• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is America the greatest Country anymore? Or do you agree with Will?

Is America the greatest Country anymore? Or do you agree with Will?


  • Total voters
    57
Not so clear according to LeMay. I've not heard anyone blame Roosevelt for war crimes, though he surely is guilty of having provoked a Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor.

So according to you Franklin Roosevelt was not in control of US military forces in WWII? Le May basically waged war all by himself?

Your laughable assertion that FDR "provoked" the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor says a lot about your "knowledge" of WWII.
 
The nuclear weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the least discriminant weapon used ever. Two civilian cities were targeted for annihilation. Apologise and defend it all you wish.

First of all, these cities were not "annihilated". you can visit them today if you like They have remained substantial cities.

Second, these cities contained legitimate military targets.

Third, I understand you would have preferred the war to have been prolonged for another year and the number of dead to have been much higher.
 
So according to you Franklin Roosevelt was not in control of US military forces in WWII? Le May basically waged war all by himself?

Your laughable assertion that FDR "provoked" the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor says a lot about your "knowledge" of WWII.

Of course Roosevelt was CIC. but I was referring specifically to LeMay AND HIS OWN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT that he would be tried as a war criminal had the US not defeated Japan. And its laughable that you are unaware of the more quiet economic war that Roosevelt waged against Japan, as well as provocative naval exercises near Japanese waters and his leaving Pearl Harbor a sitting duck.
 
First of all, these cities were not "annihilated". you can visit them today if you like They have remained substantial cities.

Second, these cities contained legitimate military targets.

Third, I understand you would have preferred the war to have been prolonged for another year and the number of dead to have been much higher.

Then your understanding is problematic, because nothing I said suggested a desire for prolonged war. I realise that you're new, but I have long argued that we shouldn't have been to war with Japan in the first place. And that those two cities have been rebuilt in the meantime is no indication that they weren't once laid waste by our fat boys.
 
Of course Roosevelt was CIC. but I was referring specifically to LeMay AND HIS OWN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT that he would be tried as a war criminal had the US not defeated Japan. And its laughable that you are unaware of the more quiet economic war that Roosevelt waged against Japan, as well as provocative naval exercises near Japanese waters and his leaving Pearl Harbor a sitting duck.

You clearly prefer fiction to history.
 
The bombing campaign and bombardements involved in the run up to the invasion of Normandy killed many thousands of civilians.

These bombings and bombardements "targeted" enemy-held positions, just as the bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Tokyo "targeted" enemy-held positions.

The issue is that any use of the A-bomb would have killed vast numbers of civilians, even if the ostensible aim was to take out a military installation. These weapons cannot be used with a sense of proportion and are therefore fundamentally immoral. The civilian of bombing of Dresden by the Brits was also a war crime - it flattened a living city and not just military targets.

The definition of war crimes was much debated after the war and clarified in international conventions. But this has not stopped the USA from causing huge numbers of civilian deaths in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq and Afghanistan, for example. Its mass use of advanced heavy weaponry makes this unavoidable. So war crimes continue unabated, unacknowledged and unpunished. Meanwhile, some Americans continue to think that their country is the "best" or "greatest" and ignore its crimes against humanity, and future generations are destined to repeat the horrors of the past.
 
The issue is that any use of the A-bomb would have killed vast numbers of civilians, even if the ostensible aim was to take out a military installation. These weapons cannot be used with a sense of proportion and are therefore fundamentally immoral. The civilian of bombing of Dresden by the Brits was also a war crime - it flattened a living city and not just military targets.

The definition of war crimes was much debated after the war and clarified in international conventions. But this has not stopped the USA from causing huge numbers of civilian deaths in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq and Afghanistan, for example. Its mass use of advanced heavy weaponry makes this unavoidable. So war crimes continue unabated, unacknowledged and unpunished. Meanwhile, some Americans continue to think that their country is the "best" or "greatest" and ignore its crimes against humanity, and future generations are destined to repeat the horrors of the past.

To you any act of war is a war crime. Thereby you basically legitimize war crimes. But in your urge to demonize the US that is of course a small price to pay.
 
Oh I know. My point was that your link was a thumb nail sketch of it. There's far more material documenting war crimes, imperialism, CIA atrocities, etc.

Sorry. Thanks for the clarification. I agree with your points.
 
To you any act of war is a war crime. Thereby you basically legitimize war crimes. But in your urge to demonize the US that is of course a small price to pay.
I never said that any act of war is a war crime. In my book, an invasion is. Also a hugely disproportionate response to aggression is too. Britain and the US have consistently done these things, rarely apologised or changed their ways, and I fully expect them to continue in the same vein.

