I kind of blanked out at the title and screamed WTF? But I will admit that it compelled me to look at this further. You seem to quote this D'Souza dude a lot. Maybe he is an immigrant living in America, maybe he does a have a nice good life and even enjoys living in the States... but, yes there's always a but, all of those things ring true for Canada. Where I'm from... We may not be involved in wars all that much but we do live for peace. Yes, the peaceful ones, that's us. Maybe that's why people like Canadians better?

I'd also like to add that, I think America's an ok place. I mean, I know I won't get shot up if I hop on over to the other side of the border. But I like Canada better, plus we have a free health system. Beat that!
And you mentioned Somalia! Yeah, my country has one word. It's true Jackson definitely wouldn't be wanted over there. In fact, I'm pretty sure he'd be shot down first thing. Since it is currently in a state of chaos. I guess certain types of people ARE safer there.

The United States is great enough country to influence everyone else in media, power and everything else basically. Yes, other countries 'copy' America. I'm still not convinced that it's the best country in the world.

Every country has flaws. But I'd say you guys have A LOT. I mean, going off to bomb "possible" enemies can hardly give the States a good name. Plus, all that babble about Muslims, it doesn't help us to believe we'd be safe there. By the way, D'Souza needs to learn a bit more about Islam, the veil was nor ever will be a requirement. So please, refrain from the "women are free here in the US" garbage.

I'm just glad Bush is out of the way, Obama certainly does sound a lot better. Let's hope he stays that way. The United States may be okay for your average ordinary person like me. But not for a lot of other people. Especially someone with the name... let's say Mohamed. Won't they check his luggage a few times over, maybe question him a minute or two?

You could be right. Just not now, maybe someday the States will reach it's full potential and manage world domination. For now though, I'm not entirely convinced "America IS the Greatest Country in the World."

=)

I wouldn't say that this essay is totally without flaws or imperfections, but then again, is there ever a political essay that is? I commend you for your patriotism and courage to write such a piece.
Yes, America has its faults. But which country doesn't? Let's give some credit to Her: I have no doubt that if other nations were placed in America's shoes, they themselves would be facing the same 'moral decline' and unavoidable criticism from their counterparts. No country is, or will ever be, a utopia. So I say we quit the blaming game; it brings nothing but discord and resentment among us. But this is not to say that we don't try to make the world a better place. Let's start by doing our part; for why do we complain of others' imperfections when they're very much the same as ours?

America is not the greatest country in the world, I am sorry to say. America is filled with drug addicts and hit and run drivers, but I guess everywhere has it. We are one of the most powerful countries in the world, I must say, but what the heck? America is living high and mighty, and guess what? People in Africa are suffering from a genocide, aka another Holocaust. And what is America doing? Making news out of stupid celebrities who are breaking up and doing inappropriate acts. How can you say that an ignorant and materialistic country is the greatest civilization out there? And this comes from someone who is born and raised an American.

I'm gald to hear that you support pride in your nation, that's good! I'm Canadian and very proud of my country.Here's the thing. We all love our country (well, most of us). Its important to value your country and its values, but to say that we're 'the best in the world' is far to much of a blanket statment. You can be the best in certain areas but you're not the best at everything. Just something to consider.

Now on to the details (I love rebutles):Social Mobilities? Good point! Only, not quite. Sure you can advance in society but that's not unique. Advancement (And the ability to become a Tycoon as you seem to thing is a great thing) is not a unique thing, its more or less the same in western culture. How is the United State's advancment oppertunities different than Canada or England?

Yep, the US is good for respecting workers. Thats why Wal Mart opens up to beat small buisness out and then closes at the slightest hint of the formation of a Union. Sorry, you're right. As a society (not corporations mind you) workers are valued. Canada is the same. I hate to say it, but Canada and the US are very similar. You aren't the only nation on the continent (not to accuse you personally of anything).

If the rich guy isn't different in any fundamental sense, why have you made such a big deal about the oppurtunity to become rich?

Yep, the US does have a long life expectancy (77.85 years acording to the CIA world fact book). Yet Canada, the UK, and France (the latter two being *gasp* europian nations) have longer life expectancies, 80.22, 78.85 and 79.73 years respectivly. Again, your good but by no means are you the only ones who enjoy a long life expectancy.

You're fighting racism, yes and that's very good. You realised the error of your ways and are reversing them. Excellent. What about homophobia? How about putting that on the agenda for ellimination?

I'm sorry, I need to pause. So far, I've thought that you made some very interesting points but you've just officially offended me. I just read your comments on how "We've savedthe world from Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and Soviet totalitarianism." Excuse me, but it was Germany fighting the allies, not the US. The US was part of the allies (ONLY AFTER THEY WERE ATTACKED, STAYING OUT OF THE WAR FOR 2 FULL YEARS BEFORE JOINING). Other allied countries included England, Canada, Russia (Yes, communist Russia) and several others. Let me say this, the United States has no right to say that they "saved the world from Nazi Germany" they participated and did great things but DO NOT EVER credit the United States with being the ONLY ones who fought in World War Two.

OK, I'm calm again. I've braced myself for more.

OK, this point made me think. The point about abstaining is a good one. America doesn't collonize. That's true. But to claim that they go to war over morality as opposed to self interest is going a bit to far. If the US is truly out to stop tyrannical dictatorships and halt human rights abuses then why aren't American forces in North Korea, Haiti and other countries around the world? Morality is not pick-and-choose. You can't claim to be acting for the good of humanity when it only applies to parts of humanity.

Let me make myself clear. The United States is NOT alone in this. This is an international problem. I don't claim that Canada or any other nation on earth is doing this. I'm not claiming suppiriority, I'm saying that you're in no way suppirior. We SHOULD be doing this but aren't; this is a matter of international concern.

America was very good about supplying food to Afghan civilians while they were bombing. Very true. Yet US forces left shorly after they had defeated the Taliban regime. They went to go fight in Iraq, leaving it to other nations to save the Afghan people from starvation and the war-lords that American forces hadn't removed. The US left years ago. Al-qaeda is still attacking International forces. The US did not even manage to rid Afghanistan of Al-qeada, let alone the rest of the world. My point is that the US is not a nation that lasts things out. It may attack for good reasongs (I don't think it does but it could) but it doesn't finish the job.

I'm glad that you feel strongly about your country. I ask, however, that you don't simply dismiss my comments as those of some stupid Candaian hippie. Please give my coments thought (feel free to contact me and discuss this).

Also, my advice would be to quote more than one source in future, it stregnthens your case.

Keep writing, and keep thinking (wheter I agree with your thoughts or not, at least you [unlike many in the world] are writing essays and expressing your oppinon)!

-The-Duke-of-Charles

History check: the first republics was not America, it was Rome and Greece! England had a civil war in the 1640s and became a republic and the Netherlands were also a republic before America!

Well, I agree completely with what you say in this essay. Even though I am a american citizen and ardent patriot doesn't make me biased, because I know when I am reading something that the author really knows what he is writing about. You present amazing points, and you should not take most of the crap that you are getting for reviews. Stick to your beliefs, not the ignorant beliefs of others. Bravo admiral, I salute you.

Awesome essay. That's the only way to describe it. When I looked at this, I thought it would be a rant about how America is better than any other country because our Army can whoop them or something of the sort.

Instead, I found something pleasant. You not only stated that America is the best country, but you also stated that it has its flaws, and you supported everything with opinions of an immigrant, which makes you think deeper about the words than if it had been simply stated by a red-blooded American.

We have so much more than people in other parts of the world do. In fact, I would go so far to say that we live a life of luxery. It's a shame that nobody is thankful for what they have.

Beautifully written, and very convincing. There may be some things spotty about America, but it's still a great nation.

Cool way of making people write you reviews XDD But you put a lot of effort behind it...

Umm...Right.About the poor and you statement that all the "poor" have TVs and cars, etc. There are people in this country we call the greatest of the great that would kill for one bite of food. And we yet we cancel Medicare and national aid for those who are disabled and cannot work. There are people in this world that starve and we don't even consider them unless there is a famine and half of the country in question is starving. I would like you to consider as we type away on computers that there are some in this world that have NOTHING!Sonia

The good thing about Christmas is its closer to your death, S.T. Lawernce's death and the whole Republican party

History Check:

"How about the strange folk in France, the first country to realise that the monarchy should not rule the people's lives?"

Now where do you that silly idea from? The French Revolution occurred AFTER the American colonists overthrew their monarch controllers and established an independent country. Had we NOT done so, who knows if the Revolution would have occurred. The French take a back seat to us.

"Or the Russians, whose people, not governement, decided the fate of their country in the Russian Revolution?"

Is that not what the Americans did in the 1770s? I think, if I remember correctly, that 1770 comes BEFORE 1917.

-Steve

Are you stable, Kevin?

"make you look like a right-wing ranning moran!"

What in the hell is a "ranning moran?"

Anybody know?

"I noticed that you saying someone who things cut taxings, but cutting it more for the poor is Socialist"

I spent twenty minutes attempting to decypher that sentence, and I believe you're trying to tell me that I said if you cut taxes more for the power, it's socialist?

What I said, dipshit, is that if you cut them more for the rich and redistribute that money to the poor, thus throwing the tax system off balance, then it's socialist-style program--its wealth redistribution--that's socialism kiddo.

"you're wrong that is either liberalism or moderate conservativism"

When did I say it's moderate conservatism? Is that what people want to do now, put words in my mouth?

"Second you call liberals and socialists the same, wrong again because liberals support captialism and want people to earn there money,"

LOL...since when do liberals support capitalism? If that was the truth, then you can tell me why liberals fight "Big Business" and want to tax the bejesus out of the rich, as well as attacking companies that post amazing profits without the need for a union of that nature. You're going to have to prove to me that liberals support capitalism because the evidence is entirely against you on this one.

"but don't want the poor to suffer eithers."

Right, and so they want to give money from the high earners to the low earners--i.e. the doctor's pay will be given to the toilet cleaner...aka wealthy redistribution...aka: SOCIALISM.

Kevin, please, for your own good--you cannot compete with me. You've got the intelligence of a rock, and the grammatical skills of one too. Just stop now, and go call people "morans"

-S

I let other peoples evidence speak for themselves and they make very points most of the time and make you look like a right-wing ranning moran!I noticed that you saying someone who things cut taxings, but cutting it more for the poor is Socialist; you're wrong that is either liberalism or moderate conservativism. Second you call liberals and socialists the same, wrong again because liberals support captialism and want people to earn there money, but don't want the poor to suffer eithers. Socialist want everyone to earn the same no matter if you are a toilet cleaner or a doctor. You can't take it to heart if someone disargees with you, you'll just look foolish.

Hey Kevin, show me where I'm wrong champ.

You're right, just because someone has a different opinion doesn't mean they're an idiot--but when you see the evidence used to back up said point, well now we get into a completely different ball game, don't we?

How do I not know the basics of socialism? Hmm? Is the state not in control? Does the state not equalize pay by taking money from the rich and re-distributing it to the poor? Tell me, professor, where I was wrong?

I won't hold my breath, I don't expect you to come up with anything.

-S

I was reading through the previous reviews and this is a message to S.T. Lawrence: you really need to grow up, just because someone comes up with different views or disagrees with you doesn't make them an idoit or wrong. These people come up with good points and you have been wrong at many points. You don't even know the basics of Socialism and for someone who said there are a history student that is pretty basic stuff. Just grow up man.

Defeat makes one a sore loser. Go cry somewhere else.

You've lost, you have no grasp of geography, history, geopolitical tactics or strategy, or economics. You cannot argue these things. Taking on one who can is not smart.

Take the advice of the greatest tactician to ever live: Know yourself before you know thy enemy--or else you'll lose every battle.

I'll let you research who said it.

-S

Yeah your right we need to finish this, like I've been saying all along. I think I have proven my point that America isn't the greatest country in the world and not everything done by America or the Republicans is done for the best interests of the world or even most Americans. I also notice that you ignore point I made like on the Falklands; ignoring my point won't prove you right, it would prove you wrong.

So here is some advice; open your mind, learn about Socialism because what I mention isn't Socialism (for start I believe in free enterprise and free trade), international affairs, history, politics, religion and basically grow up.

Why do you do this to yourself kid? Why? You must be a masochist...no other doubt in my mind.

"This arguement is getting very old very fast but since you want to continue I don't see why I should back down. I personally feel that the public should have a say but I'm guessing they board with us."

You refuse to admit you're wrong--you need to. This can end quickly.

And the word is "bored"...another of those tricky homophones.

"You're right, IQ is a social construction. Back in 1944 when Britain introduced the tri-partrite education system it was argued that IQ should be the basis for assigning what schools children should go to. However the research was faked because it was based on adopted twins who when to Middle Class and Working Class backgrounds; how did the researcher have access to them? But that still doesn't change the fact that Bush is not a intellenant man. First there are Bushism; the occassional slip of the tongue is okay, but the amount he do isn't just down to a slip of the tongue. Examples "If we don't stop instability in the Middle East it can spend throughout the region" and "terrorists look to ways to harm our country, and so do we!". A personal favourite Bushism of my: "I knew from the moment I was elected that storm were gathering just above". He added the words misunderestmatie and hispanically to the English langauge. He was even more hopeless when he ran for govenor of Texas because he could hardly string a sentence together. You might also remember a interview which Bush did before the 20 election where he couldn't name the leaders of countries like Pakistan and India."

Was there a point in there at all? Because if there was, I didn't see it. Just a mindless rant about Bush's fun with speech...and who cares? Ask Kerry if he knows who the leader's of half of Eastern European countries are...bet you could name more than 4...same goes for any Democrat. Frankly, I like the way he fucks up in his speech--makes him more human, more like the average guy. That's why he's won two elections chief. Let it go--you cannot make a point...you keep going in circles, and the only thing you'll accomplish is getting yourself dizzy.

"Great that you finally see sense about the methods of testing to see who has the ability to survive in University."

I never said that--I merely agreed that writing needed to be added...that's it. I didn't agree that it should be the sole means to test who can "survive" university.

"How is free university a socialist idea? It's not like I argueing that on the poor should get to go for free; I'm argueing everyone who is about and willing should go to univerisity should do it for three. This is because people who have a degree trend to be important to a country; a country will always need doctors, nurses, teachers, engineeriers etc... and it should be free for ALL. I'm not a socialist, I'm a Liberal Conservative!"

HHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAH!! You're a socialist...who do you think will pay for a free college education for everyone? Hmm? How do you NOT see it as anything but socialist? You'd be taking more taxes from the rich to pay for the poor's half of free college...that's socialist. And not everybody needs or should go to college...it just isn't for some people, and that's life.

"Also you don't seem to know the basis of socialism or Marxism. The theroy is that the bougiouese/upper class/owners of the means of production etc... control the lower classes for profit. They believe every institution e.g. family, education, religion is a way to pass down capitalist values and use the army and the police to suspress revolt. They argue that wealth should be taken away, everyone should be paid equally, every industry should be nationalised. Have I argeed with any of this? NO!"

I'm quite aware of what Marxism and socialism are...and yes, you'd advocated for programs that are, when you strip away the dress, socialist. Make the capitalist pay by forcing higher taxes on him to pay for the proletariat...or did you think we'd just go to the money tree and grab some bills off the branches? See kiddo, thats how socialism/Marxism works--it levels the playing field by taking more money away from the high earners to give to the low or no earners. And that's exactly how a free college system would work--unless you expected everyone to volunteer their time and supplies?

"Bin Laden again. Watch documentaries like Serects of War and the Biography of Bin Laden on the History; it's supports my arguement that it was Americas fault for making him powerful and confidence, giving him training and weapons like stringray missiles and that in 1990 he offered to go into Kuwait. Also seeing that he did that why would he let his group work for the Saddam?"

You never made that argument! You NEVER argued that Bin Laden grew in power by using skills from the CIA--your argument was that he was a Saudi prince and part of the royal family. I've since proven you wrong--ADMIT IT FOR SHIT'S SAKE! And he wasn't specifically picked to get the weapons--he was with the mujahadeen...right place, right time is all. Find me some evidence that he offered to go to Kuwait. As for it being "America's fault"--it was the wahabbi teachers that made him what he is, not us. We didn't make him declare fatwas and what not.

By the way...it's STINGER missiles, you turd, not "stringray"...and why would he work for Hussein? Because they had a common goal--removal of the United States from the Middle East. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

"Also it is evidence that your country has supported has supported terrorism."

I never denied this.

"You're country never did anything to stop funding of the IRA, a brutal group who tortured and attacked soliders and loyalists, bombed places like Belfast, Omanh, London and Manchester and killed citizens."

I believe we supported Shin Fein...the IRA just got their money--one part political, one part military.

"If I can use an American term; BURN!"

Huh? You're not American...and you made no point at all. In fact Bloke, you've yet to discredit a goddamn thing I've argued. You just make new little points and think it scores you points. Did you even READ the last review?

"The Soviet Navy had MORE ships then the Italians and the Greeks"

You're a fucking idiot...it's that simple. It doesn't matter! The point of a warm water port WAS NOT TO ENGAGE IN A NAVAL BATTLE WHILE MAKING AN ASSAULT TOWARDS THE UNITED STATES!! What the hell is the point?! Hey, we're going to take on the US--before we do, though, we need to go through Greek and Italian and NATO forces, weaken the fleet, then launch our assault...THINK CHILD!

"Turkey is important because they control the Dardellrues; but Turkey is not famous for having a great military."

Who cares what they guard?! They're nowhere near Yugoslavia!! Are you mentally retarded?!

"The Soviets could have launch a naval invasion to Istanbul and the Turkish would have been more interested if the Soviets invaded there land in the North East of the country and worry about the Navy latter."

Oh dear God, what the hell are you talking about? You know you've made NO point at all.

"After that the Soviets would have controlled the Easten Med and would have the strecthed the American and British Navies so the Soviets fleets in the Atlantic and Parriffic would have had things easier."

You're right, the Soviets would have risked World War I to take on NATO just to establish a warm water entrance into the Med to launch an attack on the United States. This is hilarious.

"As well the Soviets would have known about the operations in the First World War and would have tried not to make the same mistakes and the Soviets had some of the best speical forces in the world so could have taken Istanbal."

Okay, this is it.

1) Heres what you said you goddamn idiot: "Didn't the Soviets have allies which warm water ports; China, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Cuba? Thats right THEY DID."

I disproved this. Then I proved WHY Yugoslavia wouldn't work. Then you tossed something in about Turkey, and I used a MAP to tell you how stupid that was. Now, remember what I told you?

"you cannot even BEGIN to back up using factual, non-Tom Clancy based, evidence or information (which we TRUE history students do). That little piece exists in your own little fantasy world, nowhere else."

You obviously did not take my advice son. I mean you just advocated for the beginning of World War I simple for the point of establishing a warm water port in the Med...nevermind the fact that you didn't even address the Strait of Gibraltar, but I mean seriously kid, you're warped.

"It all started with the Americans backing Bapstita, a dicatator who didn't care about the Cuban people"

Is that so? Tell me Comerade Bloke, how do you know this?

"The Cubans wanted to overthrow Bapstita"

No, idiot, they wanted to enact change--they didn't care how it happened, they just wanted to end the corruption--Castro promised the moon to them, that's why they backed him.

"However American-Cuban relations worsen when President Kennedy ordered the CIA to launch an invasion of Cuba using exiled Cubans."

It's called the Bay of Pigs...and the operation was created under Eisenhower, Mr. History Student--Kennedy didn't stop it. He tried to lesson it's impact, however--that is where he fucked up. As for the rest of your explanation--tell me how it differs from what I wrote.

Bloke, MAKE A POINT OR SHUT UP!!

"However the 'brain drain' was happening look before the Cuban Missile Crisis, ever since the 1945. It was not Khrushchev who wanted to end the 'brain drain', it was Walter Ulbricht (General Secreatary of East Germany) who convictted Khrushchev to block of West Germany and this lead to the Berlin Wall. My source is Alison Kitson's book Germany 1850-1990. Just to prove I'm not making this up. It is backed up by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall#Construction_of_the_Wall.

Yes, it was Khruschev who wanted to ended it--he wasnt aware of the situation until the East Germans made him aware of it, and when he found out he moved almost immediately to stop the problem--hence the Berlin Wall.

"So what am I to you? Socialist or Liberal? I want to know because you can't make up your made: but then again it doesn't matter because you are a right wing wind bag who thinks that anyone who disargees with you is a left wing nutcase"

You're both--its rare that you find a liberal that isn't a socialist. I can make up my mind just fine--and no, I dont think everyone who disagrees with me is a nutcase--just you. You've proven my point over the number of reviews you left.

"well you're wrong because as I said before I voted Conservative, not Labour, not Lib Dems nor any other party."

I don't care who you vote for. Who you vote for is not a reflection of who you are--its a reflection of who you liked in an election--you're a liberal, it's that simple. You advocate for socialist programs, liberal morals, revisionist history, etc.--you're a social liberal..it's that simple. In America, you'd be a fringe leftie...a tin-foil hat wearing Democrat.

"Now you don't have to worry so much about Cuba because Castro is an old man and he will die soon."

We will always worry about Castro because he's 90 miles away. I dont care how old he is, he's still pure evil.

"Nobody knows but predictions by experts favour that Cuba would turn into a Democracy."

Where did you hear that bullshit from? When Castro goes, his brother Raul--who is deeply pyschotic, and worse than his older brother Fidel--will take over. It is expected that his military commanders will begin creating factions throughout the country and a civil war will break out--I'd rather we go in there and clean up. Cuba would be a wonderful territory of the United States.

"but it was a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT that polarizared the negative relationship with Cuba."

Kennedy was far from a liberal democrat by today's standards. So don't try it.

" Invading in the Cold War would have been a dumb move because the Soviets would have reacted negatively"

That's not true at all...they invaded Afghanistan--no war. It would have taken a direct act of agression against the Soviets or vice-versa for the third World War to have occurred.

"nd even after the Cold War it would have been difficult because their are no links to drugs like with Panama"

Panama? And drugs are a large part of Cuban black market goods--the island is a perfect stop off for drug runners, and they do it all the time. Good try though.

" Cuba even has an American military base (Guantanamo) on it which your country has used to torture prisoners;"

What did that have to do with anything? And I'm not arguing this--I dont have the patience to deal with your stupidity much anymore.

"evidence for that is video footage and photos and testaments by former prisoners."

What footage and pictures? I've seen none..have you seen something I havent? And yeah, those former prisoners--they're so trustworthy--especially the ones who we caught again...on the battle field. Or the ones with Al-Qaida guides that tell them to lie about how they are treated...

"The US Superme Court has ruled it illegal for the US government to keep hold of them without giving them any status like PoWs but the Bushie has ignore"

The incoherence kills me, but I figured out what you said. The Supreme Court is wrong, #1, and #2, Bush has complied within the laws that he needs to comply with.

"Well I tell you; my experience of Flordia was that it didn't have brain-dead nutters like yourself"

I'm far from brain-dead--I've made you look like a complete idiot. Where in Florida were you exactly?

"Great reason for why your country killed thousards and thousards of Natives and taking away their lands."

That's the pot calling the kettle black kiddo.

"What else do you argue; do you think the Nazis were right to do the Holocaust because the Jews were presucted in Rome, Russia, the Middle East and Europe?"

Ironically, Hitler modeled the Nazi world after the Roman empire.

"The Seven Years War; the first world war some Historians have called it. It was fought in Europe, North America and India. Britain and France were at war with eachother in North America mostly in Canada."

That was pointless...I'm well aware of what I was talking about.

"most tribes slided with the French and they were an enemy, so it wasn't ethic clensing like what you did in the Plain States."

HAHAHAAH...using that logic, the Indians attacks white settlers--they were the enemy...far from ethnic cleansing.

"Because I know what I'm talking about and will win."

That's yet to happen sweetie.

"When I used the term "imperialistic success" I was being sarcastic; that is why I mention bad things"

Work on that sarcasm.

"I'm guessing another hero of your is Jesus (who could be argued was the first Communist, but we won't go into that) was a very political figure who hated the Romans. There were many rebellions in the Middle East and it gave the Romans a lot of problems."

Yes, Jesus was a Communist and would have loved Michael Moore. I have no idea what you just said by the way--you have NO coherence whatsoever.

"After the First World War countries like Iraq, Iran, Syria etc... were created. But it wasn't just Britain that created these lands; you might have heard like called the Treaty of Versailles. In that treaty these countries were created; but for a start Syria became a part of the French, in Palestane Britain was let Jews back to their holy lands, Turkey was created but that was because of a revolution for democray and Turkey is not perfect."

Yes and do you see American influence there at all? Wait..NO YOU DONT--the Middle East and it's problems came out of the shit the British and French pulled. Even ATTEMPTING to compare that to the United States' policy these days in an effort to argue that we're worse is an absolute joke, and shows your complete ignorance of history.

"Now lets look at America Middle Eastern policy; Iraq, you supported Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war"

We support both--and how is that worse than British colonialism after World War I which has led to all this?

"then invaded Iraq in 2003 making it a safe place for terrorists to opperate."

Yep, that was our intention...make a safe place for those terrorists.

"Supporting Saudi Arabia, a brutal dictatorship who haven't been great at dealing with terrorism."

Well then I guess we should have invaded! This still pales in comparison to the history of the British in the Middle East.

"A example is that the Saudi government blame Al-Qaidu on the Israelis."

How is that an example?!

"Arafat was a terrorist, but he became a politican and the leader of the Palastanians and the Israelis had to deal with him."

He muscled his way to power, continued to remain a terrorist, and the Israelis didnt HAVE to do anything. They chose to deal with him at times, not at others.

"The reason why he was difficult was because the deal on the table was the Palastanians were only offer 4% of their orginal lands and it couldn't work as a country."

That's nobody fault but his Arab buddies--they lost those lands in war. Arafat should have been greatful he was getting offered anything.

"In 1966 there was an event called the Six-days war and Israel did were in that taking the West Bank and Gaza."

It was 1967...and you sound like a 12 yr old--which I think you are--when you continue to get shit wrong. I know history son--you dont need to explain it to me.

"the problem was the Palastanian were not happy being under Israeli rule nor hardliners trying to spend the Jewish state to lands of no real importants."

That's too bad--maybe they shouldnt have taken the Israelis to war three times.

"Many political and military experts believe that Bush did drop the ball by changing target from Afganstan to Iraq most of the focus on Al-Qaidu's leadership was lost."

Well, they arent the president. Alot easier to Monday morning quarterback it after the decision is made.

"Another problem is that Iraq is now an Archanic state"

You mean "archaic"--and no, it isnt.

"the government is a joke, it can't even argee on a constitution"

They've been at this how long? A few months? Sadly, you moron lefties want everything to happen immediately..the world doesn't work like that. Just because they haven't agreed on a Constitution doesn't mean they "cant"--the United States spent years to make ours, so it's a silly, stupid argument.

"nd Islamic terrorists have pictures to show poteintal recruits. "

They've been using shit for years--Iraq makes no difference. If not Iraq, it'd be Afghanistan. If not Afghanistan, it'd be Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, pick something.

"Here is another ironic fact; most of the 9/11 pilots came from Saudi Arabia, so you wanted to use that country to bomb Iraq who had nothing to do with 9/11."

It doesn't matter where they came from-Hussein became a more pressing threat after 9/11 and needed to be dealt with. He didn't have to have anything to do with it--he's apart of the problem. We're dealing with that.

"Tell me, why hasn't America gotten involved with Cyprus, China, Burma, Zimbabwe, Congo, Sudan etc... Because they have no real stragtic use to you country."

You're absolutely correct--while we abhor what occurs in those countries, they are not tactically important to the security of the free world.

"Tell me, why is it that when Iraq was invaded that the oil fields were captured within 48 hours and that most of the invasement to Iraq has been towards oil pipe lists?"

Because we wanted to make sure a) Iraq would be able to have oil to use for it's rebuilding economy and b) they could have been sabotaged again and send oil prices ten times higher than what they are now. Nobody but the Iraqis have benefitted from that oil.

"Iraq's main imports to you is that it's the worlds second largest oil producer and that America could use the country as a base to invade Iran or Syria if America wanted to."

Yes, I believe I said that before. We needed to protect Iraq's assets for Iraq, and if we're going to fight this problem proactively, Iraq is the greatest staging area.

"If America is really taken the war on terrorism seriously why not invade places like Somila which are a prefect place for terrorists to operate"

We've done that before. And Somalia is low on the list of critical targets. The Middle East ranks far higher.

"I'm condamning for not getting involved with places likes Cyprus which half the island has been occupied for 30, Palastane, since the 50's, Dafur in Sudan, Tibet, many places across the world. Why not save these places from oppression?"

Because that is not our job. We have targets of value that we need to deal with first. We've been assisting Israel since the '67 Six Day War, as well as aid to the Sudan, Tibet, etc. But they are regional issues with regional leaders--thats what the UN is for--obviously then, you're making the point they're worthless.

"The Falkland Islands are British territory. The Falkland War was a war of self-defence. If you go to the Falklands the people think of themselves as British, have a British passport and want to remain a part of Britain. Why didn't your country help us when we try to defence are people?"

American colonists believed themselves British too--its not something that's that popular it seems. And the Falklands were your problem, nor ours--we deal with threats and problems we deem threats and problems. It's that simple.

"There was the Tet Offensive which was again a very effect offensive against the Americans."

Effective? Are you crazy? It was, militarily, a colossal failure. The only effect it had was boosting the anti-war crowd in the States.

"In the jungles the US was suffering heaving loose to North Vietnamese and the Vietcon."

Where do you get this ridiculous information? You couldn't be more wrong kid.

"America was barely winning the air-war, the ratio of wins to loses in fighter battles was 2:1, much less to World War 2 or Korea."

Are you joking? We had air superiority the entire war. It was a joke what the NVA put up. What are you reading this out of, Howard Zinn?

"People didn't protest because America was doing very well, if you were then they would have been a minority, they protested because America was loosing!"

No, they didnt--the protested for the same reason they protest now. They don't like the Americans being in that war. We're winning in Iraq--they still don't like it. And I don't want to hear that were are not--no terrorists control any land, the government exists, etc. We were not "loosing" in Vietnam--we just weren't winning, either. It was a stalemate.

"Tell me; are you a Vietnam vetern or a successful film dicator? I doubt it. Oliver Stone is and he was showing the dark side to the conflict."

Oliver Stone also believes JFK was killed by the CIA and made, by far, the worst film of 2004. So please.

"If you think about it most of American's celebrities are Liberal; Oliver Stone, Stanley Kubrick (yes I know he's dead (a shame)) Bryan Singer, Martin Sheen, Eminem, Green Day, Dixie Chicks, Bruce Stringstern, John Grisham etc... Are they are idoits too in you mind?"

Idiots? When they speak politically, yes. Each one of them are talented entertainers--but just that--ENTERTAINERS. I dont look to people who are in movies to tell me how to vote or what is right or wrong. They're human, much like myself, and do have a more powerful opinion than me. Sadly, however, idiots like yourself worship them and their views and think we MUST listen to them. I dont care who likes Bush and who doesnt--in fact, if all of Hollywood liked Bush or all hated him, it wouldn't mean shit. Morons like you, however, give them the ability to think what they have to say and how they feel matters the most. They have the right to say what they want--thats what makes our country great, but when they lie (like Mellancamp's "The draft is coming back if Bush reamins president") and other much worse comments, like those of Michael Moore, etc...they only look more and more foolish to me.

So you can put all your self-worth on Hollywood--I could care less what they think. So back to your question...yes, I do think they are idiots when they attempt to be politicians.

"You just proved that even if though the Republicans have a majority in Congress they still can't get their own way, thanks."

Why are you thanking me you idiot--you're the one who said the Republicans have supreme control. Jesus Christ.

"Second there were a number of Republicans who were against the appointment of John Bolton, not just 2, but there were 2 on the Foreign Affairs committee were against the appointment."

Who cares? He's in, he's the man, and he'll stay.

"Many Enviromental Groups and Geologists believe that the oil in Alaska would not be worth the bother to drill through the land. It's not going to solve your oil shortage. Now it's you turn to try and prove you point."

That's your "proof"--kiddo, I need evidence. I've done my reading--it all talks about oil. And it's not "our" shortage--it's everybody's.

"You were trying to make it out that most of the RAF were American; it would have been hard press to over 3-digits."

No, I wasnt--I was making the point that Americans were fighting in World War 2 before we entered officially into the war.

"I don't have a problem with the Bill of Rights, only the 2nd Amendment. "

You aren't fond of state's rights either...

"You gun laws are not fine, you have the highest gun-crime"

Prove it.

" would feel safety if I knew that Gun laws are tough and not liberal like yours."

Then those laws need to come down on hammers, bathtubs, knives, bows and arrows, and and hands. All of these things have been used in the past year in multiple murders.

"Where on earth did you get that theory about the Democrats didn't need to win the south?"

John Kerry...he said it last year.

"Bush in 20 had 49 Million votes, while Gore had 51 Million (I'm not going into exact numbers so I'm rounding it off), so Bush's vote was less then Gore's, at least the others had more then their nearest rival (I feel I need to repeat myself to make my point clear!)."

Yes but he didn't win the electoral vote--hence Bush is president.

"Don't insult me; I know British history!"

No, you dont.

"Britain was the first modern democray in 1760!"

Not with an active monarchy you weren't.

"We could get into a whole debate about this around because when America was founded the vote only went to White male landowner (not very democratic)."

No monarchy.

"National Health Service again. Britain, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Japan, Spain, Sweden, Holland, Beligum, Denmark, Finland, Norway, the list goes on, these countries have NHSs and are capitalist, so that's one argument of yours shitted on."

No it isn't--they're still socialist programs--I never said they were fully socialist...but they are welfare states with socialist programs.

"Second, again opinion polls in America prove that most Americans would want some sort of Welfarism in Healthcare."

Again, opinion polls are easily manipulated--studies have proven this. Majority Americans want alot of free stuff, until you tell them their taxes go up...then they quickly shut up.

"Second, again opinion polls in America prove that most Americans would want some sort of Welfarism in Healthcare."

No, you dont. Taking more money from the rich to equalize incomes for the poor = socialism. It's that simple sweetie, and thats exactly how it works for socialist programs like free college or free healthcare. Furthermore, the Canadians and your own people just start bitching even more about how hard it is to see a doctor, etc. In America, you can see a doctor just about the same day, or next day after you call.

"Clinton also managed to pull America out of a budget deficient and had a surplus. Bush Jr. has had the largest deficient in American History."

CLINTON DIDN'T DO ANYTHING!! NOR DID BUSH! THE FUCKING ECONOMY DID IT ON IT'S OWN!! IT'S A CYCLICAL SYSTEM YOU PUTZ!

"In capitalism recessions and stock market crash are best to be avoided."

So is diarhhea...but when you get it, you get it. They are going to happen in a capitalist society--its required to stregnthen the economy. You sound like a moron--nevermind, you ARE a moron.

"A example here is 1929."

HOW IS THAT AN EXAMPLE?!! YOU DONT PROVE ANYTHING! You cannot be a college student, and if you are, you must have the absolute most piss poor grades in school. The crash happens...they're supposed to happen.

"Reagan also spent money on things like Stars War, a laser system design to blow up Soviet Nukes; it didn't work and cost billions"

It wasn't even completed, and it didn't cost as much as the Soviets and you believe it did--it was a move Reagan pulled to get the Soviets to pour money into a program to counter SDI, and it worked brilliantly. We fudged numbers, let people know the fake numbers, and watch the Soviet Union spend itself into bankruptcy.

"Nazi meant National Socialist Workers Party; the socialist part was igorne. "

LOL...just gonna ignore that socialist thing, huh?

". If you look at the 25-point-plan most of the proposals was aimed at Lower Middle Classes. When in 1932 when the Nazis became strong in the Reichstag and against the Communists Hitler got support from big business, they wouldn't have done that if Hitler was planning to Nationalize their industrials and take away their money."

That's called "wheeling and dealing" little one--aka "politics"

"Finally when Nazis like Rohm wanted a Second-Revoltion (because they believed in the Socialism bit) were killed during the Night of the Long Knives, so that is another point of your that destoried."

No it isnt, because Hitler ended up nationalizing things, didnt he?

"Yes War did bring again out of the depression in the end; but FDR did a better job to Hoover. FDR brought unemployment down, reformed the stock market and created welfare schemes to prevent some people going into poverty (e.g. Social Security) and help them find work. Hoover just said the Ecomony would sort itself out: obviously it didn't."

Actually, it did--as soon as we went to war, and the capitalist market we have got a boost--FDR's silly socialist programs were quick fixes that had no long term power. Case in point: social security.

"You really hate National Health Services even though you never experience one. Yes people do complain about NHS's, but if a government say in Britain ever tried to privatisate it then there would be a massive battle in Parliament and an uproar with the British people because we like the idea of having free healthcare."

Of course you do--why pay for something?

"Also not everyone can afford insurance, under Bush Jr. more people haven't gotten health insurance in recent history."

A deceiving statistic; there have never been this many people before. Adjusted for an inflated population, and you'd find how stupid that stat is.

"Most people who go to Private School normally come from well-off backgrounds, so I feel that state education should be funded well so that people can have a good standard of education and become whatever they want no matter what there background is."

Or the state can assist people with the ability to go to private schools...makes life much better.

"You really don't understand my ideas on tax cuts; tax should be low for everyone, but the poorer people should have get bigger cuts to the rich, but the rich should get cuts in income tax and other forms if the economy and GNP allows."

That's socialism!! You want to take more money from the rich, and give more money to the poor--even though one pays more into the system and get's less back and one pays less into the system and gets more back. How fair is that? You advocate a socialist program--take more money from one group to distribute it to another--wealth distribution is a socialist mantra.

"Also putting money into things like education, healthcare, pensions, defence etc. is not giving money away"

Sure it is.

"Finally, I'm guessing your one of your non-conformist who goes to church every Sunday who believes that everything in the bible should be taken to face-value."

That's because you're a complete idiot, ignorant, and a hypocrite--the same thing you idiots accuse us of being. I love it. I do not go to Church every Sunday, and when it comes to the Bible, I like to believe alot of it, though there are metaphors as well as symbolic things in there. I havent been to Church in about three years. But you're a bigot, and bloviate all over this board making moronic assumptions simply because you want to. I've yet to use Jesus or God in any of my arguments, yet you still make a ridiculous accusation like this.

"I can come up with many reasons why the bible is wrong e.g. theroy of evolution"

Exactly how does evolution prove the Bible wrong? And furthermore, evolution has been accepted by the Catholic church--and it has tons of holes in it.

"he fact the Pyramids in Egypt were made by consricpts not slaves"

Right, and what would you call Egyptian conscription--something valued and wanted?!

"he fact that the new testment was written 80-years after Jesus died"

And that means what exactly? Because something is recorded on paper later automatically makes it not true. 90% of Islamic history wasn't written for centuries...just passed by word of mouth--that makes it a lie, huh?

"that the fact it was the Romans who killed Jesus, not the Jews"

Who ever said the Jews killed Jesus? They blame the Jews of Jerusalem for not standing up for Christ, but they never said they killed Jesus, and the Romans just hung out.

So basically, you've proven ABOSLUTELY NOTHING.

"I can also come up with scenarios for why abortion should be legal e.g. if abortion was illegal then it would just mean it would go underground and become dangerous for women who have one but I can't be bothered"

And I can come up with scenarios for why we should have gone into Iraq, why all weapons should be legal, and why we should ban abortion, etc. So what?

"but extreme 'pro-lifers' are terrorists e.g. killing doctors and bombing clients and in the 1992 the christain-right highjacked Bush's conforence e.g. speeches by Pat Burchcant (I don't care if I spelt his name wrong) and Dan Quayle's wife (saying that she wouldn't let her 14-year-old daughter have an abortion) scared off swing voters and modrate conservatives to vote either Clinton or Perot."

The same can be said for the Left over the past 8 years.

"Also I didn't give up; I just have a life"

I doubt that. You lack the mental capacity to handle that.

"and to Admiral, why don't you stand up for yourself and not hide behind your friend (I would say boyfriend but I would be insult every gay now, in the past and the future"

Screaming maturity arent you? You'd say boyfriend huh? Why? Oh because you're ignorant and and a hypocrite. Admiral chose not to respond because he didn't want to waste brain cells writing a response to you. I chose to do it because I wanted to make sure you felt like a complete idiot when I was finished with you. I've since been successful.

-S

This arguement is getting very old very fast but since you want to continue I don't see why I should back down. I personally feel that the public should have a say but I'm guessing they board with us.

You're right, IQ is a social construction. Back in 1944 when Britain introduced the tri-partrite education system it was argued that IQ should be the basis for assigning what schools children should go to. However the research was faked because it was based on adopted twins who when to Middle Class and Working Class backgrounds; how did the researcher have access to them? But that still doesn't change the fact that Bush is not a intellenant man. First there are Bushism; the occassional slip of the tongue is okay, but the amount he do isn't just down to a slip of the tongue. Examples "If we don't stop instability in the Middle East it can spend throughout the region" and "terrorists look to ways to harm our country, and so do we!". A personal favourite Bushism of my: "I knew from the moment I was elected that storm were gathering just above". He added the words misunderestmatie and hispanically to the English langauge. He was even more hopeless when he ran for govenor of Texas because he could hardly string a sentence together. You might also remember a interview which Bush did before the 20 election where he couldn't name the leaders of countries like Pakistan and India.

http://w.misterpoll.com/results.mpl?id=3278387172. Another thing is this the views of people across the global about Bush and IQ.http://sq.4mg.com/stateIQ-income.htm. You might see a pattern in the 2004 election.

Great that you finally see sense about the methods of testing to see who has the ability to survive in University.

How is free university a socialist idea? It's not like I argueing that on the poor should get to go for free; I'm argueing everyone who is about and willing should go to univerisity should do it for three. This is because people who have a degree trend to be important to a country; a country will always need doctors, nurses, teachers, engineeriers etc... and it should be free for ALL. I'm not a socialist, I'm a Liberal Conservative!

Also you don't seem to know the basis of socialism or Marxism. The theroy is that the bougiouese/upper class/owners of the means of production etc... control the lower classes for profit. They believe every institution e.g. family, education, religion is a way to pass down capitalist values and use the army and the police to suspress revolt. They argue that wealth should be taken away, everyone should be paid equally, every industry should be nationalised. Have I argeed with any of this? NO!

Bin Laden again. Watch documentaries like Serects of War and the Biography of Bin Laden on the History; it's supports my arguement that it was Americas fault for making him powerful and confidence, giving him training and weapons like stringray missiles and that in 1990 he offered to go into Kuwait. Also seeing that he did that why would he let his group work for the Saddam?

Also it is evidence that your country has supported has supported terrorism. You're country never did anything to stop funding of the IRA, a brutal group who tortured and attacked soliders and loyalists, bombed places like Belfast, Omanh, London and Manchester and killed citizens. Northern Ireland is a complex problem but if you go down to the Republic of Ireland not many people want or care about unification with the North, fearing the religious conflict spending to the south. However there are Catholics in the North who want to remain Britain and Protestants who want to join the South.

If I can use an American term; BURN!

Military tactics; I'm go at this. The Soviet Navy had MORE ships then the Italians and the Greeks; and military convenition is that the more you have the more likely you would win. Training is an important factor and the Soviet Navy was fairly well trained, so the Soviets would have beaten an blockade of the Adriatic Sea. Turkey is important because they control the Dardellrues; but Turkey is not famous for having a great military. The Soviets could have launch a naval invasion to Istanbul and the Turkish would have been more interested if the Soviets invaded there land in the North East of the country and worry about the Navy latter. After that the Soviets would have controlled the Easten Med and would have the strecthed the American and British Navies so the Soviets fleets in the Atlantic and Parriffic would have had things easier. As well the Soviets would have known about the operations in the First World War and would have tried not to make the same mistakes and the Soviets had some of the best speical forces in the world so could have taken Istanbal. So there you go Stevie boy.Let's have a look at the Cuban Missile Crisis. It all started with the Americans backing Bapstita, a dicatator who didn't care about the Cuban people. The Cubans wanted to overthrow Bapstita and Castro was the first to do it. As we both have method the Americans refused to buy Cuban sugar. However American-Cuban relations worsen when President Kennedy ordered the CIA to launch an invasion of Cuba using exiled Cubans. This failed and they went closer to the Soviets. Also the Soviets weren't happy that America had nukes in Turkey and Britain (which I don't like) and thought that they could do the same. U2 did spot the constuction of the missiles silos and caused a crisis. Kennedy did the right move because invading Cuba or attacking the Soviet ships would have caused the WW3.

