.

And I get the feeling Jon that you work in a very bureaucratic environment with that reply.

So yeah, anyway...

Originally posted by johnnypd
if you are actually more knowledgeable, you will present that knowledge in the form of reasoned arguments

If you want to ask questions, I will be more than happy to provide the answers. It's also why I said for anyone to feel free to contact me on messenger. I'm not trying to be unreasonable. Sometimes though...we all have a minute of anger. I think you're a clever person...and I've never had a problem with any of your posts, so please if you took offense, I'm sorry.

For now...
-The county next to mine (Grainger) is the second largest producer of marijuana in the state, and also in the top 5 with poverty.
-There are more meth lab busts in eastern Tennessee (where I live) than in middle and west TN combined. East TN is also the poorest part of the state, has a higher dropout rating, less schools per square mile, and a higher non-literate rate.
-I have lived here for 13 years and in that time there has been 3 bodies dumped within a mile radius of my home. I live in a town with a population of 5000 and in the middle of the country with nothing but farm fields as my neighbors.

Hands down, the British Empire was among the most brutal political entities to exist. Literally, millions of Africans were displaced to the colonies. Your imperial pursuits involved the slaughter of natives. In the 1950s, less than half a century ago, Britain brutally and with much blood spilt put down the Mau Mau rebellion against colonial rule in Kenya. Britain carved up Africa and allowed a system in South Africa discriminating against blacks to take hold.


Have to disagree with you on this one DonQui,

being very much a son of colonialists, I am very proud of the British Empire - countries like Zimbabwe were huge successes under the Empire, with a huge network or railways, schools, hospitals, farms or built under it. The country has only gone on to implode, once everything that can be identified with the Empire has been unraveled, such as the farms, the school system and the state of the railways is depressing - they are still using 1950's coaches brought when the country was still in the Empire.

Re the Mau Mau, again I think it was a huge success in how to destroy a terrorist organisation, remember this is an organisation that had no qualms in cutting the lips and noses of it's victims and exterminated whole villages. Most Kenyans were and are anti Mau Mau because most of their crimes were committed against black africans.

Re South Africa, we can't not be blaimed for the course a country takes after independance, it is interesting to note the people behind Apartheid were desperate to get rid of the Empire and fixed a vote to remove the Queen as Head of State.

When it comes to the British Empire in Africa, I am proud of it's role, you only have to go Mozambque to compare an ex British colony of Malawi, Zambia, even Zimbabwe to compare it with an ex Portugese country - the Portugese whilst being better at mixed relationships and baking great cakes, treated alot of their people like indentured slaves, which is reflected in the infrastructure there.

^ fair enough. I have never stepped foot in Africa, you obviously have a much better frame of referrence than I do. Cheers. :cheers:

Re the Mau Mau, again I think it was a huge success in how to destroy a terrorist organisation, remember this is an organisation that had no qualms in cutting the lips and noses of it's victims and exterminated whole villages. Most Kenyans were and are anti Mau Mau because most of their crimes were committed against black africans.


while i agree that some of the British Army's method were brutal in Kenya, it must be remembered that the mau mau rebellion was dealt with largely using locally recruited forces, which backs up your "kenyans were and are anti mau mau"...

as much as I dislike Bush, comparisons to Hitler are absurd

as far as i can tell, no one has directly compared bush's crimes to hitler's. there was one post by Tubeman which undermined Loureed's claim of "apart from iraq, bush isn't so bad" by taking that abstract argument and applying it to a similar but heightened situation so that one could see the comic absurdity of it.

Lou was effectively saying "apart from the bad stuff bush has done, he isn't so bad". well of course, the reason people think he is bad is BECAUSE of his crimes and indiscretions!

Britian is also responsible for much tension in the Middle East, namely the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. What did you think would happen if the same tiny plot of land was promised to two groups?

Israel was founded after a vote in the United Nations, the bill was sponsored and promoted by a small group of American politicians...

In terms of the brutal, inexcusable trauma inflicted on hundreds of millions of lives in the world, Britain has no equal.

britain wasn't even the most brutal empire of it's own time, never mind in history. the dutch, the belgians and the portuguese, while not controlling as much land as the brits, all treated their colonialised peoples comparably or worse than the brits. France, which was britain's equal for the size of empire, also ruled their colonial nations with at least as much brutality as the brits did, AND significantly, the handovers to power in say Algeria or Vietnam, were a lot more horrific and drawn-out than the handovers in british colonies.

As far as I can tell, gay marriage is not legal anywhere in the UK

the gay civil unions bill was passed in the NATIONAL parliament last year, and will be effective from December 2005. gays in the UK are also able to join the military, and the Navy apparently is actively recruiting homosexuals.

The modern day USA will NEVER be able to match Britain's imperial brutality.

I would suggest that Vietnam more than matches Britain's imperial brutality.

So, on two my second critique of certain forumers' posts, namely, that the representation of certain British forumers of the United States is not only horifficly biased, but leaves very little room for Americans such as Kara and me to defend what we feel is right in this country.

i am sure everyone here knows that the USA is a complex nation and that it is not full of bush-worshippers or religious loonies or cultural reactionaries. it is just that these groups have immense influence and power in the USA at this moment in time, and are directing the USA politically. on top of that, the USA is the world's superpower and US culture seems to have an unparalleled influence on global culture, so it natural that the USA will have a disproportionate amount of attention paid to it, as did Britain during the 19th century.

As gothicform said on another thread, there is much to admire about the USA, but the negative stuff at the minute overshadows the good. we even had a "most popular american" thread here! which shows that we don't all hate america and americans :)

we even had a "most popular american" thread here! which shows that we don't all hate america and americans :)

:yes: :hug: :cheers1:

As gothicform said on another thread, there is much to admire about the USA, but the negative stuff at the minute overshadows the good. we even had a "most popular american" thread here! which shows that we don't all hate america and americans :)

very true, quality people like DonQui, Lou Reed and Kara remind us all that despite our political qualms about the US, America has produced and continues to produce some damn fine people. :cheers:

gothic does however like reading documents from the library of congress online.

Ummm, no. Three strike policies only apply to certain kinds of severe crimes. Littering does not count as a severe crime.

Umm yes. It was in the news a while back you clown. I didn't open my mouth for the good of my health!

littering doesnt count as a severe crime unless you do it with something that can be classified a weapon during a police search in which case youve then committed an armed crime.

what's wrong with that, I doubt their victims are complaining that these people are not free to plague them and other innocent hard working people.

If they do the crime - they should do the time.Well three things for a start.

1.Re-offending on release is very high. Does prison work?? I'm not convinced.
2.It costs loads. Like £20k a year per prisoner or something.
3.What a waste of tallent. Something like 50% of the prison population cannot read or write. There's a pattern there waiting to be addressed!

Well three things for a start.

1.Re-offending on release is very high. Does prison work?? I'm not convinced.
2.It costs loads. Like £20k a year per prisoner or something.
3.What a waste of tallent. Something like 50% of the prison population cannot read or write. There's a pattern there waiting to be addressed!

Yes Prison works, if they are inside they are not committing crime on the outside and if they committ more crime when they come out then we will put them back inside again. You seem to obsessed about the rights of the criminals - who cares about them.

Re the cost, lets call it a loss leader, would you close a hospital down because it costs too money but was treating lots of patients , no, a prisons job is not to make money but to protect the rest of us from the criminal.

We need to build more prisons, have longer sentances and get back to punishing people not rehabilitating them and lets start trying to rehabilitate the lifes of their victims.

Before we start labeling people as "spoilt brats," I hope that everyone cools it for a bit. I don't see this going in a good direction at the rate we are going.

What I think that Kara is trying to get across here is our frustration at the myopic depiction of several British forumers on the reality of the United States. I am not just talking about this thread. I am talking about the unfounded assertions that insinuate that Americans are idiotic and have no idea of how horrible their evil country is.

First, I voted for Kerry. I am angered by the direction that this is country is taking. But, as much as I dislike Bush, comparisons to Hitler are absurd. Do you know how many people Hitler killed? 6 million directly. If we starting including the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, that died due to secondary causes, Hitler was an evil evil man. Hitler killed gays, Jews, and everyone in between. As much as I think Bush is making life hostile in this country for those who, like me, are not religious fundamentalists, to compare Hitler with Bush not only is idiotic, but is also an insult to the tens of millions of people affected by Hitler's murderous rampage. I am sorry, but this is something I will not debate about. The comparison is ludicrous. That being said, certain forumers, without naming any names, have time and time agin, in this thread and others, frequently asserted a myopic representation of America and Americans. Worse, they often insinuate that America is full of idiotic dolts who are incapable of understanding what a shit hole this country is. What Kara is trying to say is that before labeling us as idiots and then offering your own and inherently limited impression of the US, at least acknowledge that American forumers, by virtue of living here, can at least be intelligent debaters on America.

This myopic representation by a handful of forumers bothers me in two respects. First, it ignores a world history that places Britian among the league of world's most brutal countries. I love the modern UK. Why else would I even be posting on this forum? Britons on this forum are witty, fun loving individuals who have a maturity to have logical debates without resorting to the name calling that exists on other forums. When I compare British and American society, British society is the one that I hope the United States can aspire to, namely a strongly secular and liberal state in which the influence of the Church on the state is what it should be: NONE.

