Please Get Off Your High Horse, World

[PINEDAXP]

So, should I say nothing then? Just because "it can be said for sure" damn, that's smart you know, playing with chances, but putting them in your side, being a "discussion" on the mentioned topic.

So, I'll follow what this thread wants:

"Oh yeah, you're right, we must stop doing that to the US, it's not their fault, they're nice citizens, they kill a few Arabics every now and then, but they're cool and they don't deserve to be flamed so often. After all, it might or might not be different if the Soviet block didn't fall..."

I'm sorry but no, no one is gonna stop that against the US, it's shallow to judge one country because of a shitty government, but we humans are shallow after all...

The pony and the stallion?

Pony= Iraq and its army of massive destruction imaginary weapons

Stallion= A massive bombing against a no match country

Pony= Iraq, Corea and Russian Federation have nuclear programs, "stop it you jerks! or we'll set new economic sanctions!"

Stallion= the US has a nuclear program "ok, we're cool "

So, yeah, I hate the US, and most of the world does it, right or wrong? who cares, there's no stopping it soon, as there's no stopping the US xenophobia too, ask any "fucking latino" or any terrorist from the mid east, that's the vision you have of the world, and that's the vision the world has against you.

Stop playing heroes (sticking your nose) and accept other people who go to work and do what you don't want to and that alone will change your image.

It would be wrong to say I hate ALL of the US citizens (which I don't) but overall, I feel disgusted at the hear of some places, because I have familiars over there who fought their way, but the treatment they got at first was awful, that was the "American dream" and it happened to chinesse people too when they were used to set explosives, and the list goes on and on...

So, like I said, stop your despise for other people, and everything will change. And I'm not saying this to you Ven, because you're one person from the US that managed to set her feet right on land, I hope there's more like you, rather than the stereotype we all know.

 

[Lene]

A movie star could spend a year in Africa feeding children out of their own pocket and helping education, and yet what the media will focus on is the scandal of their underwear is showing in a picture snapped as they're getting out of the car to head home.

And what they don't tell you is the fact that American (Oil) companies are in Africa trying to suck it dry for everything they have. Honestly, unless it's Darfur/Congo bad, America's involvement in the world is a tiny bit overrated and should be looked on with a bit of suspicion. They have a long history of going into countries and being self-serving under the guise of humanitarianism.

America is a nice target. Although I think some Americans can do with some world education. Or Comcast International on their TVs. And whatever, the rest of the world can complain, but changes are the same shit is happening in their front yard as well. US Xenophobia? Haha man Europe is going through a lot of Xenophobic shit with various immigrants. Japan is the poster child for Xenophobia. No one is perfect. But I guess that's what you get when America is the superpower.

 

[Ellie]

Haha man Europe is going through a lot of Xenophobic shit with various immigrants.

Too true. Fer example, in Britain, we have a huge amount of Polish people coming over. They are now in the EU, or something like that, so it's all legal. (Some parts in Wales, the road signs are in Welsh, English, and Polish because of the amount of Polish truck drivers.)

Everyone sees that as a "problem", but fail to remember nobody wanted the jobs they're taking in the first place.

 

[lunarea]

[...]They have a long history of going into countries and being self-serving under the guise of humanitarianism.

If the U.S. did something purely humanitarian, however, the rest of the world (and some U.S. citizens even) would either try to twist it in such a way that it appears completely selfish; or that effort would receive no media attention whatsoever.

I'm not trying to defend U.S. here, or any other country for that matter. I'm simply making an observation that media can and will mostly focus on tragedies, drama and things that have gone terribly wrong.

I don't watch the news, personally, because they've become depressing. Save for their obligatory "human" piece chuck full of smiling puppies and singing cats, there's only info to make you either hate or fear where you live (hell, sometimes both).

All that we see (world included) is what gets reported on TV. And since nothing positive is ever really told about anyone, how could the world not have negative feelings toward each other? How could we stop the stereotypes from spreading if the one uniting factor (i.e. media) is only reinforcing those stereotypes more and more?

