US needs to take lessons from Europe regarding drastically lowering homicide rate

[BaronOfHair]

Unless directly attacked, there is no reason to get entangled in foreign conflicts

Without The Vietnam War, we would've been deprived of

 

[FlirtLife]

Half of Europe was ruled by the Soviets for 50 years after ww2. Interventionism is a failed ideology. Expansion of war just leads to more death and destruction. See both world wars, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, the cold war.

Are you claiming without U.S. intervention, WWI and WWII would have far less death and destruction? Remind me again how the U.S. started WWII, caused the holocaust, and caused the slaughter of civilians by the Japanese army?

Trade neither stopped WWI, nor stopped Russia from invading Ukraine. In contrast, interventionism is at the heart of NATO, where attacking one member become a war with all members. If you think trade worked and NATO didn't, why did Russia invade Ukraine instead of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania?

Your reply ignored every single one of my questions, so let me ignore your reply and point out the flaws in your earlier post.

You ignore other causes of death. Before WWII, the Soviet Union had mass starvation that killed millions. Far more people died from bad Soviet polices than wars in Vietnam and Korea - both of which were wars started by communists, to spread communism further. In WWII, Nazis invaded various countries, expanding the holocaust as they gained territory. The world didn't know what the Nazis were doing at the time, but those deaths were not caused by the combat fighting, but were an evil policy of the Nazi leaders. After WWII, China's industrial and agriculture policies resulted in starvation that killed somewhere between 15 to 55 million people.

Wars decide if the attacker gets to control the defender. Simply letting the attacker win, to avoid deaths of war, ignores how many millions have died of starvation from bad government policies. You cite the Korean war as an example of death that should be avoided - but right now, many North Koreans are starving to death. That separation of North and South Korea, established by military intervention, has ensured South Korea is a modern and technological democracy instead of being an extension of North Korea, known for its starvation.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

Unless directly attacked, there is no reason to get entangled in foreign conflicts. The U.S. was attacked by Japan so its response in the Pacific theater was justified. Maybe Germany would have attacked the east coast; it's possible as there were U boats off the coast of New Jersey. Entering the war in Europe did not prevent it from continuing and expanding.

The conflicts you mention started because of bloodthirsty and greedy governments, not free and open trade. Military intervention, "aid," and sanctions do nothing to alleviate the damage of warfare and it is a fool's errand to try to divide the world between angels and devils.
Otherwise the US should intervene against every bad actor, and plenty of nations would have been justified in bombing the US for its unprovoked foreign invasions, of which there are many.

The US secretly funds both sides of every conflict so they are always on the "winning side".

 

[Vanderdonck]

Your reply ignored every single one of my questions, so let me ignore your reply and point out the flaws in your earlier post.

You ignore other causes of death. Before WWII, the Soviet Union had mass starvation that killed millions. Far more people died from bad Soviet polices than wars in Vietnam and Korea - both of which were wars started by communists, to spread communism further. In WWII, Nazis invaded various countries, expanding the holocaust as they gained territory. The world didn't know what the Nazis were doing at the time, but those deaths were not caused by the combat fighting, but were an evil policy of the Nazi leaders. After WWII, China's industrial and agriculture policies resulted in starvation that killed somewhere between 15 to 55 million people.

Wars decide if the attacker gets to control the defender. Simply letting the attacker win, to avoid deaths of war, ignores how many millions have died of starvation from bad government policies. You cite the Korean war as an example of death that should be avoided - but right now, many North Koreans are starving to death. That separation of North and South Korea, established by military intervention, has ensured South Korea is a modern and technological democracy instead of being an extension of North Korea, known for its starvation.

Respect for your well stated views.

My view is that none of that has anything to do with the security of the U.S. None of those states attacked the U.S. militarily. And instead of imposing sanctions or embargoes, perhaps those people wouldn't be starving if the US dealt with those countries and their people commercially. It's certainly preferable to long term military conflicts with no clear objectives that end in losses or stalemates.

Otherwise it should be invading every country visiting injustice or crimes upon its peoples. Where are all of the African invasions? Why didn't Roosevelt bomb Franco's Spain? When do they apprehend Netanyahu for killing almost as many civilians as W.? Not to mention round up Hamas?

The U.S. (and they're not alone doing this by any means) spends too much time looking for ideological boogeymen so it can fund its military industrial complex. Of course it has to be the right boogeyman.

 

[FlirtLife]

Respect for your well stated views.

My view is that none of that has anything to do with the security of the U.S. None of those states attacked the U.S. militarily. And instead of imposing sanctions or embargoes, perhaps those people wouldn't be starving if the US dealt with those countries and their people commercially. It's certainly preferable to long term military conflicts with no clear objectives that end in losses or stalemates.

