thats always a productive argument. if someone has a criticism about the US, just tell them to leave.
In fact, it moves your point to the top of your head. Do you not understand that 0.06 percent difference between the top 11 countries is statistically insignificant? You can't be this naive. Of course the size of a country factors in when demographics and statistics are totaled. Did you read the post? Small countries do not undertake the international responsibilities of large countries and can redirect their money into lifestyle for their citizens. But they give up security and influence to achieve this. Yeah, how many of them are minority immigrants? 4%. Austrailia had a whites-only immigration policy until 1966! You are basing "greatness" on one factor only--average opulence of the lifestyle. You ignore dozens other other factors that make a country great. International power, prestige, and respect. Military dominance, scientific dominance, technical dominance, cultural dominance, airpwer dominance, seapower dominance, spacepower dominance, international trade, size of the economy, stability of the democracy through centuries, and many more. How many superpowers are there? One. How many Americans emigrate from the United States. Damn few. These are measures of greatness, my friend. You'd better or you will lose the bet badly. US military power is unmatched. And what makes a country the greatest in you mind? Norway? Because they are a tiny country with no minority immigrants giving them 0.06% greater literacy and longevity than we do? Not me, chief! Translation: Absolutely right. The EU is not a country, unfortunately. I can't believe you make an imaginary argument. It not only doesn't include private aid, but it gives no value to the military aid we have given nor to the security provided third world countries by US forces. Moreover, 8 of those 11 countries that you think are greater depend on the US for their national security and they spend FAR less of their GDP on their own military,giving them more to spend on foreign aid, because WE SUBSIDIZE THEIR SECURITY. You give us no credit for that. They haven't been a democracy for longer than the US. Nobody has. Nor has their economy been stable. Your criteria for greatness is flawed. Then what, at long last, is your friggin' point?
no, i understand statistics. my point for referencing that website to begin with was just to show one reputable example showing the US as not the greatest country. obviously even to say "the greatest country" is stupid because there are so many factors and "greatest" is subjective, but this list could be considered an attempt---and im sure they put more time into it than any of us. "naive", right. just stick with the facts, mister. the security and influence that the US provides is a detriment to its greatness. perhaps "greatness" needs to be defined here. didnt know we were parsing "immigrants". i just provided evidence that there are other countries that have a lot of immigrants. certainly, none have the raw # that the US has, but its fair to look at % of population. too many just remember some "melting pot" reference from a social studies class and think it means no one wants to go to any other country. AND, then in '66 the US would have been more great relative to Australia than it is now. i have been assuming that we are talking about current greatness. absolutely. well, i dont "ignore" them, just devalue them. the only slight reservation i had was the size of china. i thought, perhaps, the US could reasonably put out a force of 500,000 and china 10,000,000. i did a little check, and i was way wrong. current active--US 1.4 mil and China 2.3 mil (with a similar ratio of total troops) a little syntax problem there so i dont know exactly what youre getting at. if its "what country do i think is the greatest"--i dont know. havent studied it enough to be sure. if i had to give an answer on the spot, the US. if you wanted to know what makes a country the greatest, then the shortest answer would be---the one with the highest % of happy/satisfied people (i know there are big problems with this, but it is just one sentence) whoa, bud. i never wrote that. or at least i never intended to, certainly dont believe those countries are greater. originally, the rich are not paying their fair share. then, the US has too many indigent to be clearly defined as the greatest country. and certainly the US has too many indigent to use the line "America is the greatest country in the world" as some sort of excuse to leave them behind. that old stand by (in response to some criticism of the US) "if you dont like America, why dont you just leave?!", just makes me want to puke, or cry, or bash someone's head in. :usaflagwa:usaflagwa:usaflagwa:usaflagwa:usaflagwa:usaflagwa:usaflagwa
Your empathy for the less fortunate is admirable, but what do you suppose is the solution? The "Robin Hood" approach has failed miserably. All it does is create a generation of adults dependent upon entitement programs and no clue as to how fend for themselves. You can tax the "Rich" into oblivion in order to give more to the have nots but all you'll end up with is more hands out begging for some freebies. I don't think there is a solution, which is why I advocate survival of the fittest. Eventually those who refuse to help themselves* will be culled and the problem takes care of itself. *I would show mercy to those that cannot help themselves.