East Germany; yes the East Germans were loosing skilled workers and intelligencials. West Berlin was troublesome for the Soviets because it gave the west a listening to the East. However the 'brain drain' was happening look before the Cuban Missile Crisis, ever since the 1945. It was not Khrushchev who wanted to end the 'brain drain', it was Walter Ulbricht (General Secreatary of East Germany) who convictted Khrushchev to block of West Germany and this lead to the Berlin Wall. My source is Alison Kitson's book Germany 1850-1990. Just to prove I'm not making this up. It is backed up by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall#Construction_of_the_Wall.So what am I to you? Socialist or Liberal? I want to know because you can't make up your made: but then again it doesn't matter because you are a right wing wind bag who thinks that anyone who disargees with you is a left wing nutcase; well you're wrong because as I said before I voted Conservative, not Labour, not Lib Dems nor any other party. Now you don't have to worry so much about Cuba because Castro is an old man and he will die soon. Nobody knows but predictions by experts favour that Cuba would turn into a Democracy. Know lets at some facts it was Eisenhower that gave Castro a forsty recipition; but it was a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT that polarizared the negative relationship with Cuba. Invading in the Cold War would have been a dumb move because the Soviets would have reacted negatively and even after the Cold War it would have been difficult because their are no links to drugs like with Panama nor has he acted in an aggressive matter to America since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Cuba even has an American military base (Guantanamo) on it which your country has used to torture prisoners; evidence for that is video footage and photos and testaments by former prisoners. The US Superme Court has ruled it illegal for the US government to keep hold of them without giving them any status like PoWs but the Bushie has ignore; showing the Superme Court decisions are only any use if the Goverment chooses to follow it. Another example is the case on bussing were the Superme Court rules that it should be allowed for kids in the sub-urbans should be bussed into inner cities schools and vice versa; but Nixon didn't follow it up.

"Also I'm surprised you're from Florida because I like that state, I've been there 3 times and you can give that state a bad name." 'Exactly what surprises you?' Well I tell you; my experience of Flordia was that it didn't have brain-dead nutters like yourself."Britain founded America and I'm not proud of what we did to Native Americans, but it was when America go indepence when the Natives suffered most." 'Possibly, but if anything, we took our cues from our former handlers...the British--or does the Seven Years War mean little to you?' Great reason for why your country killed thousards and thousards of Natives and taking away their lands. What else do you argue; do you think the Nazis were right to do the Holocaust because the Jews were presucted in Rome, Russia, the Middle East and Europe? Do you the allies had a right to rape and louth Germany because of what the Nazis did? Tell me; because that's what its like it to me.

The Seven Years War; the first world war some Historians have called it. It was fought in Europe, North America and India. Britain and France were at war with eachother in North America mostly in Canada. Now your point about the Native Americans; most tribes slided with the French and they were an enemy, so it wasn't ethic clensing like what you did in the Plain States. Also some tribes sided with my country, so we weren't going to kill all the natives.What about the Native Americans in the Plain States? Who killed them? I'll tell you: America! No one else did the dirty work; not Britain, not France, not Spain, done for Americans by Americans!Culture is hard concept to define, but lets think of some things shall we. Religion; most Indians and Pakistanis are still Hindu, Muslim or Sikh and there are a communities in Britain that are though religions. Langauge; British did bring English to India, but most speak native langauges like Hindi and Punjab and British Indians (i.e. British people from Indian origins) can speak English and an least one Indian langauge. History; Britain didn't change Indian history, Indian cities and buildings still exist. Also if you like at the backwards racial theories of the 19th Century Indians were equal to white people and didn't suffer racism to the same extend to other racial groups. Many Indian and Pakistanis were went to places like Oxford and Cambridge e.g. your hero Ghandi.

"Another fact is during the 50s and 60s we included Indians to work in Britain to be things like Doctors, Nurse and Phamaceutists (we needed them to help run the NHS). They culture has survived in Britain and they have done well 'educationally in Britain." 'LOL...I'm not even going to start.' Because I know what I'm talking about and will win.When I used the term "imperialistic success" I was being sarcastic; that is why I mention bad things. THINK!I know that in the Roman period that Islamic, but didn't mean that it wasn't a hard region to control. I'm guessing another hero of your is Jesus (who could be argued was the first Communist, but we won't go into that) was a very political figure who hated the Romans. There were many rebellions in the Middle East and it gave the Romans a lot of problems.

After the First World War countries like Iraq, Iran, Syria etc... were created. But it wasn't just Britain that created these lands; you might have heard like called the Treaty of Versailles. In that treaty these countries were created; but for a start Syria became a part of the French, in Palestane Britain was let Jews back to their holy lands, Turkey was created but that was because of a revolution for democray and Turkey is not perfect. Now lets look at America Middle Eastern policy; Iraq, you supported Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, then invaded Iraq in 2003 making it a safe place for terrorists to opperate. Supporting Saudi Arabia, a brutal dictatorship who haven't been great at dealing with terrorism. A example is that the Saudi government blame Al-Qaidu on the Israelis.

Now Israeli politics. Arafat was a terrorist, but he became a politican and the leader of the Palastanians and the Israelis had to deal with him. The reason why he was difficult was because the deal on the table was the Palastanians were only offer 4% of their orginal lands and it couldn't work as a country. When Israel was created so was Palastane; the problem the Arab countries didn't like the idea of Israel and invaded Palastane then Israel. Israel did beat them back. In 1966 there was an event called the Six-days war and Israel did were in that taking the West Bank and Gaza. The problem was the Palastanian were not happy being under Israeli rule nor hardliners trying to spend the Jewish state to lands of no real importants.

Many political and military experts believe that Bush did drop the ball by changing target from Afganstan to Iraq most of the focus on Al-Qaidu's leadership was lost. Another problem is that Iraq is now an Archanic state; the government is a joke, it can't even argee on a constitution and Islamic terrorists have pictures to show poteintal recruits. Here is another ironic fact; most of the 9/11 pilots came from Saudi Arabia, so you wanted to use that country to bomb Iraq who had nothing to do with 9/11.

Tell me, why hasn't America gotten involved with Cyprus, China, Burma, Zimbabwe, Congo, Sudan etc... Because they have no real stragtic use to you country. Tell me, why is it that when Iraq was invaded that the oil fields were captured within 48 hours and that most of the invasement to Iraq has been towards oil pipe lists? Iraq's main imports to you is that it's the worlds second largest oil producer and that America could use the country as a base to invade Iran or Syria if America wanted to. If America is really taken the war on terrorism seriously why not invade places like Somila which are a prefect place for terrorists to operate; why not try to make that place stable.About Kuwait I'm not condamning America, along with Britain, France, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Syria and most of the Gulf States taking on Iraq after the invasion; I'm condamning for not getting involved with places likes Cyprus which half the island has been occupied for 30, Palastane, since the 50's, Dafur in Sudan, Tibet, many places across the world. Why not save these places from oppression?

The Falkland Islands are British territory. The Falkland War was a war of self-defence. If you go to the Falklands the people think of themselves as British, have a British passport and want to remain a part of Britain. Why didn't your country help us when we try to defence are people?

I know that Ho-Chi-Minh trail wasn't a battle, but a route the North Vietnamese use to attack the South and that was very effective. There was the Tet Offensive which was again a very effect offensive against the Americans. In the jungles the US was suffering heaving loose to North Vietnamese and the Vietcon. America didn't know who was on their side so burn down villages which was an unpopular. America was barely winning the air-war, the ratio of wins to loses in fighter battles was 2:1, much less to World War 2 or Korea. People didn't protest because America was doing very well, if you were then they would have been a minority, they protested because America was loosing!Tell me; are you a Vietnam vetern or a successful film dicator? I doubt it. Oliver Stone is and he was showing the dark side to the conflict. If you think about it most of American's celebrities are Liberal; Oliver Stone, Stanley Kubrick (yes I know he's dead (a shame)) Bryan Singer, Martin Sheen, Eminem, Green Day, Dixie Chicks, Bruce Stringstern, John Grisham etc... Are they are idoits too in you mind? If so you have poor taste because what you're left with is the likes of Hilary Duff.

You just proved that even if though the Republicans have a majority in Congress they still can't get their own way, thanks. Second there were a number of Republicans who were against the appointment of John Bolton, not just 2, but there were 2 on the Foreign Affairs committee were against the appointment.My thing about World War 3 was not a predict that is a what if..., there's a different.

Many Enviromental Groups and Geologists believe that the oil in Alaska would not be worth the bother to drill through the land. It's not going to solve your oil shortage. Now it's you turn to try and prove you point.

31) "Some Americans did fly in the RAF, but that was a very, very! VERY tiny amount and wouldn't have made much differents if they were there or not. The Battle of Britain was fought for Britain by Britons. Winston Churchill said it best saying "never has some must been own by so many to so few." Beautiful words." Regardless if they made a difference, my point was made. You were wrong, again. Yeah, what point is that? You were trying to make it out that most of the RAF were American; it would have been hard press to over 3-digits.

I don't have a problem with the Bill of Rights, only the 2nd Amendment. You gun laws are not fine, you have the highest gun-crime in the world and most attempts to regulate guns fail. I would feel safety if I knew that Gun laws are tough and not liberal like yours.

Yes your right that Electoral college votes are based on population, not size, but the two tend to go hand-in-hand e.g. Texas, Californdia, Flordia, New York which are big have large populations and a high number of electoral college vote whiles places like Rhode Island, Idalo are small, which small populations are a low number of electoral votes. Where on earth did you get that theory about the Democrats didn't need to win the south? The Democrats knew that you need a wide of area of support, mainly the East, West and South to win the Presidentary. One of the reasons why Clinton and Gore were picked to run in 1992 was because it was believed that they could win the South, which they did (or at least split the vote)

Yes, Clinton, Kennedy and might I add Nixon didn't win the majority of the vote, but you have a first-past-the-post system. Also at least Clinton, Kennedy and Nixon were still clearly ahead of their nearest rival in the vote. Bush in 20 had 49 Million votes, while Gore had 51 Million (I'm not going into exact numbers so I'm rounding it off), so Bush's vote was less then Gore's, at least the others had more then their nearest rival (I feel I need to repeat myself to make my point clear!).

Don't insult me; I know British history! Britain was the first modern democray in 1760! America came after Britain. British Prime Ministers were gaining power from George I and George II mainly because they were German and thought let someone else do the job for them. We could get into a whole debate about this around because when America was founded the vote only went to White male landowner (not very democratic).

National Health Service again. Britain, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Japan, Spain, Sweden, Holland, Beligum, Denmark, Finland, Norway, the list goes on, these countries have NHSs and are capitalist, so that's one argument of yours shitted on. Second, again opinion polls in America prove that most Americans would want some sort of Welfarism in Healthcare. It's not like they want to turn America into a Communism state. Finally, look back up to view Socialist and Marxist ideas because you don't understand them at all.

Clinton appointed a man called Alan Greenspan to the Federal Bank and he controlled the exchange rate and the currency; he did a good job and Bush kept him in the post. Seen I can't be bother to list the points here's a link for you to look up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton#The_economy . In my mind he didn't do a bad job. I also I don't think spending money into schemes like Education and Urban regrenation a waste of money. Clinton also managed to pull America out of a budget deficient and had a surplus. Bush Jr. has had the largest deficient in American History.

In capitalism recessions and stock market crash are best to be avoided. A example here is 1929. Moving on, Reagan cut money from schemes like housing which made him unpopular with low-wage earners and by Bush Sr. presidentary he couldn't cut any more, so had to rise taxes. Reagan also spent money on things like Stars War, a laser system design to blow up Soviet Nukes; it didn't work and cost billions. You can look it up because I'm not making it up.Nazi meant National Socialist Workers Party; the socialist part was igorne. If you look at the 25-point-plan most of the proposals was aimed at Lower Middle Classes. When in 1932 when the Nazis became strong in the Reichstag and against the Communists Hitler got support from big business, they wouldn't have done that if Hitler was planning to Nationalize their industrials and take away their money. Finally when Nazis like Rohm wanted a Second-Revoltion (because they believed in the Socialism bit) were killed during the Night of the Long Knives, so that is another point of your that destoried.

Yes War did bring again out of the depression in the end; but FDR did a better job to Hoover. FDR brought unemployment down, reformed the stock market and created welfare schemes to prevent some people going into poverty (e.g. Social Security) and help them find work. Hoover just said the Ecomony would sort itself out: obviously it didn't.

You really hate National Health Services even though you never experience one. Yes people do complain about NHS's, but if a government say in Britain ever tried to privatisate it then there would be a massive battle in Parliament and an uproar with the British people because we like the idea of having free healthcare. Also not everyone can afford insurance, under Bush Jr. more people haven't gotten health insurance in recent history.I have no problem with people going to private school, but in say Britain only 10% go to pritave (I don't know the figures in America); that is a tiny minority. Most people who go to Private School normally come from well-off backgrounds, so I feel that state education should be funded well so that people can have a good standard of education and become whatever they want no matter what there background is.You really don't understand my ideas on tax cuts; tax should be low for everyone, but the poorer people should have get bigger cuts to the rich, but the rich should get cuts in income tax and other forms if the economy and GNP allows. Also putting money into things like education, healthcare, pensions, defence etc. is not giving money away.Finally, I'm guessing your one of your non-conformist who goes to church every Sunday who believes that everything in the bible should be taken to face-value. I can come up with many reasons why the bible is wrong e.g. theroy of evolution, the fact the Pyramids in Egypt were made by consricpts not slaves, the fact that the new testment was written 80-years after Jesus died and that the fact it was the Romans who killed Jesus, not the Jews. I can also come up with scenarios for why abortion should be legal e.g. if abortion was illegal then it would just mean it would go underground and become dangerous for women who have one but I can't be bothered, but extreme 'pro-lifers' are terrorists e.g. killing doctors and bombing clients and in the 1992 the christain-right highjacked Bush's conforence e.g. speeches by Pat Burchcant (I don't care if I spelt his name wrong) and Dan Quayle's wife (saying that she wouldn't let her 14-year-old daughter have an abortion) scared off swing voters and modrate conservatives to vote either Clinton or Perot.

Also I didn't give up; I just have a life (i.e. friends, family, exam results to collect, holiday, work) beyond the PC and to Admiral, why don't you stand up for yourself and not hide behind your friend (I would say boyfriend but I would be insult every gay now, in the past and the future).

Mr Lawrence, the first democratic republic was not the US, but Rome. If you're going to criticise someone for historical accuracy, you might do well to pay attention to it yourself.

Another one bites the dust Admiral.

Damn right.

-Steve

Alright kiddo. You've failed to take a hint, so it's time we play a little game. It's called "How many times can we prove English Bloke wrong?"

Ready? Here we go:

1) "Bush did IQ tests at school and other methods of examination. His IQ is around 86 and his results in essays and test are fairly low."

You've got absolutely nothing to back that up with, but just to really make you feel like a complete idiot, I've decided to help you out. Because the IQ thing is simply an urban legend, where better than to debunk an urban legend than the greatest website of debunked urban legends, Snopes.com! From the website (and I quote): "The piece is simply a political jibe, made obvious by its ranking all the Democratic presidents of the last several decades as having high (even exceptionally high) IQs — note that Bill Clinton's IQ is listed as being exactly twice George W. Bush's — while ranking all the Republican presidents from the same time frame as average to moderate in intelligence, with the current president and his father assigned below-average figures placing them at the very bottom of the list. (President Nixon is the sole exception, presumably because his reputation is still so tarnished that not even a high IQ measurement can yet redeem him in the court of public opinion.)"

Continuing, because you're British, chances are you got this piece of wonderfully bogus information from the London Guardian. Well, Snopes has a little something about that too: "As obvious as this joke was, at least two publications were taken in by it: The [London] Guardian and the New Zealand Southland Times. Both ran the "Presidential I.Q." tale as a factual item (on 19 July and 7 August 2001 respectively). The Associated Press publicized The Guardian's error on 12 August, moving The Guardian to post a retraction on 14 August, and U.S. News & World Report clearly reported the I.Q. item as a hoax on 20 August, 2001."

http://w.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm (don't forget to add the two "w"'s to get the link to work)

You were wrong Bloke. That's one.

2) "I feel that essay based exams and none-multiple choice questions actually lets you use your knowledge and intelligene; unlike the SATs."

Surprisingly, Americans agree with you--and that's why we have an essay on the SATs now--so we test all around preformance.

3) "Also my personal view is that University should be free, people shouldn't have to think of the cost of tuition fees; look at Scotland for example and they have some of the best univerisity in the world."

You're also a socialist.

4) "Heres some evidence for you about Bin Laden! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/155236.stm . I think it helps prove a point or at least some of it."

Back to our game! Now, let us take a trip down Memory Lane and remind our viewers what you've said in the past:

A) English Bloke said: "Bin Ladan, another face the crowd? A rich Saudi price with a deep hatred of the Soviets and the US and tons of supporters; I think not."

B) English Bloke also said: "Bin Laden is a member in the Saudi royal family and was very influencial"

Now, you provided a website that (I assume) was supposed to back your ridiculous claims above. However, EVEN YOUR OWN LINK PROVED YOU WRONG!! Not only that, but since your link is a bit "dated" (Sept. 18, 2001), I've decided to provide my own, from PBS. But we'll get to that in a second. Now, once again, read Exhibits A & B.

Got it? Now, from the BBC article Bloke sent: "Born in Saudi Arabia to a Yemeni family, Bin Laden left Saudi Arabia in 1979 to fight against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan."

Wait, wait! What?! You mean he was born to a YEMENI family? Why, that would make it virtually impossible for him to be apart of the Royal Family...especially since neither his father, nor mother ARE NAMED "SAUD" and the father is a Yemeni, and his mother a Syrian--NO SAUDI BLOOD! So, for those of you playing at home, it means Bloke is a moron, and is wrong.

Having fun yet kid? Regretting taking a true history student on?

From PBS' Frontline: "Osama was exposed very early on his age to this experience but he lost his father when he was 13. He married at the age of 17 to a Syrian girl who was a relative. He grew up as religiously committed boy and the early marriage was another factor of protecting him from corruption." -- http://w.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/bio.html

A Syrian who was a relative! So, once again, it proves he as no Saud blood. Must I keep going?

You're damn right I must.

From Wikipedia.com "Osama Bin Laden was born in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to Muhammad Awad bin Ladin, a wealthy businessman involved in construction and with close ties to the Saudi royal family. There is no definitive account of the number of children born to Mohammed bin Laden, but the number is generally put at 54. In addition, various accounts place Osama as his seventeenth son, while others say he was the last of 25 sons.

"The large number of bin Laden siblings is the result of polygyny; his father was married ten times, although to no more than four women at a time per Islamic law. Osama is the only son of the elder bin Laden's tenth wife, Hamida al-Attas, who is reportedly of Syrian descent. A woman who in 1971 had attended an English language course with bin Laden recalled him saying with some sadness that his mother was a concubine[4].

"His family originally came from Hadhramaut, Yemen and he was raised as a devout Sunni Muslim. After his graduation from secondary school in 1973, bin Laden went to Beirut, the capital of Lebanon, and allegedly frequented bars and nightclubs. As a college student, he studied business and project administration. He also earned a degree in civil engineering from King Abdul Aziz University in Jeddah in 1979, possibly in preparation for taking over parts of his father's extensive construction and civil engineering business." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_laden#Family_and_childhood

Nothing, I repeat NOTHING about bin Laden being a member of the Saudi Royal family.

Nor is there anything that backs this silly comment: "example was he offered the King of Saudi Arabia to send his follows in to Kuwait and fight the Iraqi and not let the American in"

I'm kicking your ass kid, get used to it. That's 2

5) "If World War [3] did happen, I'm sure China, Vietnam, North Korea, Yugoslavia and Cuba would have been on the same side as the Soviets and they would have had warm water ports."

So now you've gone from definitively stating the Soviets had warm water ports (Bloke: "Didn't the Soviets have allies which warm water ports; China, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Cuba? Thats right THEY DID."), to now saying "well, if World War 3 had happenedm they woulda been on the same side!" whic, by the way, you cannot even BEGIN to back up using factual, non-Tom Clancy based, evidence or information (which we TRUE history students do). That little piece exists in your own little fantasy world, nowhere else.

That's another kid--our score: 3

6) "Also I think the Soviet Navy would have outnumbered the Italian Navy; the only major obstacle would have been Turkey, but I favour the Soviet would have beaten them militarity."

Okay Captain Brilliant, this is obviously too complicated for you to understand, so here, look at this map: http://w.europe-atlas.com/maps/mediterranean-sea.jpg

Now, as you can see, Yugoslavia's coastline is up against the Adriatic Sea, which bottlenecks at the "heel" of Italy into the Ionian Sea (shared by the Greeks) and finally into the Mediterranean Sea. You hysterical comment was that Yugoslavia would be a "warm water port" for the Soviets. Not to mention that it can get down right freezing in those parts, we'll allow for the fact that, indeed, Yugoslavia could possibly serve as a "warm water port." Look carefully at the map kiddo. I pointed out that if the Soviets DID stage a fleet off the waters of Yugoslavia, and for some reason decided to launch an invasion of the United States, they'd be hard-pressed to get anywhere because of the Italians and an easy blockade of the Adriatic Sea.

Your comment makes the assumption that if the Soviet navy DID stage out of Yugoslavia, that they would FAR outnumber the smaller Itlaian Navy. So, let's say, hypothetically, they did. Don't you think THAT THE JIG WOULD BE UP THAT THE SOVIET NAVY IS ON THE MOVE?! Furthmore, what the hell does Turkey have to do with ANYTHING?! They are nowhere near the chokepoint of the Aegean Sea! And on top of that, let's say they get past the Italians--THEY'RE STILL IN THE MED! The only way out is WEST, TOWARDS NATO countries, like Spain and France...and they have to move an entire assault force through the greatest chokepoint in all of natural geology, the STRAIT OF GIBRALTAR!! What point would staging in Yugoslavia serve the Soviet Union?!

Do you see how foolish you are?!

That's 4 child.

7) "Cuba was also used a submarine base during the cold war;"

Sorry Clancy, but they didn't stage them their for much longer after the Cuban Missile Crisis.

"I know about the Cuban Missile Crisis. I know that America refused to buy Cuban sugar so had to sell to the Soviets."

LOL...okay kiddo, here's your little history lesson. Castro naturalized things like United Fruit and other companies in Cuba. As we are capitalists, we were not thrilled with this move, and we boycotted Cuban sugar, as did alot of other countries. So Castro went shopping, and he sold to the Soviets. He was still not proclaiming to be a Communist at this time. When Fidel tried to meet with Eisenhower in New York, he gave him a few minutes and barely listened to the soon-to-be tyrant. However, Nikita Khruschev saw an opportunity and made friendly with Fidel.

As things spiraled out of control in the Soviet Union, including this silly frozen seed program that failed miserably, Khruschev decided to use his ally in the Caribbean Sea as a way to get to victory. He believed that if he put missiles in Cuba, he could use them to threaten the US to remove their Jupiter missiles from Turkey AND (he hoped) threaten them to leave West Berlin--possibly even West Germany--so that he could stop the "brain drain" that had been occuring. The "brain drain" (because I know you don't know what it is) was the loss of some of East Germany's and of the Soviet Union's brilliant minds--all they had to do was get to East Berlin, then walk into West Berlin and claim asylum--this led to the erecting of the Berlin Wall.

We came to find out about the missiles by October of 1962. Because they posed a direct threat to the United States of America, we demanded the Soviets remove the missiles. Invasion and air attacks were a breath from happening, if not for Kennedy's need to avoid World War 3. In the end, he decided a blockade might do the trick. It did.

THAT is the very much abridged version of the Cuban Missile Crisis...far from your view.

That's 5.

8) "The thing even though the Soviets didn't place missiles there Castro have been a pain for you ever since."

Yes, well, we'd love to invade and remove the tyrant, but worms like yourself and your little liberal buddies would cry and scream to high heaven if we did.

9) "Also I'm surprised you're from Florida because I like that state, I've been there 3 times and you can give that state a bad name."

Exactly what surprises you?

10) "Britain founded America and I'm not proud of what we did to Native Americans, but it was when America go indepence when the Natives suffered most."

Possibly, but if anything, we took our cues from our former handlers...the British--or does the Seven Years War mean little to you?

11) "Take Florida for example because Britain never when they; it was the Americans that destoried the tribes there."

Actually, the Spanish were worse than us in Florida.

12) "Britain never destoried Indian culture."

I never said it did. "Destroyed" by the way.

"Britain liked the Indian culture and just tried to mix Indian and British culture together."

And that's okay? Your culture was far more superior?

"Another fact is during the 50s and 60s we included Indians to work in Britain to be things like Doctors, Nurse and Phamaceutists (we needed them to help run the NHS). They culture has survived in Britain and they have done well educationally in Britain."

LOL...I'm not even going to start.

13) "About the American-Spanish war I'm taking about AMERICA! The Filino massarcing was a major event for the Philippines "

And when, Mr. History Student, do you think that took place?

14) "Britain was to first to ban it and we were the ones who was stopping the slave trade from Africa. Use country was expanding slavery in states like Nebaska (I don't care about speling you know what I mean) legalised slavery after banning it."

And?

15) "Since you are too stupid to understand that I'll put it in plainer terms: you put Japanese-Americans in prison camps."

Oh I understood perfectly what you were talking about--I simply balked at the fact that you're calling internment an "imperialistic success." That's what you did.

16) "The Middle East has always been a trouble; ever since the Roman times. Sorting it out is a very difficult thing to do and we tried. Your country has done an even worst job because you supported Saudi Arabia, regimes in Iraq and Iran (which let to the rise of the Ayatollah) and supporting Israel by giving them weapons and not incouraging negoatations. My view is Israel should exist but should reform its Parliament to prevent the religous parties gaining more power then they should."

Actually, the Middle East didn't really become "Islamic" until well AFTER the rule of the Roman Empire. But that's okay, you're a history major. As far as the United States doing a worse job at Middle East politics? HAHHAHAHA!! Kid, you can't be serious! Must I list what the British have done? Balfour, the creation of the modern state of Saudi Arabia, the creation of Israel, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, setting the borders for Iran, Egypt as a protectorate, the creation of modern day Turkey, the countires of North Africa...I mean c'mon Bloke, let's not kid ourselves. We've got nothing on the British. Furthermore, how can you even claim we've not supported negotiations?! Reagan, Clinton, and Dubya have all held hundreds of summits--hell, in 1997, had the terrorist Arafat not been so damn selfish, this would have been settled. But, as you can, it is being settled--per the George Bush "roadmap" plan and Israeli government.

So you're wrong...and I've lost count.

17) "Al-Qaida hated Saddam because made Iraq a sectular state"

No, they didn't--they weren't thrilled with Hussein, but they were willing to work with him. This belief that Sunnis and Shiites refuse to work together when it comes to Islamic terrorism, or the belief that Hussein was all on his own, is hogwash. There's no basis for it. They worked together, get over it. You're wrong, again.

Do you like this? Is this fun for you?

18) "The ironic thing is you let Osama slip through the net; you could of had him if you attacked him in the Tora Bora mountains"

Not neccessarily. There is no official report or sighting that puts Bin Laden in Tora Bora--its just a belief and a theory. And even if he was in Tora Bora, there's no gurantee we could have had the man--its a FREAKIN' MOUNTAIN RANGE.

Furthermore, we were not in Iraq when the Tora Bora thing went down, so trying to say that we could have have him in Tora Bora had we not gone to Iraq is foolish and chronologically wrong.

19) "You only picked Iraq because you want the oil. It's clean that Iraq is central to Bush oil policy. The aim was to try and lower the oil price and break OPEC. You have failed with both."

You base this on the same thing that you based your Soviet warm water port theory on? We picked Iraq for a myriad of reasons. Oil was not on the list.

20) "You only got involved with Kuwiat because of the oil there"

You know what, you're right--we wanted to protect the world's oil supply--damn us to hell! We wanted to stop a dictator from trying to take control of the world's oil supplies...those American bastards!

21) "the islands were uninhabiented before we came around; all the citizens are Britain and we got involved to defence them from the Fascist regime you supported."

Oh how wrong you are. The islands were unihabited, until the ARGENTINES, not the British, claimed them and inhabited the islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands) and created a penal colony. Furthermore, the British simply had a colony on the islands when the Spanish laid claim to them. But we'll get back to that.

Yes, the junta there was corrupt (dunno where you got us supporting them)--but then again, you colonized those islands--are you advocating colonization? Furthmore, the British defended the Falkland Islands from a military dictatorship...just like the United States of America did for Kuwait! My God, the parallels! And yet you attack the Americans for doing so--my, how hypocritical of you.

22) "Vietnam: do you know of the Ho-Chi-Ming trail, the siege of Saigon, America didn't do well there."

The Ho Chi Minh Trail (spelled correctly) was not a battle, so you look like a moron claiming it to be so. The seige of Saigon occured after the majority of military forces left Vietnam. So you've made no point at all.

"were getting beat in Vietnam and were driving the Vietnam to the communists"

We were not getting beat--more Viet Cong and NVA troops died than American troops, we won more military battles, etc. We were beat when it came to the Vietnamese, who didn't care who won, just wanted us out.

"America retracted because they were loosing!"

Politically, not militarily. The hippies and VVAWs forced the hand of the President and Congress...not military losses. That was decisively in the hands of the Americans.

You don't know much about history kid.

23) "Apocalypse Now, Platoon and Full Metal Jacket are exaggrations, but at least its best on trust."

Huh? All I know is you conceded, which proves my point.

24) "Oliver Stone was a solider during Vietnam and knew from first hand experience of what happened."

Oliver Stone doesn't know his ass from his elbow. Case in point: Well, just about everyone of his movies.

25)"Peral Habour on the other hand is one of the worst films ever made. No US fighters were took off to fight the Japanese and basically you did very badly."

Two P-40 Warhawks did take off, though way late into the attack. They were so insignificant, they barely make history--though Micheal Bay felt he should put them in.

26) "If America stayed in Afganstan properly then you would have Bin Laden, most of his key supporters and control the country to be a safe democracy."

Oh is that so? It'd all be so easy if we had just stayed? Prove it.

27) "It wasn't only the Democrats that didn't want John Bolton in a postion of power, Republicans didn't want him either."

Actually, every Republican (save for one or two, who voted against so that they could propose him later...Senate rules) voted for Bolton, but we do not have the exact number of seats to avoid a filibuster. But thanks for playing out game kiddo.

28) "Don't predict the future, you'll make a fool out of yourself."

Take your own advice kiddo: "World War I did happen, I'm sure China, Vietnam, North Korea, Yugoslavia and Cuba would have been on the same side as the Soviets and they would have had warm water ports. Also I think the Soviet Navy would have outnumbered the Italian Navy; the only major obstacle would have been Turkey, but I favour the Soviet would have beaten them militarity."

Moving right along...

29) "I'm an enviromentalist; I know my stuff so don't mock me. Drilling Alaska would be a big waste of money and would just cause more problems then its worth"

I'm going to mock you because you sound like a friggin' idiot. You've got no proof that there is no oil in Alaska.

30) "You are wrong about the filibuster. The only thing it can't be used for is in the selection of supemere court judges but has been used many times."

I think I know my own Constitution. The filibuster is used to stall votes that require super-majority votes--which, in the case of federal judges, is not allowed. Don't attempt to argue something you know little about.

31) "Some Americans did fly in the RAF, but that was a very, very! VERY tiny amount and wouldn't have made much differents if they were there or not. The Battle of Britain was fought for Britain by Britons. Winston Churchill said it best saying "never has some must been own by so many to so few." Beautiful words."

Regardless if they made a difference, my point was made. You were wrong, again.

32) "Most Britons want the Monarchy; its a part of our history and we are proud of our history."

Same goes for our Constitution.

33) "but a lot of the constitution needs to be revised: gun laws need to be changed for a start."

You seem to have a problem with the Bill of Rights. They were written as a direct response to former British rule. Our gun laws are perfectly fine.

"They is the electoral college. The founding fathers fear the popular vote so created this backward system."

The Founding Fathers believed (almost correctly) that alot of the voting public had little idea of what they were voting for when it came to voting for a president. Furthermore, they wanted to avoid mob rule mentality when it came to voting for the President. It wasn't a bad idea.

"It means Presidental elections are fought in the big states like Flordia, Ohio, Pennslaviva"

Actually, dipshit, it means states with big populations, not size. And even that isn't neccessarily true--every state counts in some way or another--Democrats believe they can win without the South...they've been proven wrong for 8 years now.

"Bush never won on the popular vote in 20 and it gives small states very little impact in Presidental elections."

Technically, neither did Clinton or Kennedy (who both failed to get 50% of the popular vote). So your point means nothing. You're just made (like the rest of the Democrats and liberals) that the Constitution worked like it was supposed to, and it didn't work in your favor.

"A fairer system would be to slipt the electoral college votes e.g. if the Democratic candidate won in Californida by 56% he/she would get 56% of the electoral college votes and the Republican gets 44%. It would make every electoral college vote court and every state count."

Some states have that on the ballot--if the citizens agree to allow their state's vote be split, then so be it. So far, it has failed. Guess we Americans like the way things are.

34) "Prime Minsters did gain power sinse the position was made in 1760. Before the 1800s we had powerful and great PMs like Pitt the Elder and Pitt the Younger. We were the first democray! George I and George II did nothing during the day to day running of Britain!"

Kid, the King still ruled, and that immediately excludes you from being a "democracy." In essence, the first democracy was in Athens. The first democractic republic was in the United States of America. You can, however, lay claim to the first parliamentry democracy, if you'd like.

35) "In America Moral issues and christainary go hand in hand. The Christain Right call themselves the moral majority which is bullocks!"

No, they dont. Morals go hand in hand with morals. The Democrats call themselves the moral majority too. Does it matter? No.

36) "Most of Bush's support came from the non-conformist christains."

Not really.

"Most of the Jews, athists, Muslims etc. voted for Kerry. I was on about abortion (dyslexia)! It's an easy mistake to make, I do that, I don't care!"

Most Cubans voted for Bush while majority of the rest of the Latinos voted for Kerry--so what? He still lost.

37) "Since you seem a bit a stupid about how pressure groups operate in the US I put it in simplar term. "

I understand quite well how it works.

"The Pharmaceutical and Insurance industries did this and undermined what the millons of Americans wanted from Clinton. Also are a National Health Service; are you saying that Clinton was a socialist? Are you all the people who voted for Clinton were Socialist? I don't think he was nor were the voters!"

Yes, I am calling him a socialist. I'm calling most Democrats and liberals socialist. That what the program is, and thats why nobody wanted it--these "millions" you speak of are a figment of oyur imagination. Nobody wanted a national health service. We're a capitalist nation. It's that simple.

38) "I can really see that you don't think much of the Democrats."

First thing you've gotten right all day.

"Clinton actually knew have to keep the ecomony booming; it's hard to keep the ecomony booming for 7 years"

Tell me then, genius, how he did that. Tell me how the President of the United States had any effect on the economy and caused it to boom. I can't wait to hear this.

39) "Reagan's ecomony was a fault boom. Reagan was lucky because the stock market was strong and he used that to spent recklessly."

You're thinking of Clinton.

"Bush Sr. called Reagan's ecomonics voodoo ecomonics because the plans made no sense. When the stock market clashed in 1988 the US ecomony went into, well for it, RECESSION! Bush Sr. had to suffer with that for most of his presidentary."

That recession lasted for a short period of time. And guess what child?! In a capitalist economy, a recession is NATURAL! It's SUPPOSED to happen, normally in ten year cycles. Bad luck and bad timing for Reagan hit, and the recession occured. But each time the economy recovers (which it does, always) the economy is always stronger than it was before. Enter the "wonders" of Bill Clinton. The man did nothing but be in the right place at the right time. That's it.

40) "FDR followed the ecomonic plans of a LIBERAL ecomonist called Kenyes. The aim was so that if you needed to built roads you would need matrials and equipment and all of that would be made as well, so start a chain reaction. A man called Adolf Hitler did a simplar thing and he wasn't a socialist."

Actually, he was. Look up the acronym for "NAZI" War brought the economy out of depression, not FDR's millions of social programs.

41) "Not all social welfare programs are worthless."

Most are.

"National Health Services provide free health care for the masses."

And jack taxes, cause backups at doctor's offices, etc. I hear from Canadians all the time about how terrible their NHS is, and in fact, the woes of NHS came up in a town hall meeting with Tony Blair just recently.

"Think of it this way, someone who earns twenty thousand a year and they need a heart-bypass would cost more then there yearly wage."

Not if they have insurance.

"rich people use the NHS, espeically for emergery care."

I would too, if I'm paying taxes for it!

"Education, another soical welfare scheme nessarcy for the masses."

Private schools do the job just as well in the United States. It is not a neccessity.

"Education costed a lot money, but it benificts a country no matter if they government is left wing or right wing because if a country has a good education system then it would be prosperous for the long run."

Cuba is the best example of how that theory is wrong.

"Social welfare can also be useful to help end poverty. Poverty is the many cause to the world's problems."

Find me a place where welfare actually worked.

42) "Keep calling me a idoit makes you look childish and helps destory any point you make." no it doesnt. It just pisses you off.

"Tax cuts for the rich whiles the ordinary people don't get their fair share of tax cuts is unfair"

Yes it is, and I've yet to advocate for that. I've advocated that tax cuts are across the board (which they have been)--you get back what you've paid. Nothing more, nothing less.

"Poorer people tax cuts should be more then someone who earns a quarter of million a year."

Why? They didn't pay in as much as the person with a quarter of a million dollars. How is it fair to give that person's money away?

"I bet the only reason why you're argueing this is either you're very well off, or just agree with Bush with everything says."

I am someone who is not jealous of rich people and out to penalize them for making money. The rich in the United States pay over 80% of the taxes in the United States. It's fair to take their money and just give it away? I don't think so.

43) "Some rich people don't earn there money, they just inheritance."

So that means we should just take thier money! Hey, they didn't earn, so scre them! Someone earned it--God didn't bestow it them. So that person who earned the money earns the right to do what he wants with it. It's called CAPITALISM kiddo. Learn it.

"Also you are argueing that factory workers, cleaners, some people who have to do two jobs just to earn end-meat are less hard-working then business executives who leave the day-to-day running of their business to managers"

I've yet to argue that. I've argued one simple point: when it comes to tax cuts, you should get back exactly what you put in. If you're making less than $25 thousand a yearin the United States, you pay little to no taxes. Is it then fair to give me a big tax refund or return because I make very little money?! No, of course not! I didn't pay any taxes, why should I get tax money back? I am not saying that those who make less are less hard-working--I'm saying those who make less should not get alot back from tax cuts...they didn't put that much in.

This isn't hard

44) "I know about the US Civil War, I know that slavery was not the only cause of that conflict. The North and South were ecomony rivals, North based on industry and the South on agriculture. The South's ecomony was declining compared to the North. The Southwest was taking away the South's market. The election was of Lincoln was not well recieved in the South because their power in the Senate as well and that was the final straw and southern states wanted indepenence."

My GOD! You got something about history right--well, not completely right, but closer than I'd ever think you could. Way to go Bloke!

45) "Heres another Roe v Wade which anti-abortionist dislike."

They're called "pro-lifers", not anti-abortionists. And I dislike that decision--its based on ZERO constitutionality. Soon, it will be overturned. I cannot wait.

46) "A final tip; grow up, you're acting really immature."

English Bloke: "I can beat you at every point and you are making me angry because of your aggornats. A real debater does not insult his opponent. Grow up and open your mind for bigit!" or "See that I take you on; I'm no idoit. I am intelligence, you are a fool. I'm sure people are going to get very board with us argueing so you may as well admit defeat now because I make you look too foolish." or "Finally don't insult my intelligence you fascist bigitt! I can take you on any time any place in a debate and I can win easier!"

I've kicked your ass all over this thing child. Give up.

-S

You really make my blood boil but I'm going to remain calm and mature about this.

Bush did IQ tests at school and other methods of examination. His IQ is around 86 and his results in essays and test are fairly low.

For someone who said he has an IQ so high (which I don't believe) you really at like a small child, taking everything personally.

I feel that essay based exams and none-multiple choice questions actually lets you use your knowledge and intelligene; unlike the SATs.

Sport in the Britain and most of the world is done very differently. If you play Football or Rugby you have to either noticed by a club or play for you're county or city and work towards a professional contract. If someone wants to go to university they should do on they intelligence not sporting ability. I know that you're sports are done differently but you have only created one sport that has been taken up internationally (basketball), baseball has only be taken up by the Canadian, Cuba and some Asian countries and it's a rip off of rounders, American Football is just awful and no-one outside America likes it and Ice Hockey wasn't made in America. Also my personal view is that University should be free, people shouldn't have to think of the cost of tuition fees; look at Scotland for example and they have some of the best univerisity in the world.

Heres some evidence for you about Bin Laden! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/155236.stm . I think it helps prove a point or at least some of it.

Soviets and warm water ports. If World War I did happen, I'm sure China, Vietnam, North Korea, Yugoslavia and Cuba would have been on the same side as the Soviets and they would have had warm water ports. Also I think the Soviet Navy would have outnumbered the Italian Navy; the only major obstacle would have been Turkey, but I favour the Soviet would have beaten them militarity.

Cuba was also used a submarine base during the cold war; these is some information. I know about the Cuban Missile Crisis. I know that America refused to buy Cuban sugar so had to sell to the Soviets. Soviets used to make Castro their friend and stated to build missile silos. Obvious you American didn't like this; you couldn't bomb or invade the place because that would have started WWI so had to do a naval blockade. The thing even though the Soviets didn't place missiles there Castro have been a pain for you ever since. Also I'm surprised you're from Florida because I like that state, I've been there 3 times and you can give that state a bad name.

Britain founded America and I'm not proud of what we did to Native Americans, but it was when America go indepence when the Natives suffered most. Take Florida for example because Britain never when they; it was the Americans that destoried the tribes there.

India, again; Britain never destoried Indian culture. Britain liked the Indian culture and just tried to mix Indian and British culture together. There are still India langauges like Hindi and Punjab and Indian religions like Hinduism and Sikhism, praticed by Millions. Another fact is during the 50s and 60s we included Indians to work in Britain to be things like Doctors, Nurse and Phamaceutists (we needed them to help run the NHS). They culture has survived in Britain and they have done well educationally in Britain.

About the American-Spanish war I'm taking about AMERICA! The Filino massarcing was a major event for the Philippines and yes Britain has done massacres in the past and we're not proud of it; but say for example in the Medieval peroid; it was brutal times and countries were comitting massacres. I'm not condoneing it but that's what happened. Another massarce is in Ireland in the mid-1600s. The thing was that it was done by Oliver Cornwell, a protestent nutter who want to destory the Ireland and Catholics. Luckily his remige didn't last and we got Charles II who wanted Protestants and Catholics to live together (a man ahead of his time).

Slavery was done by all nations. Britain was to first to ban it and we were the ones who was stopping the slave trade from Africa. Use country was expanding slavery in states like Nebaska (I don't care about speling you know what I mean) legalised slavery after banning it.

"Locking up Japanese-Americans when Japan bombed Peral history". Since you are too stupid to understand that I'll put it in plainer terms: you put Japanese-Americans in prison camps. We did a simply thing to Germans in WWII but not to the same expend and we let them out after we found out they weren't spys. Second seens we're on about Germany and WWII; before the war it was clean that the Jews were going to get a hard time in Germany. Your country didn't change your immigration quotas for Germany, Britain on the other was the easyist place for them to go because we didn't set any quotas and we saved a lot of people that way.

The Middle East has always been a trouble; ever since the Roman times. Sorting it out is a very difficult thing to do and we tried. Your country has done an even worst job because you supported Saudi Arabia, regimes in Iraq and Iran (which let to the rise of the Ayatollah) and supporting Israel by giving them weapons and not incouraging negoatations. My view is Israel should exist but should reform its Parliament to prevent the religous parties gaining more power then they should.

Al-Qaida hated Saddam because made Iraq a sectular state. Saddam did support Palatine suicide-bombers but even your friends the Saudi have done the same. The ironic thing is you let Osama slip through the net; you could of had him if you attacked him in the Tora Bora mountains; now things are harder because Al-Qaida have both a recruiting and training ground in Iraq.

You only picked Iraq because you want the oil. It's clean that Iraq is central to Bush oil policy. The aim was to try and lower the oil price and break OPEC. You have failed with both. You only got involved with Kuwiat because of the oil there because examples of other countries being invaded and you did nothing are Cyprus and the Falklands. We did not do cause the Falklands; the islands were uninhabiented before we came around; all the citizens are Britain and we got involved to defence them from the Fascist regime you supported. The added benifict of the Falklands war was that that regime fell and Argentina became a democracy!

Vietnam: do you know of the Ho-Chi-Ming trail, the siege of Saigon, America didn't do well there. You were getting beat in Vietnam and were driving the Vietnam to the communists. America retracted because they were loosing! Apocalypse Now, Platoon and Full Metal Jacket are exaggrations, but at least its best on trust. Oliver Stone was a solider during Vietnam and knew from first hand experience of what happened. Peral Habour on the other hand is one of the worst films ever made. No US fighters were took off to fight the Japanese and basically you did very badly. I'll get to the point about the Battle of Britain later.

If America stayed in Afganstan properly then you would have Bin Laden, most of his key supporters and control the country to be a safe democracy. Sadly this didn't happen because focused on Iraq. Al-Qaida and the Taliban are still around and have a strong hold in the south. In the East they are a number of war-lords around and in the North Drug-barons reign. The only place the Afgan goverment control is Kabul and Afganstan is still a mess.

It wasn't only the Democrats that didn't want John Bolton in a postion of power, Republicans didn't want him either. Second, don't predict the future, you'll make a fool out of yourself. Karl Marx predict that we would all being living in a socialist society; you know the outcome to that.

I'm an enviromentalist; I know my stuff so don't mock me. Drilling Alaska would be a big waste of money and would just cause more problems then its worth.

You are wrong about the filibuster. The only thing it can't be used for is in the selection of supemere court judges but has been used many times. It was used to hold up the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s. The world record is held by Strum Thrunbridge who spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes.

