This board seems to be filled with an unhealthy dose of Anti-American feelings. So I ask a simple question to everyone. If America isn't the best country and political system in the World, what country and system do you consider the best? There is no right or wrong answers, I would just like to understand better what many of you consider ideal.

It's a shortsighted question, Static76.

The United States still has the greatest potential of any nation in the world, but the criteria upon which we establish that it is the best is thoroughly subjective. Some people can actually imagine a Darth-Vader empire and get excited about it; these people always imagine themselves in the privileged class of a martial and stratified society. So for some, the angrier and more belligerent and less intelligent the country becomes as a whole, the better.

But if we're going to ask the question you've posed, we also need to examine the contributions of the United States to the world's problems. Whether Iran, Iraq, Palestine, South America, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Africa, ad nauseam Americans have their fingers in a tremendous number of pies.

So I submit to you, Static760 that if we didn't support dictators like Shah Reza Pahlavi, Saddam Hussein, Samuel K. Doe; if we didn't support terrorists like Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar; if we didn't view international labor exploitation as an opportunity for enrichment ... if we didn't do these and similar things, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have to ask the question.

Combining all significant factors in my intepretation still puts America on top, but it's a precarious position. Our empire only lasts as long as the world tolerates us. If our evil makes us worse than the potential of our disapperance, the world will simply start calling in all of its loans, continue shifting markets to the Euro instead of the Dollar, and start to make the US irrelevant by convention.

One of the problems with claiming to be as good as the US claims to be is that when you expend tremendous efforts to prove the point, you're not doing anything remarkable but, rather, meeting the expectations that you have encouraged others to recognize.

Even if the Iraqi Bush Adventure went off without a hitch, Bush wouldn't be rightly able to make any tremendous claims other than, "Well, somebody did their job. Don't know who, exactly, but it all worked out."

Admittedly, it would be more than most presidents can say, but doesn't that just beg the question of what's up with the crappy standards Americans strive for and the saintly standards we demand the world attribute to us?

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Switzerland.
Gotta love Direct Democracy (http://www.google.com/search?q=direct+democracy&sourceid=opera&num=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8).

If u want the job done, then I suggest Chinese socialism. I am not a fan of suppression. I say Japan, or Canada has the best system of government worldwide. America, well she did respect freedom and the like for any years but now america is decending down the fascist route so that prize is goners. Anyways stat your question is way to broad to just answer specifiy what you really want to know.

USofA is one of the best but is not the best country politically, many other nations have a more fair and functional political and government system, by far the USofA’s government, judicial and electoral system is outdated. Many other nations are close or even out match (in specific areas) the USofA economically, many other nations have better quality of living on average over the USofA. The only thing the USofA has going for it is that it’s militarily number 1. No one nations is strictly superior in all of those categories so there are many nations that a good examples in specific categories.

I am not Anti-American, I love my country, I just don’t like how it is run BY FAR!

Originally posted by tiassa
It's a shortsighted question, Static76.

The United States still has the greatest potential of any nation in the world, but the criteria upon which we establish that it is the best is thoroughly subjective. Some people can actually imagine a Darth-Vader empire and get excited about it; these people always imagine themselves in the privileged class of a martial and stratified society. So for some, the angrier and more belligerent and less intelligent the country becomes as a whole, the better.

But if we're going to ask the question you've posed, we also need to examine the contributions of the United States to the world's problems. Whether Iran, Iraq, Palestine, South America, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Africa, ad nauseam Americans have their fingers in a tremendous number of pies.

No real arguement here, the legacy of our past meddling has spawned a wealth of the anger we recieve from around the World. But do our negatives counteract our positives?
So I submit to you, Static760 that if we didn't support dictators like Shah Reza Pahlavi, Saddam Hussein, Samuel K. Doe; if we didn't support terrorists like Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar; if we didn't view international labor exploitation as an opportunity for enrichment ... if we didn't do these and similar things, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have to ask the question.
Your probably right, but is America the only one to have support creeps like this?
Combining all significant factors in my intepretation still puts America on top, but it's a precarious position. Our empire only lasts as long as the world tolerates us. If our evil makes us worse than the potential of our disapperance, the world will simply start calling in all of its loans, continue shifting markets to the Euro instead of the Dollar, and start to make the US irrelevant by convention.

One of the problems with claiming to be as good as the US claims to be is that when you expend tremendous efforts to prove the point, you're not doing anything remarkable but, rather, meeting the expectations that you have encouraged others to recognize..
But what of the othe nations of the World. One of the reasons I asked this question is because none of the World powers are as good as they proclaim. Do other countries really have the moral high road to look down on America's actions?

Even if the Iraqi Bush Adventure went off without a hitch, Bush wouldn't be rightly able to make any tremendous claims other than, "Well, somebody did their job. Don't know who, exactly, but it all worked out."
But Bush will have to answer in 2004 for this Iraq war. It's up to the people to vote their oppostion.
Admittedly, it would be more than most presidents can say, but doesn't that just beg the question of what's up with the crappy standards Americans strive for and the saintly standards we demand the world attribute to us?
No country in the World is a saint. Yes, Republicans love to claim American moral superiority, but that's not represenative of the country as a whole.

When you add all the positives and negatives together I think America is the "best" nation currently in existence. We have power on the world stage, a psudo-democratic government, a high per-capita income, laws that stress equality and personal rights, very little plague or starvation, and lots of chances for personal advancement. Other countries may be superior in a couple of these factors but not all.

Nearly every country on earth dosn't have ANY of the preceding factors.

This rather pointless post can be answered with science, the UN HDI report:

i)Norway
ii)Iceland
iii)Sweden
iv)Austrialia
v)Netherlands
vi)Belgium

Those are the states that are proven to live better than the US. #7 is not bad, but by far not the best.

