Is America the greatest country in the world?

[Unkotare]

the 'W' Bush induced hostilities in Iraq were and are illegal ....

Wrong.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This week, after eight years, they were told they would have to take the flags down or they would be removed. Why? Because the flags themselves were not a problem but for safety reasons the authorities could not have people isntalling a lot of stuff on bridges, and if they allowed the American flag, they would have to allow an Iraqi flag if somebody wanted to fly one. The Commander said that was the specific analogy used for the explanation.

What does disallowing flags being placed on bridges have to do what type of flag is placed on a bridge, you obviously don’t understand what the issue is about. Freedom of expression is not absolute, the state may curtail a given expressive act if justifiable, such as safety concerns – whether American flags or Iraqi flags are displayed is irrelevant.

That, Unkotare, does tie into your 'liberal extremism' concept, but it also is born of the multiculturalism aspect of that which I encourage Americans to fight against.

How is abiding by the Constitution and its case law ‘liberal extremism’ – when we already know for a fact freedom of expression is not absolute.

If those placing flags on bridges were to file suit in Federal court, they would have a very difficult time proving the policy violated the First Amendment. The prohibition of placing flags on bridges is narrowly tailored, addressing a safety issue, not the content of the speech, there are “ample alternative channels of communication” available, as bridges aren’t the only venue one might display flags, and the state is likely able to provide evidence in support of the prohibition. See: Frisby v. Schultz (1988).

Consequently, there is no such thing as ‘liberal extremism,’ it’s clearly a contrivance of the right in the context of conservative ignorance of – or contempt for – the Constitution and its case law.

As for ‘fighting against “multiculturalism,”’ that’s yet another example of rightist ignorance and hate.

 

[Unkotare]

And yes, Noomi, one is equally justified to regard one's homeland is the best in the same way these superficially 'America first' types do. Unfortunately, that simply continues the cult of nationhood, which has become the enemy of humankind.
We need to transcend 'nation' and gain 'consciousness'. Forgetting all this petty garbage about countries would be a great step forward for our race.

Putting you on the first available rocket to the Sun would be a great step forward for our race, you Kumbaya fruitcake.

 

[Unkotare]

Serious question.

How many countries have you lived in?

Just one - my home country.

Interesting.
I come from a place called Barnsley in the North of England.
I great place, wonderful people and amazing scenery.
I thought it was the best place in the world until I wandered into other countries and found there was more to life than I knew before.

Take a wander, meet new people from different cultures and enjoy the learning experience.
I no longer know where the best place in the world is.

What a pretentious douchebag.

 

[Unkotare]

I do plan to travel some day, when I have the money. The Netherlands is number one on my list, and I would also like to visit Denmark and Finland.

Nice but not that far removed from your own culture.
Try a real wander.

What an extra-pretentious douchebag.

 

[Swagger]

Just one - my home country.

Interesting.
I come from a place called Barnsley in the North of England.
I great place, wonderful people and amazing scenery.
I thought it was the best place in the world until I wandered into other countries and found there was more to life than I knew before.

Take a wander, meet new people from different cultures and enjoy the learning experience.
I no longer know where the best place in the world is.

What a pretentious douchebag.

I suspect he's a troll who's attempting to surreptitiously divert the track of this thread. Just my opinion, but there's something suspicious in his tone, along with his complete lack of interest in Foxfyre's OP.

 

[there4eyeM]

The American military was not prepared for Vietnam. It was not prepared for Iraq and Afghanistan. It is not prepared for 'asymmetric' war. Certainly, today, in a conventional war with, say, Russia there is no doubt of the outcome. That kind of conflict is entirely unlikely.
American planning was not ready for the fall of the Soviet Union and the possibility for a real change in the world, so it re-created the scenarios of the past to fit its concepts of its capacities. That is not a sign of greatness.
The administration previous to the present one grotesquely abused the power available to it, and the current one has failed to make amends. Those are not signs of greatness.
America has the power to be what it wants to be, but at present it is what it is.

 

[there4eyeM]

There4, your concept of one world without borders is interesting to think about. But how is that accomplished without losing the greatest single concept of all that make America great? That concept would be our unique recognition that humankind is born with unalienable rights given by God, if one is a believer, or natural rights if one is not. We are the only nation that has ever existed in all of world history in which the government does not assign us our rights.