Note that I'm aware of special programs and such that attempt to educate people when it comes to various issues, but the vast majority of people will only ever see their daily news. And it's becoming increasingly difficult to find anything positive to say about them.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

Bah just wait 3 generations and the US will be cool again. We'll all be sitting here talking shit about the real (soon to be) world power. China.

Then we can all agree how horrible China is, someone can make a topic about how to leave China alone, and we can bring up things as if there wasn't a comparison to draw.

 

[PINEDAXP]

Bah just wait 3 generations and the US will be cool again. We'll all be sitting here talking shit about the real (soon to be) world power. China.

Then we can all agree how horrible China is, someone can make a topic about how to leave China alone, and we can bring up things as if there wasn't a comparison to draw.

:D I wouldn't say, soon to be... I'd say the almost there by 2 inches superpower, China, the 3 inches away Japan, and 4 inches away, Russian Federation.

And it's possible yeah, they might get hated, if they start sticking their noses everywhere... but it's very unlikely. Chinese are reserved when it comes to that.

And, wow, 3 gens? Let's hope so.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

Pinie, name one country that reached (for the time period) "super power" or "major world power" that didn't stick their noses into things. It always originally falls under protecting assets. China, pretend, has a national interest in India, you have Iran and Pakistan and all that hating on India. If push came to shove, and India's interest were much more profitable for China than Pakistan or Iran, you'll see the Chinese military in India.

Just like if Italy was a world power, and they had major interest in Canada, and the Mexican/Canada war broke out, you'd see Italian soldiers fighting in the trenches across the Great American Dust Bowl.

And yeah, inches away true. But that's why I said 3 generations. China has never been known to catch up to speed in a speedy order.

EDIT: And while I hope China does prosper, I hope the foreign culture shock is enough to wake some heads up. What with the Mattel involved hangings and everything, I'd rather have Bush for a few more years than deal with them on my roof.

 

[Dopples]

I love how, you (PINEDAXP), are acting like us actually trying to do the world a solid is a bad thing. So you say that we should have let Hussein stay in power and let him kill innocent people cause it's "not our problem"? Despite whatever beliefs you have, Dictators are trouble, and are a massive threat to anyone in the free world, be it in the US, Britain, Brazil, etc.

Also, about us strong-arming Korea about their Nuclear Weapons, do you have have any concept about the amount of damage a nuke can cause? Do you honestly think that Korea had nukes for decoration? Having a nuke makes you a threat to every other country, so it's natural to prevent disasters before they happen.

 

[$t3v0]

This is true. But what gives us (England) and you (the USA) the right to stop these county's from having weapons of mass destruction? At what point did we become the boss of every other country deciding who can and who can't have the weapons? The only wars we've won are those to protect our homeland's, and well ... there was Vietnam (Which to this day a surprising percentage of American people believe you won) :x.

It's outrageous if you take a step back, But yes, Its sensible in the long run.

You're a big country with a small bite (This is MY opinion). Winning your independence & Pearl Harbour were just about the only reasons that I can find justice in you taking part in any war. So save yourself some money, Pull back your military forces and maybe you'll find enough money to get yourself a national healthcare that doesn't charge you to live.

(Who was Fidel Castro? Uhh ... A singer?)

(Who won the Vietnam war? We did. Wait, Were we even in the Vietnam war?)

 

[StuntmanBank314]

Bah just wait 3 generations and the US will be cool again. We'll all be sitting here talking shit about the real (soon to be) world power. China.

Then we can all agree how horrible China is, someone can make a topic about how to leave China alone, and we can bring up things as if there wasn't a comparison to draw.

Except for the possibility that we will die very very soon after 3 generations, due to the effects of global warming.