They have power on the world stage?

You mean to install murderous dictators and getting attacked for that "power"? No and I don't think they want it either. Get off your power trip man. Power is basicly useless when it comes to nukes. That is real power. Russia 13,000, the US 7,000. :rolleyes:

Who gives a dam about power on a world stage, all I want is a good place to live and prosper in peace.

Nico,

I agree with you that the USofA's "power" and its use of it is far more a problem then a benefit! though nukes don't really count after you have more then enough nukes to blow away any enemy state.

Exactly WCF, America's power is quikly becoming a joke against the unconventional power of terrorism. The more you kill them they more they join the ranks of terrorist organizations. Also China will present a HUGE obstacle to American "power" in the next 20-50 years so enjoy it while u can. Anyways what does power have to do with good governance and living standards?

though nukes don't really count after you have more then enough nukes to blow away any enemy state.


I know that is what I am saying, once u have nukes "conventional power" is a joke.

I myself wouldn't be able to bear being in a nation with no control over the outside world. Your country has to bend over and take anything tht comes its way. No way I could be proud of a country like that.

Remember that china has power but little else. We are talking about the average of numerous factors.

Originally posted by nico
This rather pointless post can be answered with science, the UN HDI report:

i)Norway
ii)Iceland
iii)Sweden
iv)Austrialia
v)Netherlands
vi)Belgium

Those are the states that are proven to live better than the US. #7 is not bad, but by far not the best.

Norway? Iceland??? Netherlands????

The Human development index is not science, it stats.

Here's what the UN development program says about it:
The UNDP says HDI is "a very imperfect measure" and the agency underlines that HDI is only a "partial" measure of the full scope of human development.
Perhaps you should look deeper than a simple report for reasons that these countries exceed America as the best country to live. How are their political systems better?

How can I enjoy the USofA power? What be drafted, deal with terrorist attacks, worry about going to any other country especially my families home country (Venezuela) fearing of being bludgeoned to death for being a American? No thank you!

I rather have a USofA with a puny standard NATO military working totally within the UN. It would be nice having a good nuclear counterstrike (and I don’t mean nuclear shield that won’t stop anything!) I mean more like a Dr. Strangelove strategy: just don’t mess with us or we will nuke you, who needs a big military, if your military is bigger then ours we will nuke you still, so just don’t mess with us and we can all live in peace (trigger happy fearing peace)

Most things are imperfect measures, Static; I don't deny the HDI's vagaries.

But you've inspired me to a quick question, presented here for the comparative; if it needs a topic of its own, though, I'm thinking about that already, though I'll want to build two or three other examples.

What can be said, then, of imperfect measure in relation to Sierra Leone, which appears at the bottom of the list, or Liberia, which seems to be quite absent?

It's enough to joke that Liberia is so miserable that it can't be measured, but I've noticed that nobody ever says, "Wait, I think those people should be on the bottom, and not us!"

Well ... outside the bedroom.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by nico
You mean to install murderous dictators and getting attacked for that "power"? No and I don't think they want it either. Get off your power trip man. Power is basicly useless when it comes to nukes. That is real power. Russia 13,000, the US 7,000. :rolleyes: Positing that a nuclear arsenal sufficient to vape your opponent 10 times versus 100 times is any different in reality shows how little you know of strategic counterforce warfare. That, and your response to his post is a gigantic straw man fallacy of epic proportions.

I myself wouldn't be able to bear being in a nation with no control over the outside world.
Why?
I mean, I'm Irish. How much control do we have over the outside world? None. How many times has that affected me adversely? Never.
Now if you'd ask me if I'd been adversely affected personally by not having sufficent control over my own government, that's a whole other ball game. Which is why I said switzerland in response to the original question, because they have the best level of control over their government of any nation I know of.

What it boils down to is how well you can live your own life. And in nations with adaquate control over their government, that metric tends to show that they're better off than those without sufficent control over the government.

Speaking of metrics, sure, the average GDP per capita is high in the US, but so are the numbers of people living in poverty and abject poverty - they're just made up for by a small few having 50% or more of the wealth.
What I would like to see is a better metric than GDP per capita, to be honest. I've yet to see an algorithim that can reduce the sum total living experience of a country to one number. Hell, why not just give the mean and variance of GDP per capita? Even that would be an improvement!

U see the whole of posting that is that it was useless to do so. MAD exists and thus "conventional" power dosen't even matter. 10 nukes,1000,10,000, dosen't matter once nukes are involved the situation changes and peace happens. Like WCF said you have nukes who the f*** is going to bother you? I know stokes I am not stupid arrogant piece of....

Clockwood

You do realize that this "power" of yours is a joke b/c it eventually makes you weaker. WTF do u think so many people in the world HATE the US? B/c they sticky fingers are in everyones buisness. Why do u think you have to deal with terror b/c of this american "power". :rolleyes: GET A CLUE!

Speaking of metrics, sure, the average GDP per capita is high in the US, but so are the numbers of people living in poverty and abject poverty - they're just made up for by a small few having 50% or more of the wealth.


Glad u brought that up sparks:

USA
"Share of income or consumption
(%) "
Poorest 10%:1.8
Poorest 20%:5.2
Richest 20%:46.4
Richest 10%:30.5:eek:

So if we do the math in Terms of PPP we get:

Poorest 10%: $180 trillion
Poorest 20%: $520 trillion
Richest 20%: $4.46 trillion
Richest 10%: $3.05 trillion


Ahhhh I smell class warfare. 40 million americans have no health insurance which to me is crazy, every OCED country should be able to afford free public health care. But the US budget is 60% defence... stupid me. Yeah clock, surely now no one wants your supposed "power"

When you add all the positives and negatives together I think America is the "best" nation currently in existence.
Not at the moment...