Some Americans did fly in the RAF, but that was a very, very! VERY tiny amount and wouldn't have made much differents if they were there or not. The Battle of Britain was fought for Britain by Britons. Winston Churchill said it best saying "never has some must been own by so many to so few." Beautiful words.

No-one told us to fight Napoleon, it was Napoleon himself when he declared war on us and most of Europe.

Most Britons want the Monarchy; its a part of our history and we are proud of our history.

About the US constitution; things outlawing cruel and unpunishment is a good thing, but a lot of the constitution needs to be revised: gun laws need to be changed for a start. They is the electoral college. The founding fathers fear the popular vote so created this backward system. It means Presidental elections are fought in the big states like Flordia, Ohio, Pennslaviva and that there are safe states like Masschuents and Utah. Bush never won on the popular vote in 20 and it gives small states very little impact in Presidental elections. A fairer system would be to slipt the electoral college votes e.g. if the Democratic candidate won in Californida by 56% he/she would get 56% of the electoral college votes and the Republican gets 44%. It would make every electoral college vote court and every state count.

Prime Minsters did gain power sinse the position was made in 1760. Before the 1800s we had powerful and great PMs like Pitt the Elder and Pitt the Younger. We were the first democray! George I and George II did nothing during the day to day running of Britain!

In America Moral issues and christainary go hand in hand. The Christain Right call themselves the moral majority which is bullocks!

Most of Bush's support came from the non-conformist christains. Most of the Jews, athists, Muslims etc. voted for Kerry. I was on about abortion (dyslexia)! It's an easy mistake to make, I do that, I don't care!

Since you seem a bit a stupid about how pressure groups operate in the US I put it in simplar term. When a political party or politican wins an election they have the right to carry out they manifesto promises; this is called the Mandate theory. However in America it's harder for Presidents to get there way because of the separtation of powers, but also because Senators, Representatives, etc... don't have must funding from the party and they have to rise there own money. This means it can make pressure groups very influence and US politicans have to listen to them. Because there are no party loyalities in Congress politicans are very easy to lobby. The Pharmaceutical and Insurance industries did this and undermined what the millons of Americans wanted from Clinton. Also are a National Health Service; are you saying that Clinton was a socialist? Are you all the people who voted for Clinton were Socialist? I don't think he was nor were the voters!

I can really see that you don't think much of the Democrats. Clinton actually knew have to keep the ecomony booming; it's hard to keep the ecomony booming for 7 years. Bush brought it way down; unemployment rose, consumer spending is down, so is the stock market.

Reagan's ecomony was a fault boom. Reagan was lucky because the stock market was strong and he used that to spent recklessly. Bush Sr. called Reagan's ecomonics voodoo ecomonics because the plans made no sense. When the stock market clashed in 1988 the US ecomony went into, well for it, RECESSION! Bush Sr. had to suffer with that for most of his presidentary.

FDR followed the ecomonic plans of a LIBERAL ecomonist called Kenyes. The aim was so that if you needed to built roads you would need matrials and equipment and all of that would be made as well, so start a chain reaction. A man called Adolf Hitler did a simplar thing and he wasn't a socialist.

Not all social welfare programs are worthless. National Health Services provide free health care for the masses. Think of it this way, someone who earns twenty thousand a year and they need a heart-bypass would cost more then there yearly wage. Even rich people use the NHS, espeically for emergery care. Education, another soical welfare scheme nessarcy for the masses. Education costed a lot money, but it benificts a country no matter if they government is left wing or right wing because if a country has a good education system then it would be prosperous for the long run. Social welfare can also be useful to help end poverty. Poverty is the many cause to the world's problems.

Keep calling me a idoit makes you look childish and helps destory any point you make. Tax cuts for the rich whiles the ordinary people don't get their fair share of tax cuts is unfair. Poorer people tax cuts should be more then someone who earns a quarter of million a year. I bet the only reason why you're argueing this is either you're very well off, or just agree with Bush with everything says.

Some rich people don't earn there money, they just inheritance. Also you are argueing that factory workers, cleaners, some people who have to do two jobs just to earn end-meat are less hard-working then business executives who leave the day-to-day running of their business to managers then you are ignorant!

I know about the US Civil War, I know that slavery was not the only cause of that conflict. The North and South were ecomony rivals, North based on industry and the South on agriculture. The South's ecomony was declining compared to the North. The Southwest was taking away the South's market. The election was of Lincoln was not well recieved in the South because their power in the Senate as well and that was the final straw and southern states wanted indepenence.

I also see that you agree with me that some superme court decisions have caused conflict in the states. Heres another Roe v Wade which anti-abortionist dislike.

A final tip; grow up, you're acting really immature.

On edit:

I wrote: "Not so much. It had a part in Civil War history, but the Civil War was not fought over state's rights...to believe that is to believe in moronic revisionist history."

Should say slavery...if you believe the Civil War was fought over slavery, then you're an idiot.

Damn submit button...

KID, CONGRESS PASSED--AS IN THEY "OKAY'D" IT--CONGRESS PASSED A BILL TO ALLOW DRILLING IN ALAKSA!! ALLOW! AS IN "YOU CAN DRILL HERE!"

"Many Senators, Democrats and Republicans have used the filabaster to hold things up."

That'd be "filibuster" and the only thing it's been used for are judges--which is unconstitutional, by the way.

"Lend-lease; useful but not useful for the Battle of Britain where Britain and our allies just the Canadian and Austrailan fought the Nazi by ourselves."

Must I look up things up to show you American pilots fought in that battle too, just without the "official" backing of the USA? Here kid, since you like movies so much, watch the abomination Pearl Harbor...in it, you'll see Ben Affleck flying for the British. Americans did that alot. So did black American pilots who flew for the Canadian air force before the US Army began training blacks to fly.

Once again, for the umpteenth time, you're WRONG.

"1812; American ships attacked British ships first."

After the British ships began unfairly taxing imports and impressing soldiers and ships. Kid, your team started it--mine finished it.

And regarding Napolean, we got a sweet land deal from him, so he was on his own over there--nobody told you to fight him.

"The monarchy is a figurehead but it still exists because it changed"

IT changed so much its pointless. What good did that do, hmm?

"Its not 17 amendments, its 27, idiot and one of them was reversing probition so really its really 25; 25 amendments in 200 years, not a good record."

I knew I'd get you on this. Ahh, stupidity--so predictable. You see, sweetie, I wrote 17 because the first TEN were passed with the Constitution (or promised to be passed) so in actuality, over the course of 218 someodd years since the passing of the Constitution (and, subsequently, the Bill of Rights--the first ten amendments) only 17 amendments have been passed. And if you want to make the point of Prohibition, fine--then only 15 amendments in a 200 year stretch. Not good? How bout "that's fucking awesome"--a piece of legislation has withstood over 200 years and barely been revised. That's something to celebrate, not denegrate.

"America that would never happened because of its inflexible nature."

Which is not a bad thing. In fact, it's great--it shows that our country's founding document can still stand on it's own, for the most part, today.

"Dred Scott vs. Sandford (1857) was a Superme court decision starting that Slaves are constitutionally property not men so had no rights;"

And? I knew this...I'm a true history major you know.

"this was one factor towards to US Civil war."

Not so much. It had a part in Civil War history, but the Civil War was not fought over state's rights...to believe that is to believe in moronic revisionist history.

" Brown vs. Kansas School Board (1954) stating segatation in Education is wrong (I agree with it); "

I know what the decision did kiddo.

"many Southerans like Alamba governer George Wallace didn't argee with it and help the civil rights movement to gain support and power in the 50s and 60s."

Who denied this? (And the proper term is "Southerners")

"King George I was never elected but his Prime Minister Robert Wansople was in 1760 and King George I made the position Prime Minister to run the country. The powers of the PM ever since and basically has the power of the moncarch today."

How can you even believe that when George was the only one who could have solved the crisis in the United States (remember, the Olive Branch petition and what not) and he did not. The monarchy was still in control for years to come...they began to lose power in the 1800s, when everyone began recognizing how well democracy was working in the United States.

"No elections are not based on Education and Health, but reasons for why people voted for candidates on issues like that and other things like the Ecomony and taxation. Moral Issues don't restiter in Britain because we don't have a Christain rights movement."

What the hell do Christians have to do with morals?

"Moral Issues are things like Adoption and Gay Rights which the Christain right want to suppress"

Exactly why are you blaming the Christians? There are Jews, athiests, and others who sided with Bush in this last election. And when have the Christians wanted to suppress adoption?!

"Not all American are religous nutters and they want adoption to be legal and want gay people to have right; I feel it amoral that the 'moral majority' want to suppress the rights of women and gays."

I've never heard of anyone who wants to suppress the right to adoption...so keep drinkin the Kool-Aid and wear your tin hat. Feel free to tell me which rights have been suppressed for women and gays? For gays, marriage is a privelage, not a right--the State doesn't have to recognize anyone's marriage, gay or straight.

"He promised in 1992 about sorting it and tried in 93 and 94, but was shot down by Congress"

And that Congress was held by Democrats until 1995 when the new session of Congress was Republican...so thank's for making my point.

"In America your representives don't recieve party funding meaning that they don't have party loyalities. However this make them weak to pressure group activities and this means that by can easily swayed."

What the hell are you talking about kid? I don't even think YOU know what you're talking about.

How old are you?

"The Pharmaceutical and Insurance industries did that to Clinton Medicare preposals in the early 90s which the majority voted for. My point on opinion polls is another example of pressure groups in America haven't too much power."

::CLAPS:: the hardest word you've used in this entire piece and you spell it correctly! Those two did nothing to the Universal Medicare program Billiary came up with--so drop that horseshit. The move had no support--it was socialism, plain and simple.

As for opinion polls--actually, I dont even know your point. You pointed out an opinion poll from 2004, and I told you that you're a moron if your evidence to back up an argument is an opinion poll. How you think you can go into this new argument that opinion polls make Americans weak is beyond me.

Do you eat paste? Plumber's putty maybe?

"I do understand ecomonies and taxation."

LOL..and you're showing me that by spelling it wrong--economics, not "economies"

"In ecomonies unless your ecomony is really booming then its best to balance the budget meaning you spent as many are you relieve in taxation. Thatcher and Clinton did this very well at this."

Clinton did nothing--the economy boomed, and he got lucky.

It is booming again.

"Reagan and Bush Jr. didn't do that well."

Reagan did it fantastically, Bush did too--for a recession to last the little amount of time that it did was perfect.

"They cut taxs whiles spend money into the military."

Damn the military!

"Under Reagan the ecomony was doing well until he left office."

LOL...wait wait, you just said the economy was bad under Reagan! Now it was good? Get a clue!

"Under Bush the ecomony isn't that strong."

Is that why more Americans own a house than ever before?

Bad, BAD economy!

"The only time to do deficit spending is when the ecomony is in a bad way like in the 30 and that was what FDR did; he spent money on public works like road works and sewars; the idea is to kick start the ecomony."

FDR was a socialist, and started more social programs than any president ever..maybe 1% of them survived. What "kick started" the economy, genius, was that he CREATED JOBS for those programs (which he needed,so he could tax them too)--that's why the economy exploded during the war years--even more jobs.

In terms of Bush, he cut taxes (instead of create worthless social programs) in order to cause "trickle-down" economics...with money back, it'll be spent, etc.

It worked.

"Taxation; the way Bush and Reagan did the cuts was the richer members of US society benifited more then for ordinary people. They cut it for the rich first then for the poor."

No, idiot, they cut it fairly--because the rich pay more than their share in the tax burden, they get more back than a person who is in the lower income brackets. They get that low amount because they put in a low amount.

We in American call that "fairness"

"Tax cuts should go to the poor first then work they way up, not the opposite way right. This is called Social Justice, not Socialism."

No, it's called socialism. How else do you define something that gives more money to people who didn't earn it. If you and I go out to dinner, and I get a $5 meal, and you get a $8 meal, and you pay for both with your own $20 bill--is it then fair for me to get back the majority of the change? No, because you paid more. They aren't "rewarding" the rich, like you fools choose to believe--they are simply giving back the money they took.

THAT, little boy, is social justice.

"I can beat you at every point"

You keep saying this--feel free to attempt it, because so far you've done nothing by make an ass out of yourself.

"and you are making me angry because of your aggornats"

That'd be "arrogance" kiddo.

"A real debater does not insult his opponent"

Then why'd you do it?

What you said to Admiral, the first time you appeared: "You are a fascist and more Americans should be ashame that you're claim to be a patroit...I hope burn in hell or get reincarted into a creature like a dung beatle or something horrible happens whatever happens after we die."

Take your own advice kiddo. Or better yet, follow the golden rule: treat others the way you want to be treated.

"Grow up and open your mind for bigit!"

LOL...biggot, the FREAKIN' WORD IS BIGGOT! If you're going to call me names, spell them correctly!

-S

Please, don't insult dyslexics, its not very nice. The most famous ever was Einstein and you can't call him stupid. An other is Bush Jr. but he is stupid because he has an IQ of 80; the average is 100. My IQ is just above 100 so don't call me stupid again.

S.A.Ts; a multiple choice is not the best way to select people to go to university because someone can get lucky and get a higher mark then they should have. A-Levels in England and Wales are highers because they are more in-depht then subjects in America and at A2 level it is essay questions which means you have to study and know what you're on about. Please don't make me repeat myself, I dislike it and I hate stupid people who don't listen or understand.

At Uni level I picked History and Politics as my subject; meaning that I only want to do History and Politics. I don't want to do Psychology or Physics or anything else. See people should have a broad education at school and specialize at university. You can get in a career like being a Lawyer or a doctor more quickly in Britain then America and be no less qualified. You can also get to University in America because you are good sports, not because of you're intelligence. In Britain its completely based on your A-Level grades or whatever else you did.

Bin Laden is a member in the Saudi royal family and was very influencial. An example was he offered the King of Saudi Arabia to send his follows in to Kuwait and fight the Iraqi and not let the American in. He was also a successful and very rich engineerer. His support grew during the 80s and the only reason why he didn't attack America was because he saw the Soviets as a bigger threat because they invaded a Islamic country.

Didn't the Soviets have allies which warm water ports; China, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Cuba? Thats right THEY DID. Plus wouldn't it have been a good idea to sort out Afganstan which its history has shown that it is a difficult place to control before even thinking about taking on Pakistan. Pakistan was a US ally, even back in the 80s, so starting WWI wouldn't have been a good idea. Also a tip; never use the term Paki again because that is an insult. Go rounds some areas in Britain and you'll get your head killed in.

I am getting board talking about India so lets talk about America imperial successes; killing Native Americans and destorying their cultures, starting the American-Spain war over an accident and doing massarce in the Philippines. Slavey, anyone dazzling success in US history. Locking up Japanese-Americans when Japan bombed Peral history. The Cold War: stopping Communism by supporting facist remiges in Central and South America. I don't this isn't the cold war but FDR said about one of his friends 'he may be a bastard but he is our bastard.' Supporting other brutal remiges like the Saudis and supporting another bloke, what's his name again ... oh yeah SADDAM! Irag; no weapons of mass desturction, no links to Al-Qaida until an invasion in 2003, argue that you went in to topple a brutal remige but why not go into places like Zimbabwe or Burma; because they are not vitual for Bush's oil policy and now you have made the place somewhere for terrorists to opperate. Vietnam; let me guess you didn't loss, it's just unfinished business; eventhough the rest of the world knew you lost. You're country supported an other brutal remige suppressing the rights of many and you were comitting war crimes like burning down villages and naplaming small children. Films showing America don't being great are Apolestic Now, Platoon and Full Metal Jacket; you should watch them they are very good.

The only thing Bush does has a free hand in is foreign policy and he can't do that right because he dropped the ball in Afganstan and focused on a country who had nothing do to with 9/11 or Ismalic terrorism and is thinking about going to war with Iran or N. Korea; over strecting American forces more so. John Bolton is only appointed to the UN for 2-years and only got the job bypassing the Senate; in 2007 things can be held up all over again. Alaska; Senators didn't hold it up because it is a nice place to visit, its because its a delicate should can't heal for years and many researchers don't believe there is much oil under Alaska and would cost more then it's worth to drill the place. Many Senators, Democrats and Republicans have used the filabaster to hold things up.

Lend-lease; useful but not useful for the Battle of Britain where Britain and our allies just the Canadian and Austrailan fought the Nazi by ourselves. The Convey system was a British idea and you join in after realizing it was a good thing when the U-boats were going round places like New York and easily blowing up ship. They were also politicans and other public figures who thought Nazi Germany was nothing to about e.g. Joespth Kennedy, Douglas MacCathery, Charles Linburg, and many Democrats and Republicans politicans in both houses. FDR couldn't do anything because he knew that he could lost the 1940 election and the only reason why you join was because of Peral Habour.

1812; American ships attacked British ships first. Second again Napoleon wars which was keeping us busy fighting against man who wanted world domination and you were friends with him!

The monarchy is a figurehead but it still exists because it changed. Its not 17 amendments, its 27, idiot and one of them was reversing probition so really its really 25; 25 amendments in 200 years, not a good record. The British constition (it's unwritten, based on Parliament, Common Law, EU Law and convention) can be changed easily be changed. Look at what Blair has done in 8 years; devolution, reforming the House of Lords, reforming terrorism laws, the list goes on. In America that would never happened because of its inflexible nature.

Dred Scott vs. Sandford (1857) was a Superme court decision starting that Slaves are constitutionally property not men so had no rights; this was one factor towards to US Civil war. Brown vs. Kansas School Board (1954) stating segatation in Education is wrong (I agree with it); many Southerans like Alamba governer George Wallace didn't argee with it and help the civil rights movement to gain support and power in the 50s and 60s.

King George I was never elected but his Prime Minister Robert Wansople was in 1760 and King George I made the position Prime Minister to run the country. The powers of the PM ever since and basically has the power of the moncarch today.

No elections are not based on Education and Health, but reasons for why people voted for candidates on issues like that and other things like the Ecomony and taxation. Moral Issues don't restiter in Britain because we don't have a Christain rights movement. Moral Issues are things like Adoption and Gay Rights which the Christain right want to suppress; in Britain these issues are cross party so a Labour MP may be against adoption because of their own personal views and vice versa. Not all American are religous nutters and they want adoption to be legal and want gay people to have right; I feel it amoral that the 'moral majority' want to suppress the rights of women and gays.

I'll repharse what I meant about Clinton and Medicare. He promised in 1992 about sorting it and tried in 93 and 94, but was shot down by Congress. In America your representives don't recieve party funding meaning that they don't have party loyalities. However this make them weak to pressure group activities and this means that by can easily swayed. The Pharmaceutical and Insurance industries did that to Clinton Medicare preposals in the early 90s which the majority voted for. My point on opinion polls is another example of pressure groups in America haven't too much power.

I do understand ecomonies and taxation. In ecomonies unless your ecomony is really booming then its best to balance the budget meaning you spent as many are you relieve in taxation. Thatcher and Clinton did this very well at this. Reagan and Bush Jr. didn't do that well. They cut taxs whiles spend money into the military. Under Reagan the ecomony was doing well until he left office. Under Bush the ecomony isn't that strong. The only time to do deficit spending is when the ecomony is in a bad way like in the 30 and that was what FDR did; he spent money on public works like road works and sewars; the idea is to kick start the ecomony. Taxation; the way Bush and Reagan did the cuts was the richer members of US society benifited more then for ordinary people. They cut it for the rich first then for the poor. Also if for example taxs where cut by 2% for all then the rich benifit more because 2% more of earning of $5 million is a lot more the 2% of earning of $15,0 per annum. Tax cuts should go to the poor first then work they way up, not the opposite way right. This is called Social Justice, not Socialism.

I can beat you at every point and you are making me angry because of your aggornats. A real debater does not insult his opponent. Grow up and open your mind for bigit!

Oh cmon, this kid can't be serious. LOL

I'm barely able to contain myself, but here we go:

"The American education system is a joke: you need to do a multiable exam (easy)to go to university whiles in Britain you need to do serveral essay exams to do the same thing."

Because you cannot write for shit, I'm going to assume you mean the SATs...they're easy? Then come take them.

"At university in Britain you spent you whole doing the subject you're studing, whiles in America unless in one of the top unis like Havard and Yale then you can have lessons on subjects unrelated to your course: why? Why? WHY? for god sake?"

What the hell are you talking about?! At any school in the United States (yes, you fucking six year old, including Yale and Harvard), the first two years of college are dedicated to learning a WIDE range of subjects (we call then general education classes) before you spend the remaining time focusing on your major. Through your first two years, you also take classes you think you might major in, so you can, theoretically, spend four years studying your major--much like I did.

But hey, thanks for making an ass out of yourself-you seem to be really good at it.

"Bin Ladan, another face the crowd? A rich Saudi price with a deep hatred of the Soviets and the US and tons of supporters;"

Bin Laden is not a Saudi prince, and he never has been--you're making this too easy, you know that, right? At the time of the Soviet invasion, Bin Laden had no problems with the United States of America, and if he did, his writings showed very little of it--he was more than willing to work with Americans to fight Soviets, who's doctrine called for athieism.

At the time of the invasion in 1979, bin Laden was a low key fighter--in fact, he was less a fighter and more a financier...just another face in the crowd. Like I said--but you're the history student, so you should know these things.

"Plus you were denialing that Al-Qaida existed in the 80s."

Yes, I am denialing--please kid, use spell check, dyslexia will not stop you from using it--that they existed in the 80s...they didnt--their rise didn't truly come about until the mid 1990s.

"The term dumbass comes to mind"

Must be talking about yourself kiddo--your obviously do not know a damn THING.

"Also about Afganstan; Communist remige or Taliban; both very bad but at least with the Soviets in control it would have kept them busy "

Busy doing what? Brezhnev needed a victory and he wanted access to a warm water port--that'd be quite easy for the Soviets to do. Why? Because, the Pakistanis were open to the Soviets, and if they could capture Afghanistan, they could set a deal with the Pakis and get themselves a year-long warm water port--because Russia is very, very cold. But you know this, you're history student!

"plus Afganstan would have been a weak puppet state and couldn't provide much of a threat to the Iran, Pakistan or India."

Okay and?

"Ghandi isn't the only reason why Britain left. They was a little event called the Second World War which Churchill promised independent in return for support for the Allies, ecomonically it costed Britain more then it was worth to keep hold of India."

But you said Britain treated all their territories WONDERFULLY!!

"Bush is hopeless because even though he controls Congress and Governerships and still can't get his own way e.g. Bolton to the U.N and drilling for oil in Alaska (which would be a white elephant because they is barely any oil there; but Bush Jr. is an expert of drilling empty holes the ground)."

LOL...okay dipshit, Bush doesn't "control" anything, that's #1. #2 John Bolton is the UN Ambassador now, so you need to read the news paper--and he's there for a year. And #3--so you're a geology major too?! You KNOW there is no oil in Alaska?! My God! And since you know it all, perhaps you can explain to me (since you said Bush can't drill in Alaska) why Congress approved drilling in ANWR? Oh that's right, you're a blithering idiot and don't know anything! Sorry, it slipped my mind.

"Here is a tip for you; don't try sarcasm; you're not smart enough to pull it off."

If your IQ was even a fraction of mine, you'd start to get it.

" also see that you're not denialing that American politicans didn't care about Europe even though a Nazi run Europe would have could America a lot of grief."

Denialing again...hmm...anyway, I'm not going to, because if I did, I'd have to start telling you about the Lend-Lease Program, as well as our sending munitions to the British, guarding ships, etc. And I'm not in the mood to give more history lessons to the the history student--so I'll just tell you this: Yes, politicians were concerned about the Nazis in Europe.

"Okay Big Bird this may surprise you but I have read a lot of Tom Clancey books, but I refuse to read anything after Rainbow Six because it is shit! Another books I like is Lord of the Rings, A Clockwork Orange and 1984 so before you think of some sort of Communist I hate dictatorship, left wing or right wing."

Who the hell cares what fiction books you read?!

"An example is the 1812 Anglo-American war which your country attacked us was mostly a Naval affair. They was little land action which I might I say BRITAIN WON and is a part of Canada till this day."

What the hell are oyu talking about? And yes, we started 1812, which is why the British were impressing soldiers for years prior to the war. Sure thing little boy.

"Here are some other things that have stood the test of time; Parliament, Common Law, the British Monchery and they have changed with society unless the US constitution which has caused tense"

Holy christ, can ANYONE read that?! The British MONARCHY is nothing more than a figurehead today. But going back to your statement--if something "stands the test of time" that means it remains, for the most part, unchanged--like the Constitution, which has had 17 new amendments to it over 228 years.

Parliament has changed drastically, as has the monarchy.

"with Superme court judgements like helping starting the US civil war and the civil rights movement."

Un-huh. The overreaching arm of the executive branch started the Civil War darling.

"It is also Britain that is the oldest modern democray in the world, dating back to 1760 and evolving ever since."

You're so full of shit--1760?! Then you can explain to me who appointed King George to the throne...the people of Britain? LMAO...you're such an idiot kid.

"Also lets face it even American television like Simpsons and Family Guy takes the mick of the South for things like being overly-conservative, religous nutcases and inbreading."

They do the same for everyone--and if you're basing your decisions and opinions on Family Guy and Simpsons, you need more help than I can even think of.

"Evidence on the weak US Ecomony; opinion polls in the 2004 election put Kerry ahead of managing the ecomony."

Today's date: August 11, 2005. If you're a history student, and thats your "evidence" for things--you suck as a history student.

"If the election was run the ecomonic and social issues like health and education like elections in most countries are Kerry would have won on a landslide."

So most elections only have health and education on the ballot? HOW STUPID ARE YOU?

"But American wanted to vote on 'moral' issues and foreign policy which the first has never resigtered with British electorate."

That's why we kicked your ass back in the 1770s...we're all about morals over here in the USA.

"Clinton also knew what he was doing when it came to running the ecomony compared to Bush who cuts taxes for the rich whiles spending recklessly on things like war"

Kid, do you know how taxes work? Along with tax cuts? Feel free and do your best to explain it.

"Here is another fact which you don't know; in 1992 Clinton promised to sort of Medicare and put his wife in charge of that."

Amd it failed miserable--it had such little support, it was a joke.

And it wasn't 1992 you fuckin idiot--Clinton wasn't even president then--he was RUNNING for president. But you're a history major. Way to blow an easy one like that kid.

"Many opinion polls suggest that most American want Medicare, Gun-laws and the Tax-system to be sorted out. "

Well, thankfully, we're a democratic republic and "opinion polls" do not make laws.

"The only people that trying benifict from Health insurance is the insurance and pharmaceutical companies who helped shoot down Clintons proposals which the electorate voted for."

And when did the Martians pick you up kid?

"I don't hate rich; I want to very rich myself so I can buy my beloved Bristol Rovers and make them the best football club in the world. I think people should be allowed to earn as much as they can also as long as they don't infinge on the rights of others and pay their fair share in taxes."

Yet you complain when they get their fair share back in a tax cut.

"See that I take you on; I'm no idoit. I am intelligence, you are a fool. I'm sure people are going to get very board with us argueing so you may as well admit defeat now because I make you look too foolish."

LOL...sure you do kiddo, sure you do.

Oh cmon, this kid can't be serious. LOL

I'm barely able to contain myself, but here we go:

"The American education system is a joke: you need to do a multiable exam (easy)to go to university whiles in Britain you need to do serveral essay exams to do the same thing."

Because you cannot write for shit, I'm going to assume you mean the SATs...they're easy? Then come take them.

"At university in Britain you spent you whole doing the subject you're studing, whiles in America unless in one of the top unis like Havard and Yale then you can have lessons on subjects unrelated to your course: why? Why? WHY? for god sake?"

What the hell are you talking about?! At any school in the United States (yes, you fucking six year old, including Yale and Harvard), the first two years of college are dedicated to learning a WIDE range of subjects (we call then general education classes) before you spend the remaining time focusing on your major. Through your first two years, you also take classes you think you might major in, so you can, theoretically, spend four years studying your major--much like I did.

But hey, thanks for making an ass out of yourself-you seem to be really good at it.

"Bin Ladan, another face the crowd? A rich Saudi price with a deep hatred of the Soviets and the US and tons of supporters;"

Bin Laden is not a Saudi prince, and he never has been--you're making this too easy, you know that, right? At the time of the Soviet invasion, Bin Laden had no problems with the United States of America, and if he did, his writings showed very little of it--he was more than willing to work with Americans to fight Soviets, who's doctrine called for athieism.

At the time of the invasion in 1979, bin Laden was a low key fighter--in fact, he was less a fighter and more a financier...just another face in the crowd. Like I said--but you're the history student, so you should know these things.

"Plus you were denialing that Al-Qaida existed in the 80s."

Yes, I am denialing--please kid, use spell check, dyslexia will not stop you from using it--that they existed in the 80s...they didnt--their rise didn't truly come about until the mid 1990s.

"The term dumbass comes to mind"

Must be talking about yourself kiddo--your obviously do not know a damn THING.

"Also about Afganstan; Communist remige or Taliban; both very bad but at least with the Soviets in control it would have kept them busy "

Busy doing what? Brezhnev needed a victory and he wanted access to a warm water port--that'd be quite easy for the Soviets to do. Why? Because, the Pakistanis were open to the Soviets, and if they could capture Afghanistan, they could set a deal with the Pakis and get themselves a year-long warm water port--because Russia is very, very cold. But you know this, you're history student!

"plus Afganstan would have been a weak puppet state and couldn't provide much of a threat to the Iran, Pakistan or India."

Okay and?

"Ghandi isn't the only reason why Britain left. They was a little event called the Second World War which Churchill promised independent in return for support for the Allies, ecomonically it costed Britain more then it was worth to keep hold of India."

But you said Britain treated all their territories WONDERFULLY!!

"Bush is hopeless because even though he controls Congress and Governerships and still can't get his own way e.g. Bolton to the U.N and drilling for oil in Alaska (which would be a white elephant because they is barely any oil there; but Bush Jr. is an expert of drilling empty holes the ground)."

LOL...okay dipshit, Bush doesn't "control" anything, that's #1. #2 John Bolton is the UN Ambassador now, so you need to read the news paper--and he's there for a year. And #3--so you're a geology major too?! You KNOW there is no oil in Alaska?! My God! And since you know it all, perhaps you can explain to me (since you said Bush can't drill in Alaska) why Congress approved drilling in ANWR? Oh that's right, you're a blithering idiot and don't know anything! Sorry, it slipped my mind.

"Here is a tip for you; don't try sarcasm; you're not smart enough to pull it off."

If your IQ was even a fraction of mine, you'd start to get it.

" also see that you're not denialing that American politicans didn't care about Europe even though a Nazi run Europe would have could America a lot of grief."

Denialing again...hmm...anyway, I'm not going to, because if I did, I'd have to start telling you about the Lend-Lease Program, as well as our sending munitions to the British, guarding ships, etc. And I'm not in the mood to give more history lessons to the the history student--so I'll just tell you this: Yes, politicians were concerned about the Nazis in Europe.

"Okay Big Bird this may surprise you but I have read a lot of Tom Clancey books, but I refuse to read anything after Rainbow Six because it is shit! Another books I like is Lord of the Rings, A Clockwork Orange and 1984 so before you think of some sort of Communist I hate dictatorship, left wing or right wing."

Who the hell cares what fiction books you read?!

"An example is the 1812 Anglo-American war which your country attacked us was mostly a Naval affair. They was little land action which I might I say BRITAIN WON and is a part of Canada till this day."

What the hell are oyu talking about? And yes, we started 1812, which is why the British were impressing soldiers for years prior to the war. Sure thing little boy.

"Here are some other things that have stood the test of time; Parliament, Common Law, the British Monchery and they have changed with society unless the US constitution which has caused tense"

Holy christ, can ANYONE read that?! The British MONARCHY is nothing more than a figurehead today. But going back to your statement--if something "stands the test of time" that means it remains, for the most part, unchanged--like the Constitution, which has had 17 new amendments to it over 228 years.

Parliament has changed drastically, as has the monarchy.

"with Superme court judgements like helping starting the US civil war and the civil rights movement."

Un-huh. The overreaching arm of the executive branch started the Civil War darling.

"It is also Britain that is the oldest modern democray in the world, dating back to 1760 and evolving ever since."

You're so full of shit--1760?! Then you can explain to me who appointed King George to the throne...the people of Britain? LMAO...you're such an idiot kid.

"Also lets face it even American television like Simpsons and Family Guy takes the mick of the South for things like being overly-conservative, religous nutcases and inbreading."

They do the same for everyone--and if you're basing your decisions and opinions on Family Guy and Simpsons, you need more help than I can even think of.

"Evidence on the weak US Ecomony; opinion polls in the 2004 election put Kerry ahead of managing the ecomony."

Today's date: August 11, 2005. If you're a history student, and thats your "evidence" for things--you suck as a history student.

"If the election was run the ecomonic and social issues like health and education like elections in most countries are Kerry would have won on a landslide."

So most elections only have health and education on the ballot? HOW STUPID ARE YOU?

"But American wanted to vote on 'moral' issues and foreign policy which the first has never resigtered with British electorate."

That's why we kicked your ass back in the 1770s...we're all about morals over here in the USA.

"Clinton also knew what he was doing when it came to running the ecomony compared to Bush who cuts taxes for the rich whiles spending recklessly on things like war"

Kid, do you know how taxes work? Along with tax cuts? Feel free and do your best to explain it.

"Here is another fact which you don't know; in 1992 Clinton promised to sort of Medicare and put his wife in charge of that."

Amd it failed miserable--it had such little support, it was a joke.

And it wasn't 1992 you fuckin idiot--Clinton wasn't even president then--he was RUNNING for president. But you're a history major. Way to blow an easy one like that kid.

"Many opinion polls suggest that most American want Medicare, Gun-laws and the Tax-system to be sorted out. "

Well, thankfully, we're a democratic republic and "opinion polls" do not make laws.

"The only people that trying benifict from Health insurance is the insurance and pharmaceutical companies who helped shoot down Clintons proposals which the electorate voted for."

And when did the Martians pick you up kid?

"I don't hate rich; I want to very rich myself so I can buy my beloved Bristol Rovers and make them the best football club in the world. I think people should be allowed to earn as much as they can also as long as they don't infinge on the rights of others and pay their fair share in taxes."

Yet you complain when they get their fair share back in a tax cut.

"See that I take you on; I'm no idoit. I am intelligence, you are a fool. I'm sure people are going to get very board with us argueing so you may as well admit defeat now because I make you look too foolish."

LOL...sure you do kiddo, sure you do.

You are a Goddamn fool!The American education system is a joke: you need to do a multiable exam (easy)to go to university whiles in Britain you need to do serveral essay exams to do the same thing. At university in Britain you spent you whole doing the subject you're studing, whiles in America unless in one of the top unis like Havard and Yale then you can have lessons on subjects unrelated to your course: why? Why? WHY? for god sake?Bin Ladan, another face the crowd? A rich Saudi price with a deep hatred of the Soviets and the US and tons of supporters; I think not. Plus you were denialing that Al-Qaida existed in the 80s. The term dumbass comes to mind.Also about Afganstan; Communist remige or Taliban; both very bad but at least with the Soviets in control it would have kept them busy plus Afganstan would have been a weak puppet state and couldn't provide much of a threat to the Iran, Pakistan or India.India history 101; Ghandi isn't the only reason why Britain left. They was a little event called the Second World War which Churchill promised independent in return for support for the Allies, ecomonically it costed Britain more then it was worth to keep hold of India. Another factor to consider was that the Pakastanis didn't mind the British. The Indian subcontient is a complex because region because of the ethic and religous profile and sorting out independence took time and cosideration.You're right; America doesn't have regimes. Bush is hopeless because even though he controls Congress and Governerships and still can't get his own way e.g. Bolton to the U.N and drilling for oil in Alaska (which would be a white elephant because they is barely any oil there; but Bush Jr. is an expert of drilling empty holes the ground).Here is a tip for you; don't try sarcasm; you're not smart enough to pull it off. I also see that you're not denialing that American politicans didn't care about Europe even though a Nazi run Europe would have could America a lot of grief.Okay Big Bird this may surprise you but I have read a lot of Tom Clancey books, but I refuse to read anything after Rainbow Six because it is shit! Another books I like is Lord of the Rings, A Clockwork Orange and 1984 so before you think of some sort of Communist I hate dictatorship, left wing or right wing.The risk of British invasion wasn't not the reason for the 2nd Amendment; it was expandism. Also Britain was a bit busy fighting Napoleon so couldn't have a war with America. An example is the 1812 Anglo-American war which your country attacked us was mostly a Naval affair. They was little land action which I might I say BRITAIN WON and is a part of Canada till this day.Here are some other things that have stood the test of time; Parliament, Common Law, the British Monchery and they have changed with society unless the US constitution which has caused tense along with Superme court judgements like helping starting the US civil war and the civil rights movement. It is also Britain that is the oldest modern democray in the world, dating back to 1760 and evolving ever since.To surprise you again I am a fairly tolerant person; I have friends from many different backgrounds. Also lets face it even American television like Simpsons and Family Guy takes the mick of the South for things like being overly-conservative, religous nutcases and inbreading.Evidence on the weak US Ecomony; opinion polls in the 2004 election put Kerry ahead of managing the ecomony. If the election was run the ecomonic and social issues like health and education like elections in most countries are Kerry would have won on a landslide. But American wanted to vote on 'moral' issues and foreign policy which the first has never resigtered with British electorate.Clinton also knew what he was doing when it came to running the ecomony compared to Bush who cuts taxes for the rich whiles spending recklessly on things like war.Here is another fact which you don't know; in 1992 Clinton promised to sort of Medicare and put his wife in charge of that. Many opinion polls suggest that most American want Medicare, Gun-laws and the Tax-system to be sorted out. The only people that trying benifict from Health insurance is the insurance and pharmaceutical companies who helped shoot down Clintons proposals which the electorate voted for.This also may surprise you but in the 2005 election I voted Conservative. I dislike Blair over issues like Iraq, being Bush's puppet, top-up fees and foundation hospitals. I don't hate rich; I want to very rich myself so I can buy my beloved Bristol Rovers and make them the best football club in the world. I think people should be allowed to earn as much as they can also as long as they don't infinge on the rights of others and pay their fair share in taxes.

See that I take you on; I'm no idoit. I am intelligence, you are a fool. I'm sure people are going to get very board with us argueing so you may as well admit defeat now because I make you look too foolish.

::Yawn::

"First I'm not 13; Second I'm a History and Politics student. "

Oh I highly doubt that. And if you are not 13 and ARE a history student, I fear for the educators of Britain.

"so don't fuck with me because I know my stuff."

No, you do not.

"Britain was not force out of India; British left because it was an electoral promise by the Atlee Labour government so fuck you there!"

You're right, Ghandi didn't have a hand in anything--and the British NEVER treated the Indians poorly...no no.

"Another example is the hanging chad saga in 20 where the Republicans in Flordia made the paper more difficult for Democrats to vote Gore."

LOL...go drink your Kool-Aid kiddo.

"There is no denialing that in the 1980s America did support Osama Bin Ladan and Islamic extremests in Aftganstan and made things easier for the Taliban to gain power after the Soviets left."

I didnt, I denied they supported Al-Qaida. And Bin Laden was just another face in the crowd...he wasn't anyone special in the 1980s.

The Taliban didn't gain power until 1996...but you're a history student, right? Moron...anyway, there was a civil war within Aghanistan after Soviet withdrawl in the late 80s, and two factions appeared...but I will not tell you this--you're a history student!!

" I thing the Soviets controling Aftganstans would have been the lesser of two evils!"

Of course you do--you're a moron, I'd expect nothing less.

"Okay I will use proper grammer but I'll let you know that I'm dyslexic so I'm liability to make mistake you jackass!"

This isn't dyslexia I see...but regardless, I'll take your word for it. Use a word processor to write your response, then use spell and grammar check. It's not hard.

"Bush's regime is the worst America has ever had!"

We don't have "regimes" in the States.

"They were many politicans in America in the 40s who thought they should just let Hitler rule Europe and not support Britain, the free and liberal democracy."

And? There's some politicians in the Senate now who kill ladies and get away with it. Or who were in the Ku Klux Klan...

"second I have never read a Michael Moore."

Right, and I'm Big Bird.

"I dislike the US Constitution because it is inflexible and its rarely changed."

God forbid something stands the test of time!

"An example is your gun laws; the reason why it was made was because American the the late 18th century and early 19th century was a wilderness and settlers could be attacked wild animals;"

What moron taught you that? The 2nd Amendment exists to keep the populace protected from their government lest the government attempt to invade, etc. It was a response to...wait for it...BRITISH RULE AND OCCUPATION and the colonists were in no mood to let what the English do happen in their new country.

Do you go to school or just guess and hope you're right?

"nowadays that will never happen and you're country has the highest amount of gun crime in the western world."

Is that so?

"Because of you system the backwards states in the Midwest and South won't let it changed ever though it is in depress need!"

Those damn rednecks...way to be tolerant kiddo.

"Next I wouldn't use the type negroes if I was you; espeically if you're not black"

It was sarcasm child...I know dyslexia does not impair that.

"Lets put it this way the American economy isn't strong that the moment."

Show me your proof.

"Also the exchange rate favours British people so I can go off to New York, Boston or Washington D.C. to do some shopping and sighting but I'm an enviromentist and don't want to flight too often"

Yes, the birdies might get a headache. The pound, by the way, has been higher than the dollar for quite sometime--it began UNDER BILL CLINTON.

"Britain has the National Health Service and let is a low tax ecomony; so puts a dampner on you theory."

Comparitvely speaking, we're a little bigger than Britain--so in actuality, you still pay more taxes than I do. Regardless of how low it is.

"Also sure if someone in America is well-off then Health Insurance isn't a problem; but if you are poor and in need of healthcare then you're in the shit if you live in America"

Says Micheal Moore and the rest of the idiot lefties who hate rich people and those who succeed.

"Finally don't insult my intelligence you fascist bigitt! I can take you on any time any place in a debate and I can win easier!"

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA...Kid, look...you're embarassing yourself. Just stop now, before it gets worse.

-S

First I'm not 13; Second I'm a History and Politics student. so don't fuck with me because I know my stuff.I admit Empire is not the greatest part of British or European history but America also had a unglamous history with Native Americans, blacks and Chinese and Japanese.India; we did have some successes; we got rid of a cult that wanted people to committ mass suicide and we got rid of traditions like when a man dies his wife is burned alive with his body. Britain was not force out of India; British left because it was an electoral promise by the Atlee Labour government so fuck you there!Here is a way how many countries have a fairer electoral system then you: electoral officals are neutral, so let's all parties have a fair chance of winnings don't get stupids things like in a state or city where the Republicans control they put few voting booths in Democratic areas and vice versa. Another example is the hanging chad saga in 20 where the Republicans in Flordia made the paper more difficult for Democrats to vote Gore.There is no denialing that in the 1980s America did support Osama Bin Ladan and Islamic extremests in Aftganstan and made things easier for the Taliban to gain power after the Soviets left. I thing the Soviets controling Aftganstans would have been the lesser of two evils!Okay I will use proper grammer but I'll let you know that I'm dyslexic so I'm liability to make mistake you jackass! 'Bush's regime is the worst America has ever had!' Better?They were many politicans in America in the 40s who thought they should just let Hitler rule Europe and not support Britain, the free and liberal democracy. And second I have never read a Michael Moore.I dislike the US Constitution because it is inflexible and its rarely changed. An example is your gun laws; the reason why it was made was because American the the late 18th century and early 19th century was a wilderness and settlers could be attacked wild animals; nowadays that will never happen and you're country has the highest amount of gun crime in the western world. Because of you system the backwards states in the Midwest and South won't let it changed ever though it is in depress need!Next I wouldn't use the type negroes if I was you; espeically if you're not black.I meantion Bush reversed most of Clinton's good work. As I mentioned I'm dyslexic.Lets put it this way the American economy isn't strong that the moment. Britain, Europe, China and Japan's ecomonies are growing faster and they more less people getting jobs then people loosing them. Also the exchange rate favours British people so I can go off to New York, Boston or Washington D.C. to do some shopping and sighting but I'm an enviromentist and don't want to flight too often.Britain has the National Health Service and let is a low tax ecomony; so puts a dampner on you theory. Also sure if someone in America is well-off then Health Insurance isn't a problem; but if you are poor and in need of healthcare then you're in the shit if you live in America.Finally don't insult my intelligence you fascist bigitt! I can take you on any time any place in a debate and I can win easier!

Anyone teach history anymore?

"First of all killing the natives and taking all their lands. At least with European empires the natives weren't killed off."

LOL...is that so? Hmm...I forget who landed at Jamestown...oh wait, I remember now!! It was the British! How about how they gained control of India? Or...most of the West Indies...I can't even start there's so much...what a moron you are.

"The French gave all their empire citizens cilvenship and now that benficts them e.g. their football (or soccer since you're a thick American shit) contends a lot of players from their former empire like Viera and Zideane."

Oh cmon. You have to be 13 yrs old, nothing more. France did NOT give Vietnam "citizenship"...or Algeria for that mater, or Haiti...I cant, I need to stop.

"With the British empire India became a properous nation and many of them went to universities to get educated and now India is a rising superpower."

They WERE FIRING NATIVE INDIANS OUT OF CANNONS IN THE LATE 1800s!! THE INDIANS OVERTHREW THE BRITISH!

"When the US constitution was formed it said all men were created equal; what it really meant was all White males were equal. If America was a part of the British empire then slavery whole have been abolised much earlier."

