• 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
Oil money from the US is a negligible source of terrorist support. A large role for that oil money is just a myth. It is also a myth that the ME has been embroiled in holy war for centuries. There have been conflicts to be sure, but there have been longer periods of calm. A strong US presence actually gives regimes there the confidence to not act with hair-trigger responses.

WwwFuZ4.gif
 
It's not dishonorable if it's true. The question isn't which country makes the best washing machines or sitcoms. It is whether the U.S. is the greatest country, and, while opinions may vary, on some of the most important measures of a country's "greatness" I don't think the U.S. has any peer. If not for the U.S. all of those French chefs would be cooking Apfelstrudel while pomp and ceremony in Britain would revolve around the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers goose stepping and perfecting their "Sieg Heils."

without french support the USA might still be a set of British colonies.
History, it's a dish served best complete.
 
without french support the USA might still be a set of British colonies.
History, it's a dish served best complete.

So you might try mentioning that we saved pompous French asses more than once. That's not to say that I don't appreciate Lafayette, Montesquieu, Rousseau, and their statue in New York Harbor.
 
It's not dishonorable if it's true. The question isn't which country makes the best washing machines or sitcoms. It is whether the U.S. is the greatest country, and, while opinions may vary, on some of the most important measures of a country's "greatness" I don't think the U.S. has any peer. If not for the U.S. all of those French chefs would be cooking Apfelstrudel while pomp and ceremony in Britain would revolve around the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers goose stepping and perfecting their "Sieg Heils."
The fact that anyone in 2015 can argue that his country is objectively the best in the world is risible beyond belief. I just hope that this is a mental affliction that not too many Americans suffer from.

We can talk about the relative contributions of different countries to the outcome of WW2 in more detail if you like. Have a read of this in the meantime Battle of Stalingrad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Well, y'all are certainly world champs at one thing; I don't think anyone measures a dick quite as enthusiastically as you guys. :lol:

Well one thing's for sure: USA > UK

:mrgreen:
 
I see we are maintaining a truly intellectual level of discourse.

A thread about claims to being 'the greatest country' has no level of intellectual discourse to begin with. To treat it as if it had would be sillier still.
 
Almost none of the first world's transportation fuel money goes to terrorists. And no, the US presence has in fact been a source of stability in the ME. The Shah would have come to power with or without us, and led a relatively progressive regime for 25 years. The Muj whom we backed against the Soviets were not/are not just the Taliban. ISIS is a creation of our premature departure from Iraq, and our failure to act in timely fashion (early 2012) in Syria.

Agreed with the exception of your claim that almost none of the first world's transportation fuel money goes to terrorists. Perhaps the following will help:

Fueling Terror
 
Agreed with the exception of your claim that almost none of the first world's transportation fuel money goes to terrorists. Perhaps the following will help:

Fueling Terror

That's an eleven-year-old advocacy piece written to argue for reduced oil consumption. It is without value as an intelligence assessment of terrorist financing.
 
Agreed with the exception of your claim that almost none of the first world's transportation fuel money goes to terrorists. Perhaps the following will help:

Fueling Terror

Better:

Next The Economist explains: Where Islamic State gets its money

Jan 4, 2015 ... Instead the bulk of its money comes from oil revenues from fields under its .... " Levitt is a national expert on terrorism and its financing, working ...
The Economist explains | The Economist

LabeledBlogs
Financial sanctions: The pros and cons of a SWIFT response | The ...

Nov 22, 2014 ... Though most of the terrorist group's funding comes from local oil revenues, ransoms and shakedowns of businesses in territories that IS ...
www.economist.com/.../21633830-blocking-rogue-states-access-worlds- financial-messaging-network-potent-measure

LabeledPrint edition
 
The fact that anyone in 2015 can argue that his country is objectively the best in the world is risible beyond belief. I just hope that this is a mental affliction that not too many Americans suffer from.