I think this is the worst government the US has ever had in its more than 200 years of history. It has engaged in extraordinarily irresponsible policies not only in foreign and economic but also in social and environmental policy. This is not normal government policy. Now is the time for people to engage in civil disobedience. (http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,258983,00.html)

(And that's from a Nobel prize winner in Economics)

static76
If America isn't the best country and political system in the World, what country and system do you consider the best?

Nico mentiones a couple of countries that would surely answer you question , and all you do is refute his source ? What pathetic way of discussing matters is that ?

Norway? Iceland??? Netherlands????

You sound like u're learning new words here

How are their political systems better?

No what was your system ? A one-party rulership within a 2 (potentially governing) party voting system .

And it happens to be so that at least 2 of the countries Nico mentiones (Netherlands & Belgium) practice a system [I]where there are some 20 or 25 parties to choose from wich 5 or 6 are ready to govern and eventually 2 or 3 form coalition and thus a government .

Yes the Netherlands & Belgium are 2 countries that are more democratic than you USA , can you live with it ?

Now about ethical consideration your entire country is based on , freedom : I really dont feel like dugging up your pedofile laws of some of your states , nor do I feel like digging up evening restrictions for underaged , nor do I feel like digging up your p[rostitution policies , and surely I wouldnt even wanna mention your War On Drugs , do I ?

Amerika is so free , everybody ends up in jail there , or should I forget about that as well ? U have anti-freedom jurisdictial policies that rob a man for 150 years , I mean you expect him to not be free after he's dead and buried , no ?

There are enough peoples from Holland here to tell you all about your freedom , surely we have some peoples from England or Germany who can do the same , perhaps even DJ can inform you how his shitty Denmark is so much freeer than the USA .

I believe this site is Canada based , surely Canada is free-er than the USA .

But the most beautifull area that is restricted from freedom in the USA , is the mind . You are Pyong Yang's mental version .

Clock
I myself wouldn't be able to bear being in a nation with no control over the outside world.

OMG
:eek:

that is just sickening man

Your country has to bend over and take anything tht comes its way. No way I could be proud of a country like that.

And your reasoning is truly something , when your country exploits and what not , its not your fault . But when they do things you like somehow you have managed to achieve something u could be proud of .

Power is basicly useless when it comes to nukes. That is real power. Russia 13,000, the US 7,000.

So what can Russia do? Kill every American twice? :bugeye:

I don't think u realize how stupid it is Spkye. 13,000=7,000 it's of no concern they can both destroy each other to kingdom kom! My question to you american power trippers is if America is all so powerful, then why not inavde Russia, NK, etc.? Again conventional power is a joke when it comes to nukes.

Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
static76

Nico mentiones a couple of countries that would surely answer you question , and all you do is refute his source ? What pathetic way of discussing matters is that ?

What are you babbling about?

Nico said there wasscientific proof that these countries were better. I showed him why that wasn't the case, and then asked for his reasons for those countries being better.

I don't think Nico was offended, nor should he have been.
No what was your system ? A one-party rulership within a 2 (potentially governing) party voting system .

And it happens to be so that at least 2 of the countries Nico mentiones (Netherlands & Belgium) practice a system [I]where there are some 20 or 25 parties to choose from wich 5 or 6 are ready to govern and eventually 2 or 3 form coalition and thus a government .

Yes the Netherlands & Belgium are 2 countries that are more democratic than you USA , can you live with it ?

Hey clueless! The point of this thread is to discuss why other countries are better than one another, not to promote the US as the best. Take a look at the other posts in this thread.

As for your the Netherlands & Belgium...Simply having more parties doesn't make them more democratic. We have primaries in America where there are about 7-10 canidates battling for a nominations. We also allow citizens(like Perot for instance) to get signatures from the public, and get themselves on the presidential ballot. This isn't even taking into account Congress which is an equal branch of our government.
Now about ethical consideration your entire country is based on , freedom : I really dont feel like dugging up your pedofile laws of some of your states , nor do I feel like digging up evening restrictions for underaged
Please don't tell me you think pedophile laws take away freedom.:bugeye:
nor do I feel like digging up your p[rostitution policies , and surely I wouldnt even wanna mention your War On Drugs , do I ?
No arguements here. I and many other here have posted about these subjects. It's my feeling that these prohibitions are unconstitutional.
Amerika is so free , everybody ends up in jail there , or should I forget about that as well ? U have anti-freedom jurisdictial policies that rob a man for 150 years , I mean you expect him to not be free after he's dead and buried , no ?
Do the crime....Do the time.
There are enough peoples from Holland here to tell you all about your freedom , surely we have some peoples from England or Germany who can do the same , perhaps even DJ can inform you how his shitty Denmark is so much freeer than the USA .
I welcome their comments, I made this thread to learn, not argue.
I believe this site is Canada based , surely Canada is free-er than the USA .
Do you ever give reasons... :rolleyes:

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bloodoil.jpg

Well actually no, but believe what u must!;)

and then asked for his reasons for those countries being better.


Since 1975 the UN has given a country a certain numer 1.00 being the best and 0.00 obviously being the worst. Now the UN takes EVERYTHING into consideration, I really mean everything. Here is the US numbers compared to Norway,and your neighbour Canada:

Norway

1975:0.858
1980:0.876
1985:0.887
1990:0.900
1995:0.924
2001:0.944

USA:
1975:0.864
1980:0.883
1985:0.896
1990:0.911
1995:0.923
2001:0.937

Canada:

1975:0.866
1980:0.881
1985:0.904
1990:0.924
1995:0.929
2001:0.937

America is good to live in, no doubt. But not the best, get it now good.

