Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rictor on March 23, 2004, 04:56:21 pm
-
So, they say America is the Greatest Country in the World, do they? Lets see.
[to those who are, upon reading the article, offended, sorry, but tough luck. You may think this is just more bashing from hateful ol' me, but I gather you would do the same thing if tommorow Tajikistan were to proclaim their supremacy over makind. Read fools, read.]
Original article (http://www.counterpunch.com/alam03232004.html)
____________________________________
World's Greatest Country
Do the Facts Lie?
By M. SHAHID ALAM
On March 21, 2003, as I headed home, a day after the United States formally invaded Iraq, I ran into a colleague from Northeastern University--a professor of the humanities--at the Ruggles train station in Boston. I was aware of his political inclinations, and he of mine, from previous encounters. Still, I thought we were on friendly terms.
"I bet you oppose the war," he greeted me, as I approached him.
"Not at all," I shot back, " I wish to see Iraq liberated as much as you."
Although, it was only the second day of the war, and the bombs and missiles were accurately on target, it appeared that the tension leading up to the war had taken their toll on our colleague's nerve. He snapped at my banter. Agitated, he began to poke his finger in my face, while lecturing me about how "thankful" I should be about living in "the world's greatest country ever." Luckily, my train arrived on time--for which I am thankful--saving me from an unhinged patriot's harangue.
This was not my first encounter with the overzealous patriotism that often dominates political discourse in the United States; and not only among members of the zany right. All too often, politicians rally their audience with inflated claims of American greatness. The United States is "the greatest country in the world." At other times, it is "the greatest country ever," "the greatest country ever conceived," or "the greatest country in the history of mankind." When the exuberance soars, America also "kicks ass!"
Nearly as often, one hears of the United States as the great Samaritan: second to none at 'civilizing' half-breed races. In the words of Abraham Lincoln, the United States is the "the last best hope of mankind," no less. More frequently, it is "the shining beacon on the hill." Recently, John Kerry, Democratic Presidential candidate, roused students at UCLA, "I believe we can bring a real victory in the War on Terror. I believe we must, not only for ourselves but for all who look to America as the last best hope of earth." I have to wonder if the Vietnamese civilians killed by Kerry and his crew also looked upon them as "the last best hope of earth." [4]
Judging from results from polls, quite a few Americans are persuaded by this rhetoric of American greatness and munificence; though my colleague from Northeastern would go into a fit over their 'fewness.' In 1955, according to a Gallup Survey, 66 percent Americans polled believed that "The United States is the greatest country in the world, better than all other countries in every possible way (emphasis added)." In 1991, mercifully, this percentage had declined to 37 percent; five years later, it held steady at 37 percent. (This looks like the proportion of steady Republicans in this country.) But there is a fly in the ointment. In response to a slightly altered question, 55 percent Americans agree that "the United States is the greatest country in the world, better than all others." On the worse reading, then, a clear majority of Americans still subscribe to the thesis of American uniqueness; though that majority is down to 55 percent from 66 percent. Shall we take comfort from this decline in the proportion of hyper-patriots in the US since 1955? [5]
In the absence of polls on the issue, I will report results from my own unrepresentative annual surveys on America's civilizing mission. For several years, I have passed out a questionnaire to assess my students' preparation for my undergraduate courses in Development Economics and the Global Economy. One perennial question I ask is about US 'foreign aid.' What percentage of its gross domestic product does the United States annually allocate as foreign aid to Third World countries? I offer my students five choices: (A) One-tenth of one percent, (B) One percent, (C) Five percent, (D) Ten percent, and (E) Twenty-five percent. Incredibly, about half the class chooses C, and most of the remaining half pick D and E. Two or three 'unpatriotic' students in each class pick A or B. The correct answer is A. Perhaps, my students think it proper and patriotic to pick a percentage that makes their country look generous.
In a sense, this talk of national greatness is unsurprising. It is the sta-ple of a world organized--as it has been these last few hundred years--into nation states that must compete to survive and stay ahead of the pack. They compete economically, politically and militarily. Often, this competition requires sacrifices--of rights, of leisure, of safety, of lives. The ideological weapon in this competition is nationalism--creating pride and unity grounded in claims of national greatness, and matched by an equal contempt for the low or lower standing of other nations.
Perhaps the United States is distinct because of the intensity of its nationalist claims. The standard political rhetoric maintains that the US is the "greatest in the world," "the greatest ever," or "the greatest in the history of mankind." It stands at the top of the food chain. Some older nations--that have survived many cycles of history--might think this strange. Are these upstarts trying to compensate for their late arrival on history's stage? Arguably, older nations have the self-assurance of a long and often distinguished history behind them and, therefore, do not feel compelled to stake out exaggerated claims of national greatness. But there is more to it.
Nationalism is for the most part a modern phenomenon, a product of the competition between the new nation states operating in a capitalist world economy. In this competition, success and nationalist obsessions work in tandem. A nation fired with its own greatness is more willing to endure greater sacrifices; conversely, it is also more willing to inflict pain on Others. In the case of the United States, there was no shortage of successes--economic, technological and military--to fuel notions of national greatness. As these successes grew, the American establishment found it convenient to ratchet claims of American greatness. Most likely, by the turn of the twentieth century, if not before, the United States was declared to be unique among nations: the greatest country ever, populated by the noblest breed of humans, the instrument of God, and the greatest civilizing force on earth. Today, no Congressman can disavow American uniqueness and survive an election.
I could explore the sinister objectives served by these visions of American uniqueness--how corporate capital has used it to rally Americans behind imperialist wars, to incite fears of white America against Americans of color (and, hence, divide America's working poor), or to dupe American workers into surrendering their rights to corporate capital. Since all this has been done before, I will attempt something a bit pedantic, but I hope still useful. I will examine whether the United States is indeed "the greatest country in the world, better than all other countries in every possible way?" I suspect this is a thankless task, but my work will be amply rewarded if it deflates even a little some of the illusions of American grandeur.