Or maybe jesus will come back, who knows.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

@Stevo
I'm not arguing a point but do find a touch of irony talking about past wars being unfairly joined by the US from an Englishman XD

What gave the English and American's the right? Quite honestly, we did for all the wrong reasons. The "white man's burden" and such. And before that it was "(enter generic people)'s burden"

Take a group of people. Cull them with diseases and famine and what happens? You end up with some hardcore shit. People capable of doing amazing things. They'll either A) go to war over the pretense of helping, or B) help under the pretense of war. Very rarely does war for warring sake happen (honestly) among the higher societies (in comparison to neighbors) as history shows by our own judgmental definitions, and even more rare was helping for the sake of helping.

We'll teach you to purify our water - but we'll own you. We'll teach you to graze cattle - but you owe us. We'll cure your sick, but you'll fight for us. Etc. etc. etc.

Oddly enough I'm talking about the USA, England, Egypt, China, Iran, Cherokee, Rome and Greece before them. Name the great rulers of people - and that's what you get. And that's what you still have.

People viewing the rest of the world as wanting and needing. Rome taught people a little bit of roadwork, but in exchange you had to pave the roads the way they wanted. We taught India a little bit of nuclear advancements, and in exchange, they have to use said ability as right in our eyes. Rome saw another neighbor building roads wrong, they went in said "screw you, this ain't right" and built some crap. We're doing the same now.

Right? Bah, there is no such thing. But truthful.

@Stuntman
Global warming... yeah and we'll just start wearing more hot pants and spreading white streaks on our noses and cheeks. 2 generations later we might have a cure for skin cancer. 4 generations next, we'll be freezing cold in arctic chill - you can't win with nature, it likes to make us worry.

 

[Jeff the Green]

You realize that it's not just America in the middle east, right? Also, do you think the Iraqis are better off with Hussein? Do you honestly think that sitting back and doing nothing with our thumbs up our asses speaks louder than action when attacked within our own border?

Right. It's America and her allies, which are leaving in droves. And just because other people are jumping off a cliff doesn't mean it's a good idea. Yes, the Iraqis were better off under Hussein: a) polls routinely show that Iraqis feel that way and b) I'd say that living under a tyrant is better than having hundreds of thousands killed by bombs, millions displaced, and countless others dying of diseases such as cholera and typhoid that are directly attributable to the occupation.

America has a much larger population than, say, Canada. Canada has ~33 million people. The U.S. has ~301 million people. 21% of the U.S.'s overall spending budget is allocated in Social Security already. Would the current step toward Universal Health care be approved (H. Clinton's idea), it would cost upwards of $130 billion/year, increasing every year. That's more than the education budget. Also, in countries with U.H.Care, waiting lists can become indeterminably long and doctors become less efficient, being able to spend only a fraction of the time with patients. How do you propose we get around this enormous speed bump? More taxation?

$130 billion / 301 million people = $431 per person per year. Not exactly an enormous tax increase, especially when you consider the fact that, given the grossly unequal wealth distribution in the US, most people will pay much less than that, if any. Plus, people and employers will not have to pay for private insurance (or at least will have to pay for less of it), which more than makes up for the increased taxes (of course, ending the Iraq occupation would free up almost enough money by itself).

As for waiting lists, wait times are worse in the US than in most countries: even for something as serious as tachycardia I had the choice of waiting a 1-2 weeks to see my regular doctor or go to the emergency room and wait about 7 hours. In many cases in the UK, you can get into the doctor the next day.

After World War II, nearly all of Europe was decimated. Who supplied vast, vast sums of money to get these countries restored? Also, it still stands that the U.S. has the highest GDP as a single country (as the E.U. is a conglomeration of countries), trumping the runner-up by nearly $9T USD. Statistically, although the value of a USD has decreased worldwide, the stock markets are still at a high. What say you to that?

You're right on this point, sort of. Debt is not bad per se, however, the problem with America's vast debt is the fact that it's mostly owned by other countries and companies based in other countries. Japan, for example, has a similar debt burden per capita as the US, but it is all owned by Japanese citizens and companies.