:cool:

Originally posted by nico
Since 1975 the UN has given a country a certain numer 1.00 being the best and 0.00 obviously being the worst. Now the UN takes EVERYTHING into consideration, I really mean everything.
Those are just numbers, give me REASONS. The UN has very little credibility to begin with, I don't blindly follow their index of stats as Gospel to the state of the World.

I'm just a disgusting propaganda spouting 15 year old stereotypical american with parents from India who doesn't post much, so maybe you guys will just ignore or mock me, but I still would like to say what I will. This thread has become somewhat of an argument either for your country or against the country you most dislike, something that happens quite often as far as i've seen. Only a few people have said anything worth learning from and a few people have made personal attacks, which does not seem like the best way (but the most used way) to go about debating on a political forum. In my opinion, the only time you can say truthfully that you know what the best country or worst country is or why this country isn't the best is when you have lived a lifetime (or more, to be scientifically correct :) ) in every country that provide arguments against/for/about. I also think Patriotism/Nationalism is only admirable to a certain extent. When you start hating someone else for petty reasons (which in certain cases include patriotism and nationalism) it becomes disgusting. Truth be told, no one really cares what country you come from unless they as a person have insecurities and/or reasons to hate you/your country that most often would not pass as acceptable arguments to a 3rd grade teacher, and yet you hate them back just as hard, if not harder. If you can present arguments for one side or more of a debate, then by all means do so, but do not start taking it to a personal level, and certainly do not stoop to the level of anyone who does.

EDIT: I will admit, as I read other threads, that some people do post good arguments, and these people have all my admirations.

EDIT Again: As I thought about my post i realized that it could be construed as a generalized personal attack with "insecurities and/or reasons...that most often would not pass as acceptable arguments to a 3rd grade teacher".

Dang, I'm a hypocrite. :)

Static
What are you babbling about?
Nico said there wasscientific proof that these countries were better. I showed him why that wasn't the case, and then asked for his reasons for those countries being better.
I don't think Nico was offended, nor should he have been.

* Nobody is talking about weither Nico feels insulted or not
* The point he was trying to make about those countries is irellevant to the fact that *better* would include a political system , and in your ethic it would include *freedom* as well .

This was your primer question :

So I ask a simple question to everyone. If America isn't the best country and political system in the World, what country and system do you consider the best?

Surely *freedom* would contribute to your consideration of *best* , and the word *system* speaks for itself . All of em , political , jurisdictial , social .

I must say however that I agree a best in ethical sense , Nico is wrong on . The point is that this you use to avoid the main topic .

Weither he's offended or not is another totally irellevant thing . Cant u turn that function off ? Oh I forgot its not a function , its an error .

Hey clueless! The point of this thread is to discuss why other countries are better than one another, not to promote the US as the best. Take a look at the other posts in this thread.

Do you even have capability to make a point ? We both know where this discussion comes from , so please .....

As for your the Netherlands & Belgium...Simply having more parties doesn't make them more democratic

There's a significant difference in democratic possibilities when there is a larger quantity of choices within a greater variation .

3 points , not 1 .

* more parties with governing potential wich increases a broad consideration of points and moderacy .
* coalition government so that there cant be dictatorial tendency's . Dictatorial doesnt mean merely a dictator , but also a dictating party .

We have primaries in America where there are about 7-10 canidates battling for a nominations.

And this has to do with national elections , how ?

We also allow citizens(like Perot for instance) to get signatures from the public, and get themselves on the presidential ballot

And they are relevent how ?

This isn't even taking into account Congress which is an equal branch of our government.

And the congress is filled with what ? Dont worry there are 2 bodies in the governments I mentioned as well , does this change anything ?

Please don't tell me you think pedophile laws take away freedom

Nono with pedophile law I dont mean laws against pedophiles , but laws that allow pedophiles to marry girls at 12 year old . So its pretty much the other way around .

Do the crime....Do the time.

Your jurisdictial system is an insult to human rights in democratic perspective . And you cant do 150 years , whats the deal jail in the transition face between earth and hell ? Im sorry but its ridiculous to give a person tripple life sentence , he doenst live tripple lives you see .

Anyways , such populist respons from you was foretold , that it fitted one sentence was to be expected , but that it would only be 6 words in a repetition of 2 , is just a joke .

And it rhymes too :eek:

Do you ever give reasons...

I dont have o my point was made with reasons already , if you wanna know why Canada is freeer than USA go talk to a Canadian .

Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
Static


* Nobody is talking about weither Nico feels insulted or not
* The point he was trying to make about those countries is irellevant to the fact that *better* would include a political system , and in your ethic it would include *freedom* as well .

This was your primer question :

So I ask a simple question to everyone. If America isn't the best country and political system in the World, what country and system do you consider the best?

Surely *freedom* would contribute to your consideration of *best* , and the word *system* speaks for itself . All of em , political , jurisdictial , social .

America's freedom is one of the key points I took into account. Our political system, technology, culture, power and influence, were also taken into the equation.
There's a significant difference in democratic possibilities when there is a larger quantity of choices within a greater variation .

3 points , not 1 .

* more parties with governing potential wich increases a broad consideration of points and moderacy .
* coalition government so that there cant be dictatorial tendency's . Dictatorial doesnt mean merely a dictator , but also a dictating party .

There is no "dictating party" in America. In the last presidential election alone, we had 4 different parties(Democrat, Republican, Green, Reform) get a significant number of votes.

And as I said before, you don't need to be part of a party to run. Like Perot in 92'
And this has to do with national elections , how ?
Are you kidding me????