You've not really acknowledged or rebutted the accusations against the US in the material that I've referred you to. I didn't make it up - it looks cogent and credible and I'm sure I can find corroboration. Is it not part of your idea of American "greatness" to deal honestly and openly with charges of war crimes levelled against the USA?
 
I never said that any act of war is a war crime. In my book, an invasion is. Also a hugely disproportionate response to aggression is too. Britain and the US have consistently done these things, rarely apologised or changed their ways, and I fully expect them to continue in the same vein.

You've not really acknowledged or rebutted the accusations against the US in the material that I've referred you to. I didn't make it up - it looks cogent and credible and I'm sure I can find corroboration. Is it not part of your idea of American "greatness" to deal honestly and openly with charges of war crimes levelled against the USA?

You confuse propaganda with facts or arguments.
 
The issue is that any use of the A-bomb would have killed vast numbers of civilians, even if the ostensible aim was to take out a military installation. These weapons cannot be used with a sense of proportion and are therefore fundamentally immoral. The civilian of bombing of Dresden by the Brits was also a war crime - it flattened a living city and not just military targets.

The definition of war crimes was much debated after the war and clarified in international conventions. But this has not stopped the USA from causing huge numbers of civilian deaths in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq and Afghanistan, for example. Its mass use of advanced heavy weaponry makes this unavoidable. So war crimes continue unabated, unacknowledged and unpunished. Meanwhile, some Americans continue to think that their country is the "best" or "greatest" and ignore its crimes against humanity, and future generations are destined to repeat the horrors of the past.

And, it wasn't until 1975 that the US even acknowledged that many of the actions taken in WW11, should be considered war crimes. But as I pointed out earlier, Curtis LeMay new it at the time. And general/president eisenhower stated that he was opposed to the use of the two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on two points. One, that Japan was already prepared to surrender and they weren't needed, and two, he hated to see the US be the First Nation to use the awful weapon.
 
Since there's still a few people on this thread who persist with the notion that the USA is objectively the best country in the world despite making some "mistakes", here's an interesting Wikipedia article about US war crimes for your perusal.


I have a hard time figuring out who didn't make "mistakes." Japan (imperialism, WWII atrocities), Britain (imperialism, slavery, suppression of uprisings in colonies), Netherlands (imperialism, slavery), France (imperialism, slavery) China (Mao, Tibet, etc.), Italy (imperialism), Russia (imperialism; Soviet Union--Stalin), Germany (imperialism; WWII atrocities, e.g. "Final Solution"), Denmark (imperialism, slave trade), Norway (slave trade), Spain (imperialism, slavery, destruction of indigenous American peoples), Portugal (slavery, imperialism). Even non-aggressive Switzerland has blood on its hands. It did a shameful job of being Hitler's banker and stealing Jewish assets.

So that leaves us with what? San Marino?


USA--#1! :ind:
 
Is America the greatest Country anymore? Or do you agree with Will?

Of course the USA is the greatest nation to Americans. Just as Canada is the greatest nation to Canadians. And so on. There is nothing wrong with holding that belief as long as it isnt forced onto anyone else.

Its like football teams, a fan believes their team is the best. Even if they are not the best, the fan isnt making a judgement of other teams they are just being loyal to their team. Just the same I think that the USA is the greatest nation on the planet that ever was. If a person makes the same claim about their country I dont scoff at them I just understand their point of view and applaud it. I mean why shouldnt a citizen support their own country? That is where the speech in the video fails and sounds more like a brat who didnt get his way.

Wills speech as delivered was in a manipulative fashion. It was designed to shock the listener and then real them into his point of view. It is a jaded view of the country, and a lordy ageism induced rant that is nothing more than pessimistic ramblings. It is a politically left biased tromp of hyper partisan crap. It was right up there with the techniques used by shock jock radio personalities. The choir will sit glued to the tv set and the those that Aaron Sorkin pissed off were there to rant and rave at Aaron Sorkin. In the end the format wasnt enough. The show was cancelled.

Wills/Aaron Sorkins speech was Machiavellian Paradigm of a sorts geared towards Americans to prod us in a certain direction. It was straight out of Bernie Sanders playbook. But rest assured that any of the nay sayers would be beating the greatest nation chest montra if their ideological version of a nation was installed.
 
no vote, I agree with no man .
"the greatest country" .. childish .. jingoistic .. So open to definitions of "greatest" .
Top candidates would be Switzerland or Norway .. or Japan ..However, neither have our problems with minorities and intolerance.
 
You confuse propaganda with facts or arguments.
Are you saying that the words of John Kerry and the Nuremburg prosecutor that the USA is guilty of war crimes is "propaganda"? Anyone can say the word "propaganda" to easily dismiss uncomfortable truths which challenge the alleged "greatness" of their country. If that's all you can come up with, then that's a shame.
 