Also, neither GDP nor the stock market are good indicators of economic health. GDP shows total economic growth, but not how that wealth is distributed. For example, if you rounded up Bill Gates and four people living in poverty, you would find that the average net worth of the group is several billion dollars, but that doesn't reflect the reality that four out of the five are starving. Stock markets are similarly unreliable because they represent the earnings (actually, the prediction of earnings) by corporations, most of which spend most of their money over seas.

The war in Iraq is by F-A-R a war with an extremely low number of casualties. It's very like Vietnam in that there is no clear and concise enemy, as there was in WWII, and the media is more powerful than ever.

Your comparison to Vietnam is quite telling, Venetia. In Vietnam we were taking the place of the French, who were desperately trying to hang onto its colony of "Indochina," as it was called at the time. The US government realized the strategic value of Vietnam's natural resources in the event of a full scale war with the USSR. We tried to prop up a brutal dictator (Diem) because the people wanted to nationalize their resources, and when that failed, we invaded.

In Iraq we were taking the place of the British, who were desperately trying to hang onto its colony of "Mesopotamia," as it was called at the time. The US government realized the strategic value of Iraq's natural resources in the event of a full scale war with the USSR. We tried to prop up a brutal dictator (Hussein) because the people wanted to nationalize their resources, and when that failed, we invaded. As for low casualties, I assume you mean of our soldiers, not the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CIVILIANS we killed.

We provide such a ridiculous sum of money in aid to foreign countries they'd spend generations recouping.

Actually, we provide far less aid per capita than almost any other developed country in the world. It's only our massive population and budget that makes it seem large. In addition, most real aid workers question the benefit of the "aid" we give. This aid comes mostly in the form of loans, with the interest suspended. However, if the country does something the lender doesn't like, such as nationalizing oil reserves, blocking strip mines in the rainforest, or refusing to cooperate in the poisoning of farmland in the name of the war on drugs, the lender will immediately call in the debt, destroying the economy of the debtor nation. Many times the lender has forced the debtor nation to adopt policies that literally kill its citizens, such as privatizing water (something that would appall most people were it to occur in the US). The money we give is less "aid" than it is extortion. In fact, several countries have wallowed in poverty for years, "despite" US aid, and then when they started refusing it (and the accompanying economic suicide) began to recover and prosper.

Now, here are some reasons America sucks:

1. A broken government

Our government consistently fails to follow the will of the people, even though it is supposed to be "of the people, by the people, for the people." Cases in point: Iraq (majority want out), health care (majority want universal), civil unions (majority support), abortion laws (majority support fewer restrictions), and the budget (majority want less spent on defense, more on social services).​

2. Arrogant foreign policy

Our government consistently refuses to enact treaties (such as the Declaration of the Rights of the Child) that have been enacted by every country in the world with a functioning government, and, in those treaties it does enact, insists on loop holes to ensure that the US can never be held accountable for violating it. Likewise, the government regularly ignores treaties that have already been enacted, but are inconvenient.​

3. Unequal wealth distribution

Fairly self explanatory.​

4. Atrocious record on human rights

Aside from the infamous practice of rendition, it was not until only a few years ago that we stopped executing minors, something even China won't admit to doing. In addition, ours is one of the few militaries in the world that does not accept openly gay or lesbian soldiers, and we are behind Spain and South Africa (not exactly the most liberal countries in the world) in recognizing same-sex marriage.​

5. Imperialist tendencies

For the past fifty years we have acted almost exactly the way that imperial Britain did in the 1800s, setting up spheres of influence, toppling governments and replacing them with puppets, using locally recruited militias to do the dirty work of coercing the populace into behaving, and assassinating leaders or invading countries that fail to accept our demands.​

 

[Dopples]

That's pretty bold of you to presume that our army kills random people in Iraq. It's like the Al Quaeda doesn't exist or do anything at all to harm people, huh? Osama Bin Laden is simply "misunderstood", right? Of course not. They kill more innocent people through car bombs and attacks on our Army then we kill them. Never have I heard of the Army attacking innocent people for the sake of "war". We aren't brutes, we're human beings who see that these poor people suffer way too much.