There's no way you're serious. You just cannot be serious. Those damn colonists and their Revolution!

"Also in countries like Austraila, Canada and New Zealand my country made an effort to protect the natives unlike yours."

Is that why the Aboriginies were run off by thge Aussies? Lordy!

"I already meantion slavery but you have an electoral system that is unfair to small parties and can let someone win the popular vote but lost the election like Gore who should have won 20. It is also fairly easy to rig elections in America because it's mayors and Govenors who can appoint electional officals and this means that they can hire people to do the dirty like Jez Bush in Flordia and Mayor Dayle in Chicago in the 1960 election."

Jeb and Doyle...I'm flabbergasted.

"Examples here are in Chile when the people voted for a Socialist government the CIA help a blood thristy dictator come to power and in Afganstan you supported Al-Qaida"

Al-Qaida was not around in the 1980s kid.

"Americans were also very prepared to be to let Hitler dominate Europe;"

Are you reading a history book by Micheal Moore?

"Bush's regime the worst in recent times."

Do you know proper grammar?

"He let the Christain Right (thank God I'm a non-patiencing Anglican because I would be ashame if I was bapist or a simple type of protestian)"

You're a non-patiencing person too?! You mean PRACTICING...idiot. No wonder you dont like the Constitution...you're Anglican--the sole reason of the First Amendement.

"suppressing the rights of the many like women and gays"

And them negroes too!

"revented most of Clinton's good work and has made terrorism easier because Al-Qaida and Saddam's Baithists hated each other;"

What's revent?

"Finally Bush is America's worst president ever"

Whew! I didn't know where you were going with this...glad you cleared it up.

"Unemployment is high"

Less than 5% is high? Christ, what do you call France?

"the ecomony is in recession"

It is?

"(the benifict of places like Britain, France, Germany, Japan etc is we all have a free health service)"

And soaring taxes to cover that.

"I hope burn in hell or get reincarted into a creature like a dung beatle or something horrible happens whatever happens after we die."

So suck your thumb child--make sure you have your helmet on.

-S

"Hear the dogs howling out of key,To a hymn called faith and misery."That part of the Green Day song Holiday describes Bush's America perfectly. They are many reasons why America ISN'T the greatest country in the world. First of all killing the natives and taking all their lands. At least with European empires the natives weren't killed off. The French gave all their empire citizens cilvenship and now that benficts them e.g. their football (or soccer since you're a thick American shit) contends a lot of players from their former empire like Viera and Zideane. With the British empire India became a properous nation and many of them went to universities to get educated and now India is a rising superpower.Second Slavery. When the US constitution was formed it said all men were created equal; what it really meant was all White males were equal. If America was a part of the British empire then slavery whole have been abolised much earlier. Also its not like my country treated your like shit! Also in countries like Austraila, Canada and New Zealand my country made an effort to protect the natives unlike yours.Your country's constitution is deeply faults. I already meantion slavery but you have an electoral system that is unfair to small parties and can let someone win the popular vote but lost the election like Gore who should have won 20. It is also fairly easy to rig elections in America because it's mayors and Govenors who can appoint electional officals and this means that they can hire people to do the dirty like Jez Bush in Flordia and Mayor Dayle in Chicago in the 1960 election. Another fault of your constitution is that it difficult to change OUTDATED laws like the 2nd amendment whiles has caused America a lot of problems.America has also pervent democray and supported terrorism in others. Examples here are in Chile when the people voted for a Socialist government the CIA help a blood thristy dictator come to power and in Afganstan you supported Al-Qaida and never stopped funding of the IRA and we're meant to be your closest ally; bollocks! Another ironic thing is America supported Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war; Donald Rumsfied when to Iraq a lot to sell guns.Americans were also very prepared to be to let Hitler dominate Europe; thank God Britain actually held out in the stuggle to keep Europe free; but we have always be like that because another war that we found to keep Europe free was the Napoleonic war, against another man who wanted world domiantion.Bush's regime the worst in recent times. He let the Christain Right (thank God I'm a non-patiencing Anglican because I would be ashame if I was bapist or a simple type of protestian) have a free hand; suppressing the rights of the many like women and gays, he is ruining the enviroment at a alarming rate and helping destorying the world that way, giving in to big business like oil, logging, mining, banking and tobacco; corpate America has basically brought presidency in 20 and 2004 and revented most of Clinton's good work and has made terrorism easier because Al-Qaida and Saddam's Baithists hated each other; the Iraq war has brought them together. Finally Bush is America's worst president ever. Unemployment is high, the ecomony is in recession, there are more people then ever without health insurance (the benifict of places like Britain, France, Germany, Japan etc is we all have a free health service) and has gotten into more wars then any other president in history.

You are a fascist and more Americans should be ashame that you're claim to be a patroit. I love England and Britain but I don't ever go over the time, I respect that others countries and cultures have a right to exist and know that there are some black periods in our history.I hope burn in hell or get reincarted into a creature like a dung beatle or something horrible happens whatever happens after we die.

Holy crud, you've written a s--t-load about our great nation. Kudos to you. So many people blast our country for it everything negative they can find about it (including the people on the far left of my party). We must all remember that though America has its few bad moments here and there, it is still the greatest nation that has been and ever will be one the face of this earth.

See, I think that the USA is the best country (very proud, see my name) but I don't like going around saying it, since it is my opinion. If I lived in Poland, Poland would be the best country. I just have patriotism of what I am--but that does not mean I think that we are better than everyone else, since we are not. Also, I love other countries, and when people say stuff like this and be all conceited and bragging, it makes people hate my country.

~*Toni*~

Dearest Admiral.

I found your essay informative and at least marginally balanced. I mean in terms of social equity, America can't match Australia (I smile when I think of that. It seems so, well, unlikely).

I mean, it hasn't changed my views on America at all. But still, it was well written, and although it doesn't follow essay structure at all (Yay!) it was pretty damn good.

I bet you aren't even conservative. I bet you're a liberal freak just dicking around with fictionpress. You're hilarious my man.

I'm printing this to show to this stupid liberal b* I know to prove her wrong that "There is nothing good about being American."

Great article, and I think I'm in love with you. :)

Heh, I'm just kidding about the last part. Still a great article.

Well, Admiral, I can see you have a sense of humour- no wonder your essay is posted at FICTIONpress.com.

America is at once a democratic and undemocratic nation. It is democratic in its admirable environment for social mobility, its equal-opportunities belief and its excellent education system which encourages fairness and upliftment.

On the other hand, America is profoundly undemocratic in its imperialist and two-faced foreign policy. According to you, is supporting two of the vilest mass murderers in modern history (Fulgencio Batista and Pol Pot) a sign of greatness? It is also undemocratic in that it has four (not once, but FOUR) times allowed the man with less votes to enter the White House. An event of such stupidity has never, not once occurred in India, my home and the great Dinesh D'Souza's birthplace. Yes, the USA is less democratic than a nation ranked 146th on the UN development index. This is what a cab driver that I met in one Indian city had to say, "You know, Bush is just like Saddam. He rig the elections, he stockpile weapons and he bypass the UN". Enough said...and Admiral, if you did not intend your essay to be fiction..i think you should expand your reading beyond the National Review, it has obviously retarded your intellectual growth..and with the 200+ negative reviews you've already received, leave the site along with this drivel for the sake of your own self-respect. Or, if you're just a lame attention-seeker, God bless you and America.

Argh!

America is a very nice country. I know that. There's people like you, though, who desecrate its image with there fantastic egos.

Although your essay was very eloquent, you just can't base an essay on someone's opinion. the idea is to back up your opinion with FACTS.

Unique and good, you say.

Although the conditions for the poor in the US are very good, America is not the only country with these superior living conditions. Please, divert your gaze to your neighbours to the north, a country not flooded in debt caused by ignorant presidents. Canada, too, has very good living conditions for its poor, as do many european countries.

Yes, its true that the United States has good conditions for climbing up the economic ladder, but (I hate to sound like a Canada suck-up, but still.) so does Canada. Not as good as that of the US, but still.

Your point about labour being more respectable in America does have some truth, but labour if labour was really considered that respectable, why does america adjust it's education system-- glorifying manual work instead of just intellectual activities.

Ack! Social Equality? Hell yes! In the US, as a cultural =norm=? American culture is portrayed as socially unjust in every form of media you can think of. The lower middle class and poor join the army and do manual labour, the richer go to college and university. Social equality?

"People live longer, fuller, lives in America" Ai! Help us! Opinion vs. Fact, here. You can check the UN website, and I can guarantee the US will not be at the top of the pile for life expectancy.

The destiny bit, you need to admit, is more a stereotype of the US than anything else. It's outdated, too. Many western European countries, and =sigh= Canada, leave the future open for the youth of their countries.

"...no country expended more treasure and blood to get rid of slavery than the United States." No other country /needed/ that much bloodshed to end their slavery. As you can see, slavery is gone in modern countries without having a civil war over it.

Goes home? There are still troops in KOREA, for Pete's sake. And when the US bombed the Taliban, many countries helped provide food in accordance with the amount of fighting their country was doing.

And then there's Iraq. Iraq Iraq Iraq. Britain, Spain, Italy>?, and the US bombed Iraq, without approval from the UN, and on the basis that they had WMDs. Although they did end Iraq's bloody government, many, there were NO WMDs. None. Then, then the UN was left with the mess.

As for pure purposes, It was evident to the world that US was in it for the oil. You heard me. Not for Humanitarian purposes, but to have access to a huge supply of oil.

As to virtue, America is not more virtuous than any other western non- Islamic civilization.

lol, you egotistical arogant son of a bitch. Suck my cock. Well... if I had one I'd make you. My god, you can't seriously believe that bull crap and I can't believe you wasted your time pulling that crap. Ergh. Dumb people frustrate the crap out of me.

--gangster-dolly

Yo' know, it kills me thet ah have t'write an essay like this, but thar is apparently lotsa South Car'linans on this hyar site thet still doesn't git it. Th' United States of South Car'lina is th' greatess country on Earth. Period, cuss it all t' tarnation. This hyar truth is se'f-evident. No matter its faults, no matter its flaws, no matter th' blotches in its histo'y, th' United States has done mo'e t'improve th' lives of varmints wo'ldwide than enny other country. Now, ah knows yer not a-gonna take mah wo'd fo' it, but yo' doesn't hafta. Howsabout this: Less see whut someone who came t'th' United States fum t'other country has t'say. I'd like t'intrydooce yo' t'a man named Dinesh D'Souza. He's a political commentato' an' autho' who corntributes t'noos magazines sech as "Nashunal Review". Recently he published an article on Nashunal Review Online, "10 Great Thin's", thet addressed th' current level of criticism bein' heaped on th' United States both fum home an' abroad, cuss it all t' tarnation. Natcherly he had an opinion of his own an' decided t'wade into th' debate. Whut in tarnation is his bona fides? He states them thus: "As an immigrant who has chosen t'become an South Car'linan citizen, ah feel especially qualified t'say whut is special about South Car'lina. Havin' grown up in a diffrunt society--in mah case, Bombay, India--ah's not only able t'identify aspecks of South Car'lina thet is invisible t'th' natives, but ah's acutely cornscious of th' daily blessin's thet ah enjoy in South Car'lina." Wait. Yo' mean thet thar was acshully somebody out thar fum th' Old Wo'ld thet came t'South Car'lina an' liked it so much thet he was willin' t'stay?? Like fo'evah?? An' he reckons thet bein' in th' "E-vil, unfair, unjest, uncouth" United States provides "blessin's" fo' him t'enjoy? This hyar is a miracle, readers! Fum lookin' at th' essays an' reviews on this hyar page, ah thunk thet ev'rybody thet didn't live in th' US busted down into two catego'ies: Them thet love their countries so much they doesn't be hankerin' t'leave them (an' eff'n thass yo', Good fo' Yo'! Fry mah hide! It's fine t'be proud of yer country) an' them thet hate th' US so much not only'd they nevah move t'it, but they hate THEIR OWN COUNTRIES as fine fo' sidin' wif th' US (Yo' dis mah country an' yer own, as enny fool kin plainly see. Way t'be positive! Yo' muss kill at git-up-and-git rallies.). Now ah see thar's a third group: Varmints fum other countries thet like th' US better, so much so thet they come hyar t'make a noo life! Whut in tarnation a phenomenon! Fry mah hide! Whuffo', ah bet nothin' like thet has happened hyar on account o'...on account o'...oh, yeah...On account o' th' last time thar was a long line at th' Immigrashun an' Naturalizashun Service. So less delve into this hyar situashun an' see whut's behind it. D'Souza starts off th' article by recappin' some of th' criticisms leveled aginst th' US by Islamicists (South Car'lina is th' "Great Satan"), Europeans (they haf problems wif our capitalism an' culture) an' South South Car'linans (to them, we is neo-colonialist). He also states thet this hyar fo'eign anti-South Car'linanism'dn't be so bad eff'n it didn't haf th' suppo't of some South Car'linans themselves, who "blame South Car'lina fo' most of th' evils in th' wo'ld, cuss it all t' tarnation." Th' domestic criticism comes fum both th' Lef' an' th' Right, an' ranges fum th' noshun thet th' US is responsible fo' "continuin' inequality an' racism" t'th' idea thet South Car'linan Culture is "slouchin' towards Gomo'rah". D'Souza don't deny thet South Car'lina has its share of faults: "An' who kin dispute some of their particulars? This hyar country did haf a histo'y of slavery an' racism corntinues t'exist. Thar is much in our culture thet is vulgar an' decadent." But: "...th' critics is wrong about South Car'lina, on account o' they is missin' th' trimenjus pitcher. In their indignashun on over th' sins of South Car'lina, they igno'e whut is unique an' fine about South Car'linan civilizashun." "Unique an' fine"? South Car'linan civilizashun is "unique an' fine"? Yo' mean thar's no other country like it, an' it's, like, sumpin beneficial? Hey, y'know, ah c'd swears somebody on this hyar site has menshuned thin's like thet a time o' two, in like reviews an' essays an' stuff. Gee, wonner who? It's right on th' tip of mah tongue... Ah, fine. We'll figger it out later. Less git back t'th' article. Okay, so far D'Souza has pointed out thet he feels South Car'lina has it's fine points an' its bad points, jest like enny other country, right? But th' purpose of th' article is t'explain whuffo' th' US is "special" (i.e., set apart fum other countries). He does thet by inoomratin' whut he calls th' "ten great thin's about South Car'lina": "South Car'lina provides an amazin'ly fine life fo' th' o'dinary guy." Now, ah's sho'nuff ev'ry communist an' socialist out thar readin' this hyar jest popped a gaxet. "How kin he say thet?! Fry mah hide! Don't he knows ennythin' about th' povahty in South Car'lina?! Fry mah hide!" Let him explain hisse'f: "Rich varmints live fine ev'rywhar, but whut distin'uishes South Car'lina is thet it provides an impressively high stan'ard of livin' fo' th' 'common man, as enny fool kin plainly see.' We now live in a country whar cornstruckshun wawkers regularly pay $4 fo' a nonfat latte, whar maids drive nice cars, an' whar plumbers take their families on vacashun t'Europe." "But th' pore, blast yo'! Fry mah hide! THE POOR! Fry mah hide!! Fry mah hide!" He's gittin' t'it: "Indeed, noocomers t'th' United States is struck by th' amenities injoyed by 'pore' varmints in th' United States." "Amenities?! Fry mah hide!! Fry mah hide!" Yessuh, amenities. Whut in tarnation amenities? Varmints watchin' CBS's 1980s docoomntary "Varmints Like Us" foun' out, varmints in th' US an' in th' Soviet Union: "Ord'nary varmints acrost th' Soviet Union sar thet th' poreess South Car'linans haf TV sets, microwave ovens, an' cars." Now, how kin yo' honestly say thet this hyar ain't th' greatess country in th' wo'ld when varmints on th' lowess rungs of our economic ladder haf better stan'ards of livin' than th' "middle class" in some countries? Some varmints who isn't South Car'linans eemeejutly warm up t'th' concepp, like D'Souza's friend fum Bombay who was desperately tryin' t'git into th' US on account o' he wanted "to live in a country whar th' pore varmints is fat." D'Souza's next great thin' is this: "South Car'lina offers mo'e oppo'tunity an' social mobility than enny other country, includin' th' countries of Europe." This hyar is a great point, an' he demonstrates it by pointin' out thet "South Car'lina is th' only country thet has created a populashun of 'se'f-made tycoons'." One example is Pierre Omidyar, "whose parents is Iranian an' who grew up in Paris", who came t'South Car'lina an' foun'ed eBay. No, not ev'rybody is a tycoon, but "no country has created a better ladder than South Car'lina fo' varmints t'ascend fum modess circumstances t'success." An' thass th' reason whuffo' th' US govment an' US economah wawk th' way they do! Fry mah hide! They is designed t'provide a playin' field whar varmints kin make themselves rich, on account o' no govment in histo'y has evah legislated its varmints into prosperity! Fry mah hide! "Wawk an' trade is respeckable in South Car'lina, which is not true elsewhar." ah admit, this hyar one surprised me. When he explained thet histo'ically most cultures cornsidered "merchants"--th' traders--"vile an' co'rupp", part of it made sense. Businessmen is reviled today in some countries. But whut about wawkers, labo'ers? Apparently, them same cultures cornsidered them "degraded an' vulgar". Sho'ly thass diffrunt now, right? Europeans is allus claimin' they care mo'e about wawkers. Wal, apparently not. It was South Car'lina's Foun'in' Pappys thet turned business an' "contrack labo'" into "noble" callin's, an' thus th' wo'ld evolved into a state whar "Th' o'dinary life of produckshun an' suppo'tin' a fambly is mo'e highly valued in th' United States than in enny other country." Interestin'. "South Car'lina has achieved greater social equality than enny other society." Watch yer haids! Th' Commies an' th' Lef'ies jest popped t'other gaxet! Fry mah hide! Don't wo'ry, guys. He gives Social Europe props by sayin' "In purely economic terms, Europe is mo'e egalitarian, as enny fool kin plainly see." (Um, befo'e yo' guys dislocut yer sh'ders pattin' yournelves on th' back, remember this: It don't take much effo't t'spread mediocrity equally.) This hyar may be true, but by corntrast "...South Car'linans is socially mo'e equal than enny other varmints, an' this hyar is unaffecked by economic disparities." To South Car'linans "th' rich guy may haf mo'e money, but he ain't in enny fundamental sense better than ennyone else." Fo' some of yo', thet corncepp is a plank in yer party platfo'm, dawgone it. Fo' South Car'linans, it's a cultural no'm, dawgone it. Thet gives us th' gold star. "Varmints live longer, fuller lives in South Car'lina." Hey, y'knows all thet innovashun-driven capitalism yo' guys hate so much? It acshully len'thens yer life. "In 1900, th' life speckancy in South Car'lina was aroun' 50 years; today it is mo'e than 75 years. Advances in medicine an' agriculture is mainly responsible fo' th' change. This hyar extenshun of th' life-span means mo'e years t'enjoy life, mo'e free time t'devote t'a fine cuz, an' mo'e occashuns t'do thin's wif th' gran'chillun." 'Nuff said, cuss it all t' tarnation. "In South Car'lina th' destiny of th' yo'ng is not given t'them but created by them, dawgone it." ah c'd hoof it into whut D'Souza says about how diffrunt his life'd be eff'n he stayed in Bombay, India--an' th' difference is quite profoun'--but pow'ful, ev'rythin' yo' need t'knows about this hyar "great thin'" is stated in this hyar pareegraph: "In most countries in th' wo'ld, yer fate an' yer identity is han'ed t'yo'; in South Car'lina, yo' determine them fo' yo'seff. South Car'lina is a country whar yo' git t'write th' scripp of yer own life. Yer life is like a blank sheet of paper, an' yer th' artist. This hyar noshun of bein' th' architeck of yer own destiny is th' incredibly pow'ful idea thet is behind th' wo'ldwide appeal of South Car'lina. Yo'ng varmints especially find irresistible th' prospeck of autho'in' th' narrative of their own lives." Knowin' thet, it's sad t'reckon thet so menny yo'ng varmints born an' raised hyar use this hyar aspeck of South Car'linan Greatness t'turn themselves into South Car'lina's inemies, thus provin' thet they miss th' point intirely. "South Car'lina has gone further than enny other society in establishin' equality of rights." Git back an' read thet statement agin. Read it on over an' on over. Git it through yer haid, an' when yo' have, read th' next statement: "Thar is NOTHING (mah emphasis) distinckively South Car'linan about slavery o' trimenjusotry. Slavery has existed in virtually ev'ry culture, an' xenophobia, prejudice an' discriminashun is wo'ldwide phenomena." Have yo' got thet? Thet means thet South Car'linan Society as it is struckured is NOT inharntly racist jest on account o' some South Car'linans haf owned slaves an' some South Car'linans is trimenjusots. Racism is an aberrashun, not th' no'm, an' thass whuffo' so menny varmints throughout South Car'linan Histo'y (MAINLY white males) haf wawked so hard t'end it. All th' evidence yo' need t'see this hyar is right thar. D'Souza points it out: "...no country expended mo'e treasure an' blood t'git rid of slavery than th' United States. (An' t'haid off th' reviews ah knows ah's a-gonna git fum th' British Lef', Yessuh, "no country" also includes th' UK.) While racism remains a problem in South Car'lina, this hyar country has made strenuous effo'ts t'eradicut discriminashun, even t'th' extent of inackin' policies thet give legal preference in unyversity admisshuns, jobs, an' govment corntracks t'members of mino'ity groups. Such policies remain corntrovahsial, but th' point is thet it is extremely unlikely thet a racist society'd haf permitted sech policies in th' fust place. An' sho'ly African South Car'linans like Jesse Chattanoogason is vastly better off livin' in South Car'lina than they'd be eff'n they were t'live in, say, Ethiopia o' Somalia." Too true, but th' "Revahend" Chattanoogason, an' way too menny of his follerers, will nevah admit it. "South Car'lina has foun' a solushun t'th' problem of religious an' ethnic cornflick thet corntinues t'divide an' terro'ize much of th' wo'ld, cuss it all t' tarnation." Visito's t'places like Noo Yawk, D'Souza says, is amazed by th' way varmints of diffrunt religious an' ethnic groups manage t'live an' wawk togither in relative peace when members of them same groups is in a cornstant state of war wif etch other elsewhar in th' wo'ld, cuss it all t' tarnation. How does thet wawk? "Th' South Car'linan answer is twofold, cuss it all t' tarnation. Fust, separeete th' sphars of religion an' govment so thet no religion is given official preference but all is free t'prackice their faif as they wish. Second, does not extend rights t'racial o' ethnic groups but only t'indivijools; in this hyar way, all is equal in th' eyes of th' law, oppo'tunity is open t'ennyone who kin take advantage of it, an' ev'rybody who embraces th' South Car'linan way of life kin 'become South Car'linan'." Let me simplify this hyar fo' yo': South Car'lina wawks on account o' of th' principles espoused in its foun'in' docoomnts, th' Declareeshun of Independence an' th' US Consteetooshun, which were unique in th' wo'ld when they were created an' haf not been improved upon ennywhar else in th' wo'ld on account o'. This hyar special chareeckeristic allers th' United States t'be "th' only country in th' wo'ld thet extends full membership t'outsiders." This hyar is not about legality, this hyar is about culture: "Th' typical South Car'linan c'd come t'India, live fo' 40 years, an' take Indian citizenship. But he c'd not 'become Indian'. He'dn't see hisse'f thet way, no''d most Indians see him thet way. In South Car'lina, by corntrast, hundreds of millions haf come fum far-flung sho'es an' on over time they, o' at least their chillun, haf in a profoun' an' full sense 'become South Car'linan'." ah cain't tell yo' how fine it feels t'be so right. Oh, Now doesn't hoof it hurtin' yo'seff poun'in' on th' screen an' screamin' at me. Yo'll need t'save some of thet fo' th' next great thin': "South Car'lina has th' kindest, juntless fo'eign policy of enny great power in wo'ld histo'y." See? Toldja so. ah's sho'nuff yer face is turnin' all so'ts of shades of red right now (not eff'n yer cornservative, of course. Yo' already knowed this.). D'Souza specked th' backlash as fine: "Critics of th' U.S. is likely t'reack t'this truth wif sputterin' outrage. They will point t'longstan'in' South Car'linan suppo't fo' a Latin o' Middle Eastern despot, o' th' unjest internment of th' Japanese durin' Wo'ld War II, o' South Car'lina's reluckance t'impose sanckshuns on South Africa's apartheid regime. Howevah one feels about these particular cases, less corncede t'th' critics th' point thet South Car'lina is not allus in th' right." Fine. Point cornceded, cuss it all t' tarnation. South Car'linan Histo'y does include a colleckshun of some of th' dumbess fo'eign policy decishuns evah. Mah corntenshun has allus been th' same as D'Souza's. "Whut in tarnation th' critics leave out is t'other side of th' ledger." We've saved th' wo'ld fum Nazi Germenny, Imperial Japan an' Soviet totalitarianism, dawgone it. We rebuilt Germenny an' Japan af'er we crushed them, dawgone it. We is doin' th' same wif Afghanistan an' Iraq. Whuffo'? "Fo' the dawgoned-est part South Car'lina is an ABSTAINING (D'Souza's emphasis) superpower. It shows no real interess in cornquerin' an' subjugatin' th' ress of th' wo'ld, cuss it all t' tarnation. (Remember whut yo' larned fum readin' Chapper 2 of "Th' Imperialist". Th' only varmint aroun' hyar advocatin' thet is ME.) On occashun...South Car'lina intervenes t'ovahthrow a tyrannical regime o' t'halt massive hoomin rights abuses in t'other country, but nevah stays t'rule thet country." In other wo'ds, th' United States is th' only nashun wif imperial power in histo'y thet uses thet power merely t'fix a couple of problems then GOES HOME. Unlike Phoenicia, Egypp, Persia, Greece, Carthage, Rome, China, Th' Netherlan's, Spain, France an' Britain, whenevah we've flexed our imperial mooscle, th' main goal was t'do fine! Fry mah hide! Th' bess indicato' of thet is this: "Even as South Car'lina bombed th' Taliban infrastruckure an' hideouts, U.S. planes dropped rashuns of grub t'avaht hardship an' starvashun of Afghan civilians. Whut in tarnation other country does these thin's?" Kinada? Britain? Aestralia? Enny of mah usual detracko's care t'stan' up? While we is waitin' fo' th' responses less git t'D'Souza's last great thin': "South Car'lina, th' freess nashun on Earth, is also the dawgoned-est virtuous nashun on Earth." "This hyar point seems counter-intuitive", D'Souza says, "given th' amount of cornspicuous vulgarity, vice an' immo'ality in South Car'lina. Indeed, some Islamic fundamentalists argue thet their regimes is mo'ally superio' t'th' United States on account o' they seek t'foster virtue among th' citizens. Virtue, these fundamentalists argue, is a higher principle than liberty." While this hyar assershun about virtue is true, an' it's also true thet varmints kin abuse liberty in a variety of ways, it is equally true thet th' majo'ity of South Car'linans--an' we is talkin' millions of varmints hyar--doesn't abuse their liberty. They lead mo'al, upstan'in' lives, even "amidst th' temppashuns of a rich an' free society." Thet means "[their] virtue has a special lester on account o' it is freely chosen, as enny fool kin plainly see." This hyar is not th' same in countries whar thar is no freedom t'choose, especially in Islamic fundamentalist ones like Iran: "Th' reason is thet coerced virtues is not virtues at all, ah reckon. Consider th' woomin who is required t'wears a veil, ah reckon. Thar is no modesty in this, on account o' she is bein' compelled, cuss it all t' tarnation. Compulshun kinnot prodooce virtue, it kin only prodooce th' outward semblance of virtue. Thus a free society like South Car'lina is not merely mo'e prosperous, mo'e varied, mo'e peaceful, an' mo'e tolerant--it is also mo'ally superio' t'th' theocratic an' autho'itarian regimes thet South Car'lina's inemies advocut." Wal! Fry mah hide! Thet purdy much wraps it up, don't it? D'Souza inds th' article by statin' thet "In spite of its flaws...th' South Car'linan life as it is lived today is th' bess life thet our wo'ld has t'offer. Ultimately South Car'lina is wo'thy of our love an' sacrifice on account o', mo'e than enny other society, it makes postible th' fine life, an' th' life thet is fine." C'dn't haf said it better mahse'f. (Wal...yes ah c'd, but some of yo' varmints wasn't lissenin'.) Fo' a mo'e in-depph analysis of th' United States an' its varmints check out D'Souza's book "Whut in tarnation's So Great About South Car'lina?", an' fo' mo'e juneral wisdom look fo' his columns in "Nashunal Review" an' "Nashunal Review Online."

While the US may have far more perks than many other countries, it isn't exactly the most admirable country either.

I could take the time and write out detailed contracdictions to all your points, but to be perfectly frank, I don't think it'd be worth the time. You seem to be so fixed on the idea that the US is the most wonderful place ever you won't accept other people's points (this theory is supported by the fact that you have 4 chapters basically saying the same thing). I'm not trying to insult or offend you, just stating my observations.

Something else: you're completely forgetting the overwhelming amount of negative aspects of our country. There are so many, I, a fourteen year old girl, can think of at least fifty off of the top of my head. Does that sound like the perfect country? Did you know every phone conversation in America is listened in on? Are you aware of the mass destruction America has caused to other countries? Do you recall that the US alone has enough weapons of mass destruction to destroy the entire population of Earth many many times over? Are you aware of every single flaw, or only every single perk? I think it's the latter. You cannot weigh and measure the goodness of anything if you only know the good things. So continue believing your philosophy and I'll continue seeking the truth.

Oh, and your argument is based around that one man's philosophies. It isn't healthy to build an arguement like this around one person's quotes. You need to expand your resources.

S.T.Lawrence:

"Admitting to be apart of the one of the continent that has the most failed foreign policy moves in all of history is not something to boast about. "

Admitting to be apart of a body of people, and not isolated from everyone else, is.

"See the difference here is that my greed and selfishness will only affect me, not anyone else"

If that were true, I wouldn't be arguing here.

"But I wasn't really referring to some obscure European clause, I was reffering to matters of life and death, to large issues where people are suffering greatly." "

Such as war and aid? I was referring to those too.

"we care about what could affect us"

And the US usually has a lot of potential for influence in what affects them. The US's descisions usually affect the rest of the world. Therefore, the rest of the world is entitled to an opinion, if no influence.

"Absolutely not. Nationalism is a patriotic fervor--fundamentalism is a religious one. "

Exactly. One kind of madness can induce another.

"Those "nationalists" you've spoken with are mistaken and do not see the difference."

The nationalists are ordinary people who have experienced what you and I can only look at from a distance of years.

“ In the 1950s western culture was flourishing--so much so that when we removed the socialism Mossadeq from Iran, the Shah's more western policies were embraced throughout the country.”

This is odd because all of the elder Iranians whom I spoke to when visiting Iran said that they had hated the Shah’s compulsory decrees. There was actually one which ruled that all men HAD to wear European style hats and clothes. Westernisation by compulsion is hardly a prime example of liberty.

“. It wasn't until 1979, when the Ayatollah Khomeini came in and established Iran as an "Islamic Republic" that pro-Western policies and culture was being fazed out.”

Ayatullah Khomeini would have gotten nowhere without the support of the majority of the Iranian people. They wanted him. Democracy in action.

“ Why is it up to us that we "must" solve the world's problem and whenever we attempt to, it's "not enough.”

Because you could be doing so much more. You got power, you got responsibility.

“That is an extremely weak argument. So much so that I cannot even begin to respond to it. It was actually...childish. There's more Iraqis and the terrorists are clumsy and desperate? Lordy...”

Right, you tell me then, why more Iraqi civilians are being killed than US soldiers. I’d love to hear your argument.

“That would show total weakness then.”

Backing down because you are offending other people and violating human rights is not a weakness. In the case of some of the less radical policies, perhaps it would be a weakness to back down. That isn’t the issue.

“Money is not always the answer.”

This from a capitalist? I thought that the point of the US system was motivation by profit. Hence, money is always the answer. What would you say the answer is then?

“Its amazing to me that nobody seems to care as much when a Western hemisphere tradegy happens by natural causes. Just amazing. “

My point, the West has money, and the tweaking of guilty consciences is not needed, unlike when a developing country is hit. But you don’t seem to think that money is the answer, as stated in a previous point.

“Are we at war with Sri Lanka?”

My point. The quote that you gave was irrelevant.

--Shtarfish

Which would of course explain why we honour our treaties with the Indians... It would also explain why we pay $25,0 per year to keep a single NON-VIOLENT offender incarcerated. The MOST expensive rehab plan would have us paying only $14,0 per year. I'm sorry, but that is in no way sensible economics.This also explains why men and women can both have the same job, and work the same amount of time, but a women makes $0.63 for every $1.00 a man makes. I suppose this is an example of equality, right?Virtue? Did you know that in Nevada prostitution is legal? Yes it may have it's benefits, as the women aren't out on the streets, and the men have to wear condoms, but is that really virtue? We have the fatest people in the world (genertion O), but people in other countries are dying of hunger... Even in America, we have starving people, and the shelves on the food pantry are empty. Maybe we HAD the kindest foriegn policy of any superpower, but certainly not under Bush 43.You really shouldn't act so ethnocentric.

“True, but can capitalism - the existance of free markets in their purest form - ever truly exist?”

It is all that exists or can exist, anywhere.

”In that system, what would happen when a company had an undefeatable monopoly on an area?”

Depends on the nature of the company, the nature of the monopoly, and the size of the area.

“Zell's right, capitalism can only exist in a society which has a reasonably enforced set of laws. Otherwise, people wouldn't have any incentive not to steal from each other.”

An armed society is a polite society. Anyway, whoever it is who is in a position to monopolize the enforcement of “laws” is in a position to steal from whoever they want with impunity. And people do what they can get away with; never less.

“Nationalism is a patriotic fervor--fundamentalism is a religious one.”

Patriotism is a religion — the worship of the state. It has all the same properties of other religions, including sectarian theological rivalries, holy wars, symbolism and iconoclasts who bitch about it, creepy mysticism, hardcore fundamentalists vs. fluffy bunnies who try to reconcile the inanity of their faith with reality, etc.

”That is a decision they made--but a debt is a debt--you own money.”

In this way the US continues to encourage 3rd world socialism. It’s no surprise; the way everyone in America bitches about China’s rising “unregulated” capitalism you’d think that US conservatives and leftists alike WANT everyone else to be communist.

“Josh, I seriously hope you don't mean to present Somalia as being somehow better off than Chad and Sudan.”

It is.

“Somalia is an hellhole, and the standard of living there is the lowest in the world.”

According to statistics that are in some cases 10-15 years old, in other cases for one specific region (Mogadishu). Somalia is a hellhole. IF you’re comparing it to western countries that have had fifteen or more decades of serious capital investment. However, it is a hellhole where people are getting richer and life is getting better. And this is under the constant threat of UN bombardment, or US or AU invasion.

“There is no law and order, no justice system, etc.”

You are incorrect. There is polycentral law, and a justice system about as functional as you’re ever going to find in Africa.

“Somalia is a prime example of why "anarcho-capitalism" does not work. Limited government, on the other hand, is viable despite its flaws.”

Limited government is a utopian pipedream. You can’t limit a government; you can only hide from it, run from it, shoot at it, or acquiesce to it.

No Trust:

I was being sarcastic with the sunshine and daisies.

"There is no necessity. Only inevitability. The market is what happens where people have a disincentive to steal from each other. "

True, but can capitalism - the existance of free markets in their purest form - ever truly exist? In that system, what would happen when a company had an undefeatable monopoly on an area?

"There are no political solutions to anything that won’t make things worse in the long run, and more often than not in the short run. I can only tell you that if it is important to you, then you should help those you think worthy of it. "

Fair enough.

"Maybe they should follow the Somali path. Eject their rulers, kick the UN in the nuts, stay lower on the US regime change list than other “terrorist” countries, and kill would-be dictators and self-declared presidents with enough frequency that their ilk all run screaming for sanctuary to neighboring countries."

Zell's right, capitalism can only exist in a society which has a reasonably enforced set of laws. Otherwise, people wouldn't have any incentive not to steal from each other.

"America isn't a country, it is a Continent. "

But when you say 'Americans' people generally know to whom you are referring.

RCS:

"It's not your business, or theirs, who gets my money. I worked for it, not anyone in the 3rd world. If I want to give to charities that help 3rd worlders, then that's my prerogative. If I want to be a complete Scrooge, that's also my prerogative. "

And your deaths on your conscience. Or not,a s teh case may be. Look, I'm not trying to bully you into giving away all of your spare cash, I'm simply saying that doing so, does not make you 'The Best'.

"What's the point here? I benefitted because the autoworkers built me a car, and the autoworkers benefitted because I bought a product that gives them their employment. The entire transaction between autoworker, company, and buyer is more complicated than I care to detail here, but simply put all involved parties saw their self-interests satisfied. "

There is no point. You brought benign self-interest up by saying that you could help people with it. I was simply asking how.

"News flash: all the money in the world won't prevent all suffering. "

So that makes it fine to ignore people dying? We can say, oh well, we're ALL suffering anyway, I think I'll buy myself a car to cheer myself up.

I know it won't prevent all suffering. But it can radically improve human lives, and at least give some people a CHANCE.

"Are you serious? Boy, you *have* been brainwashed by the socialists if you think government programs are better than private charities."

Never said they were, I simply asked you to prove your point. Please don't patronise me by thinking that I've been 'brainwashed' and am simply spouting off repetative propaganda. If it IS repetative, I apologise, but i assure you, it all comes from me, and my conclusions based on my experiences and education.

"Research your welfare system and find out how much out of every dollar (or pound) goes to the intended recipient (the poor) and how much of that is eaten up by the bureaucracy. Then do the same thing for a charity, comparing the money received by the recipients compared to how much is eaten by the charity's bureaucracy."

I've looked at government programmes and private charities in the past as part of studies, and although SOME private charities (not all) tend to eat up less money on its way to the recipients, they can only do so much. For true reform and better conditions, government schemes are needed, if only to make people think, and lead the way.

"And the beauty of private charities is that they're voluntary. Which means if you discover that your chosen charity is engaged in crooked shenanigans you can cut them off from your funding. Then you find another charity that operates on the up-and-up and contribute to them. With the government you have to contribute regardless, and you have no way to hold crooked midlevel bureaucrats accountable for their shenanigans. And since US federal government employees are strongly unionized, you can't fire them for even the most egregious malfeasance. "

Nevertheless, government schemes are really needed to lead the way, I can give you examples if you want, of times when charities have not been enough, BECAUSE of the fact that they are voluntary.

If government employees are really stealing your money, and there really is corruption at such a base level, then I'm afraid that it's the responsibility of the citizens of your country to find some way to stop them. It's your money, after all.

A couch potato who won't even make the effort to get a job because he prefers to live on welfare is an example of someone who sponges off his neighbours. And that's the guy I'd as soon see starve than give him any kind of financial assistance. "

You are entitled to your opinion, the question is, how d'you tell who's living off welfare because they have to, and who is living off welfare because they need to?

"Last I checked, we weren't conducting military operations in Sri Lanka. Unless, of course, you believe the al-Jazeera nonsense that the tsunami was caused by the US and Israel detonating a nuclear warhead under the Indian Ocean. "

Haven't heard anything about a nuclear warhead. I didn't think that we were referring to any military operations in this point. I was referring to people dying in 3rd world countries, you gave a quote on blood needing to be spilled for the sake of the constitution or something. We seem to have hit another misunderstanding.

--Rowana

"You sound like a member of the BNP. or UKIP. Ah well, we are indeed, a part of Eurpoe, and proud of it."

That's sad. Admitting to be apart of the one of the continent that has the most failed foreign policy moves in all of history is not something to boast about.

"Thank you for your honesty. May I say in return that I consider your policies to be greedy and selfish? As long as we know where we stand"

See the difference here is that my greed and selfishness will only affect me, not anyone else. Your motives affect me and others because you're taking the money we worked for.

"When a person is dying painfully for want of the money a richer person spent on their car, I think that they're entitled to be jealous. And a little greedy."

But they are not entitled to that money. They should not be dying for anyone's money--it isn't their's.

"No, and that was one of my points. I, and other Europeans, care about the US because it affects us.

But I wasn't really referring to some obscure European clause, I was reffering to matters of life and death, to large issues where people are suffering greatly."

There are things we concern ourselves with--just like you. Do not thing we do contain ourselves within our borders--we care about what could affect us. Likewise, there are things that go on around the world that affect you. I fail to see whatever point you tried to make.

"Nationalism and fundamentalism tend to go hand in hand."

Absolutely not. Nationalism is a patriotic fervor--fundamentalism is a religious one.

"Right, well, from what I know first hand, from visiting various places in and around the middle east and talking to nationalists, this is what I have gleaned."

Those "nationalists" you've spoken with are mistaken and do not see the difference. Furthermore, do to the likes of the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaida, etc. the groups have been masters at PR insofar as being able to blur the lines betweel nationalism and fundamentalism to make a sort of nationalistic fundamentalism.

"In the 1950s, American culture was spearding to the far corners of Egypt and Arabia. Many radical and fundamentalist high-profile politicians, professors, etc, didn't like America, because of various policies, including that of isolationism, which was still greatly inherant after WW2."

Once again, you couldn't be any more wrong. In the 1950s western culture was flourishing--so much so that when we removed the socialism Mossadeq from Iran, the Shah's more western policies were embraced throughout the country. It wasn't until 1979, when the Ayatollah Khomeini came in and established Iran as an "Islamic Republic" that pro-Western policies and culture was being fazed out.

"I do not believe that you are the sole cause of the World's misery, only that you could be doing much, much, more to stop it."

And what, everyone else gets to take a seat in the audience and watch? Why is it up to us that we "must" solve the world's problem and whenever we attempt to, it's "not enough." That's jealousy and contempt all the way. You can't stand the resources we have and so you feel fit to condemn us for any or our policies.

"And many other developed countries HAVE forgiven 3rd world debt. My own for instance."

That is a decision they made--but a debt is a debt--you own money.

"Well, we'll have to agree to disagee. more iraqis are being killed because there exists in Iraq far more Iraqi civiallians than US soldiers, and because the insurgents are clumsy nd desperate"

That is an extremely weak argument. So much so that I cannot even begin to respond to it. It was actually...childish. There's more Iraqis and the terrorists are clumsy and desperate? Lordy...

"I'm simply saying that there's an easier way to stop them."

How's that? Appealing to them?

"The point is, that without the huge Western power that is the US, many European governments would probably back down on the policies that the fundamentalists see as offensive"

That would show total weakness then.

"You did earn that money through your own hard work - if your conscience doesn't trouble you with the thought of the lives you could have saved, then we shouldn't be talking about you personally, but about policies as a whole."

My money that I would give is most likely in the area of $100. Hardly anything substantial. Beyond that, it would save lives nor bring back the lives already lost. Money is not always the answer.

The other reason I'm not going to fall into this "you're bad if you dont give money to the tsunami" trap is because I did not see this outpouring of grief and money when my state was hit by 4, count them 4, hurricanes in a two and a half month span--2 in one month alone. Nor did I see it for the countries of Haiti, Jamaica, Cuba, or the Bahamas when they too were blasted by the same hurricanes at an even stronger force then when they hit Florida.

Nor did I see this in 1998 when Hurricane Mitch blasted Panama for over a week straight when it stalled in the Gulf.

Or in 1992 when Hurricane Andrew basically leveled South Florida, then went on to destroy parts of Louisiana and Alabama.

Or in 1989 when San Francisco, in the midst of starting the World Series, was rocked by an earthquake that collapsed a highway.

Its amazing to me that nobody seems to care as much when a Western hemisphere tradegy happens by natural causes. Just amazing.

"Interesting. Problem is, the blood which you're offering is that of innocent civillians. I don't see what people in Sri Lanka have to do with liberty in America."

Are we at war with Sri Lanka?

-S

Josh, I seriously hope you don't mean to present Somalia as being somehow better off than Chad and Sudan. By no means should they adopt the "Somali path." Somalia is an hellhole, and the standard of living there is the lowest in the world. There is no law and order, no justice system, etc. Capitalism cannot flourish in the absense of these.Somalia is a prime example of why "anarcho-capitalism" does not work. Limited government, on the other hand, is viable despite its flaws.

~Zell

“We agree that the world is filled with sunshine and daisies then, at least.”

No.

”What you're saying is that socialists cannot exist without capitalists?”

Yes. Though the reverse is certainly not true.

”Well, that's why I'm not a complete socialist.”

You believe in an only 80% income tax?

”And why I recognise that capitalism is necessary at the moment - to an extent.”

There is no necessity. Only inevitability. The market is what happens where people have a disincentive to steal from each other.

“You have a solution which would work better? I'd love to hear it.“

There are no political solutions to anything that won’t make things worse in the long run, and more often than not in the short run. I can only tell you that if it is important to you, then you should help those you think worthy of it.

“Perhaps, but areas like Chad and Sudan are also facing serious problems.”

Maybe they should follow the Somali path. Eject their rulers, kick the UN in the nuts, stay lower on the US regime change list than other “terrorist” countries, and kill would-be dictators and self-declared presidents with enough frequency that their ilk all run screaming for sanctuary to neighboring countries.