However, before certain forumers go off on anti-American tirades, I ask you to put your own history at the forefront to evaluate the appropriate level of vitriol to lunge at us. As much as I am disgusted at this so called "War on Terrorism," and the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians that have died as a result, it does not even come close to the brutality of the British Empire. Hands down, the British Empire was among the most brutal political entities to exist. Literally, millions of Africans were displaced to the colonies. Your imperial pursuits involved the slaughter of natives. In the 1950s, less than half a century ago, Britain brutally and with much blood spilt put down the Mau Mau rebellion against colonial rule in Kenya. Britain carved up Africa and allowed a system in South Africa discriminating against blacks to take hold. Native Americans were slaughtered during colonial pursuits in the Americas. Britian is also responsible for much tension in the Middle East, namely the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. What did you think would happen if the same tiny plot of land was promised to two groups? Had Britain not acted out of self interest, perhaps there would be peace in the Middle East. The whole reason why Saddam was able to gas hundreds of thousads of Kurds was because the British had the amazing foresight to create a country in 1921 that included several ethnic groups. In terms of the brutal, inexcusable trauma inflicted on hundreds of millions of lives in the world, Britain has no equal. The modern day USA will NEVER be able to match Britain's imperial brutality.

But enough of this aspect of my argument. As I said, the modern day UK is a vibrant, liberal society that has atoned for its wrongs and has become in my opinion the economic and political powerhouse in Europe. So, on two my second critique of certain forumers' posts, namely, that the representation of certain British forumers of the United States is not only horifficly biased, but leaves very little room for Americans such as Kara and me to defend what we feel is right in this country. This stinging criticism is flawed because when it comes down to it, British society is not all that different from American society. Comments here and in other threads have made it seem like that because Bush won, the USA is turning into some ignorant cesspool of Bible-thumping religious dimwits. This fails to acknowledge the HUGE liberal population that exists in this country. Kerry garnered 48% of the vote in 2004. I live in a state where gay marriage is legal. My homosexual friends can now show their love for each other with the ultimate commitment, marriage. As far as I can tell, gay marriage is not legal anywhere in the UK. We are not all country bumpkin cowboys. Even the conservative Americans I disagree with are capable individuals who have the ability to rationally reach a conclusion. We are not so ill-informed as you think.

As much as it pains me to say this, on certain issues, Bush and conservatives are right. For example, I am a young Hispanic male. I am tired of liberals saying "awww, poor Hispanics, they have the odds stacked against them, here, have a couple more welfare checks." My parents grew up in the crime ridden south Bronx. My parents know of people they grew up with who have been killed in gang violence or AIDS due to drug use. My parents worked their asses off to put themselves through uni and professional school, and have provided me with a life style that is above average in this country. I am tired of liberals making excuses for minority communities. This is but one example of where, as a person who voted for Kerry, I agree with Bush. Before you start making insinuations that a) Kerry voters and b) conservatives should be lumped into the idiot category, please at least acknowledge that things are more complex than you suggest

Sorry for this rant. But enough is enough. The USA is not some huge lumbering ape that is going to destroy the world. At the height of its power, the brutality of Britain makes even the most agregious of American trangressions look like child's play. And before you start thread stating suggesting that Americans are ignorami living in a fascist state rulled by a Hitler-type fascist, please look at the complexity of British society, and at least acknowledge that we have as equally complex a society.

Whilst I agree with some of what you say and that American Penal Policy is it's own afair, the UK Forumers have every right to expect the US Goverment to adhere to human rights legislation, as it is human rights the US is so keen to bring to the Middle East.

Is it okay to use USAF bases in Britain to bomb Libya and to bomb Iraq during the two gulf wars. As the B-52's scream over head and shatter the tranquility of the peaceful Cotswold Villages and hills, are we not entitled to reassurances.

As the Bush Administration prepare to site missiles in North Yorkshire as part of the star wars programme, as our telephones and emails are read by the NSA which has it's biggest foriegn spybase on earth in North Yorkshire (Menwith Hill), do we not have a right to know more about the nation which is spying on us.

As the radars in Yorkshire scan the skies over Flyingdales Instilation stand ready to inform America of Nuclear Attack, do we not have the right to ask about the human rights record of the country that we are making ourselves a target for.

Your even using British soveriegn territory in Cyprus and Diego Garcia in order to fight the war against terrorism and to restore human rights.

Whilst I do not think Americans are stupid or malicious, I do think that given the fact we are backing the Bush Administration in so many ways in it's war against terrorism, that we have a right to scrutinise issues relating to the human rights record of the US itself.

I am sure if it was China, North Korea or the old Apartheid regime in South Africa imprisoning such a large percentage of their population there would be worldwide condemnation.

Furthermore the use of restraining chairs which have led to a number of deaths, the practice of spraying prisoners cells with pepper spray and the use of Super Max isolation (as featured in a recent British documentary) bring in to question the very values of the nation we are supporting and who is quick to dictate human rights to the rest of the world.

Personally I think we have every right to question America and American Policy.

whilst we're at it, please list some british atrocities we committed so you can justify our brutal repression. the most violent and brutal colonial war the british ever fought was against the zulus, its estimated that about 20,000 zulus died (maximum) and the boer war where 26,000-35,000 boers were killed or that 6,824 americans were killed in the american war of independence. the most brutal war we ever fought was actually the english civil war where 10% of the population died in the space of 7 years. you americans killed many times as many people in vietnam as the british empire killed in its entire history. the most brutal modern independence wars we fought saw the deaths of 11,503 kenyans and 9,998 malayans in kenya and malaysia, in the cases of the malay emergency many of the were killed by the natives. so, our brutal repression of the mau mau saw 11503 rebels over the space of 9 years. compare this to 350,000 dead in algeria during their independence war with the french, 300,000 dead in congo with fighting with the belgians, 1 million dead with portugal trying to hold on to mozambique, or 5.1 million dead civillians and viet kong in vietnam between 1959 and 1975. lets not forget the 600,000 dead cambodians killed by american bombs which was approx 10% of the population, pol pot then killed another third straight after. if you want to do a list of brutality then im afraid the british empire never even did anything in the top 50 unless youre including slavery which is economic and dealt with below.

as for palestine, youre completely wrong. the british tried in 1936 to partition palestine into israel and palestine and neither side would have it. after world war 2 the british tried to stop the mass influx of refugees from europe into israel, hardly our fault what happened, we tried to stop it and hundreds of our soldiers were killed in bomb attacks by jewish terrorists. you can read about it more here -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine

as for slavery, again more bollocks. england was the first country in europe to abolish serfdom in 1399. slavery of imported slaves was banned in england in 1773 following a courtcase which ruled slavery breached the magna carta so presumably it had been illegal here since 1215, just hadnt gone to court. in 1807 slavery was abolished in the british empire, in 1827 slavery was given the same classification by the british empire as piracy, people with slave ships were hung. the royal navy in 1838 was given orders to intercept ships of ALL nationalities heading to ALL ports and liberate the slaves from within, this organisation continues today as anti slavery international, slavers would throw the slaves over the side wary that if they were caught with a ship full the royal navy would hang them. the country of sierra leone in africa was created by the british so that freed slaves could return to africa and set up their own country from the british empire, the british empire set up liberia for american slaves to return to. i'd say we made our amends for our part in the slave trade pretty well which is a share in the 1.5 million deaths that occured in the period we operated for, by abolishing it, offering them compensation and free repatriation (all blacks in the british colonies who are there today are their because their forefathers opted to stay) and enforced the illegality of slavery throughout the rest of the world. still, the pursuit of economic policies with no regard for life as happened then was a stain on the british empire and is still practised by some countries today.

as for how many people bush has killled - which american president revolted against world opinion and refused to let anti aids drugs be made cheaply so africans could be treated for aids and it would not be passed on to babies? thats right g.w bush. the economic policies of bush have directly lead to many millions of deaths to protect the profits of american drug companies just as the economic policies of adolf hitler lead to many millions of deaths. if youre so wonderfully informed how come you dont know about this. EVERY aids baby in the world is preventable, the reason why they exist is entirely because of george bush. there are 96,228 aids babies in south africa alone, 2002 saw 56,250 die in south africa so in the space of a year the economic policies and wto veto of bush has seen almost as many children die in south africa as the british killed in the malay emergency, mau mau uprising and boer war combined.

i should give a special mention to diego garcia which is one reason i wont be voting labour. in 2003 the high court ruled that the people who we had expelled from there deserved compensation and a right to return. the government appealed and in 2004 the house of lords upheld the decision. the government then used royal perogative to overrule these judgements and throw them out. the result is that thousands of people are kept destitute on neighbouring islands, the rule of law has been ignored, the americans get to keep their nice free airforce base they use to bomb places, not to mention the torture and detention facilities they have located on the island.

you americans killed many times as many people in vietnam as the british empire killed in its entire history. the most brutal modern independence wars we fought saw the deaths of 11,503 kenyans and 9,998 malayans in kenya and malaysia, in the cases of the malay emergency many of the were killed by the natives. so, our brutal repression of the mau mau saw 11503 rebels over the space of 9 years. compare this to 350,000 dead in algeria during their independence war with the french, 300,000 dead in congo with fighting with the belgians, 1 million dead with portugal trying to hold on to mozambique, or 5.1 million dead civillians and viet kong in vietnam between 1959 and 1975. lets not forget the 600,000 dead cambodians killed by american bombs which was approx 10% of the population,

Vietnam cannot be compared with earlier attroscities. Modern weapons such as bombs and machine guns, and Vietnam being extrememly densely populated is unfortunately why the death toll is so high.

There weren't as many people in the Imperial Age compared to now. You or I wouldn't be able to accurately measure what impact the deaths of 350,000 people when Congo only had a population of 2 million people or something. (I'm guessing)

And I'm sure number of Iraqis the British killed is comparable to its entire Imperial history as well.