The Iraqis were quite certainly NOT happier under Hussein. He was a dictator, not a President. People were, quite certainly, not happy under Hitler, so I doubt they'd be happy being under Hussein.

 

[Venetia]

Thank you Bearcat! You have some very strong points there.

Yes, the Iraqis were better off under Hussein: a) polls routinely show that Iraqis feel that way and b) I'd say that living under a tyrant is better than having hundreds of thousands killed by bombs, millions displaced, and countless others dying of diseases such as cholera and typhoid that are directly attributable to the occupation.

That's an excellent point. I'm against the war as well, I just wanted people to put a perspective on it.

However, you can't say with all certainty that all Iraqis prefer Saddam in power. His militia killed approx. 2 million people when he was in power. Anywhere from 150,000 to 340,000 Iraqis (we still have not discovered all his mass-graves, and it's estimated that nearly 100,000 deaths went un-reported due to various reasons, usually fear). Also, between 450K-750,000 Iranian combatants. That's Iran-Iraq war alone. 1K Kuwaiti nationals. 1.5K-200K Iraqis (himself) in the Gulf War. 100K Kurds. 150K-300K misc. dissidents. Nearly half a million of these killed were children. Countless others are still reported missing from the time of his reign.

When you saw the footage of people dancing and singing in the streets around the fallen statue of Saddam, you can't say that wasn't moving.

Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121500228.html
Iraqis were so thrilled with the opportunity to mete out a life for themselves through voting, they selflessly put their lives on the line as terrorists bombed various voting stations. Sunnis and Shiites alike. For that first vote, Sunnis turned out an 80% voting margin, which VASTLY trumps our voting numbers by comparison.

But I've already stated my stance on the war, I'm just pointing out a different perspective than the norm.

$130 billion / 301 million people = $431 per person per year. Not exactly an enormous tax increase, especially when you consider the fact that, given the grossly unequal wealth distribution in the US, most people will pay much less than that, if any. Plus, people and employers will not have to pay for private insurance (or at least will have to pay for less of it), which more than makes up for the increased taxes (of course, ending the Iraq occupation would free up almost enough money by itself).

Tax and spend, tax and spend. Oy. Why is it that liberals are always the first to decry the government, and then turn around and give them more power? Why would I want such morons to handle my money? I want privatization, dammit!! There must be a happy medium.

I say we instead propose a bill which lowers the cost of medical care in general. We phase out Social Security over time, and phase in private IRA accounts over a number of years. It'll be kaput in 2044 anyway, having bankrupted us, so we make it a goal for the IRA switch to be completed by then. Roosevelt himself said it was only a temporary thing when he issued it, because he foresaw the massive deficit it'd create.

THEN, with the money saved on privatized IRA funds, the government can plug money into hospitals and medical-supply manufacturers. This lowers the cost of medical supplies and medical care without increasing taxation, making it more available to all.

But besides, that $130B figure was a low estimate, and could jump by as much as $30B per year, every year following its ratification. It'd make the already bloated and failing Social Security program look like chump change.

And you forget about illegal immigrants-- of which there are ~11 million. If they all spent about $300 a year (and that's being REEEEEAAALLLY conservative) on medical costs without paying this U.H.Care tax, that's an added $3.3B on top of the original estimate, also to increase every year.

It sounds to me like a broken system.

As for waiting lists, wait times are worse in the US than in most countries: even for something as serious as tachycardia I had the choice of waiting a 1-2 weeks to see my regular doctor or go to the emergency room and wait about 7 hours. In many cases in the UK, you can get into the doctor the next day.

I usually wait about 1-5 days to see a regular doctor and about 1-2 weeks for a specialist, I suppose it could vastly differ in other cities but that's about how long I waited in San Diego, too. I've had some severe problems, myself, and am currently suffering one, which'll remain nameless. But when I needed to have abdominal surgery a few years back, I waited about 2 days for an MRI, 3 days for a follow-up with my specialist, and then 1 week for the surgery, and it wasn't even life-threatening.