Otherwise it should be invading every country visiting injustice or crimes upon its peoples. Where are all of the African invasions? Why didn't Roosevelt bomb Franco's Spain? When do they apprehend Netanyahu for killing almost as many civilians as W.? Not to mention round up Hamas?

The U.S. (and they're not alone doing this by any means) spends too much time looking for ideological boogeymen so it can fund its military industrial complex. Of course it has to be the right boogeyman.

Between the lines, I think you're saying the U.S. called itself the world's policeman, so it needed to act on a moral/ideological code that benefitted the whole world. That's why you mention invading every country, going after Natanyahu, and ending Franco's rule over Spain. I don't speak for the U.S., and I don't see it the way you do. I think politics is often a "marriage of convenience", and pragmatic.

If you're against military intervention, are you against NATO? Set aside the U.S. involvement (which seems to be Trump's goal), and consider just Europe. If Russia invades Poland, should other European countries join the war on Poland's side? Maybe you don't agree with your government's policies, but a large number of democracies (some borderline) favor keeping the protection of NATO.

Members of Hamas are Palestinian. How exactly can you tell the difference between a Palestinian and a member of Hamas, in order to "round up Hamas"?

 

[Vanderdonck]

Between the lines, I think you're saying the U.S. called itself the world's policeman, so it needed to act on a moral/ideological code that benefitted the whole world. That's why you mention invading every country, going after Natanyahu, and ending Franco's rule over Spain. I don't speak for the U.S., and I don't see it the way you do. I think politics is often a "marriage of convenience", and pragmatic.

If you're against military intervention, are you against NATO? Set aside the U.S. involvement (which seems to be Trump's goal), and consider just Europe. If Russia invades Poland, should other European countries join the war on Poland's side? Maybe you don't agree with your government's policies, but a large number of democracies (some borderline) favor keeping the protection of NATO.

Members of Hamas are Palestinian. How exactly can you tell the difference between a Palestinian and a member of Hamas, in order to "round up Hamas"?

Those are tough questions and I don't have the answer to everything. I would err on the side of not being provoked into war unless attacked. At the very least, dissolving NATO would allow nations to determine their own defense priorities. It is one giant Group Trap and Ukraine's interest in joining probably led to it being invaded. Austria, Ireland, Switzerland, and Malta never joined NATO and were not invaded by the Soviet Union or Russia.

Re: Hamas, that shows why police actions can be so perilous. The fog of war is powerful.

 

[FlirtLife]

At the very least, dissolving NATO would allow nations to determine their own defense priorities. It is one giant Group Trap and Ukraine's interest in joining probably led to it being invaded.

That's the Russian talking point, but if you diversify your news sources, you'll find they don't blame the victim. Putin invaded Ukraine for his own selfish reasons, and the one I find most likely is a "wag the dog" approach to Russian politics.

 

[Vanderdonck]

That's the Russian talking point, but if you diversify your news sources, you'll find they don't blame the victim. Putin invaded Ukraine for his own selfish reasons, and the one I find most likely is a "wag the dog" approach to Russian politics.

TBH I don't follow the news much at all. Certainly nobody forced Putin to do what he did. And now look, Ukraine is invading Russia. The madness of war. The less of it the better.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

TBH I don't follow the news much at all. Certainly nobody forced Putin to do what he did. And now look, Ukraine is invading Russia. The madness of war. The less of it the better.

It's the one constant of human existence. We cannot be peaceful. We love violence. Always have, always will. One of the earliest dated preserved bodies that was found showed that he was likely murdered by an axe to the back.

 

[Vanderdonck]

It's the one constant of human existence. We cannot be peaceful. We love violence. Always have, always will. One of the earliest dated preserved bodies that was found showed that he was likely murdered by an axe to the back.

Abel.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

Abel.

Abel was long after Utzi.

 

[Vending Machine Veteran]

US seems to talk tough but so precious little to change the fact that homicides continue to increase here year after year...

Europe on the other hand has dropped their rate by almost 2/3 in under 25 years.

The US should use them as a model to do the same instead of of whatever they are doing now because it simply isn't working.

In the UK, it's been extremely low the entire time. I know part of it is that even police don't carry guns there and gun ownership is non existant among citizens. That will never fly in the US.

However, Switzerland has among the highest gun ownership rates per capita n the world and they have none of the issues that the US has with killings and fun violence. Why? Because it's a source of national pride for them and children and raised very early on to respect them and are trained on the proper use of guns.

Charted: Homicide Rates in the U.S. vs. Europe (2000-2020)

The UK homicide rate is about one-sixth of the rate in the U.S.

www.visualcapitalist.com

Lol