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

[Bible_Belt]

Post-WW2 'team America world police' is not only unable to actually police the world, they are only protecting American interests and resources (like oil)

The world runs on energy, and it would be several times more expensive without globalism. The world police protect oil shipments from places like Iran, because that oil is a globally traded commodity with a largely static demand. Take any supply off the market, and the price goes up for everyone. Americans buy a lot of gasoline, and if the price were to double or triple suddenly, we'd want to riot.

 

[9-3enthusiast]

You picked an awful day to gush over Europe's homicide rate https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/07/30/uk/southport-stabbing-attack-explainer

Multiple killings here in UK are very rare - That's why they're such big news when it happens.

Meanwhile, in USA:
Up to July 31st 2024: 372 shootings (average 2 PER DAY)
473 dead 1,528 wounded
And so far in August, another 24dead and 131 hurt.
And that's only shooting incidents... how many more by other methods?

List of mass shootings in the United States in 2024 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[BackInTheGame78]

The world runs on energy, and it would be several times more expensive without globalism. The world police protect oil shipments from places like Iran, because that oil is a globally traded commodity with a largely static demand. Take any supply off the market, and the price goes up for everyone. Americans buy a lot of gasoline, and if the price were to double or triple suddenly, we'd want to riot.

Ironically the US is the biggest producer of oil in the world as well.

 

[AmsterdamAssassin]

Americans buy a lot of gasoline, and if the price were to double or triple suddenly, we'd want to riot.

And you can see the difference in fuel prices between the US and Europe. You say it's the same supply, but our prices are pretty much double/triple about what Americans pay for the same thing. Any US candidate running for office who would even mention increasing fuel prices just won't get elected.

The thing is, I don't mind that America uses their military for protecting their trade and resources. I understand it perfectly, but the issue is with the arrogant notion of 'policing the world'. America only polices something when it's to their benefit. If they were fighting global injustice, where is their protection of Tibet against the Chinese occupation? Because Tibet doesn't have any resources that America can use, and America is on the side of China, who is a trade partner to the US (among other things).

So, America should get off its high horse of moral superiority about how necessary they are policing the world. The world knows that Americans don't lift a finger unless it's profitable to Americans. You think they fought in Afghanistan because they want to help the Afghan people? No, it's because they didn't want the poppy fields to fall into the hands of the Soviets. So now Afghanistan is back to being ruled by the Taliban.

Ironically the US is the biggest producer of oil in the world as well.

And... if that were true, why the hell do they need foreign oil? They produce the most gasoline. They ran out of oil. And they have to get it in Iran and other oil producing countries. You cannot pretend they are doing this for non-Americans. Every thing America does under the guise of policing the world benefits solely the Americans.
America's 'world policing' didn't help the Koreans, or the Vietnamese, or the Iraqis or the Afghans or anyone in the other conflicts they meddled in. America helps Saddam Hussein into power to keep Iraqi oil prices low, then, when Iraq doesn't want to sell oil for the prices America wanted to pay for it, America fabricated a reason (the never found Weapons of Mass Destruction) in order to wage war to protect their oil fields.

I'm sorry, but both your views are myopically American. If you look at American foreign and domestic behaviour from a global perspective, you would see quite another picture. And you would see why America is not that popular anymore as they were right after WW2. American popularity has been on the decline since Vietnam.

And the moment America started bragging about policing the world, what was left of that respect is dwindling fast. Like you said, "You can hate us all you want, but you need us." If you do so much good in the world and you receive that much hate, you might start to wonder why they don't love you for what you're doing.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

And you can see the difference in fuel prices between the US and Europe. You say it's the same supply, but our prices are pretty much double/triple about what Americans pay for the same thing. Any US candidate running for office who would even mention increasing fuel prices just won't get elected.

The thing is, I don't mind that America uses their military for protecting their trade and resources. I understand it perfectly, but the issue is with the arrogant notion of 'policing the world'. America only polices something when it's to their benefit. If they were fighting global injustice, where is their protection of Tibet against the Chinese occupation? Because Tibet doesn't have any resources that America can use, and America is on the side of China, who is a trade partner to the US (among other things).

So, America should get off its high horse of moral superiority about how necessary they are policing the world. The world knows that Americans don't lift a finger unless it's profitable to Americans. You think they fought in Afghanistan because they want to help the Afghan people? No, it's because they didn't want the poppy fields to fall into the hands of the Soviets. So now Afghanistan is back to being ruled by the Taliban.


And... if that were true, why the hell do they need foreign oil? They produce the most gasoline. They ran out of oil. And they have to get it in Iran and other oil producing countries. You cannot pretend they are doing this for non-Americans. Every thing America does under the guise of policing the world benefits solely the Americans.
America's 'world policing' didn't help the Koreans, or the Vietnamese, or the Iraqis or the Afghans or anyone in the other conflicts they meddled in. America helps Saddam Hussein into power to keep Iraqi oil prices low, then, when Iraq doesn't want to sell oil for the prices America wanted to pay for it, America fabricated a reason (the never found Weapons of Mass Destruction) in order to wage war to protect their oil fields.

I'm sorry, but both your views are myopically American. If you look at American foreign and domestic behaviour from a global perspective, you would see quite another picture. And you would see why America is not that popular anymore as they were right after WW2. American popularity has been on the decline since Vietnam.