“The fact that the Western countries use a lot of resources from Third World countries--exploiting their people and raping the land in the process--has much more to do with imperialism than true laissez faire capitalism,”

I don’t even think that kind of imperialism exists anymore. North-south dialogue was never a viable theory. Westerners buy cheap stuff from third-worlders and both benefit from the deal. Said third-worlders are paid poorly by our standards; however, this is because any given laborer is not very valuable to his employer. And they’re still better off than they’d be as subsistence farmers or peons in some gov’t run industrial plant. That’s not to say there’s no criminal behavior in the mix, however, it’s better than forbidding exchanges between the wealthy and poor when they can both so clearly benefit each other.

”The problem we face is government coercion (on the behalf of elitists), not capitalism.”

It’s more complicated than that. Everyone is stealing from everyone; it’s just that the ‘elite’ is better at it.

"[Capitalism] is a lot better than being told what to do, how to live your life, and how to spend your money."

But that's exactly what the government does, Steve. And that's exactly what bleeding heart liberals or bleeding heart conservatives, or whatever, want to do to you and me, whether its being forced to pay for unjust wars or watsteful bureaucracies or welfare programs. That's antithetical to the nature of capitalism.

"people around the world could live better than they now do only when they get out from under the dictatorships that keep them down...if they, too, lived under the capitalist free market system. Afghanistan is a good example. Once the stifling state under the Taliban was eliminated, Afghan entrepeneurs opened up businesses all over Kabul."

And even with the Taliban in power, farmers grew poppy plants and sold opium on the black market. In the Soviet Union, underground black markets thrived. And here in America, marijuana is still produced, bought, sold, and consumed--even though it's illegal. And it's only illegal because the government (and more importantly, the pharmaceutical companies) can't make a mint off it. Not yet anyway. My point? That capitalism is remarkably resilient.

"Fair enough again. Although the point that I'm trying to make is that coercion shouldn't be needed."

True capitalism is based on non-coercion, and peaceful production and exchange of goods, services, ideas, and information. Free enterprise and capital are the building blocks of capitalism, not altruism at the point of a gun. Coercion throws the whole thing off balance.

There's nothing wrong with altrusim, but it has to come from your heart, not from a sense of "duty" or at the business end of a gun (all government edicts are ultimately enforces at the barrel of a gun). Indeed, that defeats the very purpose behind it. Even so, altruism is selfish because in giving money to the poor to help them, you're saisfying a selfish desire of yours. There's nothing wrong about that--greed itself is not the problem. A lack of respect for people's rights is the problem.

I used to hold onto the same prejudices about capitalism as do you, but I realized over time that what we have now is not true capitalism, it's state capitalism, or what I prefer to call corporate fascism. More on this below.

"Okay, the richest 10% of the world, namely the USA and surrounding western countries, use 90% of the world's resources. If, by using this unfair proportion, you cause others to suffer, and act the scrooge by not trying to help in any way at all, then you really are violating their natural rights. I'm not saying that there's a law anywhere or anything, simply that I think that it is immoral."

The situation you describe is a symptom of corporate fascsm--the marriage between big business and politicians, who do favors for one another at other people's expence.

Oh, there's free enterprise and voluntary association--to a point. As soon as you're making enough to gain attention, in swoops the government, whose fat-cat sponsors want to use that power to keep themselves at the top of their game, to tax you relentlessly to fund itself and its wars.

The fact that the Western countries use a lot of resources from Third World countries--exploiting their people and raping the land in the process--has much more to do with imperialism than true laissez faire capitalism, where everybody has to stand on their own two feet and produce and trade goods, serices, labor, etc., peacefully. The problem we face is government coercion (on the behalf of elitists), not capitalism.

I realize that this is simplifying things a bit; No Trust is better at this anyway. But are you starting to get the idea? Apparently you are:

"I do believe that Africa needs free markets to help itself out of poverty."

To say this--to admit that what Africa really nees is free capitalism and not corporate fascism--shows that even socialists realize that their ideals just don't play out in the real world. Look at China, they're gradually moving away from a state-controlled economy. And the Chinese have allowed Hong Kong to remain more or less capitalist. That's because even the diehard commies in Beijing know that communism does not work.

You see?

Thank you for your time.

~Zell

"You know, I dont know if Admiral or RCS see it, but I'm beginning to get a sense of jealousy and contempt of the United States from you. You want us to give tons more money--its our "duty" because we're so rich--you belittle us because we do the same thing all over developed countries do, and you seem to believe we're the cause of all of this!"

Oh, I see it, Steve. I'm just not surprised by it. In fact, I expect it. It's been my experience that it's a staple of liberalism to hate the United States and to believe it to be the cause of all evil in the world.

"Be glad to later."

And so you did. Go check the review board to see your response.

"By the way, the UK is a patr of Europe and our government is sctually supporting yours on the Iraqi venture in exchange for a little influence."

Actually, while England does, sadly, fall geographically into the realm of Europe, I tend to view the UK as its own entity, and away from the craziness that little continent gets spew.

"That because many of my policies are socialist, I'm greedy?"

That your policies are the same we've seen from countless socialists before you. And yes, they are greedy and selfish.

"I'm arguing that you should have been compelled to give the amount of money which you did, simply because of the nature of the problem, and the amount of money lining your pockets."

Yes we understand the greedy and jealous nature of socialism. You have more, thus we should have some of it.

"Where then, HAVE your clothes been made?"

I'm sure maybe a few items, if any, MIGHT have been made in a sweat shop, but surely not all, hell, surely not most. If you're implying that all clothes are made in a sweat shop, or that all I can afford are clothes made in a sweat shop, then you're being quite general yourself, arent you? I sure hope I dont smell hypocrisy...

"Because, and only because, they concern the United States?"

Yes. Should I seriously consider what Luxemborg decides to do about a policy with Germany? Would you care about it if it had zero effect on you or your life?

"But what you see now was born out of the Arab nationalism"

No, what I saw in 1979 was born out of nationalism. What I see now was born out of fundamentalism. Big difference.

"which was born out of Anti-Americanism, in the 1950s"

No, Arab nationalism did not grow because of anti-Americanism. Who is feeding you this stuff? This is my principal, I know this shit.

"Patronising people, does not, I assure you, make your points any more valid"

Yet you did it with your "Do your research." Please do not scold me when you yourself patronized me.

"However, many of the insurgents are young recruits. Many have been fed lies which have been hugely encouraged by the US's foreign policy. If the US were to disappear, much of the basis for those lies would disappear."

You know, I dont know if Admiral or RCS see it, but I'm beginning to get a sense of jealousy and contempt of the United States from you. You want us to give tons more money--its our "duty" because we're so rich--you belittle us because we do the same thing all over developed countries do, and you seem to believe we're the cause of all of this!

"Many of the insurgents would, i assure you, begin to peter out."

No, I assure you, they would not. Perhaps you can explain why even more Iraqis are being killed by the insurgents than US soldiers?

" doubt that the rest of the Muslim world would have the patience to put up with them for long. "

The Muslim world doesnt have the patience to put up with them now--they're just afraid to do anything about it. It's understandable.

"Coupled with Europe's support...well, if the US didn't exist, nor would the people who created themselves with the US in view as their Arch-nemesis"

You dont listen or read do you? We're not the only target sweetie. Before us it was the Soviet Union. These people are tactical--they take out their biggest target first, then move on to the smaller ones. You think it'd end with the US disappearing? HA! England would get it next--they fucked up the Middle East to begin with after the Ottomans fell! France too--first out the southwest of France was Muslim controlled way back when; this means it's Muslim land, and these fundamentalists see it as much. Secondly, head scarves are banned in school and government work places--you dont think they notice that? Spain was Muslim! Italy is developed--and has suffered from Islamic terrorist attacks, notably from Abu Nidal, in the past. The Jordanians suffer from attacks because they support Israel. Oh yes, Israel! You're right, all these terrorists would peter out and forget all about the Jewish state nearby! Please.

"Hurting you badly? Again, never heard any of this, if there is yet another essay fully explaining, please point me in the right direction, I will do my best to review."

It's all in Truth Be Told.

"And you?"

Not a dime.

"So what you're saying is that you would sacrifice lives, for the things which you mentioned."

Thomas Jefferson once said "The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots."

-S

“But you must see that capitalism cannot exist across the entire world”

Capitalism is all that exists, and all that ever will, anywhere. The world has always been and always will be ruled by parasites (i.e. socialists) but these can only live to the extent that they have hosts to feed on.

” and that we cannot cram everyone into America.”

It is not necessary to do so.

” All I argue, is that is if you do happen to have a vast amount more money than the next fellow, then you owe it to him to give him some. To help him financially.”

Even if you believe that, it’s still not prudent to trust gov’ts with enforcing such duties.

” I do not believe in dictatorships, I do believe that Africa needs free markets to help itself out of poverty - however, it also needs help.”

The only part of Africa that in any way merits the title of ‘Developing’ is Somalia, a region whose people have consistently (and very violently) rejected the kind of “help” that leftists and neocons advocate.

” So really, it's pure luck whether you succeed in this world.”

Sure it is.

” What you are saying, is that everyone should fend for themselves, if you die, tough luck, see you in hell.”

Whether you find some poor bleeding-heart sucker willing to meet your needs is a part of your ‘luck’. I mean, if you’re going to do the whole determinist thing, at least be consistent about it.

S.T.Lawrence:

I dont care what Europe thinks. Europe has no say in this matter--they've sat around and done nothing. They're Professional Hecklers, and that's about it. I wrote an essay about it. Look my name up using the Search feature, then click "Truth Be Told"--you'll find it.

Be glad to later. By the way, the UK is a patr of Europe and our government is sctually supporting yours on the Iraqi venture in exchange for a little influence.

"If we have the ability to fix any problem that comes along ten fold over Europe, then why shouldn't we handle it?! Europe has consistently shown it's ability to sit back and watch and complain, but do absolutely nothing. I fail to see a point you've attempted to make. "

I was trying to explain WHY exactly Europe have been unable to do anything, in response to a point from a previous review.

"I'm not making guesses, thats what I'm trying to say. "

That because many of my policies are socialist, I'm greedy?

"We didn't HAVE to do this. "

Not in the sense that someone was holding a gun to your head. I'm arguing that you should have been compelled to give the amount of money which you did, simply because of the nature of the problem, and the amount of money lining your pockets.

Really, we're never going to agree on this: you believe that anything that you give to someone else which you were not actually forcibly made to give, can be counted as generosity, I believe that in this case, it was duty.

"LOL...oh keep the socialist propaganda coming. "

It wasn't my intention to do this at all. I was trying to make a point. If you'd really rather that I didn't back my arguments up, just say so.

"Damn fat Americans! Michael Moore is a major offender. "

Lol, fair enough. I don't know how you got the impression that I really care much about Michael Moore.

"It is not our duty--it is our considerate nature as Americans. "

And again...more nationalistic propaganda I could well say.

"My clothes might not have been made in a sweatshop or by a corrupt company. And end the socialist mantra as a reason as to why it is our "duty" as Americans to give millions more than we've given--not to mention it's OUR military handing everything out--our money far exceeds any country there. "

Already argued this point. I'm starting to see no point in continuing this debate, we're clearly not going to get anywhere. Where then, HAVE your clothes been made?

"Of course I care--there are things that concern the United States outside our borders--thats why I care. "

Because, and only because, they concern the United States? Well, I've already argued this point...not going to waste finger energy by typing it out again.

"I've written plenty of essays. Truth Be Told--feel free to read them. "

I'll be heading there right after this.

"No, it was sometime in the 1950s that Arab nationalism began to take hold. Not anti-Americanism. The only "anti-Americanism" was a brief shot in the 1950s because of the CIA's role in Operation AJAX in Iran. But what you see now started in the 1970s, not the 1950s. "

But what you see now was born out of the Arab nationalism, which was born out of Anti-Americanism, in the 1950s. If you really want to argue this point further, just say so.

"No little one, you do yours. Al-Qaida grew out of the mujahadin movement of 1979 through the mid 1980s when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. After the war ended the warriors..you know what? There's an essay I wrote about this too. Al-Qaida officially became a group in 1995-6 when they helped the Taliban take power in Afghanistan. Not 1950. Not 1960. Not 1970. "

Patronising people, does not, I assure you, make your points any more valid. I suppose I'll be along to review that essay too.

"Oh I am darling. "

See above.

"The insurgents do not exist simply to fight America--they exist to fight any threat to their view of Islam. That could mean...Shiites, any Muslim or person who supports democracy, any person who doesn't believe in their brand of life, etc. Oh, and let us not forget any non-Muslim who lives or occupies or controls Mulism land. Hmm, like Spain--who suffered a terrorist attack this past year... "

See, this is the problem with generalisation. I agree that there are a few people, who do indeed match the description which you gave.

However, many of the insurgents are young recruits. Many have been fed lies which have been hugely encouraged by the US's foreign policy. If the US were to disappear, much of the basis for those lies would disappear.

Many of the insurgents would, i assure you, begin to peter out. I doubt that the rest of the Muslim world would have the patience to put up with them for long. Coupled with Europe's support...well, if the US didn't exist, nor would the people who created themselves with the US in view as their Arch-nemesis. If poverty and unemployment didn't exist in these countries, people wouldn't be driven to blame the only country whom they can see to blame for their problems.

"No. They were hurting us for 8 years. After 9/11, enough was enough. "

Hurting you badly? Again, never heard any of this, if there is yet another essay fully explaining, please point me in the right direction, I will do my best to review.

"And how much did you give?"

A slightly personal question, but collectively, with my whole family, £400. All that we can afford right now. On the side, I've been helping out with charities and fundraising events. And you?

"Alot better than being told what to do, how to live your life, and how to spend your money. "

So what you're saying is that you would sacrifice lives, for the things which you mentioned.

RCS:

"All righty. When you scour the job market looking for the highest possible wages for your skill level, you're looking out for your self-interest. When you jump out of the way of a speeding bus so as not to be squashed like a grape is looking out for your self-interest. Going to the store to buy food for yourself is looking out for your self-interest. And since doing those things is not hurting anyone else, it's benign self-interest. Don't fall down the socialist trap of confusing "self-interest" with "selfishness." It *is* a benign thing to look out for your own needs, you know. "

Right, ok, got that. But I think that you stated that you helped people through benign self-interest. How is that possible? Or have I misquoted?

"Since we're recalling our abundant evidence, knowledge, and experience in dealing with socialists when we make those statements about them, we must not be generalizing. "

Let me double check, you really are telling me that every socialist whom you've ever met was...greedy? That's an opinion, not a fact, and it is therefore rude to count it as valid evidence for a generalization.

"And there it is. Capitalism can't make everyone equally happy, so we have to make everyone equally miserable under socialism just to make it fair. Capitalism doesn't guarantee a life of wealth and success, but then the only guarantees in life are death and taxes"

This is a case of 'is the glass half full or half empty?' if we're dealing in sayings.

Equally miserable could just as easily be said equally happy. And you know just as well as I do that things will never be perfectly equal. All that I want to see, is a decrease in the worldwide death rate. With more and more Americans dying from over eating, and more africans dying from starvation, my attitude of spreading wealth (just a little) being better for everyone, seems appropriate.

"capitalism does provide the best chance for people to lift themselves out of that squalor and make something of themselves. If you don't take that chance yourself, if you sit around waiting for someone else to do something for you, you're going to be stuck where you are. Socialism stifles economic freedom. Most people in the world who live in squalor do so because they are forced to live that way by their governments (and most of those are socialist regimes). The good number of immigrants who come here from those stifling places and meet great success in the American free market tell me that the people around the world could live better than they now do only when they get out from under the dictatorships that keep them down...if they, too, lived under the capitalist free market system"

But you must see that capitalism cannot exist across the entire world - and that we cannot cram everyone into America. The principle of Socialism, is not that everyone should live in squalor, but that everyone should have an equal chance in life. Knowing that you probably won't live past the age of five does not give you that chance.

I do not want everyone to be equally poor. All I argue, is that is if you do happen to have a vast amount more money than the next fellow, then you owe it to him to give him some. To help him financially.

I do not believe in dictatorships, I do believe that Africa needs free markets to help itself out of poverty - however, it also needs help.

The fact is, life has limits. If someone fails, because of those limits, we have no right to scorn them, and tell them to work harder to bring themselves back up. sometimes, it is impossible.

"Afghanistan is a good example. Once the stifling state under the Taliban was eliminated, Afghan entrepeneurs opened up businesses all over Kabul. Again, not everyone has the ambition or the ability to reap fully the great benefits of capitalism, but life's not fair. It's not my duty or obligation to help anyone else but myself or my family. I do give to charities of my own free will because it's a caring thing to do, not because I'm obligated or duty-bound in any way. What *is* morally wrong is the socialist keeping me down and suppressing my freedom to excel because my neighbor may not possess the same skills for success that I do."

So really, it's pure luck whether you succeed in this world. What you are saying, is that everyone should fend for themselves, if you die, tough luck, see you in hell.

'Fraid I can't agree, already given my views.

--Rowana and Shtarfish

"Well, firstly the memory of the thousands of civillians killed in the East by US troops is not going anywhere for a long time. It's going to take something huge to shift the incredibly bad publicity against America. Most countries in the world are ready to strangle you guys at the slightest incentive, because you are disliked and feared slightly all over. The list goes on."

I dont care what Europe thinks. Europe has no say in this matter--they've sat around and done nothing. They're Professional Hecklers, and that's about it. I wrote an essay about it. Look my name up using the Search feature, then click "Truth Be Told"--you'll find it.

"Because, as I have said so many times, you guys belong to the SUPERPOWER. I.e, you have ten times more of a chance of 'quelching' anyone than we have"

Exactly! Yet how you go from there to this is beyond me:

"and it would therefore be stupid for European countries to go in first without consulting you or making sure of your support, but whenever we try, the Americans push forward and ignore us, taking care of the whole job, and then unfairly boasting, and causing the rest of the world to look forward to the day that their empire falls."

If we have the ability to fix any problem that comes along ten fold over Europe, then why shouldn't we handle it?! Europe has consistently shown it's ability to sit back and watch and complain, but do absolutely nothing. I fail to see a point you've attempted to make.

"It is rude to make guesses about about people. Please stop."

I'm not making guesses, thats what I'm trying to say.

"You put up more money because you had more to give."

We didn't HAVE to do this.

"You had more to give, because your country uses a vastly unfair proportion of the world's resources."

LOL...oh keep the socialist propaganda coming.

"Whilst people in your country are getting obese, people elsewhere are dying or starvation."

Damn fat Americans! Michael Moore is a major offender.

"Do you still not understand why it isn't any more than your country's MORAL DUTY to give a little of what it has reaped from those country's, back?"

It is not our duty--it is our considerate nature as Americans.

"It is your duty as a member of this planet."

What? So I'm an Earthling first, American second, that it?

"It is your duty as someone benefiting from sweatshop labour and corruption, and from natural resources, land and oil, taken from these countries."

My clothes might not have been made in a sweatshop or by a corrupt company. And end the socialist mantra as a reason as to why it is our "duty" as Americans to give millions more than we've given--not to mention it's OUR military handing everything out--our money far exceeds any country there.

"Or do you really not care about what goes on beyond your borders? If the majority of Americans are like you, then all that I can say is that you guys are in for a nasty suprise someday."

Of course I care--there are things that concern the United States outside our borders--thats why I care.

"Oh? Please, do tell."

I've written plenty of essays. Truth Be Told--feel free to read them.

"It was sometime in the 1950s that the first, specifically anti-American fundamentallist groups began to form"

No, it was sometime in the 1950s that Arab nationalism began to take hold. Not anti-Americanism. The only "anti-Americanism" was a brief shot in the 1950s because of the CIA's role in Operation AJAX in Iran. But what you see now started in the 1970s, not the 1950s.

"I do realise that Al-Qaida weren't around for another decade. Do your research."

No little one, you do yours. Al-Qaida grew out of the mujahadin movement of 1979 through the mid 1980s when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. After the war ended the warriors..you know what? There's an essay I wrote about this too. Al-Qaida officially became a group in 1995-6 when they helped the Taliban take power in Afghanistan. Not 1950. Not 1960. Not 1970.

"Well, feel free to correct me."

Oh I am darling.

"I honestly do believe that if America was to float through a space-time vortex tomorrow, the insurgents would begin to peter out."

The insurgents do not exist simply to fight America--they exist to fight any threat to their view of Islam. That could mean...Shiites, any Muslim or person who supports democracy, any person who doesn't believe in their brand of life, etc. Oh, and let us not forget any non-Muslim who lives or occupies or controls Mulism land. Hmm, like Spain--who suffered a terrorist attack this past year...

"Yes, that's right. You let them run amock until suddenly they were hurting you. And then you sat up and said, 'by gosh, perhaps we should kill them'."

No. They were hurting us for 8 years. After 9/11, enough was enough.

"I wouldn't be debating here if I hadn't already done so."

And how much did you give?

"Capitalism doesn't tell you what to do - and if people suffer and die because of that, can you tell me that that's right? Yes or no?"

Alot better than being told what to do, how to live your life, and how to spend your money.

-S

I heard this: "blah blah blah I BE GOOD blah blah."

I'm sorry, but you don't exsist.

Giygas:

A libertarian. It's nice to know there's people on this site who aren't either republicans or democrats.

"Based on what premise? It would be nice and decent if certain rich people gave more of their money to charity, BUT it's not immoral to be a Scrooge since such folks aren't violating anybody's natural rights in this case. "

But that's the point. Okay, the richest 10% of the world, namely the USA and surrounding western countries, use 90% of the world's resources. If, by using this unfair proportion, you cause others to suffer, and act the scrooge by not trying to help in any way at all, then you really are violating their natural rights. I'm not saying that there's a law anywhere or anything, simply that I think that it is immoral.

"Be careful on that one. Certain folks have used a similar premise to justify blowing up innocent children around the world in order to "liberate" them. "

Fair enough. Although I would say that the US government's views on the nature of help and my own differ.

"Of course I'd be angered if they didn't stop to really help me, but then, I don't have the right to force them to help me--coercion is the root of most evil. Hypotheticals like these don't make for a good jumping point to discuss principles. "

Fair enough again. Although the point that I'm trying to make is that coercion shouldn't be needed.

I'm with you on the Saddam point as well.

"Dude, it's called PR; these days it's all about good marketing. Gotta make people think the American government (or any for that matter) really really REALLY cares about the poor huddled masses of tsunami victims...and their oil. But that's another story, hee hee. "

Lol, you've pretty much said it.

"The part you quoted was just a prequel, please don't pick and choose from my answers, but read the WHOLE THING before answering.

Welcome to the Fictionpress debate arena. "

*sigh*. I shoulda sticked with debating with the religious groupies, shouldn't I?

S.T.Lawrence:

""And by looking at the bigger picture, and its effects on the whole wide world, I think that they may have done more harm than good in the long run."

And how is that? "

Well, firstly the memory of the thousands of civillians killed in the East by US troops is not going anywhere for a long time. It's going to take something huge to shift the incredibly bad publicity against America. Most countries in the world are ready to strangle you guys at the slightest incentive, because you are disliked and feared slightly all over. The list goes on.

"Why should we? Europe has failed to quelch any problem that has come down the pike in the past 14 years. "

Because, as I have said so many times, you guys belong to the SUPERPOWER. I.e, you have ten times more of a chance of 'quelching' anyone than we have, and it would therefore be stupid for European countries to go in first without consulting you or making sure of your support, but whenever we try, the Americans push forward and ignore us, taking care of the whole job, and then unfairly boasting, and causing the rest of the world to look forward to the day that their empire falls.

Personally, I think that America is a very nice place in most points, I've been there before. Sadly, others don't hold the same view.

"We've dealt with many socialist liberals--we're not generalizing"

Sigh. By the dictionary, to gneralize: to state a supposed general truth about something on the basis of limited or incomplete evidence

It is rude to make guesses about about people. Please stop.

"What the hell are you talking about it's our "duty" to contribute? We didn't have to give a penny--we were not affected one bit. The area itself has no effect on us. We didn't "have" to do anything--where you get off believe it is the duty of those who are more powerful to contribute is beyond me. We are capitalists, not commies/socialists...our duty is to us. So we can damn well boast--even with the UN calling us stingy, we were able to put up more money in a heartbeat. So we'll boast from here to the donation center and back! "

I suppose I shouldn't have expected a considered answer on fictionpress. I am going to answer this point for the last time. You put up more money because you had more to give. You had more to give, because your country uses a vastly unfair proportion of the world's resources. Whilst people in your country are getting obese, people elsewhere are dying or starvation. Painfully. Leaving children, orphans, behind. By the hundreds, every day. Do you still not understand why it isn't any more than your country's MORAL DUTY to give a little of what it has reaped from those country's, back?

Right. I forgot. As you say, you're a capitalist. I refuse to generalize. many of the capitalists whom I know share a lot of my views, I won't be biased against them because one person refuses to even consider someone else's ideas.

"Who came up with these "duty" rules? It is not our duty--except to maybe care for the American bodies. The US government and the country owe nobody a thing--our "duty" is to protect ourselves and keep our economy going--from there it becomes American generosity. "

It is your duty as a member of this planet. It is your duty as someone benefiting from sweatshop labour and corruption, and from natural resources, land and oil, taken from these countries. It is your duty as a fellow human being.

Or do you really not care about what goes on beyond your borders? If the majority of Americans are like you, then all that I can say is that you guys are in for a nasty suprise someday.

""You'd think there was some kind of eternal struggle of good versus evil between Republicans and Socialists."

you're starting to get it. "

If that's why there's large population of stereotypical essays on this website, then that is, frankly, a little sad.

"Only? No, there were more reasons"

Oh? Please, do tell.

"First off, our "particular brand" of terrorist is Islamic jihadists-not just al-Qaida, though you on the Left commonly believe the two words (terrorism and Al-Qaida) go hand in hand. Secondly, Al-Qaida became a group in 1996...whoever told you 1950 might have sold you some magic beans too. "

I did realise that. It was sometime in the 1950s that the first, specifically anti-American fundamentallist groups began to form. I do realise that Al-Qaida weren't around for another decade. Do your research.

"The point that you believe that shows us your knowledge of the situation. It isn't much. "

Well, feel free to correct me. I honestly do believe that if America was to float through a space-time vortex tomorrow, the insurgents would begin to peter out. It may take a few months for them to disappear completely, but much of the fuel would have stopped feeding the fire.

"We sat back and let them have their fun for 8 years. It didn't work. We're going back to what does work. "

Yes, that's right. You let them run amock until suddenly they were hurting you. And then you sat up and said, 'by gosh, perhaps we should kill them'.

"Then you better fork over as much money as you can without going poor to as many poor people as you can. That would be the only way you can justify your little theory. "

I wouldn't be debating here if I hadn't already done so.

"There it is! "They should have given you more." Socialist greed at its finest! They "SHOULD" have given me more? See, they didn't have to give me anything--their generosity in flipping me the penny, while probably stingy, is still generous--they didn't NEED to do a freakin' thing. This is your problem--you seem to believe people are SUPPOSED to do something--this is why capitalism is so popular--it doesn't TELL you what you're SUPPOSED to do. "

Look, if Capitalism could work for the whole wide world, I'd be it's number one fan. But it can't. Capitalism is absolutely fine in places, but it requires a HUGE deal of SELF AWARENESS and a SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY. This is what Americans lack. Capitalism doesn't tell you what to do - and if people suffer and die because of that, can you tell me that that's right? Yes or no?

this is a great essay. you forgot the soveits when you were talking about nation that solved a problem and then took over the people they were trying to help. i've added you to my favorite authors list.

"And by looking at the bigger picture, and its effects on the whole wide world, I think that they may have done more harm than good in the long run."

And how is that?

"Because the US government paid no heed to the suggestions of 'inferior' European countries. Or to the bigger picture."

Why should we? Europe has failed to quelch any problem that has come down the pike in the past 14 years.

"You are unfairly generalising."

We've dealt with many socialist liberals--we're not generalizing.

"all I'm saying is that it IS the duty of America as a whole to contribute, as it is doing so. It is nothing to brag about."

What the hell are you talking about it's our "duty" to contribute? We didn't have to give a penny--we were not affected one bit. The area itself has no effect on us. We didn't "have" to do anything--where you get off believe it is the duty of those who are more powerful to contribute is beyond me. We are capitalists, not commies/socialists...our duty is to us. So we can damn well boast--even with the UN calling us stingy, we were able to put up more money in a heartbeat. So we'll boast from here to the donation center and back!

"I am simply saying that they are no more than your duty, and their existance does NOT make America the best country in the world."

Who came up with these "duty" rules? It is not our duty--except to maybe care for the American bodies. The US government and the country owe nobody a thing--our "duty" is to protect ourselves and keep our economy going--from there it becomes American generosity.

"You'd think there was some kind of eternal struggle of good versus evil between Republicans and Socialists."

you're starting to get it.

"The weapons search was called off officially the day before yesterday I think. As certain people have been saying from the very beginning, there was no 45 minute threat, which was the only justifiable reason for going in immediately."

Only? No, there were more reasons.

"Your country's particular brand of terrorist, namely Al-Qaida, since about the 1950s."

First off, our "particular brand" of terrorist is Islamic jihadists-not just al-Qaida, though you on the Left commonly believe the two words (terrorism and Al-Qaida) go hand in hand. Secondly, Al-Qaida became a group in 1996...whoever told you 1950 might have sold you some magic beans too.

"And if the USA was to disappear tomorrow, so would Al-Qaeda, and all of the Iraqi insurgents, because there would be nothing to fight against."

The point that you believe that shows us your knowledge of the situation. It isn't much.

"SUBTLETY! Americans HAVE to look at ALL of the affects of their actions. Fighting the terrorists in the manner in which you are doing so at the moment IS helping to create them.

Think about it."

We sat back and let them have their fun for 8 years. It didn't work. We're going back to what does work.

" The point of humanity, is that when other people are dying, you help them."

Then you better fork over as much money as you can without going poor to as many poor people as you can. That would be the only way you can justify your little theory.

"f you were dying by the roadside, and someone in a flashy car flipped you a penny or a cent or whatever, would you thank them or feel that they should have given you more?"

There it is! "They should have given you more." Socialist greed at its finest! They "SHOULD" have given me more? See, they didn't have to give me anything--their generosity in flipping me the penny, while probably stingy, is still generous--they didn't NEED to do a freakin' thing. This is your problem--you seem to believe people are SUPPOSED to do something--this is why capitalism is so popular--it doesn't TELL you what you're SUPPOSED to do.

"Feel free to dispute me decently."

I believe I have.

-S

Here's a nice long review to tide y'all over for a spell:

"Apologies to Giygas first of all, for calling you a republican, when it appears that you aren't one."

No problem, dude. All is forgiven. I'm a libertarian, by the way--a lot of Republicans pretend to be one of us and then squeal in horror and outrage when we discuss our ideas in public. Or they just call you names like a five year old, and then squeal some more.

You'll also find that most of 'em don't have a good sense of humor.

"All we're saying is that the fact that all you yanks belong to the richest 1% of the world, and therefore HAVE the most to give, means that you have a duty to give it when people need it more than you do. "

Based on what premise? It would be nice and decent if certain rich people gave more of their money to charity, BUT it's not immoral to be a Scrooge since such folks aren't violating anybody's natural rights in this case.

"The point of humanity, is that when other people are dying, you help them."

Be careful on that one. Certain folks have used a similar premise to justify lowing up innocent children around the world in order to "liberate" them.

"If you were dying by the roadside, and someone in a flashy car flipped you a penny or a cent or whatever, would you thank them or feel that they should have given you more?"

Of course I'd be angered if they didn't stop to really help me, but then, I don't have the right to force them to help me--coercion is the root of most evil. Hypotheticals like these don't make for a good jumping point to discuss principles.

"When you're dealing with a tyrant like Saddam Hussein, the *only* thing he responds to is violence."

Such violence would've been justified had he attacked America...which of course he did not so yours is a moot point.

"the usual Leftist debate tactic of personal attacks."

Yeah, 'cause right wingers NEVER make personal attacks, right?

"Those men had only one duty, and that's to protect Americans, but they died helping the tsunami victims.. . . they only see those crates of food with Old Glory and U.S.A. stamped on the sides. They see the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln parked off the beach, with that glorious American flag flying from her mast, providing them fresh drinking water."

Dude, it's called PR; these days it's all about good marketing. Gotta make people think the American government (or any for that matter) really really REALLY cares about the poor huddled masses of tsunami victims...and their oil. But that's another story, hee hee.

"YOU want Americans to give until they're no longer rich, and that's not something you have a right to demand of anybody."

Thank you. At least somebody understands how it works.

"Americans pursuing their happiness tend to pass on great benefits to others."

Yes. For instance, if I give money to poor people to help 'em out, I'm pursuing my own self interest since to help people out makes me happy in turn--that's a selfish desire, and by pursuing it, I inflate my ego whle helping people at the same time! It's pure genius, I tells ya!

"Only the pursuit of wealth creates wealth. Debt relief doesn't."

It couldn't hurt, though. Most of this "debt" was merely fabricated by the former imperial powers anyway.

"How we interact with the wider world is NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN the sole cause for the existence of terrorists."

Not the sole cause, just about 90% of it. If the government would mind its own business, people would have less of an incentive to play with bombs in crowded buildings.

"there hasn't been a 'free world' since the dawn of man."

I couldn't agree more.

"The part you quoted was just a prequel, please don't pick and choose from my answers, but read the WHOLE THING before answering."

Welcome to the Fictionpress debate arena.

~Zell

RCS:

"Actually, Hollywood mocks capitalists. Hollywood is one of the biggest friends of socialism on the planet. How else do you think a talentless hack like Michael Moore received a documentary award for "Bowling for Columbine," a movie so packed with fiction it doesn't qualify for the Oscar folks' own definition of documentary? "

I apologise for the obvious misunderstanding. What I MEANT to imply was that the manner in which S.T.Lawrence's statement was said seemed cliched. The whole 'until the day i do die!' thing. I just meant to say that I thought he was being a bit OTT. I wasn't referring to Hollywood's actual motives.

"That's what we did in Iraq. "

I'm not saying that the Americans didn't help people in Iraq, I'm just saying that they also harmed some. And by looking at the bigger picture, and its effects on the whole wide world, I think that they may have done more harm than good in the long run.

"Take your utopian blinders off. When you're dealing with a tyrant like Saddam Hussein, the *only* thing he responds to is violence. You could try talking to tyrants all you want. And when you do make an agreement with them, they just go back to their buddies and laugh at how they pulled another fast one over on the free world, then go back to doing what they do. They are stopped only when someone violently removes them. That's just how the world has worked since the dawn of Man. "

Except that there hasn't been a 'free world' since the dawn of man. But I understand what you're trying to say. I'd like to point out that the US government should maybe have thought of this 10 or so years ago? And also that again, you are just speculating. Speculating well, yes, but still just speculating.

In response to your actual point then, I don't think that my point of view, (not exactly utopian, I believe that violence should be used when it is the only resort) is blinding me at all. Quite the opposite. And perhaps violence WAS the only resort, although I do think that generally brain can win over brawn. But we'll never know, will we? Because the US government paid no heed to the suggestions of 'inferior' European countries. Or to the bigger picture.

"You obviously have no answer to Admiral's very legitimate point, so you use the usual Leftist debate tactic of personal attacks. He wasn't being a petulant child, he was making a legitimate point about why you scoff American contributions for being not enough and say not one word about the lack of contributions made by wealthy Arab nations.American contributions cannot only be measured in a monetary amount. All the aid donated so far would probably still be sitting on pallets on the beach were it not for the efforts of the United States military to transport the packages to where they're needed, at the cost of millions of dollars A DAY. And we have paid in blood too, because one of our helicopters ferrying aid packages recently crashed and killed the crew aboard. Those men had only one duty, and that's to protect Americans, but they died helping the tsunami victims. "

Right, well firstly, I did answer Admiral's point. The part you quoted was just a prequel, please don't pick and choose from my answers, but read the WHOLE THING before answering. Again, what is with this 'naive socialist...stupid leftist' labelling? You are unfairly generalising.

As I have already SAID, I never claimed that American's contributions were not enough. They did give plenty, all is good, all i'm saying is that it's nothing to boast about. And you have a point about paying in blood, and my greatest respect goes out to those men. Again, you paid in blood with a few men. So have other nations, or did you think that yours was the only one to loose people? I am not belittleing your loss, all I'm saying is that it IS the duty of America as a whole to contribute, as it is doing so. It is nothing to brag about. It does not make Americans better than anyone else.

"Their luxuries are none of my business. If I'm going to waste my time cursing someone for dropping pennies out of a limousine instead of attempting to help myself and drag myself out of that despair, then I deserve to die.I'll bet most of those people in Asia don't give a tinker's damn that we Americans haven't given up our luxuries, they only see those crates of food with Old Glory and U.S.A. stamped on the sides. They see the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln parked off the beach, with that glorious American flag flying from her mast, providing them fresh drinking water. It's you elitist Leftists in Europe and here in America who are complaining about American contributions.It doesn't matter how much George Bush is worth. The fact is he wrote out a check for ten grand out of his own personal funds. The fact that he gave of his own free will should be enough but no...all you greedy socialists believe he should give more. How much has Jacque Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder, or Kofi Annan--all socialists and none hurting for money--given out of their own funds? Did Michael Moore--a rich man himself and the king of socialist propaganda--make any contributions? How about John Kerry? Has he dipped into that wealth available to him to make a personal donation?"

Hmm. Again, I don't think that I made myself clear enough here. I was simply trying to make a point with my story. No doubt you're right about the victims not caring about American luxuries at the moment (although people may try to stir things up once casulties die down.)

And again, George Bush is a very nice man, I'm sure, I've never had the pleasure of meeting him. He's made one or two mistakes, but I have nothing huge against personally. And for the hundredth time I AM NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT OR BELITTLEING AMERICAN CONTRIBUTIONS. You've reduced me to yelling. I am simply saying that they are no more than your duty, and their existance does NOT make America the best country in the world.

'greedy socialists' for God's sake, what is with you yanks? You'd think there was some kind of eternal struggle of good versus evil between Republicans and Socialists. And you are generalising again.

And I have never said that any socialist was better than you or any American who has made a contribution. If these people haven't donated anything, then I am utterly disgusted with them, but the fact remains, I am not talking to Michael Moore, or any Arabs (presumably) or any other socialists here. I am TALKING TO REPUBLICANS. And I will therefore talk about republicans. I'm not going to sit here and have a ...a bitching...session about lefties with you.

I'm a Brit! I don't support John Kerry! I consider myself an individual and not a naive, stupid, or greedy socialist! And I resent being constantly labelled as one, simply because most of my views are similar to theirs! Take the points that I give, read them, and do not presume please.

Admiral:

"And herein lies EXACTLY what's wrong with the Socialist mindset: The assumption that "giving" is the duty of the rich in relation to the poor. "Giving", by definition, is not a duty for anybody, and the amount of giving Americans did in this instance demonstrates how much more of it you're likely to see when the giving parties see it as something they want to do and feel comfortable doing than you would if they feel it's something they're OBLIGATED to do until they're hard up themselves. Americans gave what they wanted and outdid the world. YOU want Americans to give until they're no longer rich, and that's not something you have a right to demand of anybody. "

A very interesting point, and precisely the point where we seem to clash. it is impressive how much you read into the psychology of the whole 'giving money to people whom I've never seen and will never see' thing. But again, I'm afraid that I have to disagree. I'm arguing a alightly different point.

As you say, Americans gave what they felt comfortable with, as I'm sure you did too, and outdid the world. My point is that THIS DOES NOT MAKE THEM BETTER THAN ANYBODY ELSE. They gave more, because they had more to give.

I like to think that i am not naive, and I realise that the occassion when people give to others (despite the others being the majority) until they themselves are poor, is never going to happen collectively.

My point is that whatever contributions the Americans gave were great, but not astounding cmopared to their means. You belong to the richest country in the world. I'm not demanding that people give until they are poor, that would be far too hypocritical. What I am SUGGESTING is that people people have no right to suggest that other people or countries are inferior, simply because they ha the luck to be born, or emigrate to the USA.

"There's that "duty", again. I guess it's time to dust off "The Imperialist", 'cause if it's our responsibilty to keep house, we might as well OWN it! "

I was under the impression that you did pretty much own it. Your country IS the superpower, as you showed so emphatically in the iraq situation, no body can stop you when you decide to do something, because you have more money, and bigger guns.

With great power, comes great responsibility. (excuse another cliche.)

"Why, I'm shocked! Just shocked! A couple'a good Socialists like you don't realize that everyone matters? ;) And you have to understand the concept of "benign self-interest". Americans pursuing their happiness tend to pass on great benefits to others. "

Very funny. So what exactly are you saying? Sarcastically answering my valid question when you clearly said 'those that DO matter' will not get us anywhere.

'benign self-interest'. I'm intrigued, if only by how ludicrous it sounds. I'm sorry, but it does. Elaborate, please.

"And every time a nation tries it "collectively", it fails. "

The USA certainly managed. Places like Poland and Bulgaria certainly managed after the first world war. and Israel, i have to say, hasn't done to badly for itself, although i suppose they did have US support.

"Glad to. Relieving a nation's debt doesn't automatically make it prosperous. Get rid of all its creditors and it will still be poor if there is no Capitalism or Rule of Law. Only the pursuit of wealth creates wealth. Debt relief doesn't. "

And I never claimed that it would. I merely think that it would be a huge step in the right direction. Can you imagine a single human being on this earth not actively pursuing wealth? Why else is capitalism so popular? Clearly, even the pursuit of wealth doesn't work sometimes.

"Well, I'm terribly sorry, but harsh language from the international community apparently wasn't working, since the bad guy didn't go anywhere until there WAS violence. "

Ah, the powers of subtlety. Something which helps immensely in the bigger picture. You may well be right, perhaps violence really was the only way to stop Saddam. But look at it this way. At the time, there was already a huge wave of anti-americanism sweeping the entire globe. Not many people like America as a nation, and this, surprisingly, isn't through resentment, or jealousy, but through anger, at being ignored, and being seen as inferior. Terrorist recruiters use this as a lever to get people to come and blow up your buildings. If only some of you would actually come and take a look at the rest of the world, you could make things much easier on yourselves. Waiting for just a few months, for example, until anti-Saddam media had had more time to clench on, whilst the Americans stood back, looking peaceful and concerned, would have done wonders against the problems which our armies are facing now. The recruiters wouldn't have had nearly as much firepower to get insurgents to join, far, far more nations would have followed you into Iraq, and many, many more civillians would have welcomed you.

The weapons search was called off officially the day before yesterday I think. As certain people have been saying from the very beginning, there was no 45 minute threat, which was the only justifiable reason for going in immediately.

"Could we just stop this nonsense? There were terrorists on Earth before the United States of America even existed! How we interact with the wider world is NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN the sole cause for the existence of terrorists. If the USA did a Twilight Zone-like disappearance tomorrow, there would STILL be terrorists! We're not creating them, we're just fighting them!"

You only think that it's nonsense because the idea has never been presented to you before. Look, terrorists have been around for a long time, true.

Your country's particular brand of terrorist, namely Al-Qaida, since about the 1950s.

How you interact with the wider world is not the sole cause for the existance of arabian, and palestinian, and iraqi, and british, and african, terrorists. BUT IT IS A MAIN CAUSE FOR THE EXISTANCE OF THE TERRORISTS WHOM YOU ARE FIGHTING, as you would see had any of you actually ever visited iraq at a civillian level.

And if the USA was to disappear tomorrow, so would Al-Qaeda, and all of the Iraqi insurgents, because there would be nothing to fight against.

SUBTLETY! Americans HAVE to look at ALL of the affects of their actions. Fighting the terrorists in the manner in which you are doing so at the moment IS helping to create them.

Think about it.

--Rowana and Shtarfish.

To digress, Republican criticisms of socialists are rather hollow--statists, whether on the Left or the Right, endorse many socialistic principles while paying lip service to libertarian ideals like "free markets" and "civi liberties." These days, the Republican Party has a nasty tendency to be the most hard core statist organization I know of, if you exclude the Communists.

And to whoever insinuated *I* was a Republican...no offense, but LMAO.

~Zell

"When people are dying because of it...yes."

The point of a loan is to give money to a country in order for that country to use it wisely, pull itself out of debt, and then pay us back. That is a "loan." We also give those same countries "aid" packages...which is just our tax dollars given to those Third World countries you like so much. So they have alot of money--we should not forgive all of our debts--a loan is a loan.

"(Can't believe smoeone actually asked that. Isn't the answer just a little obvious? Clearly not)"

I could say the same about the stupidity of the point.

"I'm with whatever Republican reviewed after you on this."

LOL...Giygas a Republican?! HAHAHAHHAHAHAH!!

"He signed off your money. Not his. Big difference. Again, i ask you - is ten thousand from a guy with a net worth of $9 to $26 million, generous? No."

Five bucks is generous. You know why? Because it's money someone didn't have to give. I dont care what his net worth is--he gave $10,0--that's a good chunk of money, and quite generous of him. He didn't have to give a fuckin' cent.

"It was a valid suggestion. Some people should really get out more. Stop pointlessly mocking the socialists."

It's a lameass excuse. I dont need to travel to know the US is the greatest country on the planet. And I'll mock socialists until the day I die.

-S

"He signed off for $350 million from your pocket and mine, et cetera, as if it was *his* own money to shell out. That *doesn't* work for me."