By the most widely accepted criterion, America's economic lead looks quite secure. Measured in terms of dollars with comparable purchasing power, the US had a per capita income of $35,080 in 2002, one of the highest in the world. Only two other countries had higher per capita incomes; Luxembourg at $51,060 and Norway at $37,850. But these are small countries, with 444,000 and 5 million people respectively; and the per capita income of the richest 444,000 or 5 million Americans would easily exceed the per capita income of Luxembourg and Norway respectively. In other words, Americans can take just pride in their country's economic preeminence: the United States is the world's richest country.
The United States also commands the world's largest economy, though only by a narrow margin. Measured in terms of dollars with comparable purchasing power, the US gross national income adds up to $10,110 billion, a little more than a fifth of the global income. The European Union comes a very close second with a combined gross national income of $9,520 billion. With its rapidly expanding membership, the European Union may soon outpace the US as the world's largest economy. China places third in the world league of major economies, with a gross national income of $5,807 billion. At its present stellar growth rate, China could outstrip both the US and the European Union within two decades if not sooner. [6]
Surely the US lead in technological capacity must be larger and more secure. In its 2001 Report, the UNDP published for the first time a Technology Achievement Index (TAI) "which aims to capture how well a country is creating and diffusing technology and building a human skill base--reflecting capacity to participate in the technological innovations of the network age. This composite index measures achievements, not potential, efforts or inputs." According to this measure, the US ranks second--with a TAI value of 0.733--finishing behind Finland with a TAI of 0.744. Perhaps this makes Finland a threat to America's national security; no country that lags in technology can lead the world for long. Conceivably, the likes of Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly might urge President Bush do something about it. After all, Finland is a small country; knocking down its TAI a few places will be much less of a challenge than occupying Iraq. [7]
Perhaps the United States might regain the lead when judged against indicators of technological effort, such as R&D spending as percentage of a country's GDP, or R&D personnel per million in the country. However, this only makes matters worse. On the first measure, the United States ranks seventh, behind Togo, Sweden, Israel, Japan, Korea and Switzerland. (Yes, I too am wondering about Togo.) On the second criterion, the United States improves its rank to fourth place, still lagging behind Iceland, Japan and Sweden. [8] (Now what does Iceland do with all those scientists?)
In a last ditch effort, to salvage America's position, I decided to extend the technology comparisons to three indicators of educational performance. But this only produced more disappointments. Judged in terms of school life expectancy (the number of years a child is expected to spend in the educational system), the US ranked fifteenth in the late 1990s. In mathematical literacy for fifteen year olds, it ranked eighteenth out of 27 countries. It's performance was only marginally better in scientific literacy, moving up to the fourteenth place in the same group of countries.[9]
The United States commands the largest lead where it matters most--in military power. At $396.1 billion in fiscal year 2003, US military spending exceeds the combined military budget of the next twenty countries. In 2002, the US outspent the seven "rogue" states (Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, Syria and Cuba) by a factor of thirty-seven. [10] With Iraq under occupation since April 2003, and Libya air-freighting the components of its would-be WMDs to the United States, the ratio by which the US outspends the remaining "rogue" states must have risen still higher. Given these gaps in destructive capabilities, the United States should feel safer than any empire in recent memory. So why doesn't it?
In personal freedom, most Americans confidently place their country at the top. In a Gallup Poll taken in August 1995, Americans were asked, "how far up or down on a 10-point scale [10 being highest] would you rate each of the following nations in terms of the individual freedom granted to its citizens?" The US came out first, with 74 percent of the respondents giving it a 'high' rating (10-9-8). Canada and Britain ranked a distant second and third, with only 63 and 46 percent giving it a 'high' rating. [11]
Experts view the freedom rankings a bit differently. The Freedom House, a conservative organization based in New York, publishes an annual report, Freedom in the World, that relies on opinions of experts to rank countries by various indicators of freedom. According to their index of civil and political liberties compiled for 2000-2001, the United States received the highest score of six (on a scale of one to seven), but this was an honor that it shared with fourteen other countries, including Portugal and Uruguay. Britain ranked 34th, well after Poland and Panama. Israel, the world's most touted 'democracy,' ranked 41st, after Bolivia and Benin. [12]
Is the United States the world leader, then, in press freedom? That too is misconception. In October 2003, Reporters Without Borders published its Second World Press Freedom Ranking; compiled from a questionnaire with "53 criteria for assessing the state of press freedom in each country." The United States ranked 32nd, behind Hungary, Jamaica, Benin and East Timor. To make matters worse, American-occupied Iraq, only recently 'liberated' from the grip of a tyrant, ranked 135th. There is one consolation: US-occupied Iraq is ahead of Saudi Arabia, our closest ally in the Islamicate world. [13]
In many situations, it may be useful to look upon the rates of incarceration as an important indicator of un-freedom and racism in a country. For many years, USSR, 'the Evil Empire," led the world in this field with its Siberian gulags. More recently, the United States has taken the lead with the highest rate of incarceration per capita: 6.41 per thousand in 1999. Russia, the successor to USSR, remains in hot contest, with an incarceration rate of 6.37 per thousand. [14] If we add the prisoners the Bush-Ashcroft regime has taken recently under the Patriot Act inside the United States, those held in Guantanamo Bay, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and those captured at our behest (under 'extraordinary rendition') by torture-friendly regimes, our leading position looks quite secure. The racial composition of those incarcerated tell their own story. Consider the percentage shares, in the table below, of African-Americans in the prison and total populations of four US states in 1996. This disproportion is common to many states. [15]
Table One
Share of African-Americans in State Prisons
State Prison Population % State Population %
Nebraska 31 2
Connecticut 46 9
Wisconsin 49 6
Massachusetts 37 6
In his first inaugural address in 1993, President Clinton spoke of the United States as the "world's oldest democracy." [16] Is it? Presumably, this history starts the clock of democracy in 1787 when the Constitution was ratified. But many would consider this problematic, since this Constitution excluded as much as a sixth of the country's population--its slave population--from any of the rights of citizenship. Can we then start the clock of democracy in 1865 when slavery was abolished, or in 1868 when the Confederate states re-entered the Union with a commitment (in their state constitutions) to equal rights for all citizens? That too is dubious.