Also, why are you comparing colonial wars to WAR wars?? Although Vietnam was a horrendus mistake, I'm sure Britain has similar figures in WWI and WW2. American actions in the Philliphines and Hawaii were tame as well.

12,000 dead in iraq in 1922. we had modern guns and bombs, the malay emergency happened at the same time as vietnam, we beat the communist guerillas. india had a huge population, we didnt slaughter millions of indians. in ww1 there was little killing of civillians by british soldiers, infact the germans were pretty civilised too apart from the odd massacre but in ww2 there was a lot of killing on all sides, we did most of ours from the air.
you have to remember there were two vital differences between ww2 and vietnam.
1 - by the time of vietnam there was guided munitions, you no longer needed 100 bombers to hit a single target
2 - the bombing of cambodia was done entirely illegally and was one of the four counts nixon was to be impeached on.

"The morality of US conduct of the war continued to be an issue under the Nixon Presidency. In 1969, American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh exposed the My Lai massacre and its cover-up, for which he received the Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting. It came to light that Lt. William Calley, a platoon leader in Vietnam, had led a massacre of several hundred Vietnamese civilians, including women, babies, and the elderly, at My Lai a year before. The massacre was only stopped after two American soldiers in a helicopter spotted the carnage and intervened to prevent their fellow Americans from killing any more civilians. Although many were appalled by the wholesale slaughter at My Lai, Calley was given a life sentence after his court-martial in 1970, and was later pardoned by President Nixon. Cover-ups or soft treatments of American war crimes also happened in other cases, e.g. as revealed by the Pulitzer Prize winning article series about the Tiger Force by the Toledo Blade in 2003."

Vietnam cannot be compared with earlier attroscities. Modern weapons such as bombs and machine guns, and Vietnam being extrememly densely populated is unfortunately why the death toll is so high.

There weren't as many people in the Imperial Age compared to now. You or I wouldn't be able to accurately measure what impact the deaths of 350,000 people when Congo only had a population of 2 million people or something. (I'm guessing)

And I'm sure number of Iraqis the British killed is comparable to its entire Imperial history as well.


Also, why are you comparing colonial wars to WAR wars?? Although Vietnam was a horrendus mistake, I'm sure Britain has similar figures in WWI and WW2. American actions in the Philliphines and Hawaii were tame as well.

johnnypd hands loureed a spade...

We didn't slaughter millions in Hawaii or the Philiiphines either.

I don't know much about the Malay Emergency, but I'm assuming that the communist did not have control of half the nation; that it was a small rebel group.

How many soldiers and civilians did Britain kill in the totally unnecessary war (like Vietnam) that was The Great War?


*edit* when I said Iraq, I meant that thing going on TODAY :yes:

lou - vietnam, korea, iraq, somalia, panama.
as it points out at the end of blackhawk down 2000 somalis were killed by the americans in a single raid.

What about Korea? What's wrong with Korea? South Korea is one of the most remarkable nations in the world.

I dunno what was going on in Somalia. It probably has something to do with European Imperialists forcing enemy tribes to cohabitate in the same land.

johnnypd hands loureed a spade...

I don't follow you :?

wrong lou, it wasnt a small communist group. it was the largest communist upring in the 1950s, much larger than the one in vietnam. its an early example of the differing policies of the british to the americans, there were 80,000 communist guerillas we were fighting against 100,000 british and aussie troops.
compare this to 1968 in vietnam where 420,000 communists were fighting 1.2 million americans and south vietnamese.
2478 civillians were killed in malaysia and 4 million in vietnam. american soldiers killed 504 civillians at my lai alone, just to put the deathtolls in perspective.

I'm sure it simply doesn't boil down to policy.

The communist in Vietnam wasn't an uprising, the communists in Vietnam were a government. How exactly was it bigger than Vietnam? You're comparing colonial rebel supression with a real war again.

The French probably killed a remarkable number of people in Vietnam as well do to the population density, the terrain, the time they spent in the nation during the French-Vietnamese War.

I dunno what was going on in Somalia. It probably has something to do with European Imperialists forcing enemy tribes to cohabitate in the same land.

errr, Somali only united after independance, so if anyone is responsible for forcing enemy tribes to cohabitate, it's Somali's.


It's interesting to note that alot of Somali's want to go back to the position they were in at independance from Britain in 1960 and re create the seperate state in the north as Somaliland.

I'm sure it simply doesn't boil down to policy.

The communist in Vietnam wasn't an uprising, the communists in Vietnam were a government. How exactly was it bigger than Vietnam? You're comparing colonial rebel supression with a real war again.

The French probably killed a remarkable number of people in Vietnam as well do to the population density, the terrain, the time they spent in the nation during the French-Vietnamese War.

In Malaya the British Commonwealth was basically fighting the uprising plus indonesia, - this was not a little uprising, this was full on war with another government - we were just better at the hearts and minds work than the US in Vietnam.

Many African government were and still are too corrupt, immature, and inexperience to deal with the arbitrary throw-together nations the Imperialists carved out. They left the countries giving them the burden of European models and lost of innocence.

the phrase 'hearts and minds' was actually invented during the malayan emergency. it involved moving the civillians out of an area into transit camps, feeding and housing them, then defeating the guerillas in an area and moving the civillians back and repairing the damage. we did not carry out heavy bombing from the air, instead most of the fighting was done on the ground in small units using the same chindit techniques we used against the japanese. basically we fought the guerillas with guerillas. the idea anyway was that you could kill an insurgency by simply being nice to the locals and not giving them cause to join up, something like this the americans still havent gripped - imagine how iraq would be if we brits had been running the whole country.
443 iraqis have died in iraq so far this month, just to compare it to malaya.

You're so condescending :lol:


So what would Britian do differently than have democratic elections, allow the Shitte to practice their religion as free as the Shia, allow females to go to school, rebuild schools and infrastructure?

Many African government were and still are too corrupt, immature, and inexperience to deal with the arbitrary throw-together nations the Imperialists carved out. They left the countries giving them the burden of European models and lost of innocence.

I agree independance was given too soon to most African countries, but this was heavily urged by successive American Governments.

You say the burden of European models, when Sierra Leone was given independance in the 1960's it had a national health system, public education system and the consitutional monarchy system which has served Canada and Australia well. 40 years later, the army is running things and people are having their hands chopped of in the streets. It wasn't the political system that was at fault - they couldn't have started with a better one - it was the scurge of corruption and power grabbing by the political elite followed by the army - for that Africans are to blame no one else.

lou, we wouldnt have gone beserk with our soldiers shooting iraqis. thats the hearts and minds. another thing the british administration did that the americans didnt was hire local iraqis, the americans got everyone in from outside the country rather than employ the local population.
sierra leone wasnt just fucked up by the political elite. plenty of blame also lies at the foot of companies like de beers, we allow our multinationals to bribe foriegn governments. sierra leone has been completely ruined by the diamond trade. there are examples of successful ex colonies such as botswana but they are an exception rather than a rule.

lou, we wouldnt have gone beserk with our soldiers shooting iraqis. thats the hearts and minds. another thing the british administration did that the americans didnt was hire local iraqis, the americans got everyone in from outside the country rather than employ the local population.
sierra leone wasnt just fucked up by the political elite. plenty of blame also lies at the foot of companies like de beers, we allow our multinationals to bribe foriegn governments. sierra leone has been completely ruined by the diamond trade. there are examples of successful ex colonies such as botswana but they are an exception rather than a rule.

De Beers also play a massive role in Botswana, although it is a good example as it the present government of Mozambque of what good governance can achieve.

Sierra Leone if it had used it's diamonds wisely could have been seriously loaded instead the shit has hit the fan with a succession of dodgy characters running (or should that be ruining the country).

The British Empire was a trading empire and the fact that the Commonwealth exists to this day and that the Queen is still head of state of these countries says a lot about the high regard in which they held the British.

The Empire was a trading empire and very few wars occurred, if Britain became involved in Wars it was usually the result of our European Neighbours rather than Empire.

If you look at British history our main wars were with the French, (including the hundred year war), we didn't make war on our Empire and are still held in high regard with the forumer empire countries, who still by their choice have the Queen as Head of State and who form a Commonwealth of Nations of which the Queen is head.

We also play a lot of sport with our Old Countries of Empire with the Commonwealth Games and with many Ex Countries of Empire having adopted British Sports as their national sports, and cricket and rugby teams from accross the empire reguarly touring Britain or British Teams touring Commonwealth Nations.

If the truth be told Britain was and still is popular in countries it ruled, if only the Americans could say the same.

Here's the Commowealth Website with 53 Countries and 1.8 billion people wishing to retain ties with the UK.

http://www.thecommonwealth.org/HomePage.asp?NodeID=20593

no it isnt zim. are you aware that thousands of bushmen have been thrown off their land so de beers can get at the diamonds and dozens have been murdered?

Before criticizing us on Iraq, let's keep in mind that Blair, a politician whom I respect more than Bush, has been the president's lapdog that you guys are going to vote for again. Guilt by association, perhaps?

Vietnam cannot be compared with earlier attroscities

Earlier atrocities cannot be compared with modern ones, but not because of your reasons, rather because attitudes were different, and we have only progressed to where we are now, painfully slowly.

Before criticizing us on Iraq, let's keep in mind that Blair, a politician whom I respect more than Bush, has been the president's lapdog that you guys are going to vote for again. Guilt by association, perhaps?


Blair's popularity has wained and since he started supporting America, and this is the first election since Sep 11th and the so called War on Terrorism, so we shall see how he fairs next week.

