The Right Of Self Defense In England

[Tigerace117]

How pathetic you cannot even read.

the very first word of your link start with.


Where as the link i gave talks of


Can you spot the difference or do you need some help?

You can't seem to comprehend the fact that the two aren't even remotely related. Not only did we burn down their capital in 1812, but they, years later, lost in a series of clashes to a bunch of Irish bandits.

You clearly need some help.

 

[Tigerace117]

Bull****. Americas only interest was to asset strip what it could. Vietnam is doing far better economically and socially than it ever would have if it had remained a colonised country by a super power.

It wasn't a "colonized country by a superpower" from 1954 on. You are making yet another rudimentary historical error. The people of South Vietnam were not interested in communism, and America certainly wasn't interested in "asset stripping".

 

[TurtleDude]

Please do not give me that kind of ****. American were not alone in dying for democracy even though they like to pretend they were.

And invading countries like vietnam and iraq for their oil is not dying for democracy it is dying for greedy corporate profit.

wow Vietnam is now a major member of OPEC. that's a new one to me

 

[flogger]

There is not one war that has occurered since the formation of america that america has not interfered with , profited from or engaged in. Your not saving countries out of the generosity you do it for profit when its becomes less profitable to support whatever dictator is destroying the country.

Did you know the US was still taking WW2 loan money from its closest ally the UK as late as 2006 ?

 

[Port & Starboard]

Did you know the US was still taking WW2 loan money from its closest ally the UK as late as 2006 ?

Perhaps if England's rich elites weren't wasting so much money while desperately trying to hang on to it's imperialism at the time, things might have been different.

 

[BretJ]

Bull****. Americas only interest was to asset strip what it could. Vietnam is doing far better economically and socially than it ever would have if it had remained a colonised country by a super power.

Do you deny the communist regime that took over murdered millions?

 

[soylentgreen]

"Interfered with"? "Not one war"?

:lamo

You are stretching things desperately in your attempts to complain about America.

And yet another sad smear attempt. Your claims are so disconnected from reality that they are highly amusing.

Not at all. America profits from conflict and has done in every conflict that has happened since its creation.

As i said the propaganda machine works well in america where you are taught what to think not how to.

 

[soylentgreen]

You can't seem to comprehend the fact that the two aren't even remotely related. Not only did we burn down their capital in 1812, but they, years later, lost in a series of clashes to a bunch of Irish bandits.

You clearly need some help.

Not i demonstrating your lack of ability to defend your position.

It wasn't a "colonized country by a superpower" from 1954 on. You are making yet another rudimentary historical error. The people of South Vietnam were not interested in communism, and America certainly wasn't interested in "asset stripping".

Your opinion noted and dismissed.

 

[Tigerace117]

Not at all. America profits from conflict and has done in every conflict that has happened since its creation.

As i said the propaganda machine works well in america where you are taught what to think not how to.

Ah, the age old "your just a sheeple" claim. Color me unimpressed:roll:

You claim is clearly false, a desperate and hyperbolic attempt to smear America.

 

[soylentgreen]

wow Vietnam is now a major member of OPEC. that's a new one to me

Its amazing how much ignorance of vietnam american have.

 

[Tigerace117]

Not i demonstrating your lack of ability to defend your position.



Your opinion noted and dismissed.

No, you were demonstrating your historical ignorance.

Not an opinion. Historical fact.

 

[soylentgreen]

Do you deny the communist regime that took over murdered millions?

Yes, But i do not deny that the event happened only that it had anything to do with communism. Your comment is like condemning republics because dictators such as kim in north korea calls his country a republic.

 

[soylentgreen]

No, you were demonstrating your historical ignorance.

Not an opinion. Historical fact.

Bull**** it is nothing more thaan a distorted version of lies because americans have been bred to fear communism.

 

[Tigerace117]

Bull**** it is nothing more thaan a distorted version of lies because americans have been bred to fear communism.

Nope, unfortunately for you it isn't even close to bull****. You are so fixated on a persecution complex you can't see the forest for the trees.

 

[Manc Skipper]

So how does this relate to the English (and Wales) right of self defence?
"In England and Wales, anyone can use "reasonable" force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. Householders are protected from prosecution as long as they act "honestly and instinctively" in the heat of the moment."
Shooting someone who rang the doorbell after dark through the door, or in the back as they ran away, would not be seen as "reasonable"

 

[Brochacholomigo]

Honestly, it's violent by any standards. It's just that where as in America, violence tends to be sporadic, but rather deadly, violence here is lower level, but constant. That's why if you look at all violent crime, not just homicide, the UK fares pretty poorly. In fact, it's worse than the US.