And, it wasn't until 1975 that the US even acknowledged that many of the actions taken in WW11, should be considered war crimes. But as I pointed out earlier, Curtis LeMay new it at the time. And general/president eisenhower stated that he was opposed to the use of the two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on two points. One, that Japan was already prepared to surrender and they weren't needed, and two, he hated to see the US be the First Nation to use the awful weapon.
I never knew that about Eisenhower - he sounds like a man of some principle. Well the dropping of those A-bombs has reaped a whirlwind ever since.
 
I have a hard time figuring out who didn't make "mistakes." Japan (imperialism, WWII atrocities), Britain (imperialism, slavery, suppression of uprisings in colonies), Netherlands (imperialism, slavery), France (imperialism, slavery) China (Mao, Tibet, etc.), Italy (imperialism), Russia (imperialism; Soviet Union--Stalin), Germany (imperialism; WWII atrocities, e.g. "Final Solution"), Denmark (imperialism, slave trade), Norway (slave trade), Spain (imperialism, slavery, destruction of indigenous American peoples), Portugal (slavery, imperialism). Even non-aggressive Switzerland has blood on its hands. It did a shameful job of being Hitler's banker and stealing Jewish assets.

So that leaves us with what? San Marino?


USA--#1! :ind:
Me too. I think it leaves us with the conclusion that alleging that one's country is the "greatest" is a silly playground tactic which is likely to lose you friends and alienate people. Agreed?
 
This thread is perhaps moving towards its natural end so I thought I'd add a quote from Scripture I like:

Luke 9: 46 An argument started among them as to which of them might be the greatest. 47 But Jesus, knowing what they were thinking in their heart, took a child and stood him by His side, 48 and said to them, “Whoever receives this child in My name receives Me, and whoever receives Me receives Him who sent Me; for the one who is least among all of you, this is the one who is great.”
(New American Standard Version) Luke 9 NASB
 
Me too. I think it leaves us with the conclusion that alleging that one's country is the "greatest" is a silly playground tactic which is likely to lose you friends and alienate people. Agreed?

Well, I agree that taking a concept such as "American Exceptionalism" to imply some measure of superiority is likely to ruffle a few feathers, but I don't agree that this is nothing more than an academic exercise or a game akin to Tic-Tac-Toe. I mean, what if we did the opposite and just told the world, "Man, the USA is the worst country on the planet. It sucks! STAY HOME!"? Would that be productive? On the other hand, people want to associate with and be part of a winner. Take our Chinese friends. Why are they coming here in such large numbers? Because they think we're losers and made a lot of mistakes? Or do they see something in the place that maybe even many native-born Americans don't see? Would we be better off if we infected our national psyche with a negative mindset or even that it's fine to just be mediocre? I don't think so.

I can tell you one thing. There is at least one immigrant who thinks the U.S. is the greatest country on the planet: my wife. She made a decision to leave her home country and apply at a U.S. embassy for a visa. I mean, she could have picked any other country on the planet, some of which would have been more accommodating or made her jump through fewer hoops, but she chose the U.S. And if you ask her who's numero uno you can bet I already know her answer.
 
Last edited:
Well, I agree that taking a concept such as "American Exceptionalism" to imply some measure of superiority is likely to ruffle a few feathers, but I don't agree that this is nothing more than an academic exercise or a game akin to Tic-Tac-Toe. I mean, what if we did the opposite and just told the world, "Man, the USA is the worst country on the planet. It sucks! STAY HOME!"? Would that be productive? On the other hand, people want to associate with and be part of a winner. Take our Chinese friends. Why are they coming here in such large numbers? Because they think we're losers and made a lot of mistakes? Or do they see something in the place that maybe even many native-born Americans don't see? Would we be better off if we infected our national psyche with a negative mindset or even that it's fine to just be mediocre? I don't think so.

I can tell you one thing. There is at least one immigrant who thinks the U.S. is the greatest country on the planet: my wife. She made a decision to leave her home country and apply at a U.S. embassy for a visa. I mean, she could have picked any other country on the planet, some of which would have been more accommodating or made her jump through fewer hoops, but she chose the U.S. And if you ask her who's numero uno you can bet I already know her answer.
Ok. As long as we leave it at the level of personal preferences, I'm fine with it. I'd be against a "worst country on the planet" competition too. Both our countries would probably do badly in that kind of poll.

We can afford to be positive about our nations but other nations are still recovering from our atrocities and we need to keep that somewhere in our minds too, in case it happens again.
 
Back
Top Bottom