Don Qui has got a point though, we should clear up our own backyards like the Spanish did with Aznar, and the ultra-right-wing Australians failed to do with Howard, just as much as we should encourage the Americans to do the same with Bush.

We're both in the same position though, both in America and Britain, the two main candidates - yes candidates the idea we are remotely parliamentary anymore given the tremendous power of the executive in the war - supported the war (though in both cases the unsuccessful one pretended he didn't when it suited him).

But hes had almost the full alotted time to allow the public to 'get over' the election, and besides protest votes only work if theres a reasonable alternative, and there isn't one in this country.

This rate is high because of the tougher crime laws during the 1980's and 1990's-Regan, Bush, and Clinton pushed for them. I agree with many that some of the sentences are too harsh, especially w/ the "3 strikes your out" deal which I think is inhumane in some respects. Note, however, that most of the people in prison are there for only a few days or weeks. Hence, the actual prison population (long staying members) is much smaller than indicated.

As for the whole "American abuses in foreign lands" I find that to be the most hypocritical argument ever-especially from a person whose nation once colonized almost half the world, and where many more people died. The US never colonized the way the British did. At least when the US did it in places like Cuba and Phillippines, they gave it back. Personally, I think Cuba would have been much better off staying w/ the US, considering it has been under two dicatadors in its short history. Also, unlike the British Empire, the methods for intervening were not purely economical-as was the case in Vietnam, Korea, Grenada, Nicaragua, and Cuba. Much of the support came from the ideological perspective of "preventing the spread of communism" aka The Truman Doctrine. All the other world powers did it for profit to benefit the motherland. There is no denying that all large nations have historically done this, but when compared to other powers, the US was by far the friendliest and the most active in spreading democracy-even if it didn't succeed like in 'Nam, the intention should count. All the US was trying to do was to support the pro-western part of the nation. What is wrong w/ that? People like Gothik have to wake up and getting over this hatred of the US. It's people like him who show the "inferior complex" demonstrated by many on this forum w/ regards to the US. People like him refuse to look at all the good things the US has done...that's why he constantly posts inane posts of the US on a forum about the UK.

But hes had almost the full alotted time to allow the public to 'get over' the election, and besides protest votes only work if theres a reasonable alternative, and there isn't one in this country.

The Liberal Party have adopted many of the old labour policies and will no doubt attract some of the traditional Labour Vote, whilst many rural and middle England areas feel agreived at the ban on hunting, immigration and taxes and will no doubt vote Conservative.

Blair may get in but I have no doubt that his over all majority will be sizeable reduced.

Point taken - mbut agreed, certainly no overall change in power will come about inthis election because of a protest vote trend.

totally agreed donqui. read what i say about blair in another thread and how ashamed i am of him.

Point taken - mbut agreed, certainly no overall change in power will come about inthis election because of a protest vote trend.

As Tony Blair stated himself it may come down to a few hundred votes in a handful of marginal seats, so it's by no means certain.

See, this is why I like the UK Skybar and I am glad that you have let me "in." Intelligent, rational debate that in other parts of this forum would have awarded me the title of a fascist baby eating hillbilly.

Cheers. :cheers1:

totally agreed donqui. read what i say about blair in another thread and how ashamed i am of him.

You mean the one where u brand each and every labour voter a 'Stupid Immoral Fuck'?

yes. are labour supporters racist? well would you vote for blair if it were 100,000 dead british soldiers in iraq? i think not. 100,000 dead iraqis though and who cares.

See, this is why I like the UK Skybar and I am glad that you have let me "in." Intelligent, rational debate that in other parts of this forum that would have awarded me the title of a fascist baby eating hillbilly.

But you are a facist baby eating hillbilly Don Qui, and that's why we love you, so don't go changing :lol:

As for the whole "American abuses in foreign lands" I find that to be the most hypocritical argument ever-especially from a person whose nation once colonized almost half the world, and where many more people died.

how is it hypocritical? did gothicform or the other brits on this forum themselves colonise almost half the world? did they support this colonisation while condemning US imperialism? no, i didn't think so.

The US never colonized the way the British did. At least when the US did it in places like Cuba and Phillippines, they gave it back.

i think you will find that the UK "gave back" their colonies a while ago. and i dont seem to remember the usa giving the western portion of the states back to native americans....

Personally, I think Cuba would have been much better off staying w/ the US, considering it has been under two dicatadors in its short history.

the US is part of the problem regarding Cuba. Cuba has been and is unfortunately caught between two extreme and excessive ideologies - capitalism and communism. obviously a mix of the two would be best for Cuba - cuba has some of the best public services in Latin America, putting their caribbean neighbours to shame, yet they also have humans rights issues and a lack of liberty. the problem with them adopting capitalism is, that while their human rights and democracy situation would improve, that they would pretty much lose their social safety net overnight and that would be a disaster in itself.

Also, unlike the British Empire, the methods for intervening were not purely economical-as was the case in Vietnam, Korea, Grenada, Nicaragua, and Cuba. Much of the support came from the ideological perspective of "preventing the spread of communism" aka The Truman Doctrine. All the other world powers did it for profit to benefit the motherland. There is no denying that all large nations have historically done this, but when compared to other powers, the US was by far the friendliest and the most active in spreading democracy-even if it didn't succeed like in 'Nam, the intention should count.

why do you think they wanted to prevent communism? because it is totalitarian and anti-freedom? don't be so naive. the US opposed communism because it hampered their ability to exploit foreign resources and markets. if a nation is communism then US companies cannot go in and make money there. THAT is why the USA opposed communism, it had nothing to do with democracy. The usa has supported capitalist dictators or dictators friendly to US commercial interests (mobutu sese seko, karimov in uzbekistan), and helped overthrow socialist democracies (chile), they have supported right wing guerillas (the UNITA rebels in angola, one of the most bloodthirsty and brutal militias of the 20th century, contras in nicaragua), and helped quell socialist revolutionaries (farc in columbia). the fundamental motivation of US foreign policy is aggressively protecting the interests of american commerce, even if it means invading a nation to do so. sometimes these interests coincide with promoting democracy, at other times they do not.

All the US was trying to do was to support the pro-western part of the nation. What is wrong w/ that?

what is wrong with it? if you want an answer, check out the vietnam war death toll, it goes into the millions.

People like Gothik have to wake up and getting over this hatred of the US. It's people like him who show the "inferior complex" demonstrated by many on this forum w/ regards to the US. People like him refuse to look at all the good things the US has done...that's why he constantly posts inane posts of the US on a forum about the UK.

the USA is the pre-eminent nation on the planet, the only global superpower, it interferes in every nation on the planet, militarily, econimically, culturally, politically etc in a way no other nation can or does do. as such, they will attract a lot of criticism and scrutiny, in the exact same way Britain did in the 19th century. if you don't like it, you could lobby for change in the way the USA works, if you like the way the USA works, then get used to the scrutiny.

no it isnt zim. are you aware that thousands of bushmen have been thrown off their land so de beers can get at the diamonds and dozens have been murdered?

I'm not sure of your point gothicform, are you saying De Beers have played a role or haven't in Botswana?

yes. are labour supporters racist? well would you vote for blair if it were 100,000 dead british soldiers in iraq? i think not. 100,000 dead iraqis though and who cares.

the foreign darkies will never be as important as our british lads... and yet the excuse doled out by Labour now, is that the average iraqi is better off than under saddam!

seriously though, the only option if you are anti-war is the Liberal Democrats, who are in no position to win overall power. and iraq is one issue out of many, what if you disagree wiht 99% of the lib dem's platform, but are anti-war? do you still go against every other interest or belief you have to vote for them? as for the tories, they supported the war more uniformly than labour, so if you are anti-war, you're probably better off voting labour than tory. the best option for now might just be hoping for a reduced labour majority, and continuing pressure on Blair for a swift handover to Brown.

check out this zim - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4480883.stm

incidentally, according to the u.n more iraqis are out of work now than under saddam, levels of child malnutrition are higher than when they had sanctions, provision of fresh water, sewage and electricity are worse. hard to believe isnt it that a country could be better off ruled by a dictator and under the grip of international sanctions but it was.

Bushman have for centuries been attacked by all races in Southern Africa and they have gone further north each time.

Most people don't like them, they are seen in the same light that travellers are over here.

The only bit about the article which was disapointing was how much Botswana will get by developing these mines and if some of this money goes into supporting Botswanaan hospitals or schools or Aids projects.

I think that will be the test, if the money is spent wisely it's a necessary evil, if it is miss spent then the policy will be proved to have been a disaster not just for the Bushmen but for Botswana.

but you were outraged being white and thrown off your land in zimbabewe. i dont see the difference, and if most people dont like them, i dont care, unlike travellers in this country they are indigenous people.

but you were outraged being white and thrown off your land in zimbabewe. i dont see the difference, and if most people dont like them, i dont care, unlike travellers in this country they are indigenous people.

true, although there are some big differences and don't get me wrong I have alot of sympathy for the Bushmen (I should also point out I have never been to Botswana and know very little about the country).

The Bushman are a nomadic people where as the white farmers were a key part of the economy, paid huge amounts of money in taxes and employed thousands of people in a country were most people are unemployed. To take them out of the economy was and is a disaster for the economy with all the support industries then collapsing as well.

I have every sympathy for the Bush People, but if you were the Government of Botswana and were sitting on top of all those diamonds - what would you do.

yes. are labour supporters racist? well would you vote for blair if it were 100,000 dead british soldiers in iraq? i think not. 100,000 dead iraqis though and who cares.