In Canada, the average time to wait for an MRI is 10.1 weeks. Surgery, 18 weeks. 15-19 weeks for regular doctors. Specialists, 12-14 weeks. That's unacceptable. People contract cancer and die during their wait-times. It's actually started a new industry there: medical travel. Sick people, travelling to other parts of the country, so they can wait less. Many of them will travel to the U.S. for care when diagnosed with serious illness.

In the UK, hip surgeries take ~11 months. For knees, 3-5 months, sometimes a year. MRI's take 3-12 months. The list goes on.

Why? The doctors are strung-out and there aren't enough of them. Countries with socialized health care suffer more inexperienced doctors as they spend less time in training and cannot spend enough time with patients, and they suffer botched surgeries for the same reason.

I'd much rather pay for insurance than wait my whole life, only to have my surgeries botched. So what if the hobo on the corner doesn't get medical coverage? Yeah, it's insensitive, but ...

The American government spends more on Medicaid and Medicare than any other country in the world, comparing socialized medical care. If you are a citizen and you make under 'X' amount of money a year, you can be covered. It's less efficient than private insurance, and there are some things wrong with it, but I grew up protected under it (grew up poor), and it worked. And I still didn't have to wait indeterminably long.

Sure, it doesn't work for everyone, but I prefer every step we take away from socialism, thanks.

You're right on this point, sort of. Debt is not bad per se, however, the problem with America's vast debt is the fact that it's mostly owned by other countries and companies based in other countries. Japan, for example, has a similar debt burden per capita as the US, but it is all owned by Japanese citizens and companies.

Also, neither GDP nor the stock market are good indicators of economic health. GDP shows total economic growth, but not how that wealth is distributed. For example, if you rounded up Bill Gates and four people living in poverty, you would find that the average net worth of the group is several billion dollars, but that doesn't reflect the reality that four out of the five are starving. Stock markets are similarly unreliable because they represent the earnings (actually, the prediction of earnings) by corporations, most of which spend most of their money over seas.

Excellent point. In Nominal Per Capita, we're #8 at 42K, behind Luxembourg, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Ireland, Denmark, and Qatar. Even that's not a reliable estimate however, since, as you said, it's based on an average.

But we're not socialist/communist, and the wealth is not distributed. There are ways for the incredibly poor to work their ways up (I myself lived out of motel rooms and parked cars growing up, and here I own a huge townhome and two brand new midsize cars and have a good job.), and there are pitfalls that bankrupt the rich. But varying classes is what keeps the base structure of capitalism. I'd go into more detail on my theory there but it'd take forever I'm afraid.

Your comparison to Vietnam is quite telling, Venetia. In Vietnam we were taking the place of the French, who were desperately trying to hang onto its colony of "Indochina," as it was called at the time. The US government realized the strategic value of Vietnam's natural resources in the event of a full scale war with the USSR. We tried to prop up a brutal dictator (Diem) because the people wanted to nationalize their resources, and when that failed, we invaded.

In Iraq we were taking the place of the British, who were desperately trying to hang onto its colony of "Mesopotamia," as it was called at the time. The US government realized the strategic value of Iraq's natural resources in the event of a full scale war with the USSR. We tried to prop up a brutal dictator (Hussein) because the people wanted to nationalize their resources, and when that failed, we invaded. As for low casualties, I assume you mean of our soldiers, not the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CIVILIANS we killed.

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant it by, too. The war is unwinnable. There can only be some benefits or major losses, and that's why I'm against it. It was proven in Vietnam how it's fruitless. So yeah, I agree there.