Primaries ARE national elections that determine the main canidates for a party, that the public votes on. The selection of our president is far more complex than you know.
And they are relevent how ?
Well...if your saying that one party controls America, then how do you handle successgul canidates who didn't even have a political party?
Your jurisdictial system is an insult to human rights in democratic perspective . And you cant do 150 years , whats the deal jail in the transition face between earth and hell ? Im sorry but its ridiculous to give a person tripple life sentence , he doenst live tripple lives you see .
We have probation and other considerations to take into account when a sentence is handed down. I really don't care if a murderer get 300 years in prison for slaughtering a family. You see, the criminal get a certain amount of years for each count he commits.
I dont have o my point was made with reasons already , if you wanna know why Canada is freeer than USA go talk to a Canadian .
I want everyone's thoughts, including yours. Do I have to be a citizen from the times of the Roman Empire to understand their society?

Firstly, this is all subjective. I like living in a country that uses less resources than the USA, that makes it a better coutnry, right?

then thers the 2 party system. We have it here to. It results in less annoying horse trading in some ways, and much greater stasis in governemnt action. CAn static 76 tell us about the fates of the last major attempts at upsetting the 2 party system?

"Well...if your saying that one party controls America, then how do you handle successgul canidates who didn't even have a political party?"

They get ignored, coopted, bought out, etc etc. Ultimately, from the outside, they seem to make little difference.

From teh beggining:
"No real arguement here, the legacy of our past meddling has spawned a wealth of the anger we recieve from around the World. But do our negatives counteract our positives?"

BY a small margin, i think yes. But thats just my opinion. I dont have 300 gb of stats to back it up. The point is that there are many european countries, which to many of the posters here, have a better society, consuming less, less social strife, less people in jail, at least as, if not more democratic, sparks has already brought up swiss direct democracy.

finally, ill poin tout that:
"The Human development index is not science, it stats."
But yoru not going ot get any other measurement of anything you seem to be talking about, except for totoally subjective ones, so to rubbish stats like that just takes away any attempts at greater rationality in the discussion. (not that stats tells you that much, but, GIGO and you pu tthe same inputs for every ocuntry in.)

Originally posted by nico
This rather pointless post can be answered with science, the UN HDI report:
i)Norway
ii)Iceland
iii)Sweden
iv)Austrialia
v)Netherlands
vi)Belgium
Number 4!?!?
Australia is definitely #1!
Having visited Northern Europe I can say Norway, Iceland and Sweden are way way way to bloody cold and (it seems from my friends that have moved there) the people get down right depressed during the winter (which I don’t blame them). No the truth is AU has the land, the resources, the weather, democracy, great beaches, and Sydney itself is quite multicultural. Some of my friends think of it as an annex of the USA. However, believe me, that’s not true – the life here is so very much better! :)
Go Australia!!

Just out of curiousity where is Canada on this list? I would have thought somewhere around the top?

Originally posted by static76
This board seems to be filled with an unhealthy dose of Anti-American feelings. So I ask a simple question to everyone. If America isn't the best country and political system in the World, what country and system do you consider the best? There is no right or wrong answers, I would just like to understand better what many of you consider ideal.

You forgot that having superpowers retards the growth of competing systems. So it will have to be a conjectural one.

That being said, I like European (national) socialism a lot better. Cuts out the stupidity and wastes of time and focuses on what's important, like nature, family and technology.

Number 4!?!?
Australia is definitely #1!


Not really, yes the weather is very nice, but in winter Austrialia sucks. Except in the north like Darwin. ;) I am actually shocked Austrialia was in the top 5.

Just out of curiousity where is Canada on this list? I would have thought somewhere around the top?

For 8 years canada was #1, then this year we are #8 :mad: the reason why is because of our aboringinal population, I would imagine the same would bring down Austrialia.

Originally posted by guthrie
then thers the 2 party system. We have it here to. It results in less annoying horse trading in some ways, and much greater stasis in governemnt action. CAn static 76 tell us about the fates of the last major attempts at upsetting the 2 party system?

"Well...if your saying that one party controls America, then how do you handle successgul canidates who didn't even have a political party?"

They get ignored, coopted, bought out, etc etc. Ultimately, from the outside, they seem to make little difference.

Perot was leading in the polls and could have won if he didn't "lose it" and drop out of the race.
BY a small margin, i think yes. But thats just my opinion. I dont have 300 gb of stats to back it up. The point is that there are many european countries, which to many of the posters here, have a better society, consuming less, less social strife, less people in jail, at least as, if not more democratic, sparks has already brought up swiss direct democracy.
That's fair. As I said in the original post, I just wanted to hear what reasons people have for saying that America isn't the best country in the World. There isn't a right or wrong answer.
But yoru not going ot get any other measurement of anything you seem to be talking about, except for totoally subjective ones, so to rubbish stats like that just takes away any attempts at greater rationality in the discussion. (not that stats tells you that much, but, GIGO and you pu tthe same inputs for every ocuntry in.)
I have to disagree. We don't use the UN HDI to examine the Roman empire, the Mayan civilization, Macedonia culture, Egypt's place in the ancient World, and so on...

Of course this is all subjective, that was my intention. The reluctance of posters to list their reasons for other countries has surprised me. I had hoped this thread would be a good middle ground discussion and an alternative to half the threads on the WE&P forum that are nothing but devisive.

Originally posted by nico
U see the whole of posting that is that it was useless to do so. MAD exists and thus "conventional" power dosen't even matter. 10 nukes,1000,10,000, dosen't matter once nukes are involved the situation changes and peace happens. Like WCF said you have nukes who the f*** is going to bother you? I know stokes I am not stupid
Yes, MAD exists. However, that does by no means mitigate the worth of conventional militaries. It kept the USA and USSR from going toe to toe for nearly 60 years, but they merely fought their wars through proxy instead. A strategic arsenal exists to deter, not to attack.