Im not sure the suggestion works on any level really (for one thign allowign 100, 000 highly trained soldiers with cuttign edge equpment to be killed by insurgents woudl be unthinkably incompetant) but even if it does I think its a question of xenpobia not racism. If 100, 000 AMERICAN soldiers had died but fewer Iraqis I don't think people woudl vote any differently- in fact oppostion to the war here might be less.

id do nothing zim if the land belonged to someone else. its not the land of the govt of botswana, its the land of the people who live and own it. just as your farm belonged to you and you should decide what to do with it so should they. if the bushmen living there wish to develop the land, as many native americans have in the usa, then thats all fair and good but its another thing entirely to steal their land. tp me its about ownership, not economics. i will say though in botswanas defense, its good that the courts are deciding this and it looks like they will rule against the govt and de beers, if they do then it shows that botswana is a democracy that lives under the rule of law unlike zimbabewe

how is it hypocritical? did gothicform or the other brits on this forum themselves colonise almost half the world? did they support this colonisation while condemning US imperialism? no, i didn't think so.

No, but he livesin a nation that did. It is not his fault, but it is still hypocritical to bring up US imperialism when his country did it in a much greater extent. And remeber, I didn't 'colonize either'

i think you will find that the UK "gave back" their colonies a while ago. and i dont seem to remember the usa giving the western portion of the states back to native americans....

It gave them back after finding them unfeasible, and after having them for many years. Quite a different scenario from US buying most of its land from the French (Louisiana Purchase), Mexico (Mexican Cession), and Russia (Alaska).


Most of the US the US is part of the problem regarding Cuba. Cuba has been and is unfortunately caught between two extreme and excessive ideologies - capitalism and communism. obviously a mix of the two would be best for Cuba - cuba has some of the best public services in Latin America, putting their caribbean neighbours to shame, yet they also have humans rights issues and a lack of liberty. the problem with them adopting capitalism is, that while their human rights and democracy situation would improve, that they would pretty much lose their social safety net overnight and that would be a disaster in itself.

The US has nothing to do with Cuba's governmental system. Taking away communism from Cuba would be the best thing that could happen to them. This is a nation that still drives dilapadated cars from the 1950's, has buildings in very poor shape, has hospitals with very poor resources, and absolutely no private sector. The fact that there is no private sector is what kills Cuba. Just imagine the potential of Cuba with a capitalist gov't-hotels streaming the coast, people getting richer, and people getting happier due to consumerism and liberalism. As I said before, if I were Teddy Roosevelt, I would have kept Cuba...and you can't deny Cuba would have been better off with the US than with Batista and Castro!


why do you think they wanted to prevent communism? because it is totalitarian and anti-freedom? don't be so naive. the US opposed communism because it hampered their ability to exploit foreign resources and markets. if a nation is communism then US companies cannot go in and make money there. THAT is why the USA opposed communism, it had nothing to do with democracy. The usa has supported capitalist dictators or dictators friendly to US commercial interests (mobutu sese seko, karimov in uzbekistan), and helped overthrow socialist democracies (chile), they have supported right wing guerillas (the UNITA rebels in angola, one of the most bloodthirsty and brutal militias of the 20th century, contras in nicaragua), and helped quell socialist revolutionaries (farc in columbia). the fundamental motivation of US foreign policy is aggressively protecting the interests of american commerce, even if it means invading a nation to do so. sometimes these interests coincide with promoting democracy, at other times they do not.

Communism exposed a ideological threat to Americans in the 1950's and foward. I agree with what you say simply because its true. However I disagree that the only reasons were economical. What could the US possibly want economically from a country like Nicaragua and Grenada? The fact is, US Presidents were forced to enact the 'Truman Doctrine' because it was highly favored by the American people. Those who opposed were regarded as "soft" on communism. The main reason for the US intervening to stop leftish revolutions was to protect its interest in having democracy and capitalism prosper throughout the world...this is what everyone in the US wanted. So in a sense, presidents were politically forced to act. Remember the theory that if one state turned communist, then another would follow (Domino Effect)? This is the justification for many of the interventions. Now look at the result: only one communist nation left in the W. Hemisphere.



what is wrong with it? if you want an answer, check out the vietnam war death toll, it goes into the millions.

I meant "what was wrong with the ideology behing the war" which was to stop communism from spreading.

the phrase 'hearts and minds' was actually invented during the malayan emergency. it involved moving the civillians out of an area into transit camps, feeding and housing them, then defeating the guerillas in an area and moving the civillians back and repairing the damage. we did not carry out heavy bombing from the air, instead most of the fighting was done on the ground in small units using the same chindit techniques we used against the japanese. basically we fought the guerillas with guerillas. the idea anyway was that you could kill an insurgency by simply being nice to the locals and not giving them cause to join up, something like this the americans still havent gripped - imagine how iraq would be if we brits had been running the whole country.


To return to this. The US was in no position to do what you described above. The French could've since they had the same position Britain had in Malaya. Namely, are you a loyalist or a rebel. The US would be seen as invaders no matter what tactic they used, and they pretty much were.

No, but he livesin a nation that did. It is not his fault, but it is still hypocritical to bring up US imperialism when his country did it in a much greater extent. And remeber, I didn't 'colonize either'

no one has accused you yourself of invading iraq or colonising the western usa, but you have accused british individuals here of being hypocritical. i think you should take that back.



It gave them back after finding them unfeasible, and after having them for many years. Quite a different scenario from US buying most of its land from the French (Louisiana Purchase), Mexico (Mexican Cession), and Russia (Alaska).

that is true that they became unfeasible, and also that we discovered that we could exploit these nations commercially without maintaining political control over them. the US bought land from other nations who had colonised those areas, and under US control of this land, native americans were expelled (trail of tears), their nomadic existence was undermined by land laws, the buffalo was wiped out by hunters, they were even killed (wounded knee) and US govt followed policies which repopulated the areas with european-americans (homestead act). this is quite similar to what china has done with tibet. furthermore, the US expanded into territories which were not previously claimed by colonial nations. they even went overseas and took hawaii as a commercial venture.



The US has nothing to do with Cuba's governmental system. Taking away communism from Cuba would be the best thing that could happen to them. This is a nation that still drives dilapadated cars from the 1950's, has buildings in very poor shape, has hospitals with very poor resources, and absolutely no private sector. The fact that there is no private sector is what kills Cuba. Just imagine the potential of Cuba with a capitalist gov't-hotels streaming the coast, people getting richer, and people getting happier due to consumerism and liberalism. As I said before, if I were Teddy Roosevelt, I would have kept Cuba...and you can't deny Cuba would have been better off with the US than with Batista and Castro!

you think the USa has "nothing to do with cuba's governmental system"? the usa's actions leading up to the revolution, and throughout the cold war, have kept cuba between a rock and a hard place. and cuban exiles in florida have always proved hugely influential as to how that nation is run. maybe cuba wouldve been better off as a US state or colony, though that is promoting colonialism. ;)

and cuba already has hotels lining the coast, the world (minus the USA) treats cuba as a desirable holiday destination already. no doubt capitalism would help many cubans, but the problem with the extremist US policy and the immense influence the US and cuban exiles have over that nation is that if capitalism were to be installed in cuba, it would no doubt wreck the social security the communist state provides. you say its hospitals are in bad shape, well they are in a better shape than any other carib. nation, and in a better shape than pretty much any of the latin american nations, indeed, infant mortality rates in cuba are the same as they are in the USA, cuba exports its doctors around the world! and this is even with the presence of outdated US sanctions! and those sanctions are the reason cubans drive 1950s cars.

i am not defending castro, i am just pointing out that both US policy, and the Cuban government, seem to be promoting two extremes, neither of which are desirable, and as long as they keep doing this the situation in cuba will not improve. surely it is time for the USA to make the first step towards building a better cuba?

imho the best option for cuba would be something akin to venezuela, democratic with a mix of socialism and capitalism, the best of both worlds. sadly due to the twin evils of US policy and the Cuban government, this desirable outcome is almost impossible.



Communism exposed a ideological threat to Americans in the 1950's and foward. I agree with what you say simply because its true. However I disagree that the only reasons were economical. What could the US possibly want economically from a country like Nicaragua and Grenada? The fact is, US Presidents were forced to enact the 'Truman Doctrine' because it was highly favored by the American people. Those who opposed were regarded as "soft" on communism. The main reason for the US intervening to stop leftish revolutions was to protect its interest in having democracy and capitalism prosper throughout the world...this is what everyone in the US wanted. So in a sense, presidents were politically forced to act. Remember the theory that if one state turned communist, then another would follow (Domino Effect)? This is the justification for many of the interventions. Now look at the result: only one communist nation left in the W. Hemisphere.

right, the domino effect worried successive US administrations enough that they launched proxy-wars and supported us friendly dictators and trained terrorists at the school of the americas and even went to war in vietnam because of it. the reason fighting communism was important to the US people was because of the immense US propaganda machine which would ensure sound pretexts for US foreign policy. american commercial interests are global, and must be protected. how could they be against communism for the reason that it is totalitarian, undemocratic and curtails the liberties of man, if they then went and supported dictators who were also totalitarian, undemocratic and curtailed the liberties of their people, but yet happened to be friendly to US commercial interests? the common factor in all the groups, dictators, govts supported by the usa is that they are right-wing or that they are warm to US commercial interests, the common factor in all groups, dictators, govts opposed by the US is that they were, democratic or not, left wing, and as such threatened the status of global commerce.

allendes govt in chile is a classic example of a democratic govt overthrown by a us supported coup. it happened in el salvador too. iran used to be a democracy until the americans put the shah into power and we all know what happened there. there was the phillopines, indonesia, vietnam, laos, cambodia which all their democratically elected governments replaced by far right anti communist ones. things got so fucked up that by the 1980s american cia men would actually be killing american nuns, i kid you not.