For another hundred years, the United States was not a democracy for all its citizens. At first through terrorist methods, and, later, starting in the 1890s, through amendments in the state constitution, the Southern states pressed ahead in their effort to exclude blacks from the political process. This resulted in "the disfranchisement of nearly all black citizens and the removal from office of nearly all black legislators in the former Confederate states by 1910." [17] Arguably, we might start the clock in the 1960s, when the blacks launched the Civil Rights Movement to regain their political rights. However, this process is far from complete. Under felony disenfranchisement laws, still on the books since the days of segregation, some 4.7 million Americans are denied their voting rights. Under these laws black men are disenfranchised at seven times the rate for all Americans. [18]
Considering the salience of sports and athletics in American culture, I would be remiss if I did not document America's ranking in this important field. Since few countries in the world have taken up America's favorite sports (surely a disappointment for a hegemonic power), we will have to examine America's standing at the Summer Olympic games. At first blush, the US appears to live up to its reputation at the Sydney Olympics of 2000, leading the world with a points total of 201, well ahead of Russia (180) and China (131). But is the points total an appropriate criterion? A fair comparison would look at points total per capita. On a per capita basis, the US position slips to 41st. [19]
We arrive finally at the compassion derby. In a recent speech, President Bush declared, "We are a compassionate country, and we are generous toward our fellow citizens." It is a favorite pitch with American politicians in both parties. But this just won't wash. In its Human Development Report, 2003, the UNDP measures a Human Poverty Index (HPI) for seventeen developed countries; it measures deprivations in four dimensions. On this index of human poverty, the US ranked dead last out of seventeen countries. [20] If we measure compassion "toward fellow citizens" in terms of income inequality--conventionally measured by the Gini index--we get the same result. The US has the largest value for the Gini index amongst developed countries. [21] By what available metric is the American political system "generous" to weaker segments of its own society?
In measuring US compassion towards other countries, I will take the more lenient view, not listing the invasions launched, regimes changed, the bombs dropped, coups instigated or sanctions imposed against the 'salt of the earth.' [22] Instead, I will compare the funds allocated to 'foreign aid,' the index by which Americans most often measure their generosity towards poor countries. The total funds allocated by the United States to 'foreign aid" amounted to 0.11 percent (note the position of the decimal) of its gross national income. That is easily the lowest ratio for the twenty-four members of Development Assistance Committee of the OECD. [23] On the ground, matters are much worse. Nearly one-third of this aid goes as grants (no obligation to pay back) to another developed country, Israel, to buy the most advanced weaponry in the US arsenal.
So the United States is not the greatest country in the world, better than all other countries in every possible way. Why have I labored to establish this rather obvious result? There is a deep, two-way connection between these claims of superiority, of uniqueness, and the efforts by the American establishment to obfuscate the inequities inside the United States and to justify the inequities it helps to create and sustain outside its borders.
Every time America's 'leaders' speak of the "world's greatest country," behind the backs of their constituents, many, perhaps most of them are scheming to build more prisons and fewer schools, to hire more policemen and fewer teachers, to train more secret agents and fewer scientists, to fund more WMDs and fewer life-saving drugs; they are being wined and dined by Corporations who are monopolizing the media, denuding our rights, placing their profits before our lives, our children, our safety, and the natural beauty of the world we live in. In their myopic pursuit of power, these politicians would rather build the "world's greatest country" (if only they could) but populated with an impoverished, uneducated and unhealthy population, supine and undemanding of their rights.
Every time America's 'leaders' boast of the "world's oldest democracy," and of exporting democracy to the world, I can see peasants expropriated; workers shot, tortured and jailed; people's revolutions overthrown, crushed by American force, guile and lucre all across the Periphery; all to protect the unrestrained right of American Corporations to make money. Every time these mandarins proclaim that the United States is the "last great hope of earth," people all across the Periphery take cover, for they know that these words will be followed, as they have been in the past, by napalm bombs, by landmines, by cruise missiles, by daisy cutters, by shards of steel planted in their children's eyes. The people of the Periphery are all too familiar with the rhetoric of the "world's oldest democracy." They will not be deceived.
So the United States is not the greatest country in the world, better than all other countries in every possible way. What if this carefully guarded secret were to spill out? What if Dan Rather, America's favorite news anchor, were to open the CBS Evening News tonight with the announcement that some great think tank in Washington, preferably a conservative think tank, after years of carefully investigation, involving the best brains in the social sciences, had discovered that the United States "isn't after all the greatest country in the world, better than all other countries in every possible way?" Would this be another devastating blow to America's self-confidence, greater than that caused by the carnage of 9-11? Would Americans show up for work the next day or the day after? Why bother if you are not living in the "world's greatest country?" How would the President respond to this national catastrophe? What would he do to restore American confidence in their greatness? Invade Canada? Colonize Antartica? Or perhaps, ship the entire population of the Northeast to Mars?
Most Americans may well be relieved at this revelation. It was what they had suspected all along, but could never gather the pluck to tell the corporate lackeys--masquerading as leaders--who kept telling them otherwise. And now that this ruse had been exposed, perhaps, Americans will start asking the tough questions, start reclaiming their lost rights, and start rebuilding a democracy of all the people, for all the people and by all the people. Once this questioning starts, perhaps Americans will also start looking into all the ways in which their country--especially their government and corporations--impoverish their neighbors around the world, neighbors they, as Christians, should love, not reduce to poverty, dependency and misery.