Earn yourself some military history. (hint: start in 1950 and work your way forward)

arrogant piece of....plz dont h8 me dood :(

Deter is perfect if your never going to attack.

Static

America's freedom is one of the key points I took into account. Our political system, technology, culture, power and influence, were also taken into the equation.

My points dealt merely with freedom and the political system , the freedom-rate (from a freedom-ethical perspective) in the mentioned countries is higher and the political system is more democratic .

There is no "dictating party" in America. In the last presidential election alone, we had 4 different parties(Democrat, Republican, Green, Reform) get a significant number of votes.

Bush administration who has the say in it is considered of 4 parties ?

And as I said before, you don't need to be part of a party to run. Like Perot in 92'

As I said , running ios not the issue , winning is .

Primaries ARE national elections that determine the main canidates for a party, that the public votes on. The selection of our president is far more complex than you know.

* complex does not equal democratic
* the winner is either a republican or a democrat

U dont understand , the elect the candidates FOR A PARTY . I Europe that would be considered internal membership elections . With national elections I rather ment the elections between parties .

Well...if your saying that one party controls America, then how do you handle successgul canidates who didn't even have a political party?

Do they have a say ? If they dont , obviously you're not handling them .

We have probation and other considerations to take into account when a sentence is handed down.

That doesnt change the ridiculous sentences a person ought to sit out .

I really don't care if a murderer get 300 years in prison for slaughtering a family.

You dont care that the person isnt gonna be 300 years ?

You see, the criminal get a certain amount of years for each count he commits.

He can commit more than he can be punished for , so you simply change that by punishing him for the years hes dead too ? lol

Are you so damn stubborn to admit that this is too stupid ? Are you so nationalistic to even recognize your nations mistakes ?

I want everyone's thoughts, including yours. Do I have to be a citizen from the times of the Roman Empire to understand their society?

No you dont but you shouldnt expect me from informing what theur view on things was either . You can ask a Turk or Slovak about Canada as well all I care , but hey ......

Originally posted by Protagorus
I also think Patriotism/Nationalism is only admirable to a certain extent. When you start hating someone else for petty reasons (which in certain cases include patriotism and nationalism) it becomes disgusting.

1 - Patriotism and Nationalism are opposites.

2 - Do you think 99% of the people on this planet are cool enough to be your friend?

I'll explain.

Patriotism is love of a political entity; Nationalism uses an older definition of nation which includes ethnicity and heritage.

Most of the people on this planet are total shitheads. I don't waste time hating them, but I won't hesitate to exclude them either.

I'd like to see some scientific "proof" for morality - if there is, I'll change my ways, but in the meantime, every form of analysis suggests it's a stupid hoax designed to allow the weak to succeed at the expense of the strong.

Christian Sodomy

1 - Patriotism and Nationalism are opposites.


I know Ud love to think that because U would associate yourself with nationalism and not with patriotism , however they are not opposites on bit .

Patriotism is love of a political entity; Nationalism uses an older definition of nation which includes ethnicity and heritage

While oftenly heritage and ethnicity is included , nationalism does not have to include these matters . You can also make them up , Heburaim nationalism (zionism) is a wonderfull example of this .

Also Nazism and its ivented Aryan race shows equally the possibility of making it up . Its not as much an older definition of nation , but a revised definition of a peoples . And in that sense patriotism doesnt differ one bit . Nationalism is not necesarily linked with heritage and ethnicity , but with ideals just as well . Stalinist countries who pretend to be communists have/are/can be nationalistic as well , for example .

Most of the people on this planet are total shitheads. I don't waste time hating them, but I won't hesitate to exclude them either.

So you differentiate shitheads from non-shitheads through heritage and ethnicity ?

I'd like to see some scientific "proof" for morality - if there is, I'll change my ways, but in the meantime, every form of analysis suggests it's a stupid hoax designed to allow the weak to succeed at the expense of the strong.

There isnt any morality is in your mind , but you do realize that you strongness in todays society would not survive 3 minutes of Bosnia or 1 minute of Monrovio , dont you ?

Yes, MAD exists. However, that does by no means mitigate the worth of conventional militaries

Well no when u invade a basicly defenceless Iraq then surely you are correct. But let's say Iraq had 5 nukes and nuked Kuwait before the US invaded I would say conventional militaries are a joke wouldn't you?

It kept the USA and USSR from going toe to toe for nearly 60 years, but they merely fought their wars through proxy instead.

NO SHIT! :rolleyes:, well except for Vietnam and Afghanistan. (Korea was officially Korean-Sino, and UN)

A strategic arsenal exists to deter, not to attack.


When there is peace, when there is war your little idea flutters away like your staying power.

Earn yourself some military history. (hint: start in 1950 and work your way forward)


PLEASE! Don't make me laugh man! This is exactly why ppl should avoid u. YOU ARE A ARROGANT SHITake!

Originally blathered by nico
blahWhat you need to understand is, that although a nuclear arsenal is a powerful deterrent, a nation cannot use it to trump all forms of military conflict. You can't play the nuke card at every turn and be taken seriously. Nor can you accomplish vital military objectives such as maritime interdiction it.

A nuclear arsenal is but one component of a much larger equation. That's what I said, period. Drive through, strawman.

You are like toilet paper all i can say about that.

nation cannot use it to trump all forms of military conflict.

Well I should say NK, Pakistan, India, and Israel are doing a pretty good job dis-crediting that.

You can't play the nuke card at every turn and be taken seriously.

According to whom? If you have em show them off. WTF is going to touch you?