Actually, we provide far less aid per capita than almost any other developed country in the world. It's only our massive population and budget that makes it seem large. In addition, most real aid workers question the benefit of the "aid" we give. This aid comes mostly in the form of loans, with the interest suspended. However, if the country does something the lender doesn't like, such as nationalizing oil reserves, blocking strip mines in the rainforest, or refusing to cooperate in the poisoning of farmland in the name of the war on drugs, the lender will immediately call in the debt, destroying the economy of the debtor nation. Many times the lender has forced the debtor nation to adopt policies that literally kill its citizens, such as privatizing water (something that would appall most people were it to occur in the US). The money we give is less "aid" than it is extortion. In fact, several countries have wallowed in poverty for years, "despite" US aid, and then when they started refusing it (and the accompanying economic suicide) began to recover and prosper.

That's a very good point. I have a retort but I'm running low on time here and'll get back to you later on that.

Now, here are some reasons America sucks:

1. A broken government

Our government consistently fails to follow the will of the people, even though it is supposed to be "of the people, by the people, for the people." Cases in point: Iraq (majority want out), health care (majority want universal), civil unions (majority support), abortion laws (majority support fewer restrictions), and the budget (majority want less spent on defense, more on social services).​

Exactly on the will of the people part. So why should we give more money to them, as per the liberal agenda?

62% of Americans in a recent poll want Universal Health care but I wonder if they're just fed up with the current system, and I wonder what demographic was polled. Because as I stated earlier, I want anything but that.

On civil unions, one poll stated 57% were in favor, but in another poll, only 40% favored them. It flip-flops based on the demographic polled. We'd like to think that polls are centered on the general populace but it varies wildly based on the areas and locations of the polling places. I am in favor of them, but I think that the U.S. is still too religious to vote them in universally. I hope that changes, and yes, we are in the dark ages about that.

As for abortion, I don't have any numbers but I know that down here in the south they're against it completely. In California they wanted lenience. I favor the current system, in that partial birth should be emergency-only, and pre-first-trimester is allowed. But that is being contended and with a majority-conservative influence in the Federal Judge makeup, I fear women may lose their rights.

As for the budget thing, I agree. But I already stated that it's wiser for us to be isolationist financially, it's just not realistic.
​

2. Arrogant foreign policy

Our government consistently refuses to enact treaties (such as the Declaration of the Rights of the Child) that have been enacted by every country in the world with a functioning government, and, in those treaties it does enact, insists on loop holes to ensure that the US can never be held accountable for violating it. Likewise, the government regularly ignores treaties that have already been enacted, but are inconvenient.​

I am unaware of what a Declaration of the Rights of the Child is. So I can't really comment.

But yeah, see my earlier statement about the government being comprised mainly of morons.
​

3. Unequal wealth distribution

Fairly self explanatory.​

You know my position on socialism and communism by now.

4. Atrocious record on human rights

Aside from the infamous practice of rendition, it was not until only a few years ago that we stopped executing minors, something even China won't admit to doing. In addition, ours is one of the few militaries in the world that does not accept openly gay or lesbian soldiers, and we are behind Spain and South Africa (not exactly the most liberal countries in the world) in recognizing same-sex marriage.​

I don't see a problem with executing anyone who deserves it, and is proven without a doubt to be guilty of extreme crimes, such as first-degree murder, pedophilic rape and murder, or extreme treason. A 12 year old kid who rapes and kills their sister for no reason doesn't really have a shot at a good life anyway, and will just become a burden of the state since they'll be in institutions the rest of their lives.

The problem is in proving it, which we're only recently starting to get good at, since before DNA evidence it was mostly based on speculation.

And I wish we recognized gays as equals. I really do. That's my biggest complaint with the country.
​

5. Imperialist tendencies

For the past fifty years we have acted almost exactly the way that imperial Britain did in the 1800s, setting up spheres of influence, toppling governments and replacing them with puppets, using locally recruited militias to do the dirty work of coercing the populace into behaving, and assassinating leaders or invading countries that fail to accept our demands.​

I think that that last reason is the only real reason as to why any person outside America should feel inwardly bitter toward it. I don't have much information on this at my disposal, but for what it's worth, I agree that we have displayed imperialist tendencies. Every large power has, however. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that it's something that happens when you give too many rich white guys enough money.