When the United States, an admirable country in many respects, collectively aspires to inclusiveness, both inside and outside its borders; when the United States places people--people everywhere--before the profits of its corporations; when the United States aspires to be the best country--under a scale of humane values--not merely the greatest; when the people of the United States want for the world what they want for themselves; then, and only then, will the world embrace Americans as their own, a good people, even a generous people, contributing more than their share to the human struggle to make our world a better place for everyone.
-
it's hard nowadays. USA, Canada, and UK are pretty much equal... although the advantages (i think) of the UK are greatly increasing. for one is there elaborate and very 1337 healthcare system
-
Way to stir some up, Stealth. It might be a good idea to close this before it's too late.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
although the advantages (i think) of the UK are greatly increasing. for one is there elaborate and very 1337 healthcare system
That is falling apart at the seams.
-
The greatest country in the world is Russia with +\- 1/7th of the world's land mass IIRC. :D
-
LOL Well, I know this, Earth is definately the best planet in the Solar System :)
-
UK would be the single best country in the world if not for the EU ****ing up all our laws.
Getting arrested for selling fruit in imperial measures, what the **** is up with that?
-
Politicians will be politicians, and will say whatever is needed to get elected. Bottom line is though, for most western countries at least, the best country in the world is the one you live in. So from the point of view of the politicians and their voters, it's true ;)
-
Originally posted by Flipside
LOL Well, I know this, Earth is definately the best planet in the Solar System :)
no! ph33r mercury!
actually, saying anything is "the best", country, planet, ect. is a matter of opinion and aren't based on actual facts.
-
LOL I agree Carl, but from a purely personal standpoint, i.e. taking into account my need to do things like breath, Earth remains my favourite ;)
-
Come to think of it, if Canada could sort it's act out, I'd consider them to be the best (though not the 'greatest') country in the world.
Low crime rates, decent enough health-care, reasonable economy and they're one of those countries that's so neutral they make Switzerland look like 1940's Germany.
-
Originally posted by an0n
UK would be the single best country in the world if not for the EU ****ing up all our laws.
Getting arrested for selling fruit in imperial measures, what the **** is up with that?
wow i didn't know about that :doubt: :blah: damn.
Carl: Who's stirring up anything. i think we're (most of us) at the right age to be able to argue this topic without going too far.
-
Australia holds a great deal of appeal to me to be honest, though it would have to be a somewhere shady ;)
-
The EU is just messed up in general when it comes to legislation. Too much bureaucracy there for any sensible laws to be passed, any that make it through have been through so many revisions, alterations, rewrites, updates and random additions and exceptions that noone has the slightest clue what they'll actually do once passed. Either that, or they're utterly retarded in their very principle.
Granted, it does make living around here interesting. I particularly liked one that regulated how curved bananas were allowed to be, though I never heard of anyone actually getting charged over that.
-
Correct, to declare yourself "The Best" is purely a matter of conjecture that, even if supported, is tenuous at best.
The term "best" is very ethereal in nature. More quantifiable qualifiers are better and easier to prove.
It is therefore a better statement to say, "The USA is the Most Technologically advanced" or "The USA is the most popular nation to imigrate to."
The former is not true in the perfect sense because the more "advanced" countries have smaller populations to saturate the technology into, or have an interest in doing so.
I will admit however, that a large portion of the infrastructure of the US is out of date and rotting. We haven't had a major public works project in decades. And so long as everything works they(the high-ups) are perfectly willing to let the systems rot and die.
-
We are currently paying the price for that Apathy here in the UK. As any Rail/Road commuter will tell you. I won't go into how the Government were completely aware of this problem 20 years ago ;)
-
Originally posted by Liberator
"The USA is the Most Technologically advanced"
I don't want to start a flame war, but I thought Japan was the most advanced one... or is it just commercial technology they have more than the US?
-
EU is responsible for the UKs problems? I thought the tories were.
-
Well, Lib DID point out that it is also to do with size/population saturation, I think he was just pointing out that being the 'Greatest' involves a great deal of variables that are spread over the entire planet :)
-
Originally posted by Gank
EU is responsible for the UKs problems? I thought the tories were.
Look at how **** the country is now, and look at how prosperous it was at the end of Mrs Thatcher's tenure. And Major doesn't count since he's a twat.
-
You guys couldn't be more wrong. Cyprus is teh shizat!!111
-
I think you'll find that was partly to do with the 'cash-in now, pay later' technique of the Tories at the time, it was their privatisation of the Rail Service and Energy/Phone services that led to the current money-grabbing poor services we get now.
-
Australia :p
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
And Major doesn't count since he's a twat.
Aye but he was a tory twat. Cant just pick the ones you like.
-
Can you guys name one area in which the US is the 'best in the world'?
-
Bah! Even though I'm Finnish, Norway 0wns! Self sufficient, beautiful landscape, kickass history, low crime rate, great health care, job security, major good job income, fishing, mountains, and a pritty solid foreign policy. You just cant go wrong with it.
-
Ego?
-
Nope. France beats them.
-
Largest amount of "Bush" compounds... can't beat that! :D
-
Originally posted by an0n
Can you guys name one area in which the US is the 'best in the world'?
Pwning.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Can you guys name one area in which the US is the 'best in the world'?
the US armed Forces are #1 in the world. Remember without the US if the government didn't break up the isolationist policy. Germany in the 1st World War would have won. And you'll be speaking German. Also after WWII you have been Russian if we didn;t involve in world affairs after losing 300,000 lives in WWII. Think about it ;) Thank president Truman and a cabinet member Marshall of his dealings with Stalin and keeping him in Eastern Europe and helping the Berliners by sending help because the Germans were blockading them for 4 years. Germany would have been a potato patch without America's help. We have sent 35.5 billion dollars to the European countries to recover after the war. That is alot of money. Remember what america has done for the world. To help.