We can talk about the relative contributions of different countries to the outcome of WW2 in more detail if you like. Have a read of this in the meantime Battle of Stalingrad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We did save you during both world wars and, while we may puff our chests out annoyingly and we might overstate our relative contribution to the European front (similarly, many Europeans completely forget that WW2 had a pacific theatre in which the USA fought almost exclusively in addition to our assistance in Europe)....one cannot escape the fact that the United States did ride in on its white steed to your rescue....and keep in mind we were not directly attacked like the Russians were, we just showed up in the nick of time with the sole purpose of rescuing your ass. Had we not done so, the Germans would likely have succeeded in pressing west toward Britain.

Now, the U.S. Has been compensated for this, as this was the rise of America as a global superpower, replacing Great Britain. However, history is what it is.
 
The fact that anyone in 2015 can argue that his country is objectively the best in the world is risible beyond belief. I just hope that this is a mental affliction that not too many Americans suffer from.

Well, if "his country" is Equatorial Guinea I can see your point. On the other hand, if it's the USA you have to count me among the afflicted.

We can talk about the relative contributions of different countries to the outcome of WW2 in more detail if you like. Have a read of this in the meantime Battle of Stalingrad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I might call the Soviet Union a "great contributor" if it hadn't helped start WWII by signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Germany. I mean, if you start a fire and then sacrifice yourself to help put it out does that make you the greatest fireman? :confused:
 
The same goes for all 3rd-1st world migration.

Well, no, that's not really true. Some countries welcome so-called "Third World" legal immigrants. Canada and Britain come to my mind. But no country on the planet welcomes more of them than the U.S. We admit approximately 1 million legal immigrants each year, most of them from developing countries like the Philippines and Mexico. Meanwhile, citizens of that great country, China, can't seem to get enough U.S. real estate (Chinese Buyers Can't Get Enough of U.S. Real Estate Assets) and green cards (Immigrants to U.S. From China Top Those From Mexico - WSJ).
 
Is America the greatest Country anymore? Or do you agree with Will?



I agree with him, but we are still the greatest because we have the ability to mend and flourish given our intended structure.
 
I agree with him, but we are still the greatest because we have the ability to mend and flourish given our intended structure.

I think Will McAvoy's (Jeff Daniels') monologue is a little too idealized, as if one day the U.S. "stood for something" but then the next day it didn't. Even when the U.S. with its allies defeated the Axis Powers we had black soldiers and airmen coming home facing Jim Crow. For example, in a story I read earlier this year about two Tuskegee Airmen who died on the same day I ran across this tidbit:

Years after his return, Shambrey told his son Tim about how he and other soldiers traveled to segregated Alabama to pick up their discharge papers.

Stepping off the train with a handful of his friends, Shambrey saw a hospitality station where women in nursing uniforms welcomed returning soldiers home with a handshake and a free cup of coffee.

The women did not greet the black soldiers, who had to pay a nickel for their coffee, Tim Shambrey said.

"Being who they were, they didn't cause any mess or trouble," he said. "They paid and went and got the discharge papers."

In death, two Tuskegee Airmen, lifelong friends, share final journey - LA Times

Ironic, isn't it? These men selflessly went to war in Europe to fight for freedom while they couldn't use a public restroom meant for "whites only" in the Jim Crow South of their own country. No welcome wagon for them.

So then I'm left to ponder: Was America great because it "stood for something," or was America great because it had people who felt it was still worth dying for even as they were denied the full benefit of the freedoms it offered to its white citizens? I'd say the latter is closer to the truth.
 
Well, if "his country" is Equatorial Guinea I can see your point. On the other hand, if it's the USA you have to count me among the afflicted.



I might call the Soviet Union a "great contributor" if it hadn't helped start WWII by signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Germany. I mean, if you start a fire and then sacrifice yourself to help put it out does that make you the greatest fireman? :confused:
On the first point, describing your country as the "best" in the world is good for a laugh but to do it seriously is evidence of huge vanity. Like I said, colonial Britain did this sort of thing in the past so I know the mindset. But it's a mindset worth shaking off if you want to cultivate good relations with other countries.
 
Well, if "his country" is Equatorial Guinea I can see your point. On the other hand, if it's the USA you have to count me among the afflicted.