Britain was an ally in the overthrow of progressive government of Iran. (I'm sure you were aware of that)


Tell me how the US was involved in Laos, Cambodia, and Indonesia.

It's a bit rich to suggest that moral superiority wrt Iraq is solely the dominion of the anti-war lobby; the alternative in not supporting the removal of SH on moral grounds would've been to condemn countless others to sick, torturous deaths under (legal) judicial murder in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. It's a tough call to make on moral grounds and pretty dirty for either pro-war or anti- to suggest that only they bore compassion for those dead. Dead innocents aren't political pawns, nor should they be used to prove one's own degree of morality.

For the record, I was anti-war but for other reasons. Besides, the Lancet, where the 100,000 deaths figure was gotten from, reported that the range was 8,000 to 194,000 in a 95% certainty level. So, in other words, they're pretty certain they got a figure that lies between a really small tiny unrealistic number and a huge unrealistic one :crazy:.

the europeans were such angels though back then. At least we didnt murder over 100,000 "witches". Burning them at the stake and torturing them. And at least our christians didnt go from town to town torturing confessions out of people with cruel devices. 100,000 witches....hmmm where have we seen 100,000 before? Then again, the 100,000 from 1600's is a factual number.

The Salem Witch Trials were American and were held long after Medeval Times.

the usa was the last country in the western world to stop executing witches.

Those nutty witch trials were held while the colonists still considered themselves English. Remember, these idiotic Puritans tried to ruin your country too with no dancing and no beer. What sheer stupidity on the part of these nutjobs!! :bash:

Those nutty witch trials were held while the colonists still considered themselves English. Remember, these idiotic Puritans tried to ruin your country too with no dancing and no beer. What sheer stupidity on the part of these nutjobs!!:bash:

America banned beer in the 1930's it was called prohibition duh, and that crazy rock and roll music was banned in America and all the Beatles Albums were burnt after Lennon said they were bigger than Jesus :lol:

America is full of religous zealots even today and they all voted for Bush in the last election. :laugh:

If any country is full of nutjobs and strange laws it's America.

totally agreed. fucking puritans tore this country to shreds too and are at fault for the violence in ireland that continues today, though in our defense by the time we found out about salem and ordered it to stop it was over and done with. communications between london and the colonies would take months at that point.
remember those stupid americans buying french wine to destroy so they could protest at the evil french! great idea of boycott of buying the goods first.lol

America banned beer in the 1930's it was called prohibition duh, and that crazy rock and roll music was banned in America and all the Beatles Albums were burnt after Lennon said they were bigger than Jesus :lol:

America is full of religous zealots even today and they all voted for Bush in the last election. :laugh:

If any country is full of nutjobs and strange laws it's America.

By your logic, then, the UK is full of BNP nut jobs who go around intimidating minorities, right? Wackos exist in every country.

By your logic, then, the UK is full of BNP nut jobs who go around intimidating minorities, right? Wackos exist in every country.

That is a good point, a country should not be judged by it's extreme elements, rather how it deals with those elements.

That is a good point, a country should not be judged by it's extreme elements, rather how it deals with those elements.

they elect them as president in the USA :lol:

By your logic, then, the UK is full of BNP nut jobs who go around intimidating minorities, right? Wackos exist in every country.

I don't see any BNP members of Parliament unlike many European countries such as France where the National Front is a much stronger political force.

Btw it's not according to my logic the US did ban alcohol, did try to ban rock and roll and more recently blamed Marilyn Manson for Columbine and all it's other Social ills.

It is the US which jails 2.1 million people, it is the US which executes a disproportionate level of black people compared to white people who have committed the same crime and it is the US, it is the US which gave the world Communist witch hunts in the 50's, it was the US which gave us Waco, and it is US Foriegn policy which has made it so detested by so many people, and I am not talking about t6he 17th and 18th Century I am talking about current events anf right now.

they elect them as president in the USA :lol:

:laugh: very good

I don't see any BNP members of Parliament unlike many European countries such as France where the National Front is a much stronger political force.

Btw it's not according to my logic the US did ban alcohol, did try to ban rock and roll and more recently blamed Marilyn Manson for Columbine and all it's other Social ills.

It is the US which jails 2.1 million people, it is the US which executes a disproportionate level of black people compared to white people who have committed the same crime and it is the US, it is the US which gave the world Communist witch hunts in the 50's, it was the US which gave us Waco, and it is US Foriegn policy which has made it so detested by so many people, and I am not talking about t6he 17th and 18th Century I am talking about current events anf right now.

Valid criticisms. I want penal codes to be equalized (such as ending different punishments for crack and cocaine posession, etc), and I want the death penalty to be abolished. I also think that this country gets a litte big for its britches in the foreign policy arena, and that the Republicans are bordering on unconstitutionality in their forays mixing religion and politics.

But to say the country is full of nut jobs is insulting, and this is what I was trying to describe in my post.

And again, in the foreign policy front, the UK has been the faithful Yorkie trotting along the swaggering America, so, part of the blame goes to the UK as well for our joint foreign policy ventures.

But to say the country is full of nut jobs is insulting, and this is what I was trying to describe in my post.

No, you suggested that the English were puritan nutjobs who banned dancing and alcohol if you recall, and I found that a bit rich coming from an American

Here, let me go through my "offensive post."

Those nutty witch trials were held while the colonists still considered themselves English.

Therefore, to say that AMERICANS had the Salem witch trial is silly, because they did not consider themselves Americans, but English. The concept of being American did not even exist until well into the 18th century.

Remember, these idiotic Puritans tried to ruin your country too with no dancing and no beer. What sheer stupidity on the part of these nutjobs!! :bash:

I said that it was the PURITANS that were the nutjobs. The last time I checked, Puritan was not a synonym for "English."

Read my post carefully before commenting on its offensiveness

No you read your post carefully as you were reffering to how Europeans executed witches and were puritans if you recall matey.

the usa isnt full of nutjobs, there's 58 million of them which means 230 million americans are sane. pity they didnt all vote. as for the uk being the faithful yorkie, yes you might have noticed how much we HATE this.

No you read your post carefully as you were reffering to how Europeans executed witches and were puritans if you recall matey.

Again. Some of the English were Puritans. Not all the English were Purtians. By criticizing this specific group, I am not criticizing all English, and definitely not all Europeans.

Again. Some of the English were Puritans. Not all the English were Purtians. By criticizing this specific group, I am not criticizing all English, and definitely not all Europeans.

I am not getting in to a debate as to how many English were puritans, the fact is from the start of this debate you have used historical nonesence to deflect the real issue regarding America's massive prison population, poor human rights record and unethical foriegn policy.

hey don qui is okay, he is against the huge prison population himself! the thread seems to have take on a life of its own... :cheers:

^^^
I have nothing against Don Qui in a personal level, but this thread has transcended in to nonsence about events which happened hundreds of years ago, about witches and Puritans.

Wtf, it seems to me that some Americans are reluctant to face the truth, although I realise that Don Qui does agree with many of the points raised regarding American Foriegn Policy and Human Rights issues.

Don Qui has raised alot of arguements and because of that there has been a good debate going - I've actually learnt things in it as well.

If we all thought the same things, this thread and the skybar would be a boring place to be.

:cheers:

The Salem Witch Trials were American and were held long after Medeval Times.


no it wasnt the Medival times where these women where unfairly killed. More witches were murdered in Europe than in the Americas...by a huge margin (over a hundred thousand put to death) The Salem Witch trials only saw a small group of townswomen put to death by hanging. The witch hunts in Europe were everywhere...most evident in Germany. However, the Medieval ages had plenty of other horrific punishments to people who didnt do anything. Cant forget the anceint Rome...with the countless eaten, tourtured, murdered, to death in the arena. Also, we forget about the Crusades--where our friendly Europeans hacked anything with a towel on its head to death. Its kind of funny how Europeans call us Americans looney Christians....but we never forced people to follow it or murdered anyone because of it. Cant forget about the Spanish inquisition either. We also cant forget how Europe intentionally brought diseases to wipe out American native populations...or how they ruined Africa. Or the Holocaust or Stalins purges. I could go on and on about the bad things that have come from Europe....but I guess what Im saying is...dont sit there and find things in our history to attack us with today. Saying current Americans are evil pieces of shit because we fought in Vietnam (to stop Communism by the way) or Iraq is unfair..because you could do the same thing to almost every culture.

Don Qui has raised alot of arguements and because of that there has been a good debate going - I've actually learnt things in it as well.

If we all thought the same things, this thread and the skybar would be a boring place to be.

:cheers:

well thats what you think

Don Qui has raised alot of arguements and because of that there has been a good debate going - I've actually learnt things in it as well.

If we all thought the same things, this thread and the skybar would be a boring place to be.

Well I have learned things as well such as what a lot of nonesensical shite some people come out with, perhaps we should start debating the number of Pixies in the UK or some other irrelevant crap that has nothing to do with the serious matter of the 2.1 million poor sods behind bars in America, the mistreatment of prisoners in the US and the fact that over 100,000 prisoners are kept in total solitary confinement in supermax conditions in which nobody not even the guards are allowed any form of communication with them.

Perhaps you think it's clever to talk about puritans and bloody medeval England when the real issue is why the Americans preach human rights and then treat their own people abd those not guilty of any crime so badly. If you watched Channel 4's torture season not so long ago you would have seen that these people are being made to piss and deficate in their uniforms, people who are being tortured and have actually not been found guilty of any crime.