Well, that pokes a lot of holes in most of what I hear about the UK. It's a miracle any of their descendants are fairly nonviolent.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Well, that pokes a lot of holes in most of what I hear about the UK. It's a miracle any of their descendants are fairly nonviolent.

Well, like I said in later posts, I'm comparing the UK to its Western kin, not all countries on earth.

The UK isn't some dismal place. But it's also definitely not a peaceful utopia either. Compared to other developed nations, it does still have a lot of violent crime.

I mean, as an American, I am more used to American-style violence (sporadic, but severe), and British violence (more common, but generally non-fatal) is a bit more disorienting for me. But I think reasonably people could disagree on which is "worse."

I just can't help but roll my eyes all the way back into my skull when the British say stuff like they've got the violence issue sorted, by comparing it to just ONE category of violence in ONE country that's across an ocean. That isn't honest at all. There's a lot of work to do here still. And in order to do it, they need to be honest about the issues.

 

[flogger]

Perhaps if England's rich elites weren't wasting so much money while desperately trying to hang on to it's imperialism at the time, things might have been different.

Any imperial pretentions we had ended decades before 2006

 

[Slingshot Bob]

Any serious comparison is impossible due to the varying criteria and standards of data collection. Let's say if you are a young male, you are likely to be involved in at least one drunken fight growing up in England, but you're also more likely to live through your teens than in the USA.
The rise of acid attacks is an interesting one. It dates very closely to the government's removal of restriction on sales.

Who is doing most acid attacks?

 

[Manc Skipper]

Who is doing most acid attacks?

Londoners

 

[Port & Starboard]

Any imperial pretentions we had ended decades before 2006

What a phony response by you. The loan was issued in 1946.

And, you know darn well that England blew it's budget supporting imperialism around the world and that it was a major factor for needing the anglo-american loan. Not to mention that England was having a hard time getting past 55% of it's GDP wrapped up with wartime manufacturing, while trying to figure out how 1.5 million returning military were going to support themselves.

England was bankrupt.

 

[flogger]

What a phony response by you. The loan was issued in 1946.

And, you know darn well that England blew it's budget supporting imperialism around the world and that it was a major factor for needing the anglo-american loan. Not to mention that England was having a hard time getting past 55% of it's GDP wrapped up with wartime manufacturing, while trying to figure out how 1.5 million returning military were going to support themselves.

England was bankrupt.

No England blew its budget developing nuclear weapons which was by far the largest single expenditure before 1960 It had been rapidly withdrawing from empire since WW2

Ironically we then abandoned those and bought yours

 

[Northern Light]

The violence rate in the UK is still high, they just use other weapons, or fisticuffs.

The thing about guns is, if you decide to try and kill someone with them, your success rate will always be higher. But saying that the UK doesn't have a violence problem because of their lack of handguns doesn't really add up.

Something I read last year that really raised an eyebrow for me, is that violence is actually lowest in countries that were non-colonial nor touched by colonialism.

It seems that there's something to be said for Europe being a violent culture, along with all its offshoots and territories.

 

[flogger]

The violence rate in the UK is still high, they just use other weapons, or fisticuffs.

The thing about guns is, if you decide to try and kill someone with them, your success rate will always be higher. But saying that the UK doesn't have a violence problem because of their lack of handguns doesn't really add up.

Something I read last year that really raised an eyebrow for me, is that violence is actually lowest in countries that were non-colonial nor touched by colonialism.

It seems that there's something to be said for Europe being a violent culture, along with all its offshoots and territories.

Who ever said there was no violence in Europe ? The big difference is that violence is far less likely to be lethal than in the US due to the absence of guns

 

[Mach]

The violence rate in the UK is still high, they just use other weapons, or fisticuffs.

That's been busted a while back:
Social media post says U.K. has far higher violent crime rate than U.S. does | PolitiFact

What matters is typically the murder rate, you know death being dramatically worse than a bloody nose and all.
Murder rate:
UK: 0.92
US: 4.88

The U.S. has a 530% higher per capita murder rate than the UK.

Of course having so few guns in the UK directly contributes to their low murder rate.