-
Originally posted by Dark_4ce
Bah! Even though I'm Finnish, Norway 0wns! Self sufficient, beautiful landscape, kickass history, low crime rate, great health care, job security, major good job income, fishing, mountains, and a pritty solid foreign policy. You just cant go wrong with it.
I'm covinced:D
-
Originally posted by KS_Al
We have sent 35.5 billion dollars to the European countries to recover after the war. That is alot of money. Remember what america has done for the world. To help.
Except some idiot in my country not only refused to accept this offer, but also donated a lot of money that could have been used much better if it was used in here. :doubt:
I find it funny the US didn't invade Portugal when it was a dictatorship that "gave" the US an air base in the Açores, but when they decide to invade another country they always use the excuse of being "liberating that country from an oppressive regime"!! :hopping:
-
Actually the German navy mutining brought about the end of the first world war, US troops arrived too late to play any significent role on the battlefield.
As for the Russians, the USSR never had any serious desires to conquer all of europe. The Marshall plan was fairly decent of you though.
-
Originally posted by KS_Al
the US armed Forces are #1 in the world. Remember without the US if the government didn't break up the isolationist policy. Germany in the 1st World War would have won. And you'll be speaking German. Also after WWII you have been Russian if we didn;t involve in world affairs after losing 300,000 lives in WWII. Think about it ;) Thank president Truman and a cabinet member Marshall of his dealings with Stalin and keeping him in Eastern Europe and helping the Berliners by sending help because the Germans were blockading them for 4 years. Germany would have been a potato patch without America's help. We have sent 35.5 billion dollars to the European countries to recover after the war. That is alot of money. Remember what america has done for the world. To help.
Both points are debatable.
Considering the devastation of the Great War, it's doubtful Germany would have held on to any land gained if the war continued and they had an advantage. Of course, Germany was loosing so this is a moot point.
Similarly, Russia historically likes to maintain a buffer from potential threats. Trying to hold on to western Europe would be costly and risky compared to simply holding on to eastern Europe as a buffer for invasions.
I will say though that the Marshall plan is probably one of the best things that happened in the 20th century warfare, and if it or something like it was instituted in Iraq and Afghanistan that'd be a good way of stabilizing the region.
-
Originally posted by KS_Al
the US armed Forces are #1 in the world. Remember without the US if the government didn't break up the isolationist policy. Germany in the 1st World War would have won. And you'll be speaking German. Also after WWII you have been Russian if we didn;t involve in world affairs after losing 300,000 lives in WWII. Think about it ;) Thank president Truman and a cabinet member Marshall of his dealings with Stalin and keeping him in Eastern Europe and helping the Berliners by sending help because the Germans were blockading them for 4 years. Germany would have been a potato patch without America's help. We have sent 35.5 billion dollars to the European countries to recover after the war. That is alot of money. Remember what america has done for the world. To help.
America is not a universal beneficiery, though.... and sometimes rests on it's laurels far too much.
NB: Germany in WW1 was losing - the British blockade of German shipping had reduced to troops to eating what amounted to wheat. The US intervention - whilst helpful - almost certainly did not alter the course of the war, but possibly did speed it up.
The US isolationist policy - withdrawing from the League of Nations - was a direct contributory factor in the failure of that organisation. Particualrly as it had been the idea of the US in the first place.
America also made a massive amount of money by selling arms to the UK - at one point sending a warship to collect the last gold Britain had, from a colony in Africa.
So don;t think that the US should be hailed as a messiah by the rest of the world for doing the right thing and eventually joining WW2. Gratitude - yes. Unquestioning loyalty - no.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Can you guys name one area in which the US is the 'best in the world'?
yeah, as was said by KT, other than the US pushing its authority around, nowadays it's not really the 'best in the world' at anything. in fact, from what i can tell it's slipping
-
Originally posted by an0n
Come to think of it, if Canada could sort it's act out, I'd consider them to be the best (though not the 'greatest') country in the world.
Low crime rates, decent enough health-care, reasonable economy and they're one of those countries that's so neutral they make Switzerland look like 1940's Germany.
Well, we did just get rid of Dictator.. er I mean Prime Minister Chretien, so I guess thats a start...
-
Oh Thorn, quit your crying about Chretien. He was a great PM in my opinion, and I was sad to see him go.
What have you got against the man?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Oh Thorn, quit your crying about Chretien. He was a great PM in my opinion, and I was sad to see him go.
What have you got against the man?
Think about how long he was in power....
I'll give you the short answer and say the only thing I agreed with him on was his stance on the war in Iraq.....
-
The US Armed Forces are NOT the best in the world.
The only reason the US dominates in military engagements is overwhelming numerical superiority and plenty of British-designed technology.
And I cite Iraq as an example. While America was still trying to find it's ass with both hands and RADAR, the British troops were already moving on Iraq forces.
-
Britain, depite all it's political pecularities, has a tendancy to move as a nation to support international policy, at least based on what I've seen. They may whine and ***** about it, but they do it.
America is being destroyed by politicians who belive that if they divide the populace into tight little boxes and tell each little group exactly what they want to hear, that they'll gain political power. And by and large, they are right, but at what cost?
-
you are true to the politicians in the USA.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
America is not a universal beneficiery, though.... and sometimes rests on it's laurels far too much.
NB: Germany in WW1 was losing - the British blockade of German shipping had reduced to troops to eating what amounted to wheat. The US intervention - whilst helpful - almost certainly did not alter the course of the war, but possibly did speed it up.
The US isolationist policy - withdrawing from the League of Nations - was a direct contributory factor in the failure of that organisation. Particualrly as it had been the idea of the US in the first place.
America also made a massive amount of money by selling arms to the UK - at one point sending a warship to collect the last gold Britain had, from a colony in Africa.