Yes he did--which is why I didn't bother "pledging" money. My tax dollars are my pledge. That it doesn't work for you Zell is, well, too bad.

-S

America is the continent, the United States of America is the country.

"We don't have a duty to give one red cent to anyone."

My point exactly. And we also have no duty, moral or Constitutional, to "liberate" certain Middle Eastern countries (or any others for that matter). I wonder sometimes why you're not more consistent in yor positions, RCS.

Your country isn't doing anything above its moral duty to the rest of mankind."

And what, pray tell, would that 'moral duty' be? You don't actually think governments are moral institutions, do you?

"He signed off for $350 million from the country he runs. That works for me."

He signed off for $350 million from your pocket and mine, et cetera, as if it was *his* own money to shell out. That *doesn't* work for me.

"...and you assasinate Tipper Gore."

Oh Gawd, the temptation is burning me up inside!

"i think it's less effort, (and more informative to readers) to type ten letters rather than sixty letters (yep. i did count)."

Ha ha! Good point! Even though I neither know nor care who Jan Egeland is.

"I actually would like to live in the US, you know. But there are major problems with your country."

Yeah, it's actually a pretty good place to live in spite of the current socialist/fascist/neocon infestation. Maybe if Libertarians got elected to more offices we could get some changes around here, but I digress...

~Zell

Somone once said "Democracy is the worst form of government except all the other ones that have been tried."

You can say the same thing about America, or 'greatest' thing. I do agree, america is a great county. Our president is just a psyco. Dont blame me when Mr. Bush (who is what his name suggests by the way) screws up: i voted Kerry. ( i dident like him much either tho...)

;)

Hey appledude, did your dad sign up for the army? Did he do that voluntarily? My guess is that he did. Don't go blaming Admiral or Bush or anyone else but some piece of shit terrorist for the death of your father. He died for his country--instead of trivializing his death and the turning the sacrifice he made into something that wasnt worth it, you should realize the duty he did and feel the pride your family is left with. I think you dishonor your father by blaming everyone else, especially the author and the president, for the death of your father.

-S

You make it seem as if a non-American who likes America is so surprising when in fact it is not. One is not obliged to support one's country of birth merely because one was born there.

I realize the point you are trying to make, Admiral, which is why i didn't even finish the essay.
Judged as an essay, I'd say it doesn't fall among higher standards of intellegence. It reminds me a little more of a rant, than a persuasive -anything. If you wish to pursuade someone (that is, someone who does not allready agree with you) then it might not be a good idea to insult the opposing arguements more than once a page. Of course, you did not claim it was a persuasive essay, so I must be stupid.
Now, judged as an opinioniative piece, I'd say it doesn't fall among higher intellegence. (Note the repitition? That would be my subtle opinion speaking.) You need more sources to be convincing.
My personal opinion agrees with the title. America is the greatest country in the world. Anybody who says "America sucks" or something along those lines should be shot for their stupidity. Not only because they are wrong, but because they cannot come to grasps with one fact: SOME Americans suck, but not ALL Americans suck. For the love of God, all you self-destructive, tree hugging, America-haters, not ALL Americans suck.

I actually felt more patriotic BEFORE reading this essay, but now I'm just raging.
"America has the kindest, gentlest foreign policy of any great power in world history."
See? Toldja so.
Oh, I see. Because an actual immigrant says it, it must be true! I noticed that Mr. D'Souza (try getting your own material for once. You do say 'well...yes I could, but some of you people weren't listening' but I'm assuming that's just an excuse not to write it yourself and not because your ego is the size of Texas) says that 'America is the best bla bla bla in the world' but gives no facts. Now, if he said,"America has 85% of it's population in middle class, which is better than the second best, Canada, which is only 23%..." or some other actual statistic, I would have bothered to listen.
Second of all, I hate the things you DID bother to write. You succeed very well in insulting your readers every turn with your snottiness. "Wait. You mean that there was actually somebody out there from the Old World that came to America and liked it so much that he was willing to stay?? Like forever??" Cut down on the snotiness and the question marks.
Finally, just because America is good doesn't mean it doesn't have faults. I don't care what they did in the past, that's the past. But just because a country is the best in the world doesn't mean we should ignore its problems. That's what makes America so great, that we can whine about every little thing that bothers us. There isn't much racism now, but imagine how much their would be if people didn't get into a rage every time someone was treated unfairly? You can't just say,"Oh, their are problems, but America is so great we should just be happy with what he have and do nothing about them." Just because we complain does not mean we hate America. I love America. I especially love that you can complain. We are complaining so that the people in our beloved country will have an even better life. We are happy as we are but know we'll be even happier if we bring up the problems.

I agree that America is the best country in the world, and I don't mean that in a "we're better than you" sense.
Even in this lagging economy when wages are stagnant and consumer spending is down, we still have one of the best economies in the world. We also have the highest standards of living in the world with water quality, housing quality, housing space, quality of education etc.
There's always room for improvement, but we're doing just fine.

yea! (jumps up and down and claps.) Thank you, thank you, thank you! You stated the truth so many people need to be foreced to hear. I'm glad i'm not the only one who feels this way! Yea! You made me so happy!
~Ebony

I just woke up...lets hope I stay coherent. Happy 4th of July to everyone...of course the Declaration wasnt signed on the 4th...the resolution to have it produced (which, you could say, is our original Independence Day) was July 2nd. On the 4th, all but one colony voted to adopt the Declaration...NY waited until the 9th to vote, when Washington read the Declaration aloud to the Continental Army in Central Park. The actual signers didn't even begin putting their names on the document until July 19! Just a little history...

Here we go:

"Not as much as you think you egotist"

Eogtist? I think not...I'm just right all the time.

"Well regardless of what I said before, I'm back now and I'm not giving up just yet."

Time will tell my dear...

"Argov was the victim of the offensive therefore he was the one attacked--not Europe."

Yes but the location of the attack has meaning. Just like killing Americans on American soil, instead of elsewhere. The attack was two-fold--it killed the intended victim and embarrassed Europe.

"As for the relationship between us and the Saudis--they don't like us, we just buy oil from them."

No, some of they do genuinely like us to some exetent.

"Really? Then how come Kay himself said there wasn't any in his address to Congress?"

Kay only reported to Congress that he had not found any stockpiles of completed weapons and that he would be hardpressed to believe that any existed. But soon after he made that comment, several sentences later Kay said "We were wrong. Iraq is even more dangerous than we originally believed." So obviously he found something over there that spooked him. That something? Dual-use facilities, tons of them, along with pesticides, chemicals...plenty to get a WMD program started in mere hours.

"But it is possible"

So me becoming a world famous writer...say, that might actually happen...

"ALMOST ALL comics have some grain of truth."

Maramduke, BC, I could name a ton that dont.

"Texas is more southwest."

It's both. It's very big.

"Rodeos aren't famous in North Carolina, South Carolina,Virginia,Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, etc."

Since when?! They're popular down here in South Florida! They're popular in those states as well.

"Also rodeos can occur in Minnesota, the Dakotas, etc.--places in the north"

Yep, southern tradition made it's way north.

"True Southerners born and raised."

They are quite the minority then.

"Especially when the "truth" as you call it is really just a bunch of conservative bias"

Three words: prove me wrong.

-S

First things first--Admiral: you're absolutely sure it's okay for me and Steve to continue this debate on your review boards? If it's not just tell us and we'll stop annoying you.
That said, let's get down to business.
Steve:
"Yes, I know. You'll find that happens alot"
Not as much as you think you egotist.
"Too late, you already did that. At this point you could give up and I wouldn't rip you on it, because to do so would be wasteful. Likewise, I could bow out at any moment and be clear--I didnt propose to give up. you did."
Well regardless of what I said before, I'm back now and I'm not giving up just yet.
"Which would mean it is an attack against Europe. It shows they arent safe either."
It was merely an attack in Europe not against Europe. Argov was the intended victim. The word attack is defined as an offensive against a person,place, etc. by another person, place, etc. Argov was the victim of the offensive therefore he was the one attacked--not Europe.
As for the relationship between us and the Saudis--they don't like us, we just buy oil from them. There are a LOT of Wahabi fundametalists there who would like nothing better than to see the U.S. wiped from the planet.
"Oh bet me we did find more than a trace. We found much more..."
Really? Then how come Kay himself said there wasn't any in his address to Congress?
" "So the whole nuclear capabilities thing could have been wrong." Not probable."
But it is possible.
"Oh? What truth is there in Garfield?"
ALMOST ALL comics have some grain of truth. Probably even Garfield--it shows how a man can't control his pets, a problem that actually happens (not to the extent of the comic of course, that would just be impossible).
"Texas isn't the south? Some of the best rodeo stars are from the South."
Texas is more southwest. Rodeos aren't famous in North Carolina, South Carolina,Virginia,Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, etc. Also rodeos can occur in Minnesota, the Dakotas, etc.--places in the north.
"Furthermore, are they true Southerners? Or transplants?"
True Southerners born and raised.
"Yeah, its fun to make fun of the truth."
Especially when the "truth" as you call it is really just a bunch of conservative bias.
~Strawberri Shake

Hey Darrin, let us know when you get tired of us posting on your board.

Strawberry Fruit Roll-up:
"Yeah well as much as it pains me to say it you're right--"

Yes, I know. You'll find that happens alot.

"there is still a lot to argue and I refuse to give up first. So for I'm back and I'm not stepping down first."

Too late, you already did that. At this point you could give up and I wouldn't rip you on it, because to do so would be wasteful. Likewise, I could bow out at any moment and be clear--I didnt propose to give up. you did.

"The Argov assasination does indeed have a message in it--England needs to heighten its security and not allow crazy assasins to strike inside its borders."

Which would mean it is an attack against Europe. It shows they arent safe either.

"don't make me laugh--the Saudi's have oil, we want oil, we give them money. they're not really our buddies--we simply have a trade agreement with them"

Semantics.

"Saudi Arabia is controlled by Wahabi fundamentalists who hate anything Western except for our money."

The Royal Family and most Saudis are indeed Wahabi, they are not Wahabi fundamentalists.

"Osama bin Ladin is definately one such Saudi who hates us."

He is Saudi, but he is an ultra-Wahabi, not like the Royal Family. Which is why he's tried and wants to kill them.

'Not even a trace."

Oh bet me we did find more than a trace. We found much more...enough so that both David Kay, Blix, and the guy in Kay's position have all agreed Iraq was a growing threat--such a threat that Kay even declared "Iraq was much more dangerous than we thought." He was alking abot the tons and tons of pesticides and various ingridients found in or nearby dual use facilities, that, according to both inspectors (Kay and his successor) could have produced weapons in a moments notice.

"So the whole nuclear capabilities thing could have been wrong."

Not probable.

"I know what I'm talking about and their views are curiously close to yours."

So they too say they want to send troops out to countries just to get them killed?

"True, rednecks are the classic caricature of the conservative but in every comic there is some grain of truth."

Oh? What truth is there in Garfield?

"Rodeos are from the west not the south."

Texas isn't the south? Some of the best rodeo stars are from the South.

"Also, you're making it sound like most southerners are rednecks."

MOST are.

"They're not. My brothers (the ones who live in Virginia) are the total opposite of rednecks. (yes they're liberals like me)."

I never said "all." Furthermore, are they true Southerners? Or transplants? I know alot of transplants in the South too, and they've even had a change of culture. The South is just a different culture, and that culture happens to be conservative. To you, that means EVERYONE is a redneck. So Sean Hannity is one, right? And Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Peggy Noonan...

"funny--I feel the same way about conservatives."

Yeah, its fun to make fun of the truth.

"So once again--I won't be the one to back off first."

Too late: "after this I'm not argueing it any more."

--Steve

S:
"There's plenty to argue, trust me. You left...well, wanted to anyway..."
Yeah well as much as it pains me to say it you're right--there is still a lot to argue and I refuse to give up first. So for I'm back and I'm not stepping down first.
"The Argov assassination gets attributed-he could have killed anywhere, but it was in a European country--there's a message there."
The Argov assasination does indeed have a message in it--England needs to heighten its security and not allow crazy assasins to strike inside its borders. Especially when such assasination attempts help trigger international incidents such as helping trigger Israel's invasion of Lebanon.
"Funny, the Saudis have been our buddies since FDR"
don't make me laugh--the Saudi's have oil, we want oil, we give them money. they're not really our buddies--we simply have a trade agreement with them. Saudi Arabia is controlled by Wahabi fundamentalists who hate anything Western except for our money. Osama bin Ladin is definately one such Saudi who hates us.
"prior to the war in Iraq, most intelligence officials pegged Hussein at having the capabilities of creating and using a nuclear weapon within five years."
intelligence officials also said Hussein had biological and chemical WMDs. Did we find any when we barged in there to oust Hussein? Not even a trace. So the whole nuclear capabilities thing could have been wrong.
I have actually been tok the South and met one. I have relatives down there (southern Virginia) and while visiting them I've met their neighbors--rednecks. I know what I'm talking about and their views are curiously close to yours. True, rednecks are the classic caricature of the conservative but in every comic there is some grain of truth.
Country music and the rodeo represent the south?! Rodeos are from the west not the south. No comment on the country music. Also, you're making it sound like most southerners are rednecks. They're not. My brothers (the ones who live in Virginia) are the total opposite of rednecks. (yes they're liberals like me).
"(because let's face it, liberals need to be mocked)"
funny--I feel the same way about conservatives.
So once again--I won't be the one to back off first.
~S S

Stop, this is too much fun.

Frozen Strawberries:

"I'm not "run off" as you so charmingly put it quite yet."

And I quote:
"So I'll be the mature one and say this is my last post on the matter--after this I'm not argueing it any more."

Had I not begged for a response (which I anticapted to be good comedy and was richly rewarded) you wouldn't have come back. You ran off. There's plenty to argue, trust me. You left...well, wanted to anyway...

"what it REMAINS is a load of truth."

LOL...okay, you find me someone who isn't liberal to agree with you that Europe isnt trying to meddle in world affairs.

"The attempted assasination of Argov and the explosion in Bali were superfuous examples."

The Argov assassination gets attributed-he could have killed anywhere, but it was in a European country--there's a message there. Bali was just a good example, regardless of it's location. Either way, I proved my point with the others. And you couldn't make excuses for those.

"we had several attacks culminating in 9/11 because we were too involved in Middle Eastern conflicts and made the U.S. an enemy of just about every Middle Eastern nation with the exception of Israel."

Funny, the Saudis have been our buddies since FDR (yeah, look it up) and Egypt didn't have much of a problem with us, etc. We're the enemy because the fundamentalists want us to be--our actions in fixing the problem the British and French created out there only added fuel to their already burning bonfire.

"And do we always beat the odds? NO"

That's why they're called "odds" my dear. You take the chance.

"There won't BE a future generation of America if the present one is killed off because of some war we dragged ourselves into where we had no business being."

Hypothetical situation: prior to the war in Iraq, most intelligence officials pegged Hussein at having the capabilities of creating and using a nuclear weapon within five years. That was about a year and a half ago, so had we not gone in, we'd be within 3 and a half years of Hussein having nuclear weapon capabilities. Lets say then, after that amount of time (roughly the fall of 2007/winter 2008) we are attacked by noneother than Hussein's nuclear weapon. Do you want to guess how many liberals would be up in arms about why we didn't do anyting before? You'd be one of them. So before you start deciding what is and isn't relevent to the US, take a long, hard look at the "what if" scenario. You'd find it to be quite chilling. So the question is this: are you of the mind of waiting to be attacked and THEN striking back? Or are you of the mind of taking out the problem before it becomes a catastrophe?

Now for my favorite part:

The "Redneck Mentality":

The mentality of a person who is more interested in getting thousands of Americans killed someplace far away than keeping them alive and out of a war we had no business being in anyway. The mentality of a person who is so arrogant that he won't even take into account liberal opinions--just mock and dismiss them. That is the mentality I was talking about."

Okay, so let's talk about this. I, along with every other conservative that supports Bush or the war (and there's alot of them) are "rednecks" with the mentality that we WANT to sent tons of our American soliders to die in a needless war just "because." So then Sean Hannity is a redneck? He doesn't look like a redneck (nor does he sound like one). Rush Limbaugh is a redneck then, right? Ann Coulter? All these people mock liberals (because let's face it, liberals need to be mocked) and, according to your brilliant line of logic here, they're rednecks. Tell me Strawberry Yogurt, have you ever met a "redneck?" Have you been to the South and met one? I have, I live right down the street from 'em, even though I live in South Florida. That "mentality" is not the mentality of a genuine redneck. Redneck's are country folks, not too concerned with big city life, like to work with their hands, enjoy the outdoors and stay outside most of the tim (with the sun to their backs, hence their RED NECKS). They're simple minded, and that doesnt mean they're stupid, but they're just cut and dry, black and white (not in a racial meaning)kind of people. That's rednecks. They like country music and the rodeo. Why? Because they're Southern, and those two things have come to represent the South. So before you go off with your little liberal buddies who also parrot the same ridiculous assumption (that, because someone is conservative they're automatically a redneck) I'd suggest thinking before you type and actually discover what really makes a redneck. Now if you'll excuse me, it's time to tear apart your argument on that Outside the Square fool's essay.

-S

Steve:
Fine you wanted a response so badly--you'll get one.
"Damnit, all done here too...I just run 'em off dont I?"
I'm not "run off" as you so charmingly put it quite yet.
"And that REMAINS a load of crap--plain and simple."
what it REMAINS is a load of truth.
"And the shootings in Rome? The explosions in European nightclubs? You going to make excuses for those?"
I wasn't making excuses for those. But if you're going to come up with a list of examples to support an arguement at least make sure thos examples are RELEVENT to said arguement. The attempted assasination of Argov and the explosion in Bali were superfuous examples.
"Thats why we had several attacks culminating in 9/11--because of that kind of thinking."
Oh so it's back to this again. I'll say it again: we had several attacks culminating in 9/11 because we were too involved in Middle Eastern conflicts and made the U.S. an enemy of just about every Middle Eastern nation with the exception of Israel. Those enemies included the terrorists who were responsible for the aforementioned events.


" The reverse, which is how Dubya and Reagan thought puts us in a precarious position--one of uncharted territory that gives us immeasurable odds we're willing to take to protect future generations of Americans. It's just that simple."
And do we always beat the odds? NO. There won't BE a future generation of America if the present one is killed off because of some war we dragged ourselves into where we had no business being.
"What, pray tell, is "that kind of mentality?" "
The mentality of a person who is more interested in getting thousands of Americans killed someplace far away than keeping them alive and out of a war we had no business being in anyway. The mentality of a person who is so arrogant that he won't even take into account liberal opinions--just mock and dismiss them. That is the mentality I was talking about.
~Strawberri Shake

Damnit, all done here too...I just run 'em off dont I?

Strawberry Pop-Tarts:

"All I'm commenting on is the double standard on which countries we choose to invade."

It's not a double standard though--its a matter of importance. Right now, sadly, the economy of the world is directly effected by oil, so that puts the Middle East in the forefront of everyone's concerns. It's not that hard to figure out darlin'.

"But the British aren't trying to control world politics as much as we are."

And that REMAINS a load of crap--plain and simple.

"it wasn't against a European or a negative action towards Europe."

And the shootings in Rome? The explosions in European nightclubs? You going to make excuses for those?

"I thought we were talking about Europe here. SInce when is Indonesia in Europe?"

Just pointing out other examples.

"In the case of war when we're really not sure if we'd succeed to not try at all and spare ourselves the lives and money."

Thats why we had several attacks culminating in 9/11--because of that kind of thinking. The reverse, which is how Dubya and Reagan thought puts us in a precarious position--one of uncharted territory that gives us immeasurable odds we're willing to take to protect future generations of Americans. It's just that simple.

"I never said you were from the south--you just have that kind of mentality."

Oh please, PLEASE respond just one more time with an answer to this question: What, pray tell, is "that kind of mentality?" PLEASE, I'm begging, answer.

"Geez, you should be a writer or something professionally--you seem to come up with good nicknames for characters. Strawberries and Whip Cream?! What the hell?! Anyway isn't it whipped cream?"

Yes, it's whipped cream, but Cool Whip is just Whip, and since I capitalized it, I was talking about Cool Whip.

-S

SL:
This arguement has gone on long enough. It's too the point where the original point of the arguement has long been lost. So I'll be the mature one and say this is my last post on the matter--after this I'm not argueing it any more.
"Yet you're complaining we DIDNT go into Cuba!"
I wasn't complaining that we didn't go into Cuba--I'm glad we didn't: it would be another useless war had we gone. All I'm commenting on is the double standard on which countries we choose to invade.
"So is Europe! Or is Britain excluded? Oh, you forgot about the Falkland Islands!"
I hadn't forgotten them--and I didn't say it was right that the British sent troops there in the 1980s either. I actually condemn Thatcher for doing that. But the British aren't trying to control world politics as much as we are.
"the June 1982 attempt to assassinate Israeli ambassador Shlomo Argov in London, which helped trigger Israel’s invasion of Lebanon."
once again--it wasn't against a European or a negative action towards Europe. Argov just happened to be in London.
"the big explosion in Bali--remember that? Since when did Indonesia do anything so wrong?"
I thought we were talking about Europe here. SInce when is Indonesia in Europe?
"And whats better? To try and have a shot at success or not try at all?"
In the case of war when we're really not sure if we'd succeed to not try at all and spare ourselves the lives and money.
Regarding the redneck comment--you could have a redneck mentality and be from New York City. I never said you were from the south--you just have that kind of mentality.
Geez, you should be a writer or something professionally--you seem to come up with good nicknames for characters. Strawberries and Whip Cream?! What the hell?! Anyway isn't it whipped cream?
~STRAWBERRI SHAKE

Strawberries and Whip Cream:

Amazing, your argument continues to shrink...

"OF COURSE I knew that they were two different events. I'm not as stupid as you make me out to be."

That's up to interpretation.

"The liberals were complaining about entering Iraq too but did it stop us? No. (It should have though)."

Yet you're complaining we DIDNT go into Cuba! Make up you're goddamn mind!

"India isn't in the Middle East--it's in Southern Asia.'

No shit. It's another area that isn't Europe.

"And it was technically part of the UK--so the UK was taking care of internal business there--not going into an independent country and trying to make it a democracy."

LOL..so imperialism is okay, freedom isnt! LOL...that's hilarious. You're trying to tell me Europe doesn't try to meddle into world affairs and yet thats all they've done for the past 100 years. So give it up, you're wrong.

"in the Age of Imperialism and the US is STILL butting into external affairs way after the Age of Imperialism was over."

So is Europe! Or is Britain excluded? Oh, you forgot about the Falkland Islands!

To get my answer...

"As for South America--the UK was simply an economic power there since the Monroe Doctrine was signed."

So it's okay for OTHER countries to meddle into world affairs, just not ours?

"It was 1972 smart one. And it wasn't against Europeans, it was against the Israeli team who happened to be competing in Europe. That's different."

Okay, then how about these:

- the December 1985 attacks on El Al airport counters in Rome and Vienna, which killed 18 people and injured 1;

- the June 1982 attempt to assassinate Israeli ambassador Shlomo Argov in London, which helped trigger Israel’s invasion of Lebanon.

And that's just from ONE organization!

How about al-Qaida? Okay:

They attacked, in October of 2002, a FRENCH oil tanker. The big explosion in Bali--remember that? Since when did Indonesia do anything so wrong? There's been plenty of attacks in Europe--I've listed a precious few. Don't think they are impervious and don't think we only warrant them because we support Israel or we went into Iraq. Trust me, its much more than that darlin.

"And we were so sure it would succeed? That's America's problem--it rushes blindly into wars like that."

LOL...oh God, that's hilarious. We "rush" into wars? Twelve years is "rushing" to you? What other wars did we "rush" into, hmm? LOL...Strawberry Shortcake, you're good comedy. And whats better? To try and have a shot at success or not try at all?

"Oh God please don't. If my history teacher of last year was a liberal hippie then you'll be a conservative redneck."

YES!! THERE IT IS!! LET ALL WHO READ THIS SEE I AM NOW A REDNECK! I LOVE IT! THE GENIUS OF LIBERALS COMES OUT YET AGAIN! SIMPLY BECAUSE I RIP THE LEFT AND LIBERALS AND AGREE WITH GEORGE BUSH I AM A TRAILER-TRASH, PIECE OF SHIT, REDNECK FROM SOMEWHERE IN THE SOUTH!!

And all without even knowing where I live! What if I live in Maine? Am I a redneck? Or in Pennsylvania? Or Arizona? Hm? How are you so sure I live in the South? LOL...damn I love liberals. Just endless hours of comedy.

-S

Strawberry Banana,

"This arguement is getting old, boring, and stupid."

It took you this long?

"He was a master negotiater. He was the one who master minded the CDAs in case you forgot. I think that gets filed under "pretty damn good""

LOL...he didn't mastermind anything--Sadat wanted the Sinai back and knew the only way that would happen would be peace with the Israelis. He masterminded the location. That's about it. Carter gets filed under the incompetent fool section.

"Yes I do blame the Cold War for the spread of Islamic fundamentalism"

Oy.

"Yes, I do remember the Cuban Missle Crisis/failed Bay of Pigs invasion. And after that we didn't try 30, 40 years later to oust Castro again? Why not?"

I hope you do know they were two different events. And we did try again--in 1983, when Cuba built airstrips in Grenada and took hostage some American students. We cleaned house as a precursor to let Castro know we could go in whenever we wanted. But your group, the liberals, complained (of course! We were going after a commie!) and so we couldn't go in.

"They were only trying to control politics in Europe. If it affected something within their borders then it affected them and their safety. Ex. the British had a right to try to control German politics because the Germans were close enough geographically to invade easily. If the British tried to control politics in lets say Mexico that would be different."

What about India? Oh, your AP European history class never got to that did it? Yeah, well, the British were running the show there, the Middle East, in South America, etc...so your theory holds NO water.

"My point was that since the Europeans didn't meddle with world politics they didn't get attacked by terrorists. 3/11 in Spain was only one instance."

Oh dear God. Look up the Red Brigades--you'll see. Oh, and lest I forget: the Munich Massacre in 72(or 74?) at the Olympics? That was in Germany. Or you have the bombings by Abu Nidal--the shootings at the Rome airport...darling, there's so much I can't even begin to get into. Put it this way: you're WRONG.

"Now you just added to my list of things that happened to the U.S."

I thought you were AP history? Shouldnt you know that already?

"I never said we should do that all I said was that we were in the Middle East without giving any thought to places like that because the Middle East had oil. Now that's just a bit hypocritical isn't it?"

Sadly, the world runs on oil and economic stability--so the problems of the Middle East take center stage.

"Yeah well almost being the key word here. Did it work? NO. All it did was get them both more pissed then ever at us."

And we knew it would fail?

"LOL LMAO--full of yourself much are you Steve?"

I have no idea what you're talking about.

"Do you have anything better to do than come up with stupid, insulting nicknames?"

I'm on my day off--so no.

--S

Steve:
This arguement is getting old, boring, and stupid.
Just a point on my political and economic views: you're right being a capitalist liberal is an oxymoron. However, I know how stupid socialism can be and how it gets in the way of making money for the common person and since I like having money to spend, I'm agreeing with conservatives on this one issue. HOWEVER--I consider myself a liberal overall because of all my other beliefs-- anti-war, anti-Bush, pro-choice, etc.
"No, sweetie, you dont. And it scares me what they could possibly be teaching you in these honors classes. And by the way, per the review you left me--Carter as a great president? What hooch are you smoking, because that kind of thought can only be brought on through some sort of mind-altering substance."
He was a master negotiater. He was the one who master minded the CDAs in case you forgot. I think that gets filed under "pretty damn good"
"Are you telling me you blame the Cold War on the rise of Islamic fundamentalism? While in part is was a "helper" (if you will) to fuel the spread of it, the fundamentalists themselves grew out of teachings from radical imams. And yes, we all know we helped train and arm the mujahadeen--they used the same tactics on us in Somalia in 1993--the source of the movie and book Black Hawk Down."
Yes I do blame the Cold War for the spread of Islamic fundamentalism.

"Didn't we try to step in in Cuba? What happened? Do you remember? Kennedy blew it."
Yes, I do remember the Cuban Missle Crisis/failed Bay of Pigs invasion. And after that we didn't try 30, 40 years later to oust Castro again? Why not?
"That would be those silly Europeans who, according to you, "don't always try to control world politics"--oh wait, I'm sure you'll tell me: "that was then, this is now"--something I look forward to seeing."

They were only trying to control politics in Europe. If it affected something within their borders then it affected them and their safety. Ex. the British had a right to try to control German politics because the Germans were close enough geographically to invade easily. If the British tried to control politics in lets say Mexico that would be different.
" You missed one: October 17, 1993 in Somalia. Those Muslims we fought in the Bakara Market were al-Qaida sympathizers and troops. They were trained by Al-Qaida. That why they were able to take down our helicopters--they used the same technique we taught them."
You just proved my point with giving me another example. My point was that since the Europeans didn't meddle with world politics they didn't get attacked by terrorists. 3/11 in Spain was only one instance. Now you just added to my list of things that happened to the U.S.
"Right, but saving the day in the Congo is something we SHOULD do though."
I never said we should do that all I said was that we were in the Middle East without giving any thought to places like that because the Middle East had oil. Now that's just a bit hypocritical isn't it?
"LOL..and yet in just a few sentences you say you're PRO-CAPITALIST! LMAO...thats just good comedy, I'm sorry."
Yes, I AM pro-capitalist but even I know to stop with the money-obssesion when it leads to war--which just causes the death of a hell of a lot of people who could be working to make more goods for a country to trade and boost that country's economy even further.
"Reagan didn't like either of them and played them like chess--we made very little money off either. That whole thing was about getting rid of two problems for the price of one. And it almost worked."
Yeah well almost being the key word here. Did it work? NO. All it did was get them both more pissed then ever at us.
"But you missed charming, debonaire, and dashingly handsome"
LOL LMAO--full of yourself much are you Steve?
So now it's Strawberry Shortcake. I think I liked being called Milkshake better than that. Do you have anything better to do than come up with stupid, insulting nicknames?
~Strawberri Shake

Strawberry Shortcake,

Ready? Let us begin.

"For your information I AM a student of history. I took an excelled level World History class this past year in school and got the highest mark in the class. So I actually DO know what I'm talking about."

No, sweetie, you dont. And it scares me what they could possibly be teaching you in these honors classes. And by the way, per the review you left me--Carter as a great president? What hooch are you smoking, because that kind of thought can only be brought on through some sort of mind-altering substance.

"I concede that we didn't "create" the Taliban but we sure as hell helped to arm them and train their soldiers in combat techniques. All this to get back at the Soviets. See what the Cold War did? I fully blame the Cold War for what happened later with Afghanistan."

What are you talking about exactly? What later? After we removed the Taliban? Are you telling me you blame the Cold War on the rise of Islamic fundamentalism? While in part is was a "helper" (if you will) to fuel the spread of it, the fundamentalists themselves grew out of teachings from radical imams. And yes, we all know we helped train and arm the mujahadeen--they used the same tactics on us in Somalia in 1993--the source of the movie and book Black Hawk Down.

"So it all goes back to the money--to protect our oil rights so America could make money from Kuwaiti oil and so the global economy wouldn't collapse and America wouln't lose money then."

You say that like it's a bad thing. Oh no! The US and UK stepped in at the pleading and behest of the UN, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait and saved much of the world's economic markets! Us bastards!

" It had nothing to do with freeing the Kuwaitis from oppression--if the U.S. were that moral and great we would have done it for places we had no economic interest in whatsoever such as Cuba under Castro or Zaire (the Congo now) under Mobuto Sese Seko."

See that's what I love about you liberals. Didn't we try to step in in Cuba? What happened? Do you remember? Kennedy blew it. Then, when Reagan basically gave Castro a peep-show in Grenada, the left got mad we were going to go to war with Cuba. Tell me, if ol' Dubya were to step up tomorrow and tell you he was going to free the Cuban people, would you be behind him? Of if he said he was committing forces to free the people of the Congo. How fast would you be behind him? I know the answer: you wouldn't. So please, don't feed me that USDA bullcrap about "oh if the US was really that great we would have gone to places with no economic interest." Then you can tell me what the hell we were gaining by going into Somalia. What great economic booster resided in that armpit of a country? Or perhaps we made a ton of money in Bosnia! Sure, we all know they've got a precious resource...they must! The US was there! So much for that theory.

"The League of Nations was all talk and no military strength and all the Treaty of Versailles did was piss Hitler off enough to want to make him become militarily stronger."

That would be those silly Europeans who, according to you, "don't always try to control world politics"--oh wait, I'm sure you'll tell me: "that was then, this is now"--something I look forward to seeing.

" However, not only did we have the 9/11 disaster, we also had the USS Cole blown up, the bombings at the American Embassies in Tanzinia and Kenya, and the attempted bombing of the Twin Towers in 1993."

It wasnt attempted--the van blew up my dear. And it killed three people. And one of the bombers went to Iraq immediately after, where he was protected by none other than Saddam Hussein. Oh, and that bomber was apart of a beginning Al-Qaida. But enough about that! You missed one: October 17, 1993 in Somalia. Those Muslims we fought in the Bakara Market were al-Qaida sympathizers and troops. They were trained by Al-Qaida. That why they were able to take down our helicopters--they used the same technique we taught them. History isnt without a sense of irony. But notice something--all those events you named before 9/11...who was President? I'll give you a hint: not Bush.

"I just think that if we paid a bit more attention to our own problems instead of those overseas in a place as big as New Jersey we might not have so many terrorist problems."

Right, but saving the day in the Congo is something we SHOULD do though.

"We gave the Iraqis the weapons they fought us with in Desert Storm and "Operation Iraqui Freedom" to be politically correct."

Oh really? LOL...so I must have been imagining things when I saw all that Soviet-era equipment, like T-72 tanks, MiG-25 and MiG-29s, etc. You're right, that's American.

"And yes, we played both sides against each other to make as much money out of both of them as possible--which shows again that sometimes we should leave the money-making alone and worry about ourselves."

LOL..and yet in just a few sentences you say you're PRO-CAPITALIST! LMAO...thats just good comedy, I'm sorry. So it was all about the money, is that it? Who taught you that? My money is on some hippie-era teacher. God forbid they teach the truth, which is that Reagan didn't like either of them and played them like chess--we made very little money off either. That whole thing was about getting rid of two problems for the price of one. And it almost worked.

"I just did and I AM a history student. I'm in AP U.S. AND A.P. European history for next year."

Write the President a letter telling him what school you attend and be sure to attach our little chats here. I'll promise you money will be diverted immediately to fund your school so that the history you're taught is real and not made up in some hippie liberal's head.

"You remind me of an ex-boyfriend of mine--arrogant, Republican, right-wing, jerk."

LOL...I like him already! But you missed charming, debonaire, and dashingly handsome.

"(and if being a Democrat, anti-war, pro-captitalist, left winger makes me a liberal then I am damn proud to be one)"

As sad as that may be, lets break something down here for you: being pro-capitalist and a left winger at the same time is a paradox. They're polar opposites--the left would like to see socialism and communism exist--capitalism is their mortal enemy. What the hell history do they teach? What state do you live in? I'll be a teacher in one year, so I'll head up your way.

-Steve

Yet another sad sad soul who knows little about history. Here we go...

Strawberry Milkshake:

"The Soviets could not have done that much to arm him--they were bogged down in Afghanistan at that time fighting the mujahadeen."

Dear God I hope that was sarcasm. What, does an entire country stop during a war? Is the United States at an absolute standstill because we're in Iraq?! Nope. They armed him...check out Hussein's arsenal before his removal: 98% of it is Russian. The other 2% is French. The Soviets armed him, and it was their chemical weapons which he used on the Kurds in 1988--the Soviets had been out of Afghanistan for quite sometime.

"Which by the way we also helped to create--we armed them to fight the Soviets. So we helped create the Taliban also. Ain't America glorious?"

We didn't "create" the mujahadeen, we merely supported them. The mujahadeen created the mujahadeen. And we didn't create the Taliban either. We supported anti-Soviet forces, doing everything we could to keep the weapons out of the hands of those who viewed the US as enemies too. When the Soviets left, the mujahadeen had control of Afghanistan, but there was a fundamental split: one group (the talibs, or "students") believed Afghanistan should be run in the strictest of Wahhabi ways and used as a staging ground for an international jihad. The other group (which became the Northern Alliance) believe Afghanistan should be strict, but not as strict as the Taliban was advocating and that their jihad was over. The United States had nothing to do with it. So guess what? You're wrong.

"The UN begs us to do many many things. Do we do all of them? No. Why did we do this one? Simple--Kawait had oil. We needed oil and the money we got from it in the U.S."

First, sweetie, it's Kuwait, with a U. And second, Hussein would have caused destabilization in the region had he continued. A destabilization that would have played havoc with most of the world's economy. That's why we went in.

"Because OF COURSE the British did something when Israel got invaded back in 1948 right after it became a country. NOT. The Israelis had to defend themselves when Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebenon, Syria, and Iraq attacked them. They basically made the Balfour Dec. and the Sykes-Picot agreement and said "hey Arabs and Israelis--you can divide the territory now--have fun killing each other""

You are not a history student. That much is clear. The British made those agreements during WWI. After which, they split the area of southwestern Syria into two mandates: Palestine and Transjordan. Before they left in 1947, they realized something needed to be done about the growing ethnic problems. They told the UN to fix it--they did, by splitting the British mandate of Palestine into population-decided countries. The places with the most Arabs would be Palestine. The places with the most Jews would be Israel. The point I was making was that Britain has gotten herself into her fair share of trying to control world politics--counter to your argument that said she didnt.

"The U.S. wants Israel to remaina a whole, Israeli nation instead of be divided between Arabs and Israelis."

WHAT?! Bush spent all last year working on a "road map" that would split Israel into Israel and a legitmate Palestinian state. Where do you live, Antartica?

"The Europeans wanted a split--an Israeli and Arab nation in the territory of Palistine"

LOL...you're incredible. My God this is getting funny.

"The only thing the U.S. did to try to give the Arabs SOME land was the Camp David Accords. The land I refer too is the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Yet there is still fighting there today--Palistinians are still being persecuted and Israelis are still dying. So really all CDAs did was get Egypt and Israel off each others' backs--something Sadat wanted anyway. Well that and make the U.S. an even greater enemy of the Arab world. Yeah, really affective."

Someone get her a history book, QUICK! Thats it huh? So Clinton's efforts (about the only thing you can like about the guy) that was the closest Palestine ever was to a state or Bush's "Road Map" never happened right? And we were a problem for the Arabs in 1967, after the Israelis whooped ass in 6 days and we threw our support behind them.

"On Chamberlain's appeasement: yes I agree that was just about the dumbest thing anybody could have done BUT--Hitler was a very powerful madman. Had the British chosen to stop Hitler from invading Czechoslovakia and Austria, they might not have been able too. By that time Hitler had a powerful army, a strong ally in Italy, and could probably have found a few supporters in Austria and the Sudatenland part of Czechoslovakia."

Oh please. The failure was in allowing Hitler to even get that strong.

"Europeans did next to nothing for Israel. While this might have been morally wrong, they didn't get attacked by al-Quaeda members."

So Spain getting hit on 3/11 was nothing?

"We did. So look where our helpfulness and morality with Israel got us--attacked by terrorists."

WOW...if that wasnt anti-Israeli.

"I'm not stupid nor naive enough to believe that the Arab-Israeli conflict was the only one that caused 9/11 and similar events."

Could have fooled me.

"The Iraqis have a problem with Iran (the Sunni-Shiite conflict) and want war. We arm the Iraqis to help fight the Fundamentalist Iranians creating the monster of Saddam and the enmity of us from Iran."

Help her, anyone. The Hussein was a monster far before we even began talking to him in the 1980s. We didn't CREATE him either. And nobody knows why Hussein bothered attacking Iran except to conquer the Shiite stronghold (of which Iraq is the second largest Shiite population) and establish dominance in the region. He was a mad mad far before that. And keep in mind that we privately funded Iran too--we played the two against each other.

"Then we realize what we did after our oil is threatened by Saddam in Kuwait. Big mistake? DUH. We should have just let Khomeini take over in Iran without trying to butt into their war."

Is someone trying to play a joke on me? This is good comedy.

"There is no "Milkshake" in my name so stop calling me that. It's Strawberri (with an i not a y) Shake. No MILK in it. Got it Lawrie?"

Mah milkshake's better than your's...

You need to take about a year's worth of history classes and foriegn policy classes.

Thanks for the review on the other story though :)

--S

SL:
"WE?! Oh you mean Strawberry Milkshake. Im sure she can speak for herself."

If you had BOTHERED to read the end of my review, you would have seen I am not Canadienne at all but from the U.S. So don't pick apart my review unless you have read all of it.
And yes, I CAN (and just did) speak for myself.
~Strawberri Shake

Jesus Christ, did she write enough? I have neither time nor the energy to even bother with half of this mind boggling crap--most of it was superfluous writing meant to portray you, FeminSt Beth, as intelligent. Sadly, however, you failed miserably. Here's why:

"Cause if you're trying to sound rational, or reasonable, or to be honest, coherent, saying that Canada does not have any refugees really doesn't make you look at all intelligent."

Oh I'm sure Canada has refugees...but what you Canucks lack is the massive ILLEGAL immigration problem the United States has to deal with. Last time I checked, 180 Haitians weren't making their way to Prince Edward Island across some of the most treacherous waters in the Atlantic on a boat made for 20. Call me crazy.

"Also a fascinating point, the entire first part of the essay? Didn't you base that on the opinions of an emigrant? Did he storm your borders?"

What the hell are you talking about? What's sad is that is the most coherent piece of incoherent writing you have--you only gets worse from here. I had to have an NSA cryptologist decipher this crap. Yes, most of what you wrote is crap--don't cry about it.

"I too am unsure as to whether it was the author who deemed it necessary
to 'step in' and save me from myself, (how ironically American), or merely
a concerned other."

Terrible grammar.

"And while I'm sure the gesture to 'save' me (S Beth) was made in the spirit of human love, and the honest desire to correct a false, and potentially
dangerous perspective, thanks, but I do not need your beliefs and misconceptions
superimposed upon me."

Once again--what the fuck are you talking about? And yes sugarpie, the expletive was absolutely necessary.

"As Canadiennes, as females, as you seemed to have noticed, we just want
to make issue with some of the more ludicrous points not only in this ridiculous
essay, but in the rebuttal offered."

WE?! Oh you mean Strawberry Milkshake. Im sure she can speak for herself.

"but then we
would have to remind you that millions of British, Russian, French soldiers died
before your wonderful nation could be troubled."

Which means our contribution meant crap. Canada, by the way, joined the way a day after that. Just some FYI.

"But, please be my guest. By resorting to profanity, you've only proven the point, that your opinions are deliberately ignorant,
and based on an incredibly twisted sense of logic or rationale."

Or I'm just being a sarcastic asshole simply to piss your feminist toosh off. You're extremely long, tiresome, and mind numbing response is proof I was successful.

" Seriously, "the world is not a global society"? ARE YOU BLIND? Honey, have you ever interacted with a person before? Do you understand that words, and actions have consequences on other people?"

Sugarplum, define global society. A society is where everyone works together to achieve a working enviornment--that doesn't go on. Examples: the entire continent of Africa, the Middle East, Southeast Asia--primarily China, the EU, and various South American countries, as well as Cuba. There is nothing global about our society except for the fact that communications has gone so far as to connect the people of Earth in a way that the telephone did. Other than that, there is nothing "global" about our society. So my point remains.

"And your comment on 'bestness of race, not country', according to my understanding of Nazi Germany, it was indeed in Germany, which is, again, to the best of our knowledge, a country."

You bring up Mein Kampf later, and if you've read that piece of crap--trust me, its even more mindnumbing and boring than your "essay" review--you'll see that while Hitler wanted to achieve a superior Germany, his asperations went beyond borders. His plans were to conquer Europe and begin his "master race." That "bestness" of Germany was simply a starting point--much like the Taliban was in Afghanistan for ultra-Wahabbi Muslims like Osama Bin Laden. Again, my point stands.

"Speaking of the UN Charter, which coincidently, is based on the League of
Nations, which failed to a large degree because the Americans adopted a
policy of isolation"

No Pumpkin, the League of Nations failed because, like the UN, it was a tiger with no teeth. It wasnt JUST because of the USA--no matter how much you hate us and choose to blame us.

"Or do those people not count because they aren't American?"

They're illegal. Follow the law, we'll take you.

"Is part of your culture not based on
say, The Beatles? U2? Guess what! They aren't American!"

Buttercup, those two bands were influenced by an American. His name was Elvis Presley, and without him, rock n' roll wouldn't have existed. Check out Chuck Barry while you're at it.

"Oh, and those books...
that are selling so well in the US... Harry Potter? Yeah, J.K. Rowling isn't
American, buddy"

No, but Tom Clancy is. So is Dan Brown, who's book "The Da Vinci Code" has remained #1 for over a year and a half.

"Hate to say it, sugar dumpling, but your ignorance is showing."

Actually, that's your inability to form an argument.

"Or maybe, we should first define help, an important point that was not addressed in the essay. Help: to make more pleasant or bearable. To change for the better. To be of use to. Well, according to these definitions, (Merriam-Webster online, in case you question it) Iraq has been completely discounted."

What the hell are you talking about? I think, though not too sure, what Bethy here is trying to say is that we didn't help Iraq. Wow.

