Iraq 1 year later

[Silent_One]

Well, the US has now already invaded Iraq, so what if there was a pool of military money that was to be devoted towards overthrowing non-democratic nations, but in the absence of terrorist activity that was diverted to humanitarian causes in those countries? I mean the US has shown that it will do whatever it wants and no-one will stop them, so why wouldn't these governments and/or their citizens want to do something to get a piece of that pool?

The US does not operate that way. There is no "pool of money" set up to overthrow non-democratic nations, and in the absence of terrorist activity to be dirverted to "humanitarian causes". The "what if..." situation you propose is simplistic in nature. The US budget for Foreign Aid, the military, United Nations, domestic issues, ect...are very complex in their implementation and allocation. Furthermore, what about the countrie's themselves that are to recieve a "slice of the pie"? Like Saudi Arabia? Want to give them more Foreign Aid? Or Egypt? We already give them almost a billion in aid every year. Want to add new strings?

The next problem you have to overcome is that these countries are controled by corrupt governments whom control the press. How are you going to get the word out to "stimulate eradication of hate from within." If you can't get the word out because the press is controled then what are you going to do? One of the biggest problems is that these governments allows the hate and lies to be printed. All the public reads is slanted and controled by the State.

The third problem you have is lack of true freedom. Freedom to express new ideas. Freedom to question one's own government. Without true freedom a "pool of money" woun't matter. After all, what difference does it make if we argue that aid for education "should only be given in reward for upholding the ceasefire, only if there are no suicide bombers" if the text books are propaganda to start with??

Freedom of thought and ideas are the only true way to begin to eradicate the hate from within. And how do you promote Freedom?
By promoting Democracy. To do that we had to change the regimen. And make no mistake about it, this is one of the biggest gambles the US has taken in it's history. In the short term this is (and will be) painfull. To make an omelet you have to break a few eggs. But in the long run I agree with DemoCoder that it will be worth it. It is our best hope of breaking the cycle of dictators and oppression in the Middle East, and promoting peace and freedom in that region.

 

[JF_Aidan_Pryde]

Yes, if you were able to remove every gun, there would be some change in the homicide rate, but it's technically infeasible to do that. However, I highly doubt there would be any change in the number of non-handgun homicides, rapes, robbies, and assaults which are also high.

More research needs to be done into the causes of American violence.

Sorry to raise this post from the dead but - class act DC.

It's so rare that these type of discussions turn into rational conclusions as above. Bravo to both of you.

If I recall correctly from MM's film, he couldn't find an answer to the high rate of gun related homicide. He looked at gun numbers (vs. Canada), past history (vs. Germany) and other issues. I think it's indeed a compound problem and relates to American mentality. If this be the case, then there is no trivial solution.

 

[Scott C]

I got about half way through and didn't read the rest, but there is a VERY important point about the US gun based homicide rate relative to other countries.

more than 60% of US gun homicies are SUICIDE. Guns are the first choice in the US for killing oneself. In countries where they are hard to obtain, people choose other methods. Yet, the US suicide rate isn't particularly high, especially compared to scandinavian countries or Japan.

Next, there is this assumption that 1: we could get rid of all the guns.
2: getting rid of guns from the criminals who want to use them and are as likely to do so is just as easy as from the ordinary civilians who are law abiding and keep them in safes or stowed in a different location than the ammo.
3: That somehow getting rid of guns will stop all homicides related to them.


For 1: Its not easy to do, and some people who have collected them (for range shooting or even just collections, with or without even owning ammo) will lose a significant chunk of their wealth. My grandfather collected many guns long ago, they are all locked up now, but some are extremely valueable collecters items... he sells one every now and then to live off of.)
2: Banning handguns won't take guns out of the criminals. They already own guns illegally, and will have little or no motivation to dispose of them. Particularly if they think they will need it (and are then likely to be part of the homicide statistics). And with fewer guns on the street, illegal ones will become more valuable on the black market and an even more useful to criminals.
3: The link between guns and homicides is weak. Correlation != causation. Homicides would continue with or without guns. Certainly some would be stopped, but pulling out some # of homicides a year and claiming that 100% or even 1/3 of those could be avoided if guns were illegal is nonsense.

My final comment:

The only thing that should be done is gun education + enforcement of current rules (purchase waiting periods, licenses, illegal to own if you have a criminal record, etc).

By far the biggest risk to being involved in a gun related homicide is owning one yourslelf. Its not by just living here rather than in Europe.

Oh, and if you look at TOTAL crime rate, the picture is not so clear. The US has much lower petty theft, roberry, and minor violent crime (mugging, etc) than most Euro countries. If you were highly pro-gun it could be argued that such crime is easy there because of soft penalties and low risk of injury to the crook. But it is more complicated than that.

The gun based and (EDIT: and all types of ) violent crime in the US is high, but the historical trends do not indicate gun availability as a root cause. Some other social factor is mostly at play. It is a lot more complicated than killing == guns.


As for Iraq, all I have to say is that no one can claim that it has made things worse or better yet. ONLY TIME WILL TELL. 10 years from now we probalby will know whether it was a good thing or not. Right now both good and bad has come of it. If the bad multiplies and plagues the future, or if it is only temporary, will only be truly understood at a later date.

(EDIT: addendum. But we do know that the situation in the middle east is unlike any other time, changes have been catalyzed. Liberals tried to speak out for democracy and freedom of the press in Saudi Arabia, and are now jailed... the fundamentalists and Wahabiists are now quite scared of liberal reform. Libya is cooperating, Iran's conservatives had to take a risky power play to prevent the liberal reformists from gaining more power... )