So don;t think that the US should be hailed as a messiah by the rest of the world for doing the right thing and eventually joining WW2. Gratitude - yes. Unquestioning loyalty - no.
about WWI French lines were broken and US soldiers were sent in time to stop the advance just in time onto Paris. but the thing is we made a mistake If the US had integrated the army into the allied forces it would have been a swifter and decisive victory. US soldiers didn't see much but it added morale to your troops.
Also about Breshnev in the Soviet union. The only good premiers were Khrushchev (partly) and Gorrbachev. Breshnev however could have been agressive if had not for military buildup in Western Germany.
-
to rate the strength of a military you must multiply quality by quantity. if army Red has twice as many tanks as army Blue, but army Blue's taks are twice as good as army Red's (ie for every one army Red kills Blue kills two), then Red and Blue are equal in strength.
to rate a contry in any sence, I think you must look at three defineing charicteristics:
1) economy
2) population
3) military strength
all three of these items are equaly important (though relateing them quantitivly to each other is somewhat hard to determine). what you are trying to determine in rateing may make a sloight scope change, but you'r still going to look at these three features, and oftine they relate to each other.
to rate the "greatness" of a contry, I'd say you'd need to look at:
1) economic stability - are there job, do they export more than they import and by how much
2) liveing standard - are the people literate, what's the GNP, cival liberties
3) military - how well can they protect 1 and 2 from someone who'd like to come in and rape them
if you want to gauge a contry's strength/importance, I'd say you'd need to look at
1) how much of the planet's total population do they represent
2) how much of the planet's work do they do
3) how capable are they to ether defend themselves or atack others
in this respect, I generaly think America is roughly equivilant to China, and (all of it, though they might be slightly higher in total) Europe(lets through Japan and Astralia in there too), Russia (not counting it in europe) is less than half, probly closer to a fourth of any one of the big three (USA, China, and Europe), and all of the rest of the world combind (Africa, South America, ect; and this is mostly becase they arn't organised as a cohearant power) would probly reach about one of the big three in terms of strength/importance.
-
Somalia. Thread closed.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
to rate the strength of a military you must multiply quality by quantity.
Quantity is a quality of its own :)
Good 'ol Stalin!
-
that was sort of what I said
-
USA military good? From what I have noticed (Prior Marine going to the AF to be a PJ) The personal sucks. I have met some of the most lazy people in the world. I am sure there are other, stronger, more military militarys out there.
They may not be the best, but quality says something. Look at Delta, SAS, ect...
-
maybe, but we have better bombs and more of them, we have both technological and numerical superiority, though, I will admit some of our personel may be mediocer
-
This thread was sort of intended to get people to read the article, which I thought was quite interesting and chock full of [l]heady goodness[/l] useful, though I would say unknown to most, information.
How many of you actually took the five minutes to read it? Instead, we've got a marginally more intelligent version of
"US suxxors! NO US ROXXORS"
err. I apologize to those who have read the article and have discussed intelligently on the issue. Sort of pissed right now, not your fault.
-
Originally posted by an0n
The US Armed Forces are NOT the best in the world.
The only reason the US dominates in military engagements is overwhelming numerical superiority and plenty of British-designed technology.
And I cite Iraq as an example. While America was still trying to find it's ass with both hands and RADAR, the British troops were already moving on Iraq forces.
-Specifically?
-How many more troops did the US have to mobilize than the UK?
-
hmmm, if tommorow Tajikistan were to proclaim their supremacy over makind, I'd say, prove it, and not give a damn what they thought so long as they didn't do anything to me, and if they did, I'd be mad at them for what they did not what they thought of themselves.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
-Specifically?
-How many more troops did the US have to mobilize than the UK?
The point is, they didn't mobilise any. They had all the troops poised to attack then just sat around while the Iraqi's strengthened their positions and the UK screamed at them to attack.
The UK was like "Dude, look, Saddam! Shoot him!" and the US commanders were like "Buh? Who? Where? Oh, right. We'll have our tanks rolling in about a week." then the UK was like "Oh, for **** sake. Y'know what, screw you. We'll do it".
-
UK rawks. :yes: :D
:nervous:
-
These the same brits that spent 3 weeks outside Basra afraid to go in?
-
Afraid? It was because our army would rather not slaughter innocents in the middle of a firefight.
-
So they bombed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2952339.stm) and shelled (http://www.gasing.com/blogger/blog/story0110.shtml) it instead?
-
I'm betting that was american bombing.
I see nothing overly bloody about the shelling.
-
The MoD admitted cluster munitions were fired into the city of Basra by AS-90s.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,966716,00.html
Bombing was carried out by both airforces.
-
Ach well, no body's perfect.
-
Definetly not. Truth is the UK just didnt have have the manpower to take Basra, 45,000 cant secure a city of 1.5 million. It was assumed when the invasion started the Iraqi army would surrender and the people would rise up against Saddam. When this didnt happen the only option was to lay siege to the place and wait for the regime to collapse.
-
Eh... The Netherlands... Period. :D
-
Been there, didnt like it.
Ireland aint so bad
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_gdp_gro_199
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_dev_ass_to_ldc
-
Scotland / Catalunya
(ok, so not technically a country)
-
Before that half dictator of berlusconi (he has the worst of both bush and putin with a tatcher flavour) Italy was one of the best places where you could live in...
I mean, we had (we still have, but the damn liberists are stripping them down) the second best world public healthcare system (slightly behind of france) and one of the best public schooling...
Oh, well... owning 90% of the media in the country allows to make the worst things being nearly unpunished...
-
The USA isn't even a proper country any more. It's run by the corporations, for the corporations. The original principle of the USA as a country was pretty neat (i.e. a place where everyone has equal opportunity and chance of a decent life - read this poem from the Statue of Liberty: http://www.nps.gov/stli/newcolossus/index.html ), but that was never fully realised, and is nowhere near the truth these days. As was said in the article, ethnic minorities are still at a huge disadvantage, the education and healthcare systems are terrible, and most of the population are getting screwed over so that a wealthy few can get even wealthier.