I might call the Soviet Union a "great contributor" if it hadn't helped start WWII by signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Germany. I mean, if you start a fire and then sacrifice yourself to help put it out does that make you the greatest fireman? :confused:

On the Soviet Union, they lost as many men every day in the Battle of Stalingrad as the USA lost in Pearl Harbour. The USA was extremely reluctant to enter WW2 (understandably) and even losing a ship in an Arctic convoy was not enough for it to get involved. It was only when Germany declared war on the USA that they got involved. So there are some "what ifs" affecting contributions to the war on all sides. There's no denying that America's contribution to WW2 was massive and began at a critical time, and we should be forever grateful to you, but to make a point about one country or another making the greatest contribution to it is always going to be very subjective, unhelpful and just annoying.
 
On the Soviet Union, they lost as many men every day in the Battle of Stalingrad as the USA lost in Pearl Harbour. The USA was extremely reluctant to enter WW2 (understandably) and even losing a ship in an Arctic convoy was not enough for it to get involved. It was only when Germany declared war on the USA that they got involved. So there are some "what ifs" affecting contributions to the war on all sides. There's no denying that America's contribution to WW2 was massive and began at a critical time, and we should be forever grateful to you, but to make a point about one country or another making the greatest contribution to it is always going to be very subjective, unhelpful and just annoying.

The fact of the matter is that the Soviet Union was an ally of Nazi Germany for the first two years of World War II, supporting Nazi Germany with critical supplies, while the USA during the same period supplied the Allies. During this same period the Soviet Union invaded and occupied Poland and the three Baltic States and also invaded Finland.
 
We did save you during both world wars and, while we may puff our chests out annoyingly and we might overstate our relative contribution to the European front (similarly, many Europeans completely forget that WW2 had a pacific theatre in which the USA fought almost exclusively in addition to our assistance in Europe)....one cannot escape the fact that the United States did ride in on its white steed to your rescue....and keep in mind we were not directly attacked like the Russians were, we just showed up in the nick of time with the sole purpose of rescuing your ass. Had we not done so, the Germans would likely have succeeded in pressing west toward Britain.

Now, the U.S. Has been compensated for this, as this was the rise of America as a global superpower, replacing Great Britain. However, history is what it is.
See my previous reply to Ahlevah on this point. Your perspective is US-centric, but with 70 years of hindsight, perhaps we can all more easily move to a place where we look at the standpoints of different countries.

The British perspective has been that, in Western Europe, we stood alone against Germany after the rest of Europe had fallen (or remained neutral) between 1941 and 1943. We could say that we were alone while the USA was trying its best to find reasons to stay out of the war, given the very strong German ethnic influence in the USA. The British were also in the Far East in WW2 though admittedly in much smaller numbers than the US and with little success. We also often forget the Eastern Front and Russia's massive contribution. But like I said to Ahlevah, the US's contribution to the defence of Britain and liberation of Europe was massive and we should be forever grateful for it.
 
See my previous reply to Ahlevah on this point. Your perspective is US-centric, but with 70 years of hindsight, perhaps we can all more easily move to a place where we look at the standpoints of different countries.

The British perspective has been that, in Western Europe, we stood alone against Germany after the rest of Europe had fallen (or remained neutral) between 1941 and 1943. We could say that we were alone while the USA was trying its best to find reasons to stay out of the war, given the very strong German ethnic influence in the USA. The British were also in the Far East in WW2 though admittedly in much smaller numbers than the US and with little success. We also often forget the Eastern Front and Russia's massive contribution. But like I said to Ahlevah, the US's contribution to the defence of Britain and liberation of Europe was massive and we should be forever grateful for it.

You may want to check your dates.
 
Well, no, that's not really true. Some countries welcome so-called "Third World" legal immigrants. Canada and Britain come to my mind. But no country on the planet welcomes more of them than the U.S. We admit approximately 1 million legal immigrants each year, most of them from developing countries like the Philippines and Mexico. Meanwhile, citizens of that great country, China, can't seem to get enough U.S. real estate (Chinese Buyers Can't Get Enough of U.S. Real Estate Assets) and green cards (Immigrants to U.S. From China Top Those From Mexico - WSJ).
Are we still on about "who is the greatest country"? If this keeps up, then you'll be hearing from me with some examples of how the US is very much not the greatest country. Could be an interesting project.
 
Back
Top Bottom