We still go on about how badly the Germans and Japanese treat prisoners during WW2 but just look at what the Americans are doing right now, not sixty, a hundred or 500 years ago.

Debate your historical topics by all means but start another thread rather than make a mockery of such an important issue.

well thats what you think

Cheers Rigadon Mate :applause:

in the UK or some other irrelevant crap that has nothing to do with the serious matter of the 2.1 million poor sods behind bars in America, the mistreatment of prisoners in the US and the fact that over 100,000 prisoners are kept in total solitary confinement in supermax conditions in which nobody not even the guards are allowed any form of communication with them.

Perhaps you think it's clever to talk about puritans and bloody medeval England when the real issue is why the Americans preach human rights and then treat their own people abd those not guilty of any crime so badly. If you watched Channel 4's torture season not so long ago you would have seen that these people are being made to piss and deficate in their uniforms, people who are being tortured and have actually not been found guilty of any crime.



yes.... those poor axe murderers, rapists, and molestors :ohno:

our anti-americanism can stretch to condoning murder to score a winning point ;)

Only a tiny minority are murderers or violent criminals, and nobody is condoning murder.

Only a tiny minority are murderers or violent criminals, and nobody is condoning murder.

But said tiny minority is still many times larger than our tiny minority and is the largest as a percentage of the population out of all "industrialised" nations.

remember those stupid americans buying french wine to destroy so they could protest at the evil french! great idea of boycott of buying the goods first.lol

As usual you can't tell the whole story you are so blinded.

Imports from France to the United States:

2002: 28.240 billion
2003: 29.219 billion
2004: 31.814 billion

we were in a recession those years and still imports from France to the United States went up each year and as the dollar got weaker - making imports more expensive.

So far the first two months of this year imports from France have again increased over the same time period last year by 14.5%. Btw, the trade deficit with France has gone up too. From 9.224 billion to 10.574 billion a year. Meaning we buy about ten billion more worth of products each year than France buys from us.

My lord gothicform, what are you doing. As usual you focus on the actions of a few and then generalize. You are the UK's version of Fox News. LOL.

qwerty, I don't know what trade deficits have to do with prison populations but I'll humour you... Did you realise that per capita the US has the world's largest trade deficit out of all the developed and developing nations? *excludes nations classed as undeveloped like many African nations, North Korea and the like.

He was responding to gothic's bashing. The US economy can handle trade deficits more so than other nations. We still have a high standard of living and healthy growth.

But said tiny minority is still many times larger than our tiny minority and is the largest as a percentage of the population out of all "industrialised" nations.


Most people in US jails are not hardened criminals and are those unfortunates who just happen to be born in to poverty, whilst at the same time big corporations pollute the environment and kill millions, commit massive frauds without going to jail and use their influence, money and power to dictate how America should be run.

For many poor people there are better ways of helping them than incarceration (which costs thousands of dollars every week for every prisoner) surely in a civilised society the money could be better spent (in the case of petty offenders) on improving their lives through education, training, job opportunities, anti-drugs programmes, better housing and a million and one other social improvements which just might break the ghetto mentality and improve the lives of the most marginilised within American society.

If the UK (with 60 million people a fifth of America's population of 300 million) were to imprison percentage of her population then we would now have a prison population of around 420,000 people rather than the 75,000 we currently have in prison (and the UK is criticised for already having the highest prison population in Europe). America now imprisons a greater percentage of people than China, surely America's crime rate is not that much greater.

well thats what you think

dur, that's why I said it.

Is it now?

bashing? ummm, americans DID buy french goods to destroy, you should check the volume of wine sold in texas in february 2003 and then the volume of wine in may 2003. it went up by over a quarter and then slumped. was i halluncinating, did i imagine goods with french names being renamed freedom this and democracy that, were TV pictures of thousands of republicans destroying french goods in rallies faked? by the way, the VOLUME of exports from france to the usa has gone DOWN, the value has gone up in dollars because of the weak dollar. i guess this was imagined too -
http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/13/news/companies/sofitel/

and here's a nice little law your congress passed in 2003 after they decided dead american soldiers should no longer be buried in cowardly american soil. bet you didn't know your country is now digging up its war dead did you?
"To provide, upon the request of a qualifying person, for the removal of the remains of any United States servicemember or other person interred in an American Battle Monuments Commission cemetery located in France or Belgium and for the transportation of such remains to a location in the United States for reinterment."

Is it now?

Rigadon if me and you carry on like this we will be doing "he's behind you - oh no he isn't" next :)

bashing? ummm, americans DID buy french goods to destroy, you should check the volume of wine sold in texas in february 2003 and then the volume of wine in may 2003. it went up by over a quarter and then slumped. was i halluncinating, did i imagine goods with french names being renamed freedom this and democracy that, were TV pictures of thousands of republicans destroying french goods in rallies faked? by the way, the VOLUME of exports from france to the usa has gone DOWN, the value has gone up in dollars because of the weak dollar. i guess this was imagined too -
http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/13/news/companies/sofitel/
This doesn't do anything for me. I can't see how anyone can gather any meaningful conclusions from what you wrote above. Exports from China and many other nations has gone down as well due to the weak dollar making domestic products more attractive. That is one of the advantages of a weak dollar, another being the hoards of European tourists coming here to spend their Euros on Louis Vutton bags and Miami beach resorts.


and heres a nice little law your congress passed in 2003 after they decided dead american soldiers should no longer be buried in cowardly american soil. bet you didnt know your country is now digging up its war dead did you?
"To provide, upon the request of a qualifying person, for the removal of the remains of any United States servicemember or other person interred in an American Battle Monuments Commission cemetery located in France or Belgium and for the transportation of such remains to a location in the United States for reinterment.

What's wrong with this? What am I suppose to extrapolate from this?

1. That America is so anti-French and Belgium too! (because like half of the Belgians speak French) that they will not accept American soldiers being buried in France.

or...

2. Relatives of dead soldiers can request the body to be buried in the US, so they don't have to buy a plane ticket to France to visit him or her.

U.S. Prison Population Seeing “Unprecedented Increase”

WASHINGTON, Feb 4 2013 (IPS) - The research wing of the U.S. Congress is warning that three decades of “historically unprecedented” build-up in the number of prisoners incarcerated in the United States have led to a level of overcrowding that is now “taking a toll on the infrastructure” of the federal prison system.

Over the past 30 years, according to a new report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the federal prison population has jumped from 25,000 to 219,000 inmates, an increase of nearly 790 percent. Swollen by such figures, for years the United States has incarcerated far more people than any other country, today imprisoning some 716 people out of every 100,000.

http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/02/u-s-prison-population-seeing-unprecedented-increase/

Incarceration rate is actually slightly down on the first post 8 years ago :P

726 > 716

There's a direct correlation between the rise in the U.S. prison population in the past few decades, and the excellent decline in the overall crime rate. I for one have no problem with this and don't give a shit about what some Euro-tard thinks, passing judgement on issues that don't concern him, when he's not the one that has to live (or has lived) in places like Detroit.

It's been in the news here recently about Chicago's murder rate spike. There was a news story on 60 Minutes (an ultra liberal network tv show, BTW), that directly tied the spike in crimes to Illinois's shitty economy, and the fact that prisoners are being paroled entirely for economic reasons (lack of jail space).

There's a direct correlation between the rise in the U.S. prison population in the past few decades, and the excellent decline in the overall crime rate. I for one have no problem with this and don't give a shit about what some Euro-tard thinks, passing judgement on issues that don't concern him, when he's not the one that has to live (or has lived) in places like Detroit.

and the falling crime rate in sweden? how do you explain that one.

I don't give a shit about Sweden. It's a country that 90-95% white, with history, culture, and most importantly demographics that are completely unlike the U.S. What works in the U.S. is aggressive, New York City style policing, with stop and frisk, massive police presence, and strict laws and sentencing. Nothing else has worked or will work.

I don't give a shit about Sweden. It's a country that 90-95% white, with history, culture, and most importantly demographics that are completely unlike the U.S. What works in the U.S. is aggressive, New York City style policing, with stop and frisk, massive police presence, and strict laws and sentencing. Nothing else has worked or will work.

The reason "non-whites" commit more crime in the USA is because they have no historic wealth or privilege to take advantage of. Look toward Eastern Europe to see what white people without wealth or privilege are capable of. It's about resources.

I don't give a shit about Sweden. It's a country that 90-95% white, with history, culture, and most importantly demographics that are completely unlike the U.S. What works in the U.S. is aggressive, New York City style policing, with stop and frisk, massive police presence, and strict laws and sentencing. Nothing else has worked or will work.

every country in the western world has had falling crime rates actually, white or non white alike.

and people are more likely to offend in the USA if you jail them, a lot more likely.

There's a direct correlation between the rise in the U.S. prison population in the past few decades, and the excellent decline in the overall crime rate.

At you say correlation, not cause and effect. Actually there is a pretty good body of scientific evidence putting lead poisoning from auto traffic during early childhood as the major cause of the rise and then fall of crime in the US and other western countries.

There's a good article about it in this years economist publication; The World in 2013
http://www.economist.com/news/21566385-lead-tantalisingly-close-death-2013-world-meant-stop-using-leaded-petrol-toxin

The scientifically tested evidence for this theory is significantly detailed and evidenced to create a growing consensus that this is the main reason for crime rises and then falls in the US and elsewhere. No other theory has explained the rise in crime rates in the first place, while gong into pains to explain why [insert pet theory] caused the subsequent fall. The correlation with the numbers of non whites committing a higher number of crimes its also substantially explained by lead poisoning once you factor out other issues such as parental income because of the higher levels of air pollution in inner cities.