I'm also none-too-impressed with the recent civil and human rights record of the USA. Guantanamo Bay is a f***ing disgrace. And the USA is incredibly hypocritical. They're forever going on about the "war" on terror (an excuse to invade anyone they bloody well like with a fair degree of impunity), and yet they allow terrorists to train on their own soil! --> www.alpha66.org
-
pyro, please be sure to check out The Corporation (www.thecorporation.tv), a documentary look at the Corpoartion as the predominant istitution of our time. Now, admitedlly, its only showing in a few US theatres, but even this is a *huge* increase from when it started. When I saw it about two months ago, it was showing only in two Candian cities. No doubt it will get even more support and additional screenings as time goes by. I may have pimped this before on here, can't remember. Brilliant movie..
Oh and, this goes for mikhael too, and anyone else with an interest in sociology/politics/economics.
:thepimp: :thepimp:
-
i think id like to move to south africa when im old. 10 times cheaper than the uk, an established large white community and great weather. Shame that the natives are living lives of poverty.
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
Look at how **** the country is now, and look at how prosperous it was at the end of Mrs Thatcher's tenure. And Major doesn't count since he's a twat.
I think if you check the facts, you'll find Britians economy is in a much better state and that there is lower unemployment than in Mrs Thatcher's reign of terror :p.
-
Originally posted by Jiggyhound
i think id like to move to south africa when im old. 10 times cheaper than the uk, an established large white community and great weather. Shame that the natives are living lives of poverty.
I'd think twice about moving to a country where carjacking is such a big problem that flamethrowers (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9812/11/flame.thrower.car/) are considered a reasonable defence against it :)
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
I think if you check the facts, you'll find Britians economy is in a much better state and that there is lower unemployment than in Mrs Thatcher's reign of terror :p.
Oh really? So I must be dreaming when public services are worse than they've ever been in living memory while so many new and so many old but increasing taxes are draining this country of its successful. Not to mention our country's enormous debt due to the wasteful borrowing habits of our useless chancellor.
Originally posted by Flipside
I think you'll find that was partly to do with the 'cash-in now, pay later' technique of the Tories at the time, it was their privatisation of the Rail Service and Energy/Phone services that led to the current money-grabbing poor services we get now.
Wrong, British Rail was just as bad and disorganised as Railtrack or whatever they're called now, before privatisation. And you could do better than cite the phone services as a bad example of privatisation when it's generated billions and improved customer service tenfold. Before the days of privately owned BT, it would often take six weeks just to get a telephone line installed. And if privatisation is so bad and unfair a concept, why did Labour opt to continue with it? Answer... because it works, and in most cases it works well.
-
Oh come on. The phones do work better once privatised but you won't convince me that BR were causing crashes due to poor maintainence of the rail network.
-
I wouldn't want to live anywhere that takes 80% of my paycheck beofre I see it, and then expect me to pay VAT on top of everything else. The way I see it Western Europe is sliding into decadence.
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
And if privatisation is so bad and unfair a concept, why did Labour opt to continue with it? Answer... because it works, and in most cases it works well.
Because Labour is the Tories with added "free market" zeal and none of the old fashioned common sense of the conservative movement.
-
80% of your paycheck? Where does that happen?
-
Oh, well...
Why the people keeps believing into the low taxes slogans?
If you want a 33% tax limit like many promises, then forget about 90% of public services.
Ergo: Low taxes = shameful public school, almost no public healthcare, police and other emergency services reduced to the bones...
The list is long, i'm sure that who lives in the US knows better than me...
-
Actually, it's not that far from the truth.
When you are paid, you pay PAYE and National Insurance. While you pay is sitting in the bank, the government are scraping a small percent of your interest off via the Bank of England.
Once you get your money out, you pay your bills, many of which have extra taxes on them.
With what you have left you buy other things, which you pay VAT on.
The worst part is that most of the taxes and NI you are paying are for RIGHT NOW, this very minute, not one penny of your own money will be left by the time you are 60+, and there aren't enough working people in Britain to support this generation when it retires. Basically, if you don't have a private pension, you are fu)(ored.
-
Don't make me think about it...
In the few countries where public pensions are still alive you can expect to retire at 70+ years for our generation...
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Oh come on. The phones do work better once privatised but you won't convince me that BR were causing crashes due to poor maintainence of the rail network.
Perhaps not, but the trains were running just as late. Travelling on trains is still at least ten times safer than travelling by road. Do not forget also that the majority of train crashes are caused by external factors or driver error.
-
you don't need to increase taxes to invest in public services. Lower taxes incourage people to work more, which generates more growth.That's what Kennedy did.
And the best Army would be British soldiers in German uniforms with (maybe) US Kit.
US troops relay too much on tech. and not enough on basic soldiering (my army veteran work mate told me that)
-
Originally posted by magatsu1
you don't need to increase taxes to invest in public services. Lower taxes incourage people to work more, which generates more growth.That's what Kennedy did.
Lower taxes does not encourage to work more...
You MUST work more to pay those services that were free or nearly free before.
-
Rictor: Thanks for that - if it shows in Britain I'll definitely check it out. :)
Magatsu: not sure about tax reductions improving public services. I'd agree that British soldiers are the best trained, though. Just a shame they're so badly equipped. And with the further cuts to the defence budget, I don't see that improving any time soon. Nothing short of a full-blown, big f***ing war will get it back in proper shape. But I can't see that happening without going nuclear nowadays....
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
Perhaps not, but the trains were running just as late. Travelling on trains is still at least ten times safer than travelling by road. Do not forget also that the majority of train crashes are caused by external factors or driver error.
Nope. Of the last 8 or so major train and underground incidents only one was caused by an external factor (an idiot falling asleep at the wheel of his car and sliding onto the tracks). All the others were caused by poor maintainence.