"The U.N. does not beg for help,cutey pie, they ask for volunteers."

My ass. Check out what happened in 1991.

"Surely you remember Afghanistan?"

Surely you remember Iraq in 91, Somalia in 93, Bosnia in the mid-90s. Do I need to keep going?

"When the Americans ditched the Canadiens, leaving them to keep the peace, deciding that invading a different country, and going against the UN was a more valid use of their time? Yep, that's the one, snookums"

Hey, Beth the Brilliant, you tell me how many American troops are in Afghanistan. Wait, I'll tell you: over 20,0, if not even more (GlobalSecurity.org). But you're right, we ditched the place. Fool.

"Those names mean no criminal charges pressed."

Friendly fire happens.

" Am I going too quickly for you, doll? I don't want you to fall behind."

Too quickly? Try incoherently.

"NOT have someone make this connection"

We're just proud of our country. Whats so bad about that--Admiral was merely having a little fun. I was merely pointing out stupidity in your review and in the Milkshake's review.

"That's why a complete list of casualties has been released"

Yeah, actually it has you idiot. It was read off on Nightline, on Doonesbury (a comic strip) and countless other places.

Ok I'm getting tired.

"Oh yes, the seperate spheres are very well defined here, I'm sure you agree. And I think, that as he is making a definition between 'holy' and 'unholy', that the term 'close minded'"

Hey genius, read it over. It never says you cant have religious laws--the point is that anyone can practice whatever religion they want. Its called the "First Amendment."

"In strict fact, I think they dropped two...?"

Yep. Fat Boy and Little Man.

" In terms of picking up a book, Mr "Lawrence", do you have any suggestions?"

History ones work.

" We think he was in prison for preaching ideals similar to the ones you express."

Admiral's preaching the Final Solution? Where!

"I'm sure you are starting to understand how offensive and inappropriate such terms are amongst peers, if indeed, that is what we are."

Oh give it up muffin! Your Bra Burning Powers have no effect here.

"We feel honestly sorry for you if you consider this hate mail, and personally, we think the essay more offensive than what we have stated. "

YOU!! Ive seen nobody else say "S Beth is speaking for me.

"Just because you are afraid, or whatever, does not make them less a part of humanity."

What in the hell are you talking about now?

"Is that how you justify it to yourself? As non-Americans, we are less than human?"

When did I say that?

Here's the deal, because this has gone on way too long as it is: I'm getting sick of hearing how wrong it is to be proud of my country. I'm not ignorant, I'm just not pessimistic and I don't care to focus on the negatives. Like it or not darling, the USA remains the most influential country on planet Earth and while indeed in the past we've fucked up royally, we're still sending aid packages to just about everybody, and protecting more countries each and every day. You want to call that arrogance? Fine, go ahead. I call it pride: pride in the fact that my country is so great that we are entrusted with much of the world's security (in fact 70% of the world is protected by the 13 Navy Carrier Battle Groups the USA operates). I look at the rich history of my country and I love it. Exploration, revolution, gold rushes, Roaring 20s and Great Depressions, the Greatest Generation, Woodstock, Civil War to Seward's Folly to the Rough Riders. Yes, I said Civil War. While Im sure in Canada our Civil War is tought differently, slavery was not why the war was fought--states' rights were. And we're fascinated about it because it is OUR history--it was a time when our country came to the brink of falling apart and becoming two seperate entities. Just like you should be fascinated about the history of your country and you should also be quite proud of being a Canadian, much the same way Admiral is about the United States of America. You too should write an essay about how great Canada is--you started to a little here. Go ahead and do it--don't be scared. There's nothing wrong with taking pride in one's country--of being rproud of their history and their heritage. It only makes your character stronger. So in closing, get over it. Admiral and I love our country very much, and that's just too bad for you. We're not trying to make the rest of hte world an empire (though I'm sure your feminist, liberal views might think otherwise), we're simply trying to help the world. Should we? Thats not for us to decide right now--all we know is what works for us and we'd like to see it work for the rest of the world so that you and I can discuss a TRUE global society instead of one only through a high-speed communications system. And your complaints before about my email? Should have looked up my name--I'm on fictionpress and my email is available. That never crossed your mind though did it? Don't hurt yourself, I provided it for you this time.

--Steve

I need to step in here.

Strawberry Milkshake:

" BUT many countries in Western Europe (England, France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, etc.) AND Canada do those things too. Yet you condemn them."

Since when do the English, French, Dutch, Swiss, and Canadians have a refugee problem like the one the US has? I dont see boat lifts and trucks full of illegals constantly assaulting the borders.

"You say that we saved almost every country's ass at one time or another but did you ever think that maybe we only did it because there was something in it for us? And maybe we created some of the "monsters" we later had to destroy? Cause I got news for you--we did"

Sure, and? We did what needed to be done.

"Case in point: Saddam Houssein. We armed him in the 1980s because we wanted to use Iraq as a pawn in it's war against Iran because we hated the fundamentalist gov't so much because they wouldn't trade with us after the Shah got kicked out. Then he abused his power."

Why does nobody talk about the Soviets arming him too? So odd this warped sense of history.

"We only tried to stop him the first time after he invaded Kawait. And don't fool yourself--the U.S. didn't give a crap about the Kawaiti's getting oppressed by Saddam--we wanted to protect our oil in Kawait from the Iraqis."

Right, because it couldn't be the fact that the UN begged us to stop the Iraqis. No, that didn't happen, right?

"Then we ousted him because of the terrorism war--and we never would have been attacked in 2001 in the first place if the U.S. had kept out of the Middle East in the first place. That's where Europe has one up on us--they don't always try to control world politics."

LMAO! Oh dear God, I pray you were only joking there sweetheart. Europe doesn't try to control world politics? What do you call Chamberlain's appeasement plan? Or the Balfour Declration, along with the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the Arab-Anglo Agreement that basically created the mondern HELL the Middle East became. Then, do me a big favor and look up the UNs resolutions--one of them asks the SC (read:the US and UK) to go and remove the Iraqis from Kuwait. Darling, open a book.

K, on to S Beth.
"Wait- wasn't Martin Luther King an American? Wasn't he shot by a 'fellow American' for being black? Yep. Sounds like the 'land of the free and the home of the brave' to me."

What the hell does one have to do with the other? So murder doesn't go on anywhere else? JUST the US? And if one murder occurs, that means automatically the country isnt free? You need help kid.

"Do you take any responsibility for the ignorance you spout?"

Do you?

"It is people like you, my friend, who believed so completely in the "bestness" of their country who sent millions of Jews to gas chambers in World War Two"

No asslick, that was "bestness" of race, not country.

"We honestly, as a global society, do not need any more complacent, gun-toting, propaganda spouting skin heads such as your writing proclaims you to be, in our society. "

While the planet is connected in a way it never has been before, it is not a "global society." Just ask the Middle East.

"Go take up crochet, or something."

And while Admiral is making your blanket, read a book.

-S

Wait- wasn't Martin Luther King an American? Wasn't he shot by a 'fellow American' for being black? Yep. Sounds like the 'land of the free and the home of the brave' to me. Your essay is fascinating to me, because it is people like you, and sentiments such as the ones you express that cause the rest of the world to denounce your nation as being one controlled by an anarcronistic, simplistic, over-nationalistic, unreasoning brute. Perhaps you've heard of Oscar Wilde? "Patriotism is a virtue for the vicious." Do you take any responsibility for the ignorance you spout? Are you completely unaware of the fallacies you are passing off as some sort of perverted backhand truth? It is people like you, my friend, who believed so completely in the "bestness" of their country who sent millions of Jews to gas chambers in World War Two. Not to draw any premature conclusions as to your character, but sentiments such as this are completely out of place in the world we live in. In future, please keep your egocentric, and to quote you, "assinine" opinions to yourself. There are enough American-caused problems in the world without this braggadoccio and posturing. I do not take from you the right to free speech, as a Canadian, I comprehend that it is indeed a right. However, reading such nonsense is this is truely an affront to any founder of the rights you are abusing. We honestly, as a global society, do not need any more complacent, gun-toting, propaganda spouting skin heads such as your writing proclaims you to be, in our society. Please do not feel any sort of self satisfaction due to the fact that you've offended a lot of people through this 'essay'. Its merely that some of us do not want to see the world as it would be if your fragile, obtuse ignorance of the world society took root anywhere else. Go take up crochet, or something.
-S Beth

I know this will drowned out by the torrent of abuse and hate mail you have received. I fucking know when you get more then 50 reviews for a topic you tend to ignore most of them and focus on the really long or the really stupid ones.
I'll just say two things and leave it at that.
"You can't treat a man like fruit, you can't eat the orange and throw away the peal." - A. Miller, Death of a Salesman.
It's harsh but that's what capitalism affectively is. It judges people for what they are worth and then disregards them when they aren't useful anymore. That was written by A. Miller an American Play write not a communist leader. Secondly:
"And Humanity shall prey upon itself perforce, like monsters of the deep." - Shakespeare, King Lear.
Man will strike man, the earth is dust, life is absurdity yadda yadda yadda. What we don't need is a country deciding it's the greatest on earth and then to go around beating smaller countries with it's thermo nuclear whacking stick. America is the only country in the world to have used Atomic weapons against another country. I am afraid of Americans. For what they will do the world and for what they will bring upon themselves.
I'm cool with being ignored, I just had to write this to give me small shriveled sense of importance. Self loathing and pity all the way man, fuck patriotism RULE Egotism! I can't change what America does to the world, no one can, we are the powerless and I guess all we can do is enjoy the wild ride into oblivion.
"Nothing to be done" - S. Becket, Waiting for Godot.

The United States' being the first nation to be accused of international terrorism in 1989 by the World Court for the bombing of Cambodia is a fact you conveniently left out.
Moreover, I'd wonder if the burning chunks of American Rangers' flesh that are scattered across the streets of Bagdhad would agree with America's foreign policy being considered "gentle,". Or the 40 people unceremoniously gunned down at a wedding near the Syrian border by American gunships, for that matter.
I've seen this kind of arrogant patriotism before. It led to death, hatred and terrorism. Oh dear, I mentioned the 'T' word, didn't I? Well it's nothing new to the Irish. We've been idiotic enough ourselves to indulge in this kind of arrogance too. And we've paid for it dearly. We've been living with terrorism since the 1920's - hundreds sacrificed upon the blood-drenched altar of patriotism. Men, women, children butchered by the IRA, the UDA and the British military. All of them thugs. All of them fighting "in the name of their country". But at least we have the courage to admit we've been fools in the past. Only by acknowleding our major flaws can we hope to learn and improve.
Learn from our mistakes lad: aggressive and ultimately inaccurate estimations of self lead to conflicts with others. And this jingoistic thinking encourages catastrophes such as Iraq. Violence begets violence: the United States is learning this as we speak; every time you marginalise other nations you brand yourself a target. And, let's face it, America's a pretty fat target. By indulging in such a brazen display of pig-headed arrogance you fail both yourself and your country: you've denied one of the founding principles of America : equality.
You say you have a point when you rant, but it seems to me that you've missed the point utterly. The lessons one can learn from those who made past mistakes are invaluable. America thinks itself invincible now. But so did Rome. Personally, I'd rather people would not be reading the equivalent of Tacitus' Annals in 2.0 years time and be laughing derisively at the arrogance of America.
I like many Americans, I really do - but this kind of article encourages only loathing and disdain.

"Out of curiosity, where the hell do you live?"

The Netherlands (usually not as hot as Southern Europe).

"You're the one who brought up the idea of the Kyoto Accord being symbolic of somebody caring about the environment."

The treaty itself isn't symbolic but about improving the environment. But the fact a country is signing it is partly symbolic, because it shows these countries are willing to do something despite the fact it can be bad for their economy.

"Obviously, Japan picks and chooses which aspects of the government to protect, just as America does."

That is wrong from both countries.

"Global warming is a natural thing. I'd guess that a lot of the scientists who tell you about the greenhouse effect will probably agree that this planet has undergone ice ages. Hmm... how'd all that ice melt?"

Yes, global warming itself is a natural thing. But the pace it is happening now is not natural at all, that's mainly due to human activity.

"For every scientist that talks about global warming I'll find you another who talks about global cooling."

LOL! No, you won't! You've lost it man! You'll find some people who say the global warming is not influenced by humans, though the number of people claiming this gets smaller almost every day because the evidence is getting somewhat overwhelming. But you won't find many real scientists who'll claim the world is colling, this person would be saying all equipment and computers from all the groups worldwide measuring temperature would be broken.

Steve, Stick to history will you!

"last time I heard about global warming, we went up about 1 degree. ONE DEGREE!!"

And do you have any idea what one degree can do? True, it won't get us all killed, but it can have destructive effects on nature.

"agreement is an attempt to cut the knees out from the American auto industry and push Japan and China to higher sales, all under the guise of being "good for the enviornment.""

A very original conspiracy theory. Yep, you've obviously lost it.

"all I keep hearing is about all these programs, that must suck because Europe's poor is still not as well off as the US"

And this si supposed to be proof the American poor are betetr off as teh European poor? LOL

"I'm a liberal now?!"

Hell yeah! Actually, compared to the Dutch Liberal party, you're extremely liberal on the economics.

One tiny, shocking thing...did somebody just call Stevo a liberal? Stevo? Liberal? As in: Steven Lawrence, a liberal? Ok, I'm in systemic shock now. If anybody feels like driving me to a hospital so they can try to keep me alive, I'll be grateful.

A LIBERAL?

Just a tiny point: Early on you quote the claim "Americans live longer, fuller lives". I just thought I'd point out that among industrialised nations, America comes 17th in terms of life expectancy. Let's try and be more accurate in our debates and essays.

"So do Portugal, Italy and Greece. But I also don't live there."

Aight, I'm done joking with you people. Out of curiosity, where the hell do you live?

"Kyoto is about the greenhouse effect, about the emission of gasses like carbondioxide. Technically their whale policy has nothing to do with it (this doesn't make it less wrong though)."

You're the one who brought up the idea of the Kyoto Accord being symbolic of somebody caring about the environment. Obviously, Japan picks and chooses which aspects of the government to protect, just as America does.

Global warming is a natural thing. I'd guess that a lot of the scientists who tell you about the greenhouse effect will probably agree that this planet has undergone ice ages. Hmm... how'd all that ice melt?

~He Who Walks On All Fours

"Kyoto is about the greenhouse effect, about the emission of gasses like carbondioxide. Technically their whale policy has nothing to do with it (this doesn't make it less wrong though)."

Which only points out the absurdity of the treaty! What, do supertrawlers run on water? No, they run on good ol' diesel fuel and oil. And they're huge...and big polluters...but those aren't in Kyoto--and India or China--the most highly populated areas in the world--get off quite nicely. We're not signing because it is a horseshit agreement.

"Oh, I've no doubt about that either. Bush even denies the harmfull effects of CO2. It's so bad official reports by scientists of the US government which say so are censored. So there is not much reason for optimism here."

For every scientist that talks about global warming I'll find you another who talks about global cooling. The last time I heard about global warming, we went up about 1 degree. ONE DEGREE!! OH NO!! BREAK OUT THE SPF 100 AND START BUILDING THE UNDERGROUND SHELTERS BECAUSE WE'RE ALL GOING TO BURN SOON! Please, I'm so sick of hearing about greenhouse and everything else...do you really think killing the auto industry of the US will solve the goddamn problem? Of course it wont--shit, the problem already exists if it exists at all. This agreement is an attempt to cut the knees out from the American auto industry and push Japan and China to higher sales, all under the guise of being "good for the enviornment."

"Your original point was America is the greatest country in the world because the American poor are BEST off. Of course the American poor are better off than the African poor, but not better off than the poor in EVERY other country in the world."

And you've yet to prove how they arent...all I keep hearing is about all these programs, that must suck because Europe's poor is still not as well off as the US--Walter Williams' article doesn't lie.

"The answer-to-everything solution doesn't exist. But Europe has more programs than America, more support to the poor."

That seem to not work...because there's still poor and it's still a problem in Europe.

"Not a communist. The conflict we have here is the everlasting conflict between liberalism and socialism. You're more a liberal, I am more a socialist."

LOL...I'm a liberal now?!

-S

"Spain gets mighty hot too, I hear."

So do Portugal, Italy and Greece. But I also don't live there.

"A treaty is no good if the nations that ratify it don't follow its requirements. "

Most nations that follow it do try to follow it's requirements. But you're right to say a lot of work still has to be done.

"Again, let me point out that Japan commercially hunts whales and operates megatrawlers or supertrawlers or whatever that cut huge swaths in Pacific fish populations (and aren't so helpful for the porpoises, either)."

Kyoto is about the greenhouse effect, about the emission of gasses like carbondioxide. Technically their whale policy has nothing to do with it (this doesn't make it less wrong though).

"I've no doubt our government will think up another reason not to sign"

Oh, I've no doubt about that either. Bush even denies the harmfull effects of CO2. It's so bad official reports by scientists of the US government which say so are censored. So there is not much reason for optimism here.

"Which returns to my point: the "poor" of America are pretty damn well off."

Your original point was America is the greatest country in the world because the American poor are BEST off. Of course the American poor are better off than the African poor, but not better off than the poor in EVERY other country in the world.

"And what brilliant, answer-to-everything program does Europe have?"

The answer-to-everything solution doesn't exist. But Europe has more programs than America, more support to the poor.

"Something a communist would say...damn me to hell because I want to keep my own money."

Not a communist. The conflict we have here is the everlasting conflict between liberalism and socialism. You're more a liberal, I am more a socialist.

"Compared to 95% of the people in the third world countries they do damn well. But compared to the poor in Europe, they don't. And this was exactly the point."

The concern of the poor in Europe is not my problem; not America's problem. Which returns to my point: the "poor" of America are pretty damn well off.

"Just to give them a way to live humanly, they don't have to live in wealth. Vor those who can work, working shoudl be more attractive because then they would be able to get a better life. The problem is you act like every poor person is able to work. But what about the elderly or the handicaped and ill?"

There's hundreds of public care facilities throughout each city.

"Almost nothing. That's the whole point."

And what brilliant, answer-to-everything program does Europe have?

"Spoken like a true selfish capitalist - you can be proud of yoruself and your country."

Something a communist would say...damn me to hell because I want to keep my own money.

--S

"Why not? I don't live in the Sahara desert, or in France."

Spain gets mighty hot too, I hear.

"The Kyoto treaty is highly symbolic, a symbol the people care about the world. And it will have some good effects for the environment too. But the point of Kyoto is there is an attempt to save the environment, the fact it is not working yet is less important."

Symbolism is good as an add-on to a functioning concept, but in and of itself, it won't accomplish anything. A treaty is no good if the nations that ratify it don't follow its requirements. And if you want to talk about symbolism, I think it's very symbolic of the Kyoto Accord's troubled history that the Japanese are hardly going to great lengths to save the environment. Again, let me point out that Japan commercially hunts whales and operates megatrawlers or supertrawlers or whatever that cut huge swaths in Pacific fish populations (and aren't so helpful for the porpoises, either).

"And Russia is gonna sign it soon (now they are allowed to be a member of the WTO), so it will get less symbolic and mroe practical now. So the Americans won't be able to use the lack of Russian membership as an excuse anymore, it will be an enacted document."

So what? Since when does the US--or any nation--have to base its foreign policy off the foreign policy of other nations--especially a nation like Russia, which hasn't had agendas similar to the US for most of its history. I suppose you're right that we won't be able to say we're abstaining because Russia is, but I've no doubt our government will think up another reason not to sign--apart from "we don't want to."

~He Who Walks On All Fours

Steve, we must ahve reviwed at the same time, because your review wasn't up when I reviewed earlier.

"So 1% of Europe has AC? 1%--that would mean about 100 households or so per country in the entire continent."

Ehm...how many people do yo think live in Europe?

I have no idea how many people in Europe have air conditioning, but I know it are far less people as in the US. In my country almost no-one has real air conditioning, only public buildings, unless a simple fan or a window that can open so teh breeze can in do count.

"Yes almost all the definitions, by economical standards in this country, makes them "poor." The point here was if they are "poor" they are doing pretty goddamn well!"

Compared to 95% of the people in the third world countries they do damn well. But compared to the poor in Europe, they don't. And this was exactly the point.

"The poor would rather buy a living space than eat or have clothing?"

Where did I use the word 'buy'? The fact they have some sort of place to live doesn't mean they own it! And the worse the quality of their living space, the easier it will be to pay the rent.

"So we'll just raise taxes and pay the way for them--guarantee they never need to work again!"

Just to give them a way to live humanly, they don't have to live in wealth. Vor those who can work, working shoudl be more attractive because then they would be able to get a better life. The problem is you act like every poor person is able to work. But what about the elderly or the handicaped and ill?

"Food stamps, welfare, public health--nothing?"

Almost nothing. That's the whole point.

"I like to keep the money I earn--the same money anyone can get."

Spoken like a true selfish capitalist - you can be proud of yoruself and your country.

Uh...one question:

Why hasn't Admiral answered my review yet?

I've made a perfectly good case to prove that Mexico is the best country in the world. Mexico's name is now "in the ring", whatever that happens to mean. Come on, Admiral! Either refute my reasons for why Mexico is the BEST FREAKIN' COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, or back down and admit it is the best country in the world. Those are your only two choices.

"Not necessarily, but I wouldn't leave any elderly alone in your domecile this summer."

Why not? I don't live in the Sahara desert, or in France.

The Kyoto treaty is highly symbolic, a symbol the people care about the world. And it will have some good effects for the environment too. But the point of Kyoto is there is an attempt to save the environment, the fact it is not wroking yet is less important.

And Russia is gonna sign it soon (now they are allowed to be a member of the WTO), so it will get less symbolic and mroe practical now. So the Americans won't be able to use the lack of Russian membership as an excuse anymore, it will be an enacted document.

"Still 54% doesn't own their homes, or don't even have a home at all."

Not neccessarily--part of that 54% could rent, or live in one of many shelters, etc. The point of the statistic was to show that almost half of the "poor" by definition in this country have enough money to actually OWN a home.

"And 99% of the Europeans have not. So I guess I am now poorer than the American poor, just because I don't have air conditioning?"

So 1% of Europe has AC? 1%--that would mean about 100 households or so per country in the entire continent. Excuse me whilst I giggle.

"Wait, you mean the homeless, they have their whole city to live in..."

OH...ha ha.

"The amount of living space means nothing. A "big" appartment can have no heating or air conditioning, leaking pipes, be unpainted and have ceilings made of asbestos. And the people living there can still have no money to eat or buy clothing."

You don't see the absurdity in that comment?! The poor would rather buy a living space than eat or have clothing? Thats perpostrious! And Mr. Williams was going on averages collected by the government.

"Because the broader the defenition used, the larger the percentage will be that isn't actually poor and therefor owns a lot of goods like cell phones and color television"

Yes almost all the definitions, by economical standards in this country, makes them "poor." The point here was if they are "poor" they are doing pretty goddamn well!

"And it isn't the almost poor we were talking about, we were talking about the real poor. There are more poor in America than in Europe, mroe homeless, more people without any income, more people without access to healtj care. What does the American government do for them?
The answer: Almost nothing. So yes, the poor are better of in Europe than in the USA."

So we'll just raise taxes and pay the way for them--guarantee they never need to work again! You have no statistical data to back up the fact that there are more poor in the USA than Europe. And we do nothing huh? Food stamps, welfare, public health--nothing? So we dont have a socialist health care system, big deal! Chances are, like most welfare programs here, it'd become corrupt and abused and mean even more money out of MY wallet. Thanks, but no thanks. I like to keep the money I earn--the same money anyone can get.

-S

By definition, a "household," poor, rich, or otherwise, must have an abode. Otherwise, it's not a household, it's a family unit, or something like that.

Home ownership can be deceptive. In many situations, it's simply cheaper to rent. I've known some fairly well-off people who preferred to rent rather than own simply because they wanted the money to spend on other things. I myself rent (albeit, an apartment, not a house) because it is a ton cheaper than my other options.

And cuz, let's face it, I don't have a lot of free money to throw about.:)

Kyoto was an odd treaty because the country that frickin' hosted the conference violates some of its requirements, and is hardly a friend to the environment on other issues (*cough* megatrawlers and commercial whaling *cough*).

"And 99% of the Europeans have not. So I guess I am now poorer than the American poor, just because I don't have air conditioning?"

Not necessarily, but I wouldn't leave any elderly alone in your domecile this summer.

~He Who Walks On All Fours

"Wanna try again?"

Sure.

"46 percent of poor households actually own their homes"

Still 54% doesn't own their homes, or don't even have a home at all.

"76 percent have air conditioning"

And 99% of the Europeans have not. So I guess I am now poorer than the American poor, just because I don't have air conditioning?

"the typical poor American has more living space than the average non-poor individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other cities in Europe"

Wait, you mean the homeless, they have their whole city to live in...

The amount of living space means nothing. A "big" appartment can have no heating or air conditioning, leaking pipes, be unpainted and have ceilings made of asbestos. And the people living there can still have no money to eat or buy clothing.

A little statistical data doesn't mean anything at all. You need the used definitions and the complete, or at least a more complete, dataset to be able to fully interpret it.

I don't know about you Steve, but I see a lot of statistics. In this case I really doubt at the definition of poor used. Because the broader the defenition used, the larger the percentage will be that isn't actually poor and therefor owns a lot of goods like cell phones and color television.

And it isn't the almost poor we were talking about, we were talking about the real poor. There are more poor in America than in Europe, mroe homeless, more people without any income, more people without access to healtj care. What does the American government do for them?

The answer: Almost nothing. So yes, the poor are better of in Europe than in the USA.

"I wanna bet the poor are better off in the majority of the European countries."

Nope: "From various government reports they find that: 46 percent of poor households actually own their homes; 76 percent have air conditioning; the typical poor American has more living space than the average non-poor individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other cities in Europe; nearly 75 percent of poor households own one car, and 30 percent own two or more cars; 97 percent have at least one color television; 62 percent have cable or satellite reception; and 25 percent have cell phones."--Walter Williams

Wanna try again?

Matt35: Well said.

Death's Counterfeit: You know, we gave like 95% of New Zealand a damn job for three years...Lord of the Rings mean anything to you?

Ffyona: What lengths does the US go to to sustain our economy that is "questionable?" I'd love to know.

And Kyoto was an unfair treaty to begin with: the two top pollution countries next to the US were exempted: China and India. All it was was an attempt to corner the automobile market.

And Admircal has the right to determine who's best because nobody else is going to stop him. Thats the wonderful power of "Freedom of Speech" this terrible, evil, "wanker" of a country created into law. And because Admiral has had nobody come up with a solid argument (other than a Brit or Australian--dunno what almer is exactly) use several curse words we in America find comical, nobody has been able to show why their country would be the best and why America wouldn't.
Not one country has the immigration problem the US has--NOT ONE. Why would all those people want in to a country that isn't "the best?"

Death's Counterfeit said it perfectly: everywhere you look there is a piece of the USA in every country. How can you deny a country isn't the best when it's influenced almost the entire latter half of the 20th Century and is minutely involved in every corner of the world?

--S

this was funny. these days most countries have something american in them, no matter how small. kinda scary, but i cant complain, i really love those chicken cheese burger things you get from mc D's. you know? they mix the tomato sauce with the mayo and...oh the gooey bliss.
i think you are entitled to think that America is the best country in the world, cause your American and OF COURSE you are going to have that opinion. sure, you backed it up with all this political crap, most of which i dont care about and nor fully understand - also should mention dont really CARE to understand...but seriously, bias? pretty much. politically correct? from what i understood yes. right? well you think your right.
have you been to new zealand? its real cool here, its all green and peaceful, we dont get any terrorist attacks or threats, we dont tend to go on about how great we are and we are very accepting of different cultures and races. we are small, and have a very good people to land ratio, and we are all good with the resources *apart from that gas thing, but meh*
how long do you think America will be "the best" for? - forget about scramble for colonies, how bout scramble for oil? - you guys have been kinda mean to us kiwis, when we havent done what you wanted, youve done the whole "WELL FINE THEN! NO MORE INTELLIGENCE FOR YOU THEN! hmph" and then proceed to sulk for a couple of decades. nuclear war ships ring a bell? its the principle of it - you may say its all in the past, but i think i heard about something similar happening when we wouldnt go into iraq...not getting offered a trade thingie or something? familiar? (sorry, i dont even know if im thinking about the right thing or not, but ill leave the statement hanging just for ignorance sake)
but then ive always admired americans for their struggle for justice and liberty. thats kinda cool. even if it was over tea.
dont you get a headache with all this politics? dont you get sick of the contridicting reviews and such? flip, if i were you, id be telling everyone to sod off and go home by now.
anyway, even if i dont agree with you...thank *god* for mc donalds! w-o-o-o-o-t.
ROCK ON NEW ZEALAND MUSIC!

*Cracks his knuckles*
All right, where to begin.
To start with, I agree with Lady Patriot. There does need to be proof presented that backs up what people are saying about which countries may be the "best." I feel that, as this essay continues onward, one country ultimately will come out to be the "best." The United States of America.
Reason one for my opinion: The United States has the best military in the world. We possess the best trained, best equipped fighting force in the history of the world. Without the ability to defend your nation, there is no point in being the "best" in any other category. There's no point in having the best economy, or the highest standard of living in the world if a neighboring country can come in and take everything you have at will (for example, Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait).
Reason two for my opinion: The United States has the strongest economy in the world. In terms of GDP alone (Gross Domestic Product, or all of the "offical" goods and services produced inside this country, for those of you who have yet to take an economics class), the United States out-produces every other country in the world (according to the CIA World Factbook, the U.S. had a GDP of over $10 trillion in 2002, while China came in second with a little over half of that total ($5.989 trillion). For anyone who has not taken an economics class yet, (I'm going to ere on the side of caution and assume not everyone here has) that means that the U.S. economy outproduces its closest competetor by nearly one hundred percent.
There are many more reasons that I can give for my opinion, including the fact that the United States is capable of acting in the best interests of the world, even when the world refuses to act, (Iraq) or certain nations take advantage of genocidal dictators for political profit (the United Nations Oil for Food scandal).
So, in short, no matter how many different factors are considered in determining the best country in the world, there will be only one, inevitable, resule. The United States is going to come out on top. It has the strongest economy in the world (In fact, Ronald Reagan used the strength of the U.S. economy to ramp up Defense spending so high that the Soviet Union couldn't keep up, breaking the financial back of the world's second superpower and effectively ending the Cold War), the strongest military in the world, and the will to enforce decisions of the United Nations, even when members of that organization refuse to act in order to receive political benefits (which is something that I'm more than prepared to detail if anyone is willing to challenge).
I hope that there will be some constructive debate on the points I brought up in support of Admiral. I'll be waiting, with plenty of evidence, and history, on my side.

I don't often allow myself to be lured into political flaming such as is occurring here, but I feel that's it's necessary to put in a couple of words before the safeties are removed from all weapons.
I am not technically a liberal. I am not a European. My views certainly do not reflect the norms that are suggested by society, as I believe that society is largely morally corrupt and doomed to failure. That said, I feel that the manner in which people's respective opinions are being treated is entirely deplorable. What one person says is carelessly dismissed as "whining" by another without regard to any validity to the original statement. You all are, essentially, squabbling over this essay - which is well within your rights as readers and reviewers. However, I fail to see any greater intelligence in form on the part of most reviewers to refute that which the author has stated. Where is the evidence to counter his claims? Where is there anything that can substantiate what you say as opposed to what the author says? You argue that what he wrote is false, or that what he wrote is true. Support that! Show evidence, give examples. In short, show some intelligence in your review, and forego the tired and weak clichés that have been pressed into service.
Reading what has been submitted nearly makes me ashamed to say that I am an American. The sheer arrogance and sense of superiority that pervades both in the essay and the reviews page sickens me to the point that I begin to question my own commitment to this country. If all of you are indicative of the type of people I will be serving and protecting, what is the point of putting on the uniform in the first place? If I was smart, I would secure my dual citizenship and serve abroad as part of the mandatory conscription policy of the country of my ancestors - reading this drivel makes this a highly plausible alternative to serving with the American flag sewn onto the sleeve of my uniform.
Where as a society has this country fallen behind, that we allow such a grievous breakdown in well-reasoned and logical arguments? When such statements as "Indeed, America has shaped the world for the better. Well said" pass for debate, with little else to bolster it, I find that my inclination to participate fades due to the utter lack of substance. It is no fun to disagree with anyone who is unable to offer more than flimsy rhetoric.
Te aari eksynyt, sinun argumentti on jätteet. Se on arvoton jotta inttää edelleen. Iloita alentava itse. Hyvästi.
~Lady Patriot

Ffyona:

"i was doubting that this can be used as proof that america is the best."

Actually, darling, THAT IS A GREAT REASON why America is the best! Even our poor are better off!! How can you deny that a country is not great when their poor is comparatively better off than anywhere else?!

--S

All these whiney liberals and Europeans...wah wah wah wah.

-S

Hey ffyona--yes, the poor in America ARE rich when compared to the poor of every other country. When over 60% of your poor have at least one of the following: air conditioning, cable or satellite TV, one car, or a house, not including the overwhelming majority who have cell phones, yes, I would say they indeed are poor. If you gave anyone who is poor an opportunity to live in any country anywhere to be poor in, 100% would pick the US. I think that brings us right back to that "best" status. EVEN OUR POOR ARE RICH!

maybe america is the richest, but richest is not best.
so the poor in america are rich? great stuff, nice one for your fantastic economy and standard of living, woohoo! do you really think that a country can be judged on how much their labourers spend on starbucks coffees??
i'm trying to ignore the fact that your essay was not only incredibly insulting to... well every other nation on earth, in order to give you a fair review, but it's difficult.
what you're essentially doing here is rubbishing every other country's contribution to any major conflicts. so the americans freed the world of nazis did they?
do you have any idea how utterly offensive that is? think about it, yes americans played a valuable part in world war two, and yes the rest of the world should be grateful. but there were european soldiers dying in their thousands before you guys stepped in, we paid just as high a price as you did, we fought just as hard, don't you dare assume that it was the battle and glory of america alone.
from a technical point of view, this essay was coherent and easy to read, and you certainly got my attention. however, relying so heavily on someone else's opinions is not good. what if your reader decides that D'Souza doesn't know what he's talking about, where does that leave your argument?
the problem here is that you've obviously written this to get a reaction and ruffle the collective feathers of fiction press. it seems that this essay is not so much a genuine effort to convince us of america's merits as a self-righteous rant from someone whose head is so firmly wedged where the sun shineth not that any disagreement appears futile.
if you really want to convince us that you're right, then ditch the irritatingly superior tone and come up with some real facts. if you feel so passionately about this then give your argument and country some damn respect and do it properly instead of embodying the stereotype that makes some people hate america in the first place.
"I can't tell you how good it feels to be so right."
Mr Admiral, sir, that's the kind of arrogance that starts wars. drop it.

hi
wow. your story certainly generated a lot of backlash didn't it? i know at fanfiction.net i'm excited everytime i get a review but i bet you probably dread it...
so having a little bit of sympathy for you, i'm not going to yell at you or point out things that angered me in your story. instead i'm just going to say that don't you think an essay like this is really stereotypical?
as a canadian, a NORTHERN canadian, every american i've met (precious few, i must admit) have had that attitude of superiority. Don't you think going into any type of conversation or situation with that type of mindset is a disadvantage? if you are the best, then how can you be wrong or why should you ever try to compromise with anyone else? it sets you up for a big fall. not to mention i'm going to agree with what's-his-name that perhaps you might have blinders on that are bigger than most people's blinders are about their home country. But i'm not going to insist you are wrong or yell at you like mr. anarchy in america who was wrong to take his agression out on you. you are intitled to your opinions, just like i am to mine.
aside from all of that, you have a very nice writing style. although i didn't like the topic and had to force myself to read it, the writing was coherent and enjoyable.
i wish you the best of luck with your reviews.
bells

Ah, there are time when I wish that we had never given economic-aid to Europe and you know, the other countries that whine for the U.S to do something when something bad happens but when we do it alone and without the great old nations permission, we're the arrogant redneck cowboys. Damn governmaent,we should just keep the money. It's not like other countries appreciate it and if they do they just forget and don't care. Billions of dollars in aid and we could be using that for bettering our own country *sigh* . Oh and Canada...hahaha. Shuichi-kun, I'd really love it when a foreign country tries to invade Canada and you want that 'bomb' to help you, or maybe yet America could be that invading country. We start with the Americas then the World!^_^

This essay might have had some good points - unfortunately, your scathing sarcasm and overbearing arrogance overshadowed any point you were trying to make, nevermind the fact that most of it was simply you inserting biting commentary into another author's arguments. Next time, please spare us your 'wit' and instead give us something of substance to read.
On a positive note, I must admire your passion and patriotism - though I should hope they wouldn't blind you to the negative aspects of America or to the good points of other countries and cultures.

Hm, lots of OPINIONS in the reviews and essay. (mine included) What makes a good country? Good pollitics? Good millitary? Good economy? NO, good people. A country's only as good as its people. People, being very diverse can not be classified as one thing, therefore all stereotypes of any country are fallible. In the end all you can really go by is are you trying to make it better? Many people in many different contries are trying to make things better and this rests solely on thier heads. It's good to support your country, but don't define yourself or others solely on that fact. Eh, something like that. Leaving now-

This essay is more than laughable. Do a favor to your country and gather facts instead of your over blown ego my friend.

oK, admiral, i totally respect this, but i just want to ask you one thing; when the gulf war was on, who called the US to come and fight?ANSWER: no one.Why did they come? And then they ask themselves 'why would any one bomb the twin towers?'...iu rest my case.

Obviously the flames are to be expected; I agree, mostly, that America has the highest standard of living in the world. This belief has caused many to call me a right-wing nut.
I also believe that living in another country wouldn't be too bad, that as long as you have food on your table everyday, you really shouldn't complain, given that there are billions who don't. This belief has caused many to call me a left-wing nut.
Now I don't know which wing I am.

I think the decision to label a country "the best" in the entire world is strictly a matter of opinion. In fact, I read an essay about this that summed it up pretty well. It's called "Patriotism" by James Jago. Check it out.

One more thing for the Canadian genius Shuichi-kun:

Canada did not "invent" welfare you retard. Otto Von Bismark, in the mid 1800's, started the first social welfare program, and it was for Prussia. So get your head out of your ass and go read a history book. You'll be amazed.

--Steve

Canada invented the internet too, right?

Canada...

LOL

--Steve

This is rather sad... The world has change my friend... No one wants to go to the usa anymore...

Well, Admiral, I must say your ignorance of your own country continues to astound me. You're so right-wing I can hardly stand to look at the words you typed and posted on this site.
For your information, America is NOT the greatest country in the world. Far from it. Yes, the US is democratic (which stresses the freedom of the individual), but there are many westernized, democratic countries (like Canada, where I live, for example) that don't have to f*ing attack everyone who pisses us off. Especially with Bush as president, some of the reasons that make the US horrible is the death penalty, the lack of good health care, and the lack of human rights (count how many states allow homosexuals to get married. Ahem. Is it optimistic of me to say even one or two?)
People often overlook the greatness of Canada. It has been voted several times by the UN as the number one place to live in the world. Canadians invented medicare, maternity leave, welfare, and so many other social services. Although I'm not sure if a right-winger like you gives a flying crap about stuff like that. Only left-wingers like me seem to appreciate the social safety nets that allow EVERYONE (rich or poor) to be healthy and happy. Also, compare the crime rate in America to the crime rate in such countries as Canada, Britain, Japan, etc. It's frikking hilarious! Why are you Americans so damn violent? If you ask me, the majority of you need anger management and therapy.
There's so many other things I could think of right now, but I'm tired and fed up with the old-fashioned war-lovin', redneck opinions of some young people today. Jeez, get off your high horse and realize that America is a violent, cocky country who think's they're the bomb.
Well, you literally are a bomb (because of all the damage you inflict upon the world), but Americans like you really don't have anything to be proud of.
Peace.

Hell yeah! Great essay, but I'm disappointed that you didn't even bother to mention the fact that California is the greatest state in America. Don't believe me? Hey, you don't have to take my word for it:

"As an immigrant who has chose to become an American citizen, you better damn well believe what I say is true. Having spent years in many different states, I can tell you without a doubt that California -- particularly in the Bay Area -- is by far the best place in this country." - tofujunky's mom

"I agree with my wife. People live healthier, happier lives in California, the Golden State." - tofujunky's dad

"My own dreams fortunately came true in this great state. I became Mr. Universe; I became a successful businessman. And even though some people say I still speak with a slight accent, I have reached the top of the acting profession." - Arnold Schwarzenegger

Such opinions simply cannot be reasonably disputed, can they? Therefore, it must be true. Well, that pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

--tofujunky

I agree with you that America has some good points along with the bad. However, you're just making a fool out of yourself by posting an essay whose main source and over half of the text is quotes from only one source, which is not you personally. So...one guy thinks America rocks. So...I know many people who think it sucks. So...what was your point again?
.
You also look rather ridiculous when you contrast D'Souza's points, which are relatively well-written, with your own. "See? Toldja so. I'm sure your face is turning all sorts of shades of red right now (not if you're conservative, of course. You already knew this.). "
I can just see you reading this essay and squealing in glee, ready to rub it in the stinking liberals' faces. Haha! you think. This'll show them Bush-haters!!
Eh. Unfortunately...you're wrong.
~lyv

i haTE america and yes i was born here

I respect those who are proud of there country and not afraid to stand up and defend it. I would respect you for writing an essay voicing your love for America. . . if that had been what this piec was about. It was, in fact, an attempt to insult and put down all other countries and races by any means possible.
The title itself is ridiculous. i live in England, and I love my country, but I will not claim it to be the best country in the world -- I have not visited every country in the world, nor have I a complete knowledge of the history of every country in the world, therefore your making this claim is not only ignorant but an obvious attempt to anger. Many of the points you made in your arguement were true, but all were voiced in an unjust and arrogant manner.
The first few paragraphs immediately show that the main aim of this essay was for you to look down at and insult other countries, most of which you seem to have little knowledge of as countries in themselves but only as continents or political groups.
I feel you were condescending and insulting in the way you address different races and political group with phrases such as 'Now, I'm sure every communist and socialist out there reading this just popped a gasket.' How can you argue America's fair treatment of other societies if you will not treat them fairly yourself?
I agree that America provides an outstanding general standard of living, but the manner in which you constantly interrupted your own arguement with presumtions on what disagreeing readers were thinking at the time was not only insulting to the intelligence of the reader but also lowered the credibility of your arguement.
I feel that your point on the fact that citizens of America are able to become self-made successes was true, but once again marred by your obvious aim to anger other countries. The same could be said of many countries throughout the world. The example you provided, Pierre Omidyar was a very poor one. The buissiness he set up, E-bay, he could have started almost anywhere in the world. the fact that he was in America did not affect his ability to use his own skill and intelligence to create a company on the WORLD WIDE web. You are obviously well informed of the ability for those living in America to climb the social ladder, but it seems you have very little knowledge of the ability of those living in other countries to do the same. In countries all over the world, people are creating and running buissinesses to move them from the very bottom rung of the social ladder to the dizzying heights of the top. America shores in this great acheivement, but do not make the mistake of bel,ieving that it is the only country in which this happens.
You say that it is untrue that Europe cares more about its labourers than America and in fact it is america that cares more. It sounds as if you made this up off the top of your head with no actual proof. the fact that America supports its workers, once again does not suddenly turn it into the only country which does so.
I feel that the way you handled D'Souza's next point was terrible. You completely embarresed yourself by managing not only to fumble your way through a point which you very obviously had no proof or general knowledge of but to simulteaneously unfairly insult many other societies along the way.
Your next point I generally agree with, and was one of the few you managed to voice without resorting to petty insults to validate your arguement. Though it is true that the medical advances seen in America in the last fifty years have been incredible, and its life expectancy is well above the average, I regret to inform you that it is in fact Andorra, and not the USA, which has the longest life expectancy, with a whopping 83.5 years.
Your next point, again, I feel was voiced fairly, but I have to point out the the United States are far from the only country in the world which provides this kind of freedom of choice.
The statement that America has expended the most resources in wiping out slavery is down to the simple fact that it has had to. In Britain, for example, slavery has never been a problem, therefore no action had to be taken against it.
I myself have visited America many times, and though it is not the fault of the government, or the vast majority of Americans, racism was far stronger there than it is here in England. It seemed that racial divides were huge -- there were areas of black people, and there were areas of white people, it was as simple as that. It seems that it is impossible to show a mixed race couple in American films without it being the issue of the movie. Don't misinterperate what I'm saying -- I definately do not believe that all American s are rascists, in fact America has one of the most fair approaches to rascism in the world, but the undercurrent of dividedness is still strongly felt.
It is true that those moving to America from another country are able to become 'American'. What is incorrect is your claim that it is not possible in any other country. The same is true of Britain, and I imagine many other countries also.
Once again, I have to tell you that the insertion of phrases such as 'I can't tell you how good it feels to be so right.' are not only insulting to both the reader and yourself but are obvious attempts to get people angry.
I was surprised to see how fairly you treated the next point. You were able to speak truthfully and display both sides of the issue, which, as you say, is often avoided, but which I have to poiunt out, you have done throughout your essay.
I also wish to state that I am mildly insulted by the way in which you constantly refer to 'Britain' as if it is a single country. It is actually four seperate countries, each of whose citizens hold individual views. It is just ignorant to refer to countries (or in this case, collections of countries) as if they are a single person with a set view on the issue.
I agree that forced virtue is not virtue at all, and that America gives its populations the opportunity to create their own morals and live a life by their own virtue on their own terms. However, again, the same can be said of countries throughout the world. You seem to drop this issue half way through without having tackled it fully. Remember that everyone has a different view on what is virtuous and what is not. The USA may perhaps live up fullest to the American idea of virtue, but then again, Iran probably lives up fullest to the Iranian idea of virtue. Once again, you seem to treat Islam as if it is a country!
I feel that your concluding paragraph, 'Couldn't have said it better myself. (Well...yes I could, but some of you people weren't listening.)' sums up this essay. Though many of your points were valid, very few were validly voiced. Your arguement was one-sided, arrogant and a deliberate attempt to anger and insult other countries, races and societies.