And the moment America started bragging about policing the world, what was left of that respect is dwindling fast. Like you said, "You can hate us all you want, but you need us." If you do so much good in the world and you receive that much hate, you might start to wonder why they don't love you for what you're doing.

Because they export the most oil as well for profit and also use the most oil in the world as well.

Why do you want to keep arguing basic facts?

They are #1 in oil producing by almost double the next closest country.

"In 2023, the United States was the world's largest oil producer, producing an average of 19.4 million barrels of oil per day. This was almost 12 million barrels more than in 2010, largely due to advances in unconventional tight oil production. Saudi Arabia and Russia were the second and third largest producers, respectively, producing around 11.4 and 11.1 million barrels per day. "

"In 2023, the United States and China were the world's largest oil consumers, consuming 19 million and 16.6 million barrels per day, respectively. The U.S. consumed 20.3% of the world's oil, while China consumed 13.2%. Together, the U.S. and China accounted for almost half of the world's fossil fuel consumption."

Again...maybe you should stop bashing the US since YOUR country is the largest importer of US oil by a mile. Guess all those windmills aren't doing as good a job producing power as they once did.

 

[BaronOfHair]

Meanwhile, in USA:
Up to July 31st 2024: 372 shootings (average 2 PER DAY)
473 dead 1,528 wounded
And so far in August, another 24dead and 131 hurt.
And that's only shooting incidents... how many more by other methods?

List of mass shootings in the United States in 2024 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We're a nation that's never short on excitement, this is true

 

[FlirtLife]

U.S. shale oil (aka hydraulic fracturing) started ramping up about a decade ago, and now accounts for about half of U.S. oil production. I wouldn't blame someone for not knowing a relatively recent development in the mix of U.S. oil production. I'm sure many Americans don't know about it - President Biden avoids talking about it.

https://www.stlouisfed.org/-/media/project/frbstl/stlouisfed/blog/2018/may/blogimage_oilproductionprices_051418.png

 

[AmsterdamAssassin]

Again...maybe you should stop bashing the US since YOUR country is the largest importer of US oil by a mile.

I'm not bashing America. I'm protesting what you say, that the world needs Team America World Police.
As for your statistics, it just shows that the Netherlands are loyal customers. We could easily, like a lot of European countries you mention, buy oil from Russia.
We do not depend on the USA for our energy consumption, which is what you seem to read in your statistics.

Guess all those windmills aren't doing as good a job producing power as they once did.

Actually, a lot of energy we use comes from the alternatives of fossil fuel both solar and from wind turbines. Windmills do not produce electricity.

What you fail to see in your statistic is the title, which talks about the destination the oil exported to from the US. Rotterdam is one of the main harbours in Europe, which explains why a large quantity of exported US oil goes to the Netherlands.

Did you really think the Netherlands imported 650,000 barrels of oil for personal use?

And do you really think the countries you mention who import fewer barrels of oil from the US use less oil than the Netherlands?
Have you seen the size comparison and the population difference between countries like Germany, France, Spain and the Netherlands?
Did you forget that the one thing the Dutch are well known for is our business sense and entrepreneurship?

In 2022, Netherlands exported 15.3 billion U.S. dollars in crude petroleum. Main destinations: Belgium (14.5B), India (593M), Spain (75M), Germany (51.7M) and the UK (12.2M).

Not to mention that Europe is looking very hard into the alternatives for fossil fuel, if only because we really dislike being dependent on OPEC for (part of) our energy. The main problem with statistics is confirmation bias, that's why you have to take the objective view and not see the statistics solely from your biased perspective.

 

[Bible_Belt]

Any oil taken off the world market raises the price for everyone everywhere. It doesn't matter if one particular country imports or exports, the price still goes up. Even though the US makes plenty now, if we took Iran offline, the price would go up globally, and the US oil would go to whoever pays the most. Energy use isn't a choice. Everyone consumes it, and it has to come from somewhere. When the cost goes up, everyone gets poorer. Global policing is the only thing keeping prices as low as they are now.

And if you're participating in this discussion on a smart phone or other modern device, that wouldn't be possible without global trade.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

Any oil taken off the world market raises the price for everyone everywhere. It doesn't matter if one particular country imports or exports, the price still goes up. Even though the US makes plenty now, if we took Iran offline, the price would go up globally, and the US oil would go to whoever pays the most. Energy use isn't a choice. Everyone consumes it, and it has to come from somewhere. When the cost goes up, everyone gets poorer. Global policing is the only thing keeping prices as low as they are now.

And if you're participating in this discussion on a smart phone or other modern device, that wouldn't be possible without global trade.

The US is the world's largest producer of oil by nearly double the next closest country, but also the top consumer and one of the top exporters.

So effectively we need to import a lot just to keep up with the demand at home.

 

[Bible_Belt]

The US is the world's largest producer of oil by nearly double the next closest country, but also the top consumer and one of the top exporters.

So effectively we need to import a lot just to keep up with the demand at home.

And all that plastic crap from China is made from imported petrochemicals. China imports almost all of the raw materials they use for their exported goods.

 

[Vanderdonck]

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?

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.

 

[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.