And before you say that underground is still publicly owned remember that the underground ran safely even under the tories for many years. It was when Labour decided they were going to privatise it and split it up into 4 smaller companies that derailments started to occur.
-
Higher taxes don't necessarily mean better services. Labour has increased spending on Hospitals by circa 8% but "productivity" only increased by approx. 2%
At least with Maggie Thatcher we had cheap poor services.
The Bristish Army's experience in Northern Ireland was really important when it came to taking (liberating, whatever) Basra.
-
Originally posted by magatsu1
The Bristish Army's experience in Northern Ireland was really important when it came to taking (liberating, whatever) Basra.
It may also be the reason why there is less trouble there. Look at the recent demonstration. 13 soldiers with minor injuries yet no one fired into the crowd so there were no Iraqi injuries. The next day the Iraqis didn't even bother complaining since they knew that they couldn't get a rise out of the brits :)
Now had that been the americans I'd lay money on somone firing into the crowd, Iraqi fatalities and worse demonstrations the next day.
-
It's a good time for America to go isolationist. permanently.
-
Definetly.
-
Originally posted by magatsu1
you don't need to increase taxes to invest in public services. Lower taxes incourage people to work more, which generates more growth.That's what Kennedy did.
And the best Army would be British soldiers in German uniforms with (maybe) US Kit.
US troops relay too much on tech. and not enough on basic soldiering (my army veteran work mate told me that)
You draw the right conclusion from the wrong reasoning - lower taxes make people more prosperous, encouraging them to stay in the country instead of moving to somewhere like the US where you keep more of your pay packet. And this especially applies to the rich, whose enterprise and success ultimately result in them generating more jobs for the poor, which equals growth. :)
-
Raises taxes for the rich, and ban capital flight. Right now, if the government makes a policy that does not sit well with big business, they simply withdraw large amounts of capital from the economy as a threat. By holdng the government hostage, they can effectively have greater influence over policy than the people, usually with reason and science on their side. They're like the holy cow; do what you must but please don't harm to almighty corporation.
-
Originally posted by an0n
they're one of those countries that's so neutral they make Switzerland look like 1940's Germany.
:wtf:
Um.... what?
-
If you banned 'capital flight' and raised taxes on the higher income brackets why would anyone set up businesses in the first place? Lose.
-
Since we're on taxes, let's talk about how a Flat Tax with a rate of 10% is the most fair and equitable solution possible until we figure out how to get rid of money.
Entry Level A makes $200 a week, $20 goes to the Taxman. Multiply this by the number of Entry level people making $200 a week, let's say 10 million, that $200,000,000 for the Taxman per week.
Now lets bump it up a notch to the "rich" people that earn $100,000 a year. That's $1923.07 per week. At a flat tax rate of 10% that's $192.30 for the Taxman. Multiply that by the number of people who earn $100,000 per year, lets say another 10 million(it's probably more than that but my other estimate was low also), that's $1,923,000,000 for the Taxman.
So for the first 20 million people in the workforce the goverment has gotten $2,123,000,000 for public uses. The US work force is over 250 million strong and growing every day. You do the math.
*edit*
Rictor you realize that it is the "Rich People" who start 99% of new business ventures. If you raise their taxes and prevent them from putting their money away in a safe place, what incentive do they have to start new buisnesses? They'd be better of sitting in their houses doing nothing.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
So for the first 20 million people in the workforce the goverment has gotten $2,123,000,000 for public uses. The US work force is over 250 million strong and growing every day. You do the math.
I did. I found your maths hugely simplistic as a result.
Besides considering the way goverments waste money it probably cost them that much to ship toliet paper to the troops in Iraq, afghanistan and everywhere the US has naval bases.
-
The average income in the US is $32,000. There are 135 million people employed in the US. $3,200,000,000. Employmet tax returns for 2002 (same as the other figures) amounted to $650,968,000,000. Somethings seriously wrong with somebodys figures, I took those ones off US gov sites. Total employment tax is greater than total earned?
-
You missed a 4 off the beginning, doofus.
And several 0's off the end: $4,320,000,000,000
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
-Specifically?
-How many more troops did the US have to mobilize than the UK?
over 150,000 American troops were mobilized including the 101th
Airborne, 3rd and 4th Infantry division, Spec ops, SEALs, Rangers, the marines! (i also respect the royal marines) and the Air Force.
M-16s were not made from the British it was an American design. Humvee is a American design. M-1 Abrams are American design. You have to know your wepaonry before you say anything about who has who. M-a2 Bradleys were American designs.
someone had said the US armed forces are superior becuz of British weapons....no we used our own weapons. you used your enfield. and steyr aug for the Australians. Study weaponry and their origins ;)
-
Originally posted by an0n
You missed a 4 off the beginning, doofus.
And several 0's off the end: $4,320,000,000,000
You got it wrong too doofus, one 0 missing and I think I changed the 4 into the $. Anyways who cares.
-
*pokes head into thread*
Australia is the greatest country in the world. :D
*disappears*
-
Hmm, for the record, the next generation of US rifle is based on the HK G36 design, German of course. Both the OICW and the XM9 (I think), the rifle that is being put into service to fill the map between now and when the OICW goes into service.
And naturally, Yugoslavia is the best country in the world. I am too young to remember the old 6-province one, so its just basically Serbia and Montenegro :D:D
And Croatia has some awesome beaches. My aunt has a beach-house about 45 minutes outside of Split, I went there once when I was younger. The house is literally 20 steps from the sea, and the sea itself is crystal clear and warm.
edit: way to derail my thread..uhh..whoever. I'm not going to go back and check who it was, but you know who you are. Yeah you. Thats right, you.
-
Any country with me in it.
-
Also, just for the record, the American Army recently traded their multi-target tracking system with RPG proof tank Armour from the British. We are now improving their tracking system for them ;)
-
Probably going to fit big ****ing alarms for when they target friendly troops, again.