Whew!!!

I doubt anyone'll read that wall of text :#
​

 

[Ellie]

That's not a wall, it's a giant skyscraper with a rotating restaurant on top!

Anyway.

In the UK, hip surgeries take ~11 months. For knees, 3-5 months, sometimes a year. MRI's take 3-12 months. The list goes on.

If you have an operation that's that important you can go private. It'll cost a lot, but if it's really that important then... meh.

The problem is in proving it, which we're only recently starting to get good at, since before DNA evidence it was mostly based on speculation.

Definately.

This is one of my reasons for hating... not hating, but disliking... America. The idea that if you are suspected of being a terrorist (or tourist as GWB puts it) you can get locked up in somewhere like guantamano bay (now I know that's spelt wrong) for eternity.

It's not just America though... countries like the UK have policies of locking people up without trial if it's something like terrorism.

But that's the thing, you don't get a trial, so even if there was no DNA evidence you'd still be screwed.

 

[Venetia]

Well ... That's not for regular offenders, though. That's for "terrorist threats", foreign POW's, and folks suspected of high-risk treason. As of August, we started freeing people. A fifth has been cleared for release. Of the ~350 still there, the U.S. has stated they're only doing a trial on 60-80 of them and are freeing the rest. I don't know if it's right, but GTMO is being phased-out for the most part, probably due to a high response from the media.

I was speaking of civilian, American offenders committing crimes within our own borders. Such as a douche here in Tampa found guilty of killing and raping a little girl. I don't see who would want him staying alive ... And I don't think I'd want to meet whomever thinks it's okay to make that guy a burden of the state for the rest of his life.

 

[Anonymous]

Why don't people just forget about what they can't change and focus on the things that really matter, friends, family.....

 

[Roman Candle]

I can't believe you're arguing about who's country is better. Well, would you clarify that?

What makes a country good? Is it what people who lived in that country previously did? Of course not, at most that's what made a country great in the past. Well, so do the achievments of individual contemporary people make a country great? No, that's what makes those people great. If I cure cancer, it doesn't make England any better.

Does the behavior of a government make a country good? If that were the case, then shouldn't we be saying "The US government is good/bad," not "The United states are good/bad"? Is it right to judge a country based on the actions of its government?

I don't see a problem with executing anyone who deserves it

No one would say that people who deserve to be executed shouldn't be executed, because that's what the word "deserve" means. They deserve to be executed = they should be executed. The question is whether anyone can deserve to be executed.

 

[Venetia]

Well I believe that's the entire point of this thread. Because everyone was calling the U.S. "bad" and comparing it to their own. I only compared countries once, in comparing the waits for medical care, because I couldn't think of a way to get my point across without comparison. And yeah, I think the U.S. is the "best" out of the countries I compared in medical wait-times. But I don't think any country, person, region, religion, or any genre is the overall "best" of anything, simply because it's impossible to average out such conceptual things.

My whole point of even starting this threas is that I'm tired of people openly "hating" America for generalized opinions without backing them up with actual knowledge, or even trying to weigh their arguments. Just trying to get people to think before they hate. Hate is a strong thing anyway, and it leads to nothing good. It also doesn't get anything done constructively. And before anyone says "but you guyz are hating on the Iraqs then lulz", I already stated my opinion on the war and how it's not really getting anything constructive done =_=.

And yeah, I think some people deserve execution. Like I said before, I'd rather kill off a killer than pay out of pocket to give them a room and three squares a day for the rest of their life. I'm sure there could be a whole other debate topic on that. But what I mean is that arguing against the U.S.'s policy on execution isn't gonna sway me.

 

[holloway]

Just like to say- did someone REALLY add fucking subtitles to the Youtube video?

And I think it's safe to say that, whatever is the "best" country, in response to the creator of the topic, America is often targeted simply because a large percentage of your population just do NOT know about the world.