21st Century military power is not based on quantity but upon quality. The quality of the US military is unmatched and it is based on technology, training, and upon the volunteer professional manpower, a resource our enemies can neither copy nor steal. There is a advance in military technology going on right now that is every bit as revolutionary to warfare as the advent of steel, gunpowder, industrial age munitions, and electronics. Information warfare --and we are absolutely on top of it. The lethality of precision guided munitions not only renders fixed positions vulnerable, but it also renders armor and speed ineffective as defenses. All we have to do is find them to hit them and kill them. And new technologies are enabling us to find them like never before. We can manage the battlefield so well that large forces actually become an encumbrance. It doesn't take huge numbers of forces to take on a enemy if we can find his weaknesses and hit them accurately. We can maneuver with knowledge of all our enemies positions and communications, while making him blind to our own. For the only time in history one superpower controls every sphere of conflict. We can dominate battle on land, seas, air, and space. Alexander and Rome controlled the land, but never the sea. Britain dominated the seas but never the land. There is no one on the planet that offers us a serious military danger. Enemies threaten and make bellicose noises, but they will lose any war and they know it. China's huge army is of no threat to us at all. Agreed. But this line of "US not great" logic escapes me. There are too many shelters and loopholes that only the super-rich can take advantage of. That all needs to disappear. Indigent population is not a criteria for greatness when you're talking about the sole superpower, the oldest and most stable democracy on the planet, its largest economy, and worldcultural and technological pacesetter. You never hear me saying that. My response to "Love it or leave it" is "Use it or lose it". They're suggesting that the best way for me to respect America -- which was founded on the Bill of Rights, with freedom of speech at the first order of business -- is not to exercise my rights? Not a chance. Many conservatives don't get it. Moderates and Liberals love America just as much as they do, but in a different way. You see, conservatives love America the way a four-year old loves her mommy. To a four-year-old, everything Mommy does is wonderful and anyone who criticizes Mommy is bad. We love America like adults. Adult love means actually understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad, fostering improvement, and doing the right thing.
its all about the children. education should be great in this country and it is far from it. teachers and local politicians just play the blame game and cant seem to find solutions. i dont care if the parents are crackheads. teach the kids. no excuses. as you say--you would show mercy to those that cannot help themselves. education is too crappy for poor kids in this country. reversing this is the only way out now with good labor jobs diminishing.
Wait until Stacey gets a hold of this one. My son teaches public school in Atlanta (7th grade). There are students who have no fear of teachers, administration, parents, etc., who disrupt the learning environment making it virtually impossible to teach those who want to learn. These students are usually the progeny of the aforementioned generation of entitlement receivers. Political correctness has gotten so far out of hand that discipline is not an option, lest the poor child be further damaged. I have friends who were teachers. They either quit, retired early or landed a private school gig so they would be rid of the "problem" children. It's a vicious cycle: make governmental dependents out of the poor who then lead non-productive/reproductive lives sending their litters of unsupervised mongrels out into the world with no clue as to how a child should act.
we've discussed it. i dont know how to solve it (i like the ideas of forced boot camps or a serious trades/apprenticeship program), but the bottom line is that tons of kids are getting educated like they would if they were in ecuador. the problem needs to be resolved or both the kids and the country will suffer. and youre right that handling the kids with governmental/p.c. kidgloves aint the way to go. most of that stuff comes straight from the teachers' union and school boards (more teachers). i do have to say that i see some serious attempts. the breakfasts at school, the free pre-K. thats a good start.
We need to be more like Japan where every four or five years starting at Kindergarten, you have to earn the right to attend a more advanced school, though academic achievement and good behavior. Those that do not get with the program are not dropped, but rerouted to schools that teach basic job skills, instead of true academics. Result, the high achievers and the motivated get to move on, unencumbered by the lazy, the troubled, or the stupid students. The achievers go on to high schools and college and high-paying knowledge jobs. The just-get-along ones go on to trade schools and end up in service jobs. The troublemakers get routed to low-skilled and low expectation schools and they end up as bus drivers and laborers. We need bus drivers, too.