Or at least that is what it is intended to be. Teaching and defending the concept is more difficult in modern times when so many are seeing virtue in more socialist, more authoritarian, more involved government and so many no longer seem to grasp a concept of unalienable rights.

Not the only country. France, for one, has a very strong attachment to inherent human rights.

 

[Foxfyre]

There4, your concept of one world without borders is interesting to think about. But how is that accomplished without losing the greatest single concept of all that make America great? That concept would be our unique recognition that humankind is born with unalienable rights given by God, if one is a believer, or natural rights if one is not. We are the only nation that has ever existed in all of world history in which the government does not assign us our rights.

Or at least that is what it is intended to be. Teaching and defending the concept is more difficult in modern times when so many are seeing virtue in more socialist, more authoritarian, more involved government and so many no longer seem to grasp a concept of unalienable rights.

Not the only country. France, for one, has a very strong attachment to inherent human rights.

Certainly there are some parallels in the American and French Revolutions with most historians agreeing that the former inspired the latter. Nevertheless, nobody with any sense of history would say that the nation of France was founded on any concept of human rights or that most of its history has not been one of monarchal dictatorships. The current French Constitution, however, does reference and respect the same natural rights included in the French constitutional documents of the late 18th century.

The current French Cosntitution includes much more power specifically assigned to the government and includes a mandate that the central government provide certain social serviices and there is no concept of a people who will govern themselves. At least some of the freedom that the Founders wanted for the American people can be far more legally restricted by government in France.

 

[Unkotare]

Interesting.
I come from a place called Barnsley in the North of England.
I great place, wonderful people and amazing scenery.
I thought it was the best place in the world until I wandered into other countries and found there was more to life than I knew before.

Take a wander, meet new people from different cultures and enjoy the learning experience.
I no longer know where the best place in the world is.

What a pretentious douchebag.

I suspect he's a troll who's attempting to surreptitiously divert the track of this thread. Just my opinion, but there's something suspicious in his tone, along with his complete lack of interest in Foxfyre's OP.

Could be

 

[there4eyeM]

The reference to France is perplexing. It is a voting democracy where the people certainly do govern themselves at least as much as in the US, if not more. In their recent presidential election there was 80% voter participation.
The Declaration of the Rights of Man was very early in the evolution of post-revolutionary French politics. As for parallels, it is difficult to compare with the war for independence. France was surrounded by historical enemies that immediately invaded at the start of the revolution. America had the luxury of developing without aggressive neighbors. The sad events between 1791 and 1871 could only have been avoided if perfect guidance had been in place; there was no margin of error.
America has no such excuse. Its massive riches should have assured a peaceful, prosperous nation with plenty for all.

 

[Unkotare]

The reference to France is perplexing. It is a voting democracy where the people certainly do govern themselves at least as much as in the US, if not more. .

That is obviously not true. The French people lost a significant portion of the meaning and power of their vote when it was taken from them and given to some bureaucrats in Brussels.

 

[there4eyeM]

The reference to France is perplexing. It is a voting democracy where the people certainly do govern themselves at least as much as in the US, if not more. .

That is obviously not true. The French people lost a significant portion of the meaning and power of their vote when it was taken from them and given to some bureaucrats in Brussels.

'Obvious' to whom?
What of their vote was transferred?
Who did this taking?
What bureaucrats in Brussels?

Europe is not federated. France conforms to certain commonly held rules of the EU, but can and does do pretty much as it wants (take a look at the EU 'limitations' on deficits; Germany is similar).

The French have many criticisms of their country and their system, but they are very happy to be French and few would abandon the attachment to Europe.

 

[Unkotare]

Maybe you need to come back after you've brushed up on modern history and current events.

 

[Synthaholic]

I'm still wondering why Foxfyre hasn't responded to my replies to her.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm still wondering why Foxfyre hasn't responded to my replies to her.

Because I am not interested in diverting this thread to partisan motivated bashing and I'm very interested in keeping things civil. So I won't respond to anybody's personal insults and you haven't offered any replies that I thought were relevant to the OP.

 

[MikeK]

It took me a bit to find it, but the fact is, the people are so happy in Denmark that there is a tremendous labor shortage because so many young Danes can’t wait to get out of there once they complete their free education. The high taxes and resulting almost Spartan standard of living when compared to much of Europe and the USA is not conducive to the educated and motivated to remain there.