Thankfully the effects of lead in petrol are now starting to fade and the population of American prisons is aging and slowly declining.

Whatever you say, bro.

At you say correlation, not cause and effect. Actually there is a pretty good body of scientific evidence putting lead poisoning from auto traffic during early childhood as the major cause of the rise and then fall of crime in the US and other western countries.

There's a good article about it in this years economist publication; The World in 2013
http://www.economist.com/news/21566385-lead-tantalisingly-close-death-2013-world-meant-stop-using-leaded-petrol-toxin

The scientifically tested evidence for this theory is significantly detailed and evidenced to create a growing consensus that this is the main reason for crime rises and then falls in the US and elsewhere. No other theory has explained the rise in crime rates in the first place, while gong into pains to explain why [insert pet theory] caused the subsequent fall. The correlation with the numbers of non whites committing a higher number of crimes its also substantially explained by lead poisoning once you factor out other issues such as parental income because of the higher levels of air pollution in inner cities.

Thankfully the effects of lead in petrol are now starting to fade and the population of American prisons is aging and slowly declining.

not just auto fumes but lead in other things too from drinking pipes to paint. as you say there's a growing body of evidence that lead poisoning has been responsible for a large amount of ongoing violence in human history.

I don't give a shit about Sweden. It's a country that 90-95% white, with history, culture, and most importantly demographics that are completely unlike the U.S. What works in the U.S. is aggressive, New York City style policing, with stop and frisk, massive police presence, and strict laws and sentencing. Nothing else has worked or will work.

Estimates put Sweden's foreign population at around 27%. Americans like to propagate that bullshit that countries like Sweden are somehow not diverse when in fact they are among the most diverse in the world and are huge magnets for immigrants all over the world. :nuts:

I don't give a shit about Sweden. It's a country that 90-95% white
Never has "racist" been so apt

Estimates put Sweden's foreign population at around 27%. Americans like to propagate that bullshit that countries like Sweden are somehow not diverse when in fact they are among the most diverse in the world and are huge magnets for immigrants all over the world. :nuts:

which is why i mentioned sweden... you shouldn't correct him. it's much more fun seeing someone just ignorantly continue with their stupid ideas.

Oh I'm sure he'll be back regardless with more made up 'facts', but responding with 'whatever' is usually a clear signal that they can't think of anything else to say. :lol:

There's a direct correlation between the rise in the U.S. prison population in the past few decades, and the excellent decline in the overall crime rate. I for one have no problem with this and don't give a shit about what some Euro-tard thinks, passing judgement on issues that don't concern him, when he's not the one that has to live (or has lived) in places like Detroit.

It's been in the news here recently about Chicago's murder rate spike. There was a news story on 60 Minutes (an ultra liberal network tv show, BTW), that directly tied the spike in crimes to Illinois's shitty economy, and the fact that prisoners are being paroled entirely for economic reasons (lack of jail space).

For the love of god drink a cup of shut the fuck up.

There is sometimes a drop in recorded crime when there is a drop in police funding because there are less police on the beat to spot crime.

Crime in Sweden is, according to their statistical bureau* which covers crime, rising.

(which operates under their Justice department) *


As they say on their homepage:

Det totala antalet anmälda brott till polis, tull och åklagare har ökat kraftigt sedan 1950, vilket är det år då vi började föra nationell brottsstatistik i Sverige. Att den anmälda brottsligheten ökat betyder däremot inte självklart att den faktiska brottsligheten har ökat. Kompletterande offerundersökningar och specialstudier av olika slag pekar dock i samma riktning som den anmälda brottsligheten – att den faktiska brottsligheten för många typer av brott har ökat.

My translation:

The total number of crimes reported to the police, customs and prosecutors has increased rapidly since 1950, which was the year we begun collecting crime statistics in Sweden. That the number of reported crimes increased does of course not mean that the actual number of crimes has risen.
Additional victim studies and special studies of different kinds do however point in the same direction - that the actual figure of many different types of crime has increased.

http://www.bra.se/bra/brott--statistik/brottsutvecklingen-i-sverige.html

Well, it only refers to 1950.

Well, it only refers to 1950.

They do of course have them year-by-year. So you could get the data for all types of crimes for every year since 1950.

There is sometimes a drop in recorded crime when there is a drop in police funding because there are less police on the beat to spot crime.

my favourite story about that is that my ex comes from scotland, and his parents had a local paper describing a police crackdown on drug supply coming from liverpool. great success apparently...

...only coincidentally, when i went back up to stay with them, their local paper was then filled with outraged reports of how street prostitution and theft was now out of control (not that any link was made between the cause and effect).

joined up thinking in action.

not just auto fumes but lead in other things too from drinking pipes to paint. as you say there's a growing body of evidence that lead poisoning has been responsible for a large amount of ongoing violence in human history.

IIRC there is an observed 23 year lag between the peak of violent crime and the banning of lead in fuel which has been seen in many nations now. It's also worth noting that the lower the socioeconomic scale a demographic is the more likely it is to become a victim of lead poisoning (which also lowers iq).

With regards to the us prison population, it's increasingly privately owned, profitable business and filled with the most vulnerable in society imprisoned for bullshit such as three strikes rules and small amounts of weed possession.

And what do they do in there? Well, many of them are now sweatshops pumping out produce on a pittance wage (we're talking less than a penny a day in many cases). Almost makes the forced shelf stacking look moral.

From what I remember hearing, the spike in jail rate in the US is a modern phenomenon, started I believe under Reagan's War on Drugs. Until then the US prison rate was dramatically lower, but some 30ish years ago it started to explode and US politicians on both sides found that they could win elections by just "getting tough on crime" where any crime including petty drug use should send people to jail. It has not helped that they also passed tons of minimum sentences for many crimes where judges have no choice but to send people to jail for many years for many more crimes than the way things used to be.

Ironically, it has been shown that trowing people in Jail does not really make people more law abiding. There is a massive recidivism rate (IIRC 60%) for people who get out of jail and within a few years are back in. This is since there is little actual help/treatment for incarcerated people and that while in jail many people actually become worse.

From what I remember hearing, the spike in jail rate in the US is a modern phenomenon, started I believe under Reagan's War on Drugs. Until then the US prison rate was dramatically lower, but some 30ish years ago it started to explode and US politicians on both sides found that they could win elections by just "getting tough on crime" where any crime including petty drug use should send people to jail. It has not helped that they also passed tons of minimum sentences for many crimes where judges have no choice but to send people to jail for many years for many more crimes than the way things used to be.

Ironically, it has been shown that trowing people in Jail does not really make people more law abiding. There is a massive recidivism rate (IIRC 60%) for people who get out of jail and within a few years are back in. This is since there is little actual help/treatment for incarcerated people and that while in jail many people actually become worse.

Aye, jail can destroy a good person. It doesn't help that even after you have spent your time incarcerated and paid your dues back to society, there is simply no future for them because society won't allow a convicted criminal back into the working population as even after you have served your sentence the punishment continues with the stigma and the destruction a criminal record can bring. It's no surprise they turn to the one thing still open to them, more crime.

It's worth noting that the rich who have been sentenced don't face this as they still have their old boys network which can forgive and forget when they finish serving their time, the only time they face the same hell as the convicted poor is when they wrong other rich people. Recidivism is a peculiarly poor mans trait, but what do we expect when we allow any conviction at all to forever ruin their lives. Even justice is now corrupt.

not just auto fumes but lead in other things too from drinking pipes to paint. as you say there's a growing body of evidence that lead poisoning has been responsible for a large amount of ongoing violence in human history.

Yes there is a ( less evidenced theory) that lead paint and exposure to lead in cosmetics, food and day to day household products during the first half of the 20th century led to many of the preconditions for the revolutions and wars of that period. As I say this is much more speculative and there is far less evidence for the societal impacts of lead in that period than there is for the link with lead in petrol buy the toxicity effects of lead paint and the historical use of lead in sweets cosmetics and other items does make you wonder.

i also read in relation to american crime - that the liberalisation of abortion in places like ny state, coincides exactly with the drop in violent crime and murder. kids born and raised unwanted in squalor, coming of age in the 70's and 80's - the equivalent demographic simply wasn't around by the mid 90's - not in such significant numbers.

there is a wonderful thread on here in the new york forum, showing 'bad new york' from the 60's to the early 90's. astonishing.

Aye, jail can destroy a good person. It doesn't help that even after you have spent your time incarcerated and paid your dues back to society, there is simply no future for them because society won't allow a convicted criminal back into the working population as even after you have served your sentence the punishment continues with the stigma and the destruction a criminal record can bring. It's no surprise they turn to the one thing still open to them, more crime.

It's worth noting that the rich who have been sentenced don't face this as they still have their old boys network which can forgive and forget when they finish serving their time, the only time they face the same hell as the convicted poor is when they wrong other rich people. Recidivism is a peculiarly poor mans trait, but what do we expect when we allow any conviction at all to forever ruin their lives. Even justice is now corrupt.

To make matters worse, for some crimes you lose your right to vote if you have been to jail. There are an estimated 5.3 million former inmates who have lost their right to vote in the USA.

yet isn't the right to a vote enshrined in their constitution?

it would be remiss to not mention another factor in dropping crime rates. crack cocaine.

use of this peaked at the very worst of crime and has since dropped off dramatically along with the crime rate.

Too much Faux News.