America (the US, really) is nice, that I grant you. Unfortunately, it's overbearing, patriotic (believe it or not, a defect) and has many, many flaws. Like all countries. Saying that it's the best is, I'm afraid, baseless raving.

Alright, this is just dumb. Whoop-di doo. American has cons. America has pros... whoa, wait a second... don't all countrys have thouse?!
It's wonderful that you love your country to much. But come on. You will never change everyones oppions. Okay! Some immagrant got into America and liked it, that dosen't convince me at all it's the best country. You know what, I'll tell you a secret: There is no best country. Only oppions, my friend.
For the record, I have nothing againts Americans, I think the people who do hate them just because they are, infact, Americans, are very pathetic. But I will never agree to it being 'the best'.
Very good essay though, you did make strong points to help America shine through all the shit that keeps getting piled on it.

Other countries have good qualities too, we are not the only country with good qualities. Points why our country (or maybe just our leader) isn't the best in the world, we only THINK we are. Just look take a look at our leader: The beloved President George W. Bush! and here is his resume:
EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE
> > >
> > > LAW ENFORCEMENT: I was arrested in Kennebunkport,
> > > Maine in 1976 for
> > > driving under the influence of alcohol. I pled
> > > guilty, paid a fine, and had
> > > my driver's license suspended for 30 days. My Texas
> > > driving record has
> > > been "lost" and is not available.
> > >
> > > MILITARY: I joined the Texas Air National Guard and
> > > went AWOL. I refused
> > > to take a drug test or answer any questions about my
> > > drug use. By joining
> > > the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid
> > > combat duty in Vietnam.
> > >
> > > COLLEGE: I graduated from Yale University. I was a
> > > cheerleader.
> > >
> > > PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:
> > >
> > > I ran for U.S. Congress and lost.
> > >
> > > I began my career in the oil business in Midland,
> > > Texas in 1975. I bought
> > > an
> > > oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas. The
> > > company went bankrupt
> > > shortly after I sold all my stock.
> > >
> > > I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a
> > > sweetheart deal that took
> > > land using taxpayer money.
> > >
> > > With the help of my father and our right-wing
> > > friends in the oil industry
> > > (including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected
> > > Governor of Texas.
> > >
> > > ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR:
> > >
> > > I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and
> > > oil companies, making
> > > Texas the most polluted state in the Union.
> > >
> > > During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as
> > > the most smog-ridden
> > > city in America.
> > >
> > > I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the
> > > tune of billions in
> > > borrowed money.
> > >
> > > I set the record for the most executions by any
> > > Governor in American
> > > history.
> > >
> > > With the help of my brother, the Governor of
> > > Florida, and my father's
> > > appointments to the Supreme Court, I became
> > > President after losing by
> > > over 500,0 votes.
> > >
> > > ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:
> > >
> > > I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing
> > > cost of over one
> > > billion dollars per week.
> > >
> > > I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted
> > > the U.S. Treasury.
> > >
> > > I shattered the record for the largest annual
> > > deficit in U.S. history.
> > >
> > > I set an economic record for most private
> > > bankruptcies filed in any
> > > 12-month period.
> > >
> > > I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in
> > > the history of the U.S.
> > > stock market.
> > >
> > > I am the first president in U.S. history to enter
> > > office with a criminal
> > > record.
> > >
> > > I set the the all-time record for most days on
> > > vacation in any one year
> > > period.
> > >
> > > After taking-off the entire month of August, I
> > > presided over the worst
> > > security failure in U.S.history.
> > >
> > > I am supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical
> > > Bunker Buster," a WMD.
> > >
> > > In my State Of The Union Address, I lied about our
> > > reasons for attacking
> > > Iraq, then blamed the lies on our British friends.
> > >
> > > I set the record for most campaign fund-raising
> > > trips by a U.S. president.
> > >
> > > In my first year in office over 2-million Americans
> > > lost their jobs and
> > > that trend continues every month.
> > >
> > > I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a
> > > 12-month period.
> > >
> > > I appointed more convicted criminals to
> > > administration than any president
> > > in U.S. history.
> > >
> > > I set the record for least amount of press
> > > conferences than any president
> > > since the advent of television.
> > >
> > > I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S.
> > > history and refused to
> > > intervene when corruption involving the oil industry
> > > was revealed.
> > >
> > > I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S.
> > > history.
> > >
> > > I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and
> > > support a cut in duty
> > > benefits for active duty troops and their families
> > > -- in war time.
> > >
> > > I have set the all-time record for most people
> > > worldwide to simultaneously
> > > protest me in public venues (15 million people)
> > > shattering the record for
> > > protest against any person in the history of
> > > mankind.
> > >
> > > I've broken more international treaties than any
> > > president in U.S.
> > > history.
> > >
> > > I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the
> > > richest of any
> > > administration in U.S. history. My "poorest
> > > millionaire," Condoleeza Rice,
> > > has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.
> > >
> > > I am the first president in U.S. history to order an
> > > unprovoked,
> > > pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a
> > > sovereign nation. I did
> > > so against the will of the United Nations, the
> > > majority of U.S. citizens,
> > > and
> > > the world community.
> > >
> > > I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the
> > > largest bureaucracy in
> > > the history of the United States government .
> > >
> > > I am the first president in U.S. history to have the
> > > United Nations remove
> > > the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.
> > >
> > > I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.
> > >
> > > I refused to allow inspectors access to U.S.
> > > prisoners of war" detainees)
> > > and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva
> > > Convention.
> > >
> > > I am the first president in history to refuse United
> > > Nations election
> > > inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).
> > >
> > > I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for
> > > receiving the most
> > > corporate campaign donations.
> > >
> > > My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of
> > > my best friends,
> > > Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate
> > > bankruptcy fraud in
> > > U.S. history. My political party used the Enron
> > > private jets and corporate
> > > attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme
> > > Court during my
> > > election decision. I have
> > > protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton
> > > against investigation or
> > > prosecution. More time and money was spent
> > > investigating the Monica
> > > Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating
> > > one of the biggest
> > > corporate ripoffs in history.
> > >
> > > I garnered the most sympathy for the U.S. after the
> > > World Trade Center
> > > attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the
> > > most hated country in
> > > the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world
> > > history.
> > >
> > > I am first president in history to have a majority
> > > of Europeans (71%) view
> > > my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace
> > > and security.
> > >
> > > I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted
> > > criminals to be awarded
> > > government contracts.
> > >
> > > I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring
> > > Osama Bin Laden
> > > to justice.
> > >
> > > RECORDS AND REFERENCES:
> > >
> > > All records of my tenure as Governor of Texas are
> > > now in my father's
> > > library, sealed, and unavailable for public view.
> > >
> > > All records of SEC investigations into my insider
> > > trading and my bankrupt
> > > companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for
> > > public view.
> > >
> > > All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my
> > > Vice-President,
> > > attended regarding public energy policy are sealed
> > > in secrecy and
> > > unavailable for public review.
> > >
> > > Please consider my experience when voting in 2004 -
> > >

Amen, brotha! Preach it! Good to hear some truth now and then in a world of anti-Americanism. :) KC

Oh, my God! One person who none of us care about comes to this country, gets money, and likes this country for getting him rich!
Holy sweet Jesus, one unimportant person's opinon MUST make it right!
*sigh* Please, give me a break.
"I can't tell you how good it feels to be so right"
That is the feeling that stupid people get when they justify their stupidity.
"Even as America bombed the Taliban infrastructure and hideouts, U.S. planes dropped rations of food to avert hardship and starvation of Afghan civilians. What other country does these things?"
Most other countries simply refrain from blowing up Afganis, and therefore have no need to give food to them.
I'm sorry, but your stupidity pains me.

I am not impressed with you at all. In fact, I dislike you a great deal. You're opinions are just that: opinions. They are not facts, nor are the opinions of this D'Souza guy. America is not the greatest country in the world. It's presumptuous and stupid for you to say so. It's also pretty stupid to go and present only one other point of view other than yours. If you're going to say something stupid, at least get a whole bunch of other people to say the same thing, so that way you at least look like you know what you're talking about.

You and D'Souza are absolutely right. Unfortunately, I don't think that the anti-Americanists are listening...

~Doc Holliday

Ok... May I point out to you that America Deports Canadian citizens? May I point out to you that the freedom of the uncharged, without reason (American citizens i might add) In guantanimo bay, I'm so sure that their freedom is feelt. I'm loving your writing, but hating the content! You have biased, and untrue facts. AMERICA HAS A FLIPPING LYNCHING MUSEUM! Lynching, When a mob of people hanged a black freeman, or slave. You are entitled to your opinion, By the way... Are you THE IDIOT, Geroge Bush in diguise? Hem On ward. There is no better place in the world for film making, If you are an annorexic stick thing, then you can be a famous pop-star! But America is... Not the place to be for me. I am Canadian, and Damn proud of it, and if you insult my country I will hunt you down and KILL you Hey, We've rattified the Kyoto Accord... RUSSIA HAS RATTIFIED THE KYOTO ACCORD! CAN YOU EVEN PRONOUNCE KYOTO?! Hem. I shall leave now...

*LAUGHS*

~White

*LAUGHS* ^_^ oh GOD, you're REFRESHING. Thank you for being an idiot. It made my day.

have a nice life, kid!
SiLkY

I just read your essay, because a friend of mine who reviewed under my name (Rowana Silvakisma) told me to. So in return, here is my review under her name.
Being muslim myself, I want to start with the point that stood out to me the most in your essay. It's right at the end, where you say that as a woman is compelled to wear the veil, there is no modesty in it. This would be completely true...if we were being compelled. I am a muslim female, and at the age of eleven, I made the decision to wear the 'veil' or as we call it 'hijab' for life. I have not yet found any reason to regret my decision. I was not compelled, and I feel that I have to point out to you, that the hijab, or 'veil' as you call it, is meant to show that each woman is an individual. That we shouldn't be judged on how nice our hair is, or how fat or skinny we are, but by the measure of our intelligence, and by our own personalities. Maybe you should do your research more thoroughly next time. I read a review which said that you had actually admitted to someone that you had never been out of the country. Now, maybe I'm wrong about this review, but I HAVE been to america. And in my experience, from the way my cousin used to come home sometimes beaten and bruised, the victim of racial attacks, and from what I learnt, saw and heard, America is a place much the same as any other, if not worse. America is more tolerant huh? tell that to the various people I know whose relatives in America who have been killed or injured.
Moving onwards, it is generally considered that when you are writing an essay, you should use a variety of sources. Not just one man, who mey have been biased in some way, coming from a country where he obviously didn't have such a great time, to a country where he got lucky.

Take a look at the amount of rapes that occur in America, and the amount that occur in Iran. You'll notice that there are much less in Iran. If anyone doesn't like Iran, well, that's why the rest of the world exists.

As for America using it's power and then going home, have you looked at Irap recently? Where there are more guards around Oil rigs than hospitals? Where the Americans will not hand it over to the UN and GO HOME.

Look, I don't have time right now to go over your whole essay, but maybe next time you should check your facts, do some proper research, and not follow some delusioned guy.

okay, well, this could be a very long review. But don't worry, I will save my 'spluttering outrage' for further reviews because you, mister, are a pigheaded bigoted arsey conceited...you get the idea. By the way, I don't like you. I know there's all that shit about people having their own opinions and all, but seriously, you are asking for people to throw things at you. 'The greatest country in the World?' Are you like blind or something? Because, hmm, let me see. Iraq ring a bell? Pissed off Iraqis with now electricity or water and no oil sound familiar? Are you on something? And Saddam isn't even captured yet, for God's sake. Oh yeah. The religion thing. Well, get this. you're quoting this one idiotic person who happens to have made it good. Well, woo. That's really great for him, it really is. But you're spouting all this excrement (yes, I will be polite) about 'tolerance' and democracy' and then you manage to bring in Islam and how it's wrong, of course, that a woman is 'compelled' to wear a veil. Firstly, it's choice. Secondly, it's their religion anyway, dumbarse. Live with it. And democracy? You even know about the Enron thing? Or have you managed to block that from your vision because it's just yet more proof that you're wrong? It wouldn't surprise me. So, yeah, your opinion. But there are actual nations who would like to kick your arse for being so downright wrong, not just me. So the next time you want top air your views, you htink aobut that. Oh, and I'm shtarfish. Read my essay and weep, sucker.

i love the United States, and i can understand National pride and love for a country. i have no problem with ur point in the essay, but the way you present it is a bit offensive. Throughout the whole essay you put America above every other country, and it annoys me because other countries have wonderful qualities about them too. Please don't degrade the cultures and National Pride of other countries.

You have GOT to quit these essays about USA. It is NOT the best, because there is no truly objective criteria to judge 'the best country'. Besides, this essay, and the other one that says the world should be taken over by America [SHIVERS] insults all the other countries in the world. You thought about that? It's okay to be patriotic, but it's never healthy to overdo anything. Your bias gives you a narrow view. As a history student, I would say that America has been generally unfair. Furthermore, there are many fallacies in your essayS, which I believe others have already pointed out.

A thought has ocurred to me, recently. How, precisely, can you be so certain of this when YOU ADMITTED TO ME THAT YOU'VE NEVER BEEN OUT OF THE UNITED STATES?
Quite a lot of words and phrases spring to mind, the most polite being "misguided" and "has no idea what he's going on about".

I apolagize that comment was meant to be posted on a different story. Anyways, this is exactly why I love America even though I don't agree with everything said. It had every reason why I'm proud of country or at least the idea of it.

I give up, your delusional.

First thing, Dinesh D'Souza wrote about the 10 great things on what to love about United States and not what made US the best country. To say that United States is indeed the best country based on just one article and on a view of only one guy, is quite shallow.

Secondly, when US has quite a high expectancy rate does not mean that it is the highest or the best.

In 2001, United States had a life expectancy of 76.9 while other countries such as Japan, UK, Singapore and some others have a life expectancy which is higher than that. People in some countries are expected to live much longer than the people in United States. Wow, guess they'll be getting more free time to devote to good cause.

Lastly, Your essay is based on one article and one article only. If you were to go to a library and start looking for books about other countries, you'll find that there will be a few books similar to this article. The book would be most probably be written by a foreigner who happens to love the country more than most locals. One such book is titled "Notes from a smaller island" by Neil Humphrey(I think). Its a book about singapore. Even though the book has given a few interesting facts, I still cant say that Singapore is the best country just based on that can i? If you think about it, how do you actually rate a country and say that it is the best? There are so many aspects that are to be considered that it is quite impossible to declare a country the best country.

Yes, but, America could still be better. Its only the best because our standards are so low.

Best is relative. We all have standards. As an immigrant myself I have seen another side of life and there are things about the U.K. I like more and things about America I like more.

I'm not going to get heavily involved except for one thing. Alyx your comment about people who don't like America should leave, let me say this. It is impossible to hate America. Anti-Americans hate aspects. For instance at the moment I am rather opposed to the government and the general overhaul of patriotism. I like my life here. I just don't like the way certain things are run.

Very well thought out and written. Just one thing. I think more Black males worked to end racism then white males and when you say that it was mainly white males, you take away from the countless black men AND WOMEN who helped to end racism and those who died because of that racism. Other than that one minor flaw, I think it was an excellent idea and really showed Americans how great America really is. All those people who say it isnt have never really experienced American life or if they are American and have experienced it then they havent learned how people in other countries live.

As an American ROTC cadet, after reading this essay, all I can say is this: (whichever God you choose to believe in)God bless this essay, God bless D'Souza, and God Bless America.

hehehe that was funny...go do yourself a favour and read chocoholic's The North Of England:The Best Country in The World

F.

You know, you could just post all of D'Souza's quotes in a row and write at the bottom, "Yeah, what he said!" and we'd all get the same message.

Well, you've managed to start a very amusing controversy again. You do really like overstating the good parts of the U.S. don't you? Oh well, it provides an amusing balance. Now on to the actual commentary.

1) As nice as it is to hear people from other nations like the U.S., using the opinions of one man to support an essay is generally a waste of space. Statistics, reports, numbers and a variety (emphasis here) of examples would be nice.

2) While I have no real objection to excessive derision and sarcasm, it's generally harder to convince people of something if you piss them off too much to listen to you. That is of course provided that this essay is intended to persuade anyone of anything. Otherwise, be as rude as you like. I'm sure the rest of the world reserves the right to ignore you or return the favor.

3) As to America being the best country in the world. It's a matter of perception, frankly it has more than one problem to fix before I would claim such a grandiose title but that's just me.

4) There have been various comments on U.S. foreign policy, I'm going to make my own. What a wonderful thing to hear. Our troops aren't wanted or needed throughout a great deal of the world. Then the world won't mind in the slightest when we call them all home, All our troops and all their weapons. Furthermore no one will mind in the slightest if we don't come out for anything short of WW3. Thanks guys, the people will be thrilled. Out of curiosity, is anyone going to be replacing those troops? I didn't think North Korea had given up its desire to annex the South yet or that Iraq or Afghanistan had a stable gov.'t yet. Now I think we still have peacekeepers in Kosovo but that was multinational and I'm sure replacing our small segment will be easy. Just pointing these minor things out because once the U.S. pulls out, it probably won't come back and I would hate to find that we've pulled out of a place prematurely because then I'm gonna be watching a lot of bad news in the near future and I really would hate that. In fact my only consolation would be that since the U.S. was very clearly told that its meddling was not wanted, U.S. lives will not be endangered in attemps to intervene.

GREAT JOB!! I believe that the difference between people who hate America and the people who love it is taht the people who hate it only see the bad things America has done (which any honest person would admit we have). The people who love her love her despite her faults. They love her because in the past, and even now, America has done more to rectify her mistakes than any country in the history of mankind. This was awesome! Although I'm going to go read your reviews, I am willing to bet you have people like Reakwon, servsaid, and Tiefling (I haven't looked yet those I just a couple of my predictions) that left gigantic flames with nothing but denials and charater attacks. Keep up the good work!

-hnmn

Y'know, Admiral, you give off an aura of supreme arrogance, but I'm sure you're aware of that and that's why I can respect it.

Well, D'Souza's got the right of it. America's not perfect. It's got a lot of flaws. A lot of problems that still need to be ironed out. But I think America's system is the best the world's got going for it. That doesn't mean it can't be improved upon, however.

I've always said that people who don't like America should just leave. If they hate the country so much, why don't they leave? Because another regime might not be so tolerant of them, that's why. But if they can't appreciate that the nature of the country gives them the right to criticize it, they're missing the point.

I was surprised that, despite discussion of racism and religious issues, sexism wasn't discussed anywhere in this article, but for the brief reference to the Taliban in the virtue section. I would point out that the US gave its women suffrage some 27 years before France did. I would have liked to have seen that addressed. (Especially since, as I've had to point out to some people, African-Americans faced four hundred years of persecution where women in most of the world have been facing four thousand).

I only have one nitpick -- "America works because of the principles espoused in its founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, which were unique in the world when they were created." Actually, Britain had a Bill of Rights (on which ours was based) in 1688. It wasn't quite as all-inclusive as ours was a century later, but it was awfully similar. And let's not forget the Magna Carta, often pointed to by historians as the foundation for democracy. Careful that, in your haste to prove America for what it is, you don't overlook the contributions of other nations on which we built our ideals.

Oh, and just for the record -- I consider myself a moderate liberal. So be nice to people on the left side of the spectrum -- we're not all raving socialists. ;)

Wow, if that wasn't the most self-righteous, haughty, arrogant thing I have ever read, I don't know what is.

Kind of like America itself, in it's arrogance.

I live in America and I like it fine, but I'm not an overly patriotic zealot. You know, it is good to love your country, but it's not good to overly love your country. People like that become suicide bombers in Isreal and Pakistan.

I love how all of you conservatives are going to be eating your words, soon. I am sure you have heard about how it's suspected that the mighty, wonderful Bush administration that you so revere fabricated facts and extended the ones that were true so we could actually get into a war with Iraq. Yeah, sounds like a great America to me.

This war is absolutely ludicrious. Yes, while Saddam Hussien is/was (since no one even knows where he is...hmm...seems kind of similar to Osama Bin Laden. Gee, with all of our spy capabilities, we still don't know where either of them are) a horrible person, we still didn't have to have this war with them.

And you mentioned these food packets...did it ever occur to you that the people they are dropping them too can't even read? A lot of them can't even read their own language, let alone English (because, as Americans, we refuse to learn the language of another culture and rely on translators, and I am sure this is the language that those food packets were written on in) so how are they supposed to know it's food in there? And gee...if you saw something drop out of the sky, would you go over there and pick it up, especially if it was from the ENEMY? I highly doubt it. My favorite was the "brilliant" idea of dropping the pamphlets over Iraq...in English! And to all the poor, uneducated people in the army, who didn't know how to read them! It was a most excellent plan by your "fearless leader".

Yes, America has a lot of great things, and I am very glad I live here. I guess one just has to take the good with the bad, and if the bad really only extends as far as having one of the most horrible Presidents we have ever had, and reading concieted, pointless essays such as this, I can live with that.

~Namir Swiftpaw

Sorry, Admiral, but this didn't convince me. I just found it funny. I'm a bleeding heart Socialist, and there's a lot I dislike about America (a LOT), but I would never say it was the best or worst country in the world. Not only am I a Socialist, but I'm proud of my own country too- and not even the writings of a (rather boring) American immigrant will convince me that America is "the best".
I can see from these reviews that most people share my point of view. Good for you- and good for you that you don't have to ass-kiss the US and her people, or anybody for that matter, just because they have the biggest military, the strongest economy, or neo-imperialist hopes and dreams.

I'm sorry, this made me laugh.

Having lived in three countries besides the United States, I can quite honestly and with firsthand experience tell you that the U.S. is not the "greatest country on Earth." It is not the worst, either. All countries have their advantages and disadvantages. In case you hadn't noticed yet, perfection does not exist.

I read this article a few months ago, and was highly amused by it.
It's odd how the difference in our base viewpoints causes us to glean such different meaning from the same piece of writing.
Perhaps you cannot see the touch of sarcasm laced through the writing. Or perhaps I am imagining it.
Or perhaps, just perhaps, there is no such thing as a black-and-white, clear-cut story,'
Just a thought.
I like D'Souza's writing, but quite frankly, I'm scared by yours.

You are quite obviously a proud patriot. I commend you on your ability to fall in line like another unquestioning sheep and do as your Shepard says. I was originally going to respond with a long, well thought out essay as to how you are wrong, but many have already done so, I'm sure. People like you make me sick with their mindless love for their oppressor. Oh yes, and kissing the ass of a republican analyst isn't exactly a very persuasive essay. It's really sad that people like you are the majority in this country, that is why things will never truly get better. So when we're rotting in a napalm hell, know the blame is on your head and not mine.
~Kaz

Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised at seeing a work with this title/theme under your name...well, to ignore all of my previous spates with you, let's discuss the ideas in this essay.

Firstly, I have to say something about your writing style that may seem a bit mean, but at the same time, I have to say your style of argument could use some work. The whole "E-evil, unjust and uncouth" thing makes you seem somewhat immature--'evil' would have been bearable, but let's not be over-dramatic here. Your all-capitalized words and slight overuse of exclamation points makes you seem more hotheaded than logical--but I'll save all my comments on your 'hotheadedness' for later ;-)

OK, anyway, let's start at the beginning of this thing. "The United States of America is the greatest country on Earth. Period. This truth is self-evident" This, my friend, is what we call poisoning the wall--a thick-skulled attempt to block any argument by immediately stating an 'irrefutable' truth.

Also, your three groups are ridiculous. Lumping billions of people into three very broad groups is absurd, to put it politely. Now, I'm not saying that America has its benefits--half of my family consists of Mexicans on both sides of the border, some who like this country because, hey, they get paid. However, confusing financial dependence with political loyalty is something altogether different. There are scores of groups I can think of as far as foreigners go, but that issue of economic and political loyalty happened to pop in my head.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with domestic criticism. Thomas Paine was a domestic critic--not to say that a second American Revolution is necessarily on the horizon, but, hypothetically, if there was good reason for a good number of people to want one, would you join or pass off your country's overwhelming flaws as mere 'domestic criticism?" Just another of those random thoughts.

Yes, all countries have their good and bad, but this 'specialness' is a bit ridiculous. I suppose nationalism has its benefits--I would no longer know--but unnecessary pride in one's country makes me uneasy. I really don't understand why one would be loyal to a country full of untrustworthy, decadent people and a lying government--a description that fits many, but not all, countries. Economic prosperity is not a bad thing--poverty is bad, but on a moral level, I have to wonder about some of the after effects of this wealth. Perhaps this over-affluence, where even the 'poor people' are fat is part of the reason were are of a disgustingly consumerist culture--obviously, it's why over 50% of American adults are overweight. I try to be minimalist--most of the people I know disgust me with the ways they spend their money. Money IS the root of all evil, and I can see that at work in this country. But I'm drifting off topic--yes, I must concede--prosperity is, for obvious reasons, an attractive 'plus' about America.

Social equality--that's laughable. Are you truly a black man in this country who believes in social equality? Social equality includes racial equality--and before you go on about my 'commie' comrades again, yes, Soviets were quite racist--they also persecuted the religious, Trostkyists, etc. Soviets were not perfect communists--but that is not the point. Social equality in America has, admittedly, come a long way, but it has a ruefully long way remaining. As a half-Mexican with a 'white' last name and 'white' features, I 'passed' my way through all my early life as white...that was, until some of my nice little white girlfriends in my section of suburbia stopped playing with me after their white moms met my Mexican mom--not to mention how many times I've heard about dirty Mexicans--who the hell cleans your hotels and houses? Elementary school taught some other interesting things about social equality as well. What about the obviously poor girl who wore obviously used clothes--between lice jokes, and other forms of poking fun at the poor kids, they never had a chance. And where do you think these children learn the 'n-word', that Mexicans are dirty, that terrorists are 'towel-heads', that poor people are worthless, etc.? From their parents, who think the same things. As long as Americans think in idiotic stereotypes about each other, there can be no social equality.

Life expectancy--the longest living people in the world have been from Japan and France. Interesting. True, though, life expectancy here is a good thing--too bad our eating habits/overall lifestyles produce a rather high cancer rate.


And wait--I have a blank slate to be whatever I want--except for an unpatriotic cynic? Sorry, I must have missed that earlier. Too late now.

I think modern Europe has a pretty good social equality thing going--have you been to France lately?
"Slavery has existed in virtually every culture, and xenophobia, prejudice and discrimination are worldwide phenomena"

All regrettably true, but there are all types of discrimination here in America--stereotypes against liberals, conservative, pro-abortion, anti-, Goths, housewives, children, etc. You discriminate against commies--I would guess, not because you looked at their philosophy objectively, but because you have been conditioned to think that way? Look back at my earlier comments about prejudice and get those through your head.

OO, America is not always right--that was unexpected. This gentle foreign policy thing is BS, but at the same time amusing, so don't worry about me spontaneously combusting in anger. (Once more, all of this 'pounding on the screen' stuff is highly immature/unprofessional). What, so America fixes the problems? Sorry, I thought it just took an existent problem, destroyed it, and created another--just ask an Iraqi.

Food drops--is that why there's still starving camps of people in Afghanistan? Is that why we let them starve for the last decade or too? Oh, sorry, I forgot, humanitarian aid is only an issue when it comes to public approval. My bad.

Yes, I agreed with some of these facts here--but you didn't mention the only reasons for any lingering loyalty I have to this land--namely that it has priceless natural beauty, which, I might add, is being destroyed by greed, overpopulation (another great side effect of prosperity), ignorance or apathy. Well, I think I'm done for now, but I'll be thrilled if you write a rebuttal. :-)

-Lili Brik

Like Qualia said to Calvin Fitzgerald (his comment on this essay was 'Oh my god, I can't believe he's still going on about this cr*p'), there's no point arguing about which is the 'greatest' nation because it's entirely subjective. It depends on your personal values. It could be the greatest by your personal definition of 'great', but saying it as if it's a 'truth' is just ridiculous, not to mention pompous. It's not something you could ever prove or disprove.

It's interesting the way some Americans feel the need to keep trying to prove it though. Why? Why do you feel the need to be the best? What's wrong with just being an equal?

I have never suggested that no one likes living in the US, or that no one would prefer living there to living somewhere else. Of course it has it's good points, like any country. You citing one guy who likes it better than living in one other country (India) doesn't prove anything. Of course there are people who'd happily move to America. More power to them.

Disliking a policy your government has does *not* mean you hate your country. I don't like the fact that my country became involved in the Iraq war, but I love Australia, and wouldn't want to live anywhere else.

Your breakdown of categories misses out all the people who live somewhere other than the US and just don't give a damn about America one way or the other. It's not the centre of the Universe, the way you make it out to be. Go ask someone in Outer Mongolia what she thinks about it.

'People lead longer fuller lives in America' Compared with some places yes, compared with others, no different at all. Advances in medicine and agriculture are *not* unique to the US. A lot of these quotes seem to assume that anywhere outside the US is a third world country.

I agree entirely that the US is not inherently racist because some Americans once owned slaves. That would be a ridiculous claim. We basically had slavery here once too, only we didn't call it that because we just denied that the Aboriginal inhabitants were even people.

I would however, contend that there is still a lot of racism in the US, which is especially evident in racial profiling and the justice system.

Again, the 'cultural melting pot' many Americans are so proud of,(and with good reason, diversity is a good thing) is not unique to the US. Take a stroll around Melbourne sometime if you don't believe me.

"I can't tell you how good it feels to be so right" Could you be any more arrogant if you tried?

You seem to be taking this guy's word as gospel. Just because another person shares your opinion does *not* make it a fact. If a hundred, or a thousand, or a million people shared your opinion it would still be just that, an opinion

Australia isn't one of your 'usual detractors'. One or two Australian citizens are. I wouldn't presume to speak for my country.

*Many* other countries provide foreign aid. For example, Australia has had our defence forces in East Timor for several years now, keeping the peace and rebuilding the infrastructure since their war of Independence.

Your argument about America being the most 'virtuous country'(which, once again is entirely subjective)compares the US only with Islamic fundamentalist nations, discounting all other countries. This is a pretty glaring oversight.

It's amazing to me how many ignorant people populate this "great" country. Lets take Admiral for example, upon using quotes from one other source, he was able to push his opinion of The American country upon others whom he hoped were to follow his corrupted view points and agree with his strong, yet not sensable, opinion. Admiral states that his country, with its "powerful" weapons and Top Dog attitude, Simply rake out the problems all over the world and simply leave. That my fellow Americans is a flat out lie. Not only do we still have troops in the Middle East, but also in Puerto Rico, and Japan. Call me Unpatriotic, but I believe a country that calls themselves powerful and great, need to wipe out the wars in their own land before imposing on others. I'm talking about hate crimes, assualts, and Gangs. If America is the land where people live great healthy lives, then why is every problem cured with a pill? Why is 60% of the Country overweight? Why do we as a country eat processed foods filled with artificial flavorings and fatty acids? Why do most young adults see psychiatrists for a things called depression, Anxiety and Bi-Polarism? Because America is all about Money. So I ask you fellow Americans, why not revolt against a country where the homeless must sleep with the street rats. Why not revolt against a country where childen whose parents can't afford a suitable house, must cover there ears in the middle of the night for fear that roaches may crawl in and lay dozens of eggs. Where was this country when the AIDs epademic spiraled out of control, and thousands of people were infected by the invisable monster. I'll tell you you where America was...Fighting for our oil.

go 2 hell. america is so "great". we go 2 war 4 oil,have a puppet of a "president", and he's not even the real president. that asswipe stole the election 4m gore. this country mite have done sum good things but only wen democrats were in office. cheney doesnt even hav a real heart. bush wuz prolly drunk wen he chocked on that pretzle.i hate him and the worst part of bush being in office is that barbara is lounging around the white house. any one with an 1/16 of a brain noes that bush stole the election and that america sucks. all republicans can go 2 hell as far as im concerned.

I've read D'Souza's book "What's So Great About America" and it was one of the best nonfiction reads I've experienced in a long time. That and anything from Ann Coulter are at the top of my nonfiction reading list. I just find it odd (well, it's par for the course actually) that the liberal reviews to this piece are filled with personal attacks and venomous hatred. Of course, as my onw experience has shown me, you know you're effective when you can get a liberal to start calling you names and infusing his or her invective with gratuitous four-letter-words.

I bet you were just waiting for argument from your old lefty friend, Moril...

OK... I suggest that you quote other sources besides this D'Souza person. Try some people who have done their homework and know what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq.

This was very dry and boring. Even "The Imperialist" I could actually read without falling asleep.

I meant to say disagree. I disagree with a good portion of what you say damn typos!

This America-is-the-(insert adjective here)-country kind of thing is starting to turn into personal bash and flame war.

You had a good 'point' (Essay, not in topic, not that I agree/not agree. I'm just staying out of this) but your 'way' of delivering this struck me as idealistic and arrogant. And kinda... 'unsure of yourself'.

This essay could've been taken more seriously -- to quote Christophe -- I hope I'll see more improved-quality of your works :)

I may have quoted this before (when you took a long-winded approach to calling somebody a dickhead) but I'll do so again. 'Sir, I agree not with what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.'
I feel obliged to point out, however, that Mr D'Souza doesn't live somewhere that the US Air Force has ever bombed.

First of all, to examine the quality of your essay as an essay, you have quite frankly failed in craft. Your points are simply overstated generalities, you have backed your own broad subject by quoting someone else, and you demean your readers with your over arrogance. This essay is titled improperly; perhaps you should have labeled it a commentary of d'Souza's work. You state an opinion (for regardless of where one lives, their thoughts on their country ARE opinions, and not written-in-stone facts) without backing it up with any evidence whatsoever. Your indignation makes it quite obvious that you wrote this primarily (if not entirely) for shock value. However, insulting your reader and their opinions is inherently a very poor method of stating a point. Normally I am quite opposed to recommending writing classes, but in your case, if you actually wish to be taken seriously in your essays, it might be a wise decision for you. It might not improve your readers' opinions of you, but it might well improve your quality.

As for the content of your essay, I am almost confused: with all your frequent statements about the greatness of America, you seem not like you are trying to convince your readers but yourself. Once you have made that statement, there is no need for you to restate every five lines. This essay is filled with nothing but quotations, overused generalities, and insults. In short, it is all filler, with no actual substance. Quotations from a single man that most of your readers are not familiar with and your support of him are not going to convince anyone of your point. If you want your point to be more plausible and backed up with more solid-sounding evidence for a topic so broad as a country's merit, use several sources, not only one. The use of only one would be akin to me informing you that you must no longer eat meat because my cousin in Padua has just become a vegetarian. Because of your constant indignation, despite what is said in your author's profile, I am led to believe that you are more than likely a teenaged boy living in a small town, probably in the South, who states these generalities with such arrogance and lack of supporting evidence because you have not yet been taught to think for yourself. If this is not true, my apologies; if this IS true, then I hope life teaches you the benefits of doing so. I honestly do not mean this as an insult but you have done nothing to disprove this notion, although you have provided me with quite a few reasons to believe it. If this was not your intention, then please do as d'Souza and put effort into your writing. If you want to be taken seriously in your politics, then you must first be serious about them.

As for your opinion, though I was not born in the United States, I lived there for several years. I did enjoy that time, but no more and no less than I enjoyed my time in other countries. It is a good country, but certainly not the superior giant you claim it to be. Believe it or not, some of us actually have led very wonderful lives elsewhere in the world. You do not know all there is to know about the world, nor do you know all there is to know about your country. You do not know what is good for all the world to do or to think. Patriotism can be a fine thing, but there is a very distinct line between patriotism and arrogance, and insulting people for thinking differently than you is strictly of the latter. Love for one's country can be very wonderful, but yours seems not love so much as a belief in the ethnic superiority of one above all others. Quite frankly, you seem very mislead.

In closing, I doubt that it "killed" you to write this, and you did not "have" to. I highly doubt that someone was holding a gun to your head while you did it. The opinions of other Americans did not force you to do it; you chose to, you obviously wanted to, and thus you did. There is no need to blame others in such a melodramatic fashion. And if you really are such a true American, then you must concede that there are many things that you yourself do not "get."

“Good” is a point that will keep some debating until the end of time, but nobody can argue that America’s grand experiment has produced unique and generally favorable results. I see from a few reviews below that there were some points that were misinterpreted—primarily the points concerning America’s use of her military. The countries that were the subject of this misinterpretation were South Korea, Japan, and various nations in the Middle East. I’ll list each separately and attempt to clear up the confusion.

South Korea: It did not seem apparent that those who mentioned Korea during their misinterpretations were aware of the war currently going on. Yes, you heard me right. The Korean War never actually ended. All that was accomplished during “peace” talks was a cease-fire. The whole reason US troops are still there is in accordance with an agreement between Seoul and Washington for mutual defense, and were you to just take a moment to look up north you would see why Seoul wants as many friends as possible. Though not quite as closed off as it was before, North Korea is a Stalinist dictatorship with enough WMD aimed at South Korea to wipe it off the map in a heart beat. Furthermore, it is an intensely paranoid and strapped-for-cash Stalinist dictatorship with enough WMD to sell off half its arsenal and still have enough left to wipe South Korea off the map. In any case, the US soldiers are there as a defense and not as an occupying power.

Japan: Once again, US armed forces personnel are in Japan with the express consent of the Japanese government. The exact reason that some remained behind after WWII is in part due to strategic interests during the Cold War, though nowadays its mainly to ensure that all Japan gets from its neighbors are dirty glances. They have a very long political memory in the Far East, and that memory still contains fresh images of the Japanese during their Imperial days. The bases in Japan are also useful in the monitoring of North Korea and Communist China, which are of mutual concern to both the US and Japan.

Middle East: No, it’s not a country, but it doesn’t take much to deduce that it’s a reference to Iraq and Afghanistan. For starters, the reason for US troops is that neither campaign is finished. Yes, we all saw Bush’s carrier landing and heard his speech, but the observant amongst us heard that he was only declaring an end to major combat operations In Iraq and not the campaign itself. As for Afghanistan, the troops there are acting as peacekeepers in accordance with the wishes of the provisional government. To be fair, neither campaign was entered into without any sort of clear exiting strategy, and I fear that because of this the politicians are going to lose focus and ruin the entire effort, egged on by a press eager to blow any incident it gets its hands on out of proportion.

There you have it. As Admiral has stressed, the core policy of the [US Army & Co] has always been to get in, do a job, and get out, rather than become a colonial enforcer and subjugate an entire people to complete American control. If some of them do stay behind, then it is with the permission of the local government and is almost exclusively for the purpose of defense or peacekeeping.

As for the essay itself, it had a lot of conviction behind it, but I think you could have gotten your point across just as well without the "You damn lefty!" interludes. ;-)

An interesting defense of core American values otherwise. Reading the controversy from this one should be fun.

Hello, Admiral. Your friendly neighbourhood bleeding-heart liberal here again...

I could quote you all sorts of glowing references from people who immigrated to Britain. Means nothing, other than that one person liked the place. Ditto in reverse.

And in all honesty, I'd rather have the NHS than a microwave oven. (Actually, I don't have a microwave oven. Or a car, come to that.)

Life expectancy next: UN figures (1996) show that while the US indeed does well here, it's outscored by Britain. And even more so by France, Sweden and Canada.

And finally... "then GOES HOME"? Previous reviewers have answered that one fairly well, I think.

Byall means say that the US is your favourite nation, and that there's nowhere else you'd rather live. But please, don't go telling the rest of us that it's *better* as though it were an objective judgement.

There is no 'best country'. They're all as fucked as the rest. Crime, racism, hate and religious battles still happen in America. Hell, homosexuals aren't even aloud to marry in the majority of the states! In some sences, America is the best. In others, Canada. Or Britain. Or Japan. You said... "...the United States is the only nation with imperial power in history that uses that power merely to fix a couple of problems then GOES HOME" ...If that is so, why are there still troops in Iraq and Korea? Goes home, my ass... You sound like someone that should be on CNN next 9/11.

Well spoken, though it's really kind of sad that only an immigrant can truly appreciate the full beauty of America. To chocoholic: Of course there's such a thing as a best country--we just all have differences on which country that is. There are obviously bad countries to live in; so why can't there be good ones? Also, though statistics can be unreliable ... that's the stuff you have to use to back up your articles. I don't know many people who were around in 1900 that can tell me what they remember the average lifestyle to be.

~He Who Walks On All Fours

This was fairly well-written, if slightly stagnant. I agree with a good portion with what you said, but I am only going to argue the one point that really bothered me: religion.

You state:

""America has found a solution to the problem of religious and ethnic conflict that continues to divide and terrorize much of the world."


Visitors to places like New York, D'Souza says, are amazed by the way people of different religious and ethnic groups manage to live and work together in relative peace when members of those same groups are in a constant state of war with each other elsewhere in the world. How does that work?"

I agree that when it comes to peace among religions we are better off than many other places, but I wouldn't say that we have "found a solution". Just listen to the arguments in our school cafeteria! (I'm serious!) There are still plenty of religions (and even denominations of religions) who believe that they are "right". I can speak from experience: I am Presbyterian. I had a friend who was Evangelical Free. Both groups are Protestant forms of Christianity. However, one day she informed me that her new mission was to "save" a number of her classmates - including me. In this case, "saving" actually meant making us join her church. This same issue has sparked a number of arguments among my friends. I do not think that we have solved this particular problem.

The use of the phrase "unique and good" implies that no other country has something about it that sets it apart from any other nation; it also indicates that no other nation is good. News flash! EVERY country has something about it that is unique and good! What's your (or more specifically, D'Souza's) point?

"...America...provides an impressively high standard of living for the "common man"

So does Japan, which, in fact, has the highest standard of living in the world.
So does Britain. Again what's the point? It seems that to prove America is the BEST, you would have to prove that it had a *better* standard of living than any other country. Of course, you can't, since statistics are against you. (look it up if you don't believe me)

"People live longer, fuller live in America."

Mostly because of Britain. Since the Industrial Revolution began in Britain, and it had to apread to America, we wouldn't be anywhere near where we are today without them. I noticed that you "conveniently" omitted that fact.

"In most countries in the world, your fate and your identity are handed to you; in America, you determine them for yourself."

Not necessarily true. Things like racial/gender discrimination also affect one's fate. You also left that part out, too.

"While racism remains a problem in America, this country has made strenuous efforts to eradicate discrimination, even to the extent of enacting policies that give legal preference in university admissions, jobs, and government contracts to members of minority groups. Such policies remain controversial, but the point is that it is extremely unlikely that a racist society would have permitted such policies in the first place. And surely African Americans like Jesse Jackson are vastly better off living in America than they would be if they were to live in, say, Ethiopia or Somalia."

(1) How can the government be trying to eradicate racism by using a racist policy (AA is NOT economically-based, though it should be.
(2) To compare a third world country that is constantly plagued to a fourth world country like the US is foolish.

"America has found a solution to the problem of religious and ethnic conflict that continues to divide and terrorize much of the world."

A good solution on paper, but one that doesn't work as it should. We still have religious crimes committed every day, so it's not a TRUE solution.

"In other words, the United States is the only nation with imperial power in history that uses that power merely to fix a couple of problems then GOES HOME"

Then why are soldiers still positioned in the Middle East? Why are soldiers still stationed in Korea. I thought we fixed problems and went home.

"Even as America bombed the Taliban infrastructure and hideouts, U.S. planes dropped rations of food to avert hardship and starvation of Afghan civilians."

It's hard to help starvation when innocent civilians are dead and countless others are injured/disfigured because of American weaponry. One more thing, why can't you be satisfied with being an equal?

Great Essay, good use of the D'Souza article as it conveys my feelings of America exactly. Of course the side jokes have left you open for the critics but oh, well, it was worth it. Extremely entertaining to read. I got a kick out of it.

Firstly the format of just quotes and your little rants inbetween neither entertains or interests like writing should.

I'll refrain from pointing out a bad point for every good point you've mentioned, someone else will do that. The fact is, I'm sure you'll be able to find ONE immigrant who thinks America is a pile of shit. But this proves that America is the worst country in the world as much as your ONE person who thinks it is proves it's the best.
Ethier way, I really don't care, because there. is. no. such. thing.as. a. best. country.

Think America is the best all you want, quit trying to persuade other people that it is!

Also, half the facts ("In 1900, the life expectancy in America was around 50 years; today it is more than 75 years.") you use to back up the quotes are founded from statistics so skewness and fucking with data should be taken into account. "Theres lies, damn lies, and then statistics."

If you want people to take you seriously I would refrain from all the left jokes. Anti-Americanism is not a socialist phenomenon.