[...]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/b.../05iht-labor.4.8603880.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

The Times article speaks of a percentage of young Danes who took advantage of the free education and benefits afforded by that nation's socialist system but wish to expatriate because they don't want to pay the kind of tax which enabled their success. But the article does not speak for all Danes. And while the NY Times is an authoritative source, so is the following:

(Excerpt)

For the past decade, social scientists and pollsters have given elaborate questionnaires to hundreds of thousands of people around the globe. Two of the largest studies that rank the happiness of countries around the world are the World Map of Happiness from the University of Leiscester and the World Database of Happiness from Ruut Veenhoven of Erasmus University Rotterdam. All the happiness surveys ask people basically the same question: How happy are you?


"The answer you get is not only how they feel right now, but also how they feel about their entire life," explained Dan Buettner, who has studied happiness and longevity around the world through his Blue Zones project Buettner said that if you mine all the databases of universities and research centers, you'll find that the happiest place on earth is ? Denmark. Cold, dreary, unspectacular Denmark.

Could the Danes really be the happiest people in the world? When ABC News anchor Bill Weir traveled there to find out, he asked random Danes to rate themselves in terms of happiness, on a scale of one to 10. Many people rated themselves at least an eight, and there were several nines and 10s. Finally, one grouchy Dane came along who said she didn't believe Danes were so happy. But then she quickly conceded that she herself felt rather content with her life, and said Danes in general had very little to complain about.

(Close)

Denmark: The Happiest Place on Earth - ABC News


So perhaps the question I should ask is what you believe to be the difference between greatness and happiness. And which of the two conditions would you prefer to live within?

 

[MikeK]

Nonsense. The U.S. military is up to whatever it has to face. Ineffective use of the military or wrong choices do not change that in the least. And peace is impossible where it is not allowed unless a given dictatorship or totalitarian government can be in control. Admittedly many of our leaders have not quite grasped that concept.

Barring the use of nuclear weapons, which amounts to Mutually Assured Destruction, I don't know what your confidence is based on. I frankly don't know how well we would do in a ground war against the Chinese military, which outnumbers us by at least a ten to one margin. This is the main reason why I advocate re-activating the draft, which in a relatively short time would provide us with millions of trained former soldiers in the civilian sector who could be called up and made active within weeks rather than the months it takes to train raw recruits.

But as far as this thread is concerned, the only relevant part of that is how we, as Americans, see what the proper utilization of our military to be. Most of you skipped over the issues of whether we should intervene to stop slaughter of thousands or milllions when we have the power to do so. Or is the proper use to be strong against any intended harm to our own people and otherwise mind our business no matter what is happening elsewhere? These are not easy questions.

It is an easy question for me.

Interfering in other people's affairs is never a good idea. That principle emphatically applies to examples of oppression within and against foreign nations (other than active military allies), mainly because there is no end to it and we are not the cops of the world. There almost always are consequences for not minding your own business.

 

[there4eyeM]

Maybe you need to come back after you've brushed up on modern history and current events.

Why don't you talk to someone who lives there?

 

[MikeK]

There4, your concept of one world without borders is interesting to think about. But how is that accomplished without losing the greatest single concept of all that make America great? That concept would be our unique recognition that humankind is born with unalienable rights given by God, if one is a believer, or natural rights if one is not. We are the only nation that has ever existed in all of world history in which the government does not assign us our rights.

Or at least that is what it is intended to be. Teaching and defending the concept is more difficult in modern times when so many are seeing virtue in more socialist, more authoritarian, more involved government and so many no longer seem to grasp a concept of unalienable rights.

Our history of genocidal oppression (of native populations), slavery and Jim Crow segregation exists because the absence of any socialist influence on our government over the years enabled it. Civil rights in America are a relatively recent social endowment and occur as a fundamental socialist principle.

While I do not advocate plenary socialism I believe the optimal situation is a capitalist economy which is controlled by altruistic socialist concerns (regulations). Because, as we have recently learned, laissez faire capitalism is an insidious social malignancy.

My point is socialism, per se, is by no means the evil social influence that far too many Americans are being led to believe it is.