Nor can you accomplish vital military objectives such as maritime interdiction it.


If Iraq had nukes she could have killed 120,000 + american soldiers in Kuwait. Well Iraq would be nothing after the Americans nuke but I am certain the US would have not invaded if she had nukes.

A nuclear arsenal is but one component of a much larger equation. That's what I said, period. Drive through, strawman.

Yes that is true but I would rather have 300 nukes than a huge ass army.

While I am a citizen of the U.S. and am grateful I was lucky enough to be born here...there are aspects of other nations I feel are a better model for a world of improved peace, harmony, and happiness.

The U.S. political system in particular has degraded to a point of severe limitations. We have two choices: elephant or donkey. No other choice is currently viable. When is the last time another party had a seat in the presidency? Each party has an agenda and this agenda will be pursued despite the differences in individual candidates. So we basically are forced to choose between two increasingly centric and blurry agendas. It is not a democracy and is drifting further and further away from one...

The swiss system has been mentioned and I would like to 2nd that. They have minimal national government and true democratic governing regions.

There are other areas I could discuss such as civil liberties (I like the dutch as you could imagine), environmental awareness, etc. Maybe I will chime in on them later.

Originally posted by nico
Yes that is true but I would rather have 300 nukes than a huge ass army. Wow. False dichotomy ahoy. How do you take/hold ground with nothing but nuclear weapons?

Freako, american power tripper I don't want to invade any nations unlike you are your imperialist dreams. All i want is a potent defence. I suggest America do the same. :rolleyes:

As I suspected, you can't forumulate a cogent response, so you resort to ad hominem straw man fallacies.

Ohhhhhh like you infamous answer to my post:

what

LOL, go suck on eggs man u are a moron. THIS IS A AD HOM POST! Why you can't answer to my simple post, i don't invade I protect. S*** head.

http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/tongue3.gif

Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
Static
My points dealt merely with freedom and the political system , the freedom-rate (from a freedom-ethical perspective) in the mentioned countries is higher and the political system is more democratic .

How so? I'm interested in hearing the reasons why you think this.
Bush administration who has the say in it is considered of 4 parties ?
I'm not sure what you mean here.
As I said , running ios not the issue , winning is .
The mistakes of other party canidates is not an indictment of the American political system. Perot could have won, but he dropped out of the race and blew his credibility.

If the Yankees win the World Series every year, does that make Baseball unfair, or are the Yankees just better?
* complex does not equal democratic
* the winner is either a republican or a democrat

Only because the vast majority of other party canidates are fringe politicians with extreme views. The Reform, Libertarian, and Green need to choose better leaders.
U dont understand , the elect the candidates FOR A PARTY . I Europe that would be considered internal membership elections . With national elections I rather ment the elections between parties .
The World series is decided between only 2 teams, BUT there is a whole season with 28 other ones, and an elimination process to determine who represents the NL and AL.

We have primaries with many canidates, and it's up to the PEOPLE to narrow it down to just 2 canidates. Even then, anyone over 35 can run for the presidency as an independant, or any of the other parties out.
That doesnt change the ridiculous sentences a person ought to sit out .
Why are you stuck on sentences over 100 years? Say we come up with some wonder drug that allows us to live 3 times as long. Would you then want a murderer out because we have to limit his sentence to only 100 years?

The people who get these sentences are the worst kinds of criminals, I feel no pity for them.
You dont care that the person isnt gonna be 300 years ?
I have no idea what kinds of technology we may discover.
He can commit more than he can be punished for , so you simply change that by punishing him for the years hes dead too ? lol
No, they can bury him after he's dead...;)

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
While I am a citizen of the U.S. and am grateful I was lucky enough to be born here...there are aspects of other nations I feel are a better model for a world of improved peace, harmony, and happiness.

The U.S. political system in particular has degraded to a point of severe limitations. We have two choices: elephant or donkey. No other choice is currently viable. When is the last time another party had a seat in the presidency? Each party has an agenda and this agenda will be pursued despite the differences in individual candidates. So we basically are forced to choose between two increasingly centric and blurry agendas. It is not a democracy and is drifting further and further away from one...

The swiss system has been mentioned and I would like to 2nd that. They have minimal national government and true democratic governing regions.

There are other areas I could discuss such as civil liberties (I like the dutch as you could imagine), environmental awareness, etc. Maybe I will chime in on them later.
I would argue that it's not the political system to blame, but the people. As long as voter turnout stays at its pathetic level, and we worry more about what's happening on "Friends" instead of how Bush lied, corrupt leaders will get in place.

The Swiss system is very sound, but how would it's effects translate in a country as diverse and vast as America. One of the great benefits of our system is its flexible and the ability of the population to inact change. Women's lib, civil rights, gay rights, etc. are all examples of how Americans have a direct influence into policy, if they choose to wake up and use it.

I would argue that it's not the political system to blame, but the people.
Certainly true, but it is kind of a self-defeating prophecy. People feel they have no impact...therefore they do not vote...therefore they have no impact...The system itself contributes to this with its hierarchial syphoning. Any vote towards something other than the big 2 is a waste.

The Swiss system is very sound, but how would it's effects translate in a country as diverse and vast as America
I think the system would lend itself quite well because of the very fact that we have a diverse and vast country. A diverse population is better suited for democracy. More power to the regions/states would allow the country to adapt better to its local populous.

If all you have are nukes what do you do if an internal faction builds up a militia and attempts to sieze power? You can't nuke your own cities. What do you do if your neighbor attacks you but is situated where using nukes would result in radiation blowing into your own cities? What do you do if you are being attacked by a terrorist organization interwoven through several friendly countries? What do you do if somebody attempts a marine blockade of your ports but keeps their fleets scattered?

Nukes can only be used for so much.

All that post was, was what a typical american would say. WAR,WAR,WAR. That is not the answer for everything. If you had a clue you would know that terrorists attack u b/c of that ideology which u clearly show. Now I will have a military obviously but for self defence. We would never go around the world invading and seting up bases. That is setting us up for disaster later on. Like your 9/11, militarism and influence got u trouble. We are not into that game.

What do you do if somebody attempts a marine blockade of your ports but keeps their fleets scattered?


Firstly why would a nation do that, if we not beligerant? And secondly we would threaten to nuke them if they don't stop. That is why that would never even happen.

all you have are nukes what do you do if an internal faction builds up a militia and attempts to sieze power?

I would purge them, I would have a potent secret service.

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
Certainly true, but it is kind of a self-defeating prophecy. People feel they have no impact...therefore they do not vote...therefore they have no impact...The system itself contributes to this with its hierarchial syphoning. Any vote towards something other than the big 2 is a waste.

Agreed. This is why it's vital that the other parties select better canidates. I remember how Perot came up in 92'. People said this guy has great ideas for the US economy and would make a great president. They then started a grassroots campaign through word of mouth and it spread throughout the country. The first time I heard Ross Perot's name was on a radio talk show where a guest mentioned "this guy gaining alot of support" in passing. Eventually he announced and at one time he was beating Bush and Clinton by a good margin, before he dropped out of course.

This is just an example of how well the system still works, and how Americans are still willing to support canidates outside of the big 2.
I think the system would lend itself quite well because of the very fact that we have a diverse and vast country. A diverse population is better suited for democracy. More power to the regions/states would allow the country to adapt better to its local populous.
I would argue that America is this very thing. States have their own laws and governing bodies in addition to the federal ones. Then you also have county, and city governments.

Nico: Playing nice only works when all other groups play nice as well.

http://www.guru3d.com/forum/images/smilies/Lurking.gif

Look at European countries: their weak (by USofA standards) you don't see anyone @#$%ing with them militarily? The future is in globalization and super capitalism countries will rely on each other to much to make war, only businesses.

Don't see them currently in a hot spot only because of good neighbors. Imagine if you had Iran, south Korea, China, and Syria jummed right up against Europe.

Then NATO would fight back and if they are losing they will nuke back, "If we have to die then everyone dies!" again the Dr. Strangelove strategy: the bomb makes for perfect peace as long as no one near the button or can temp those near the button (such as your hypothitcal attackers) goes insane and does it. Since in reality no one would dare risk nuclear war (even china) its safest having the bomb and the missiles to lobby them: you don't need a big military anymore.

Originally posted by Clockwood
Don't see them currently in a hot spot only because of good neighbors. Imagine if you had Iran, south Korea, China, and Syria jummed right up against Europe.
South Korea?
China?

Sry... meant north korea. China stays on my list though.

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
.....Since in reality no one would dare risk nuclear war (even china) its safest having the bomb and the missiles to lobby them: you don't need a big military anymore. even China?

Static
How so? I'm interested in hearing the reasons why you think this.

Didnt we already deal with the higher freedomrate and the bigger democratic quality of the political system of those countries mentioned (Netherlands-Belgium) than the USA ?

Perhaps Im misunderstanding what you ask of me , but if its merely repetition of my previous words Id have to redirect you to my previous posts .

I'm not sure what you mean here.

There is only one party governing your country . There are no coalition governments . This means less balance between viewpoints , because there only is one .

The mistakes of other party canidates is not an indictment of the American political system. Perot could have won, but he dropped out of the race and blew his credibility.

What % do the democrats and republicans together hold in your entire body ? What is left for another ? Is it a coincidence these 2 end always at top 2 ? Is it coincidence the rest is almost non-existent ?

If the Yankees win the World Series every year, does that make Baseball unfair, or are the Yankees just better?

Maybe the Yankees are better everywhere because the Yankees have more cash . Now thats not really democratic is it ?

Only because the vast majority of other party canidates are fringe politicians with extreme views. The Reform, Libertarian, and Green need to choose better leaders.

Im happy you try to explain the problem , because this way at least you are acknowledging it . However all those other leaders of yours never got anywhere , it has always been republican & democrat , or am I wrong ?

Maybe it has more to do with them rather with those leaders ?

The World series is decided between only 2 teams, BUT there is a whole season with 28 other ones, and an elimination process to determine who represents the NL and AL.

Every time the same 2 teams makes peoples look its a sham .

Why are you stuck on sentences over 100 years? Say we come up with some wonder drug that allows us to live 3 times as long. Would you then want a murderer out because we have to limit his sentence to only 100 years?

I dont believe in justice out of spite , a hundred year old whatever should be able to do whatever he is no danger to anybody .

The people who get these sentences are the worst kinds of criminals, I feel no pity for them.

Yes I understand , spite.

I have no idea what kinds of technology we may discover.

Oh come on this is totally ridiculous are we here giving out sentences in the ignorance that we dont know future technologies ? OMG , that is too much .

No, they can bury him after he's dead...

U sure ? No ghost-hunting ?

And Clockwood what exactly is your issue with Syria ?

I think it's usually been Europeans making war with East not the other way around. So why include China on the list?

China is next up after the USofA as a single nation super power (the EU is a psudo-superpower) China might one day have bigger balls the USofA has now and start blatantly hijacking countries left and right for resources, money and power thus become a world threat and clashing against NATO, if NATO can't fight China's then superior military then nothing can stop china from total domination… accept the nukes, but that would kill everyone, oh well some would rather die or live in shelters then under communist rule (state mind set of American politicians during the 1950-80).

Let me explain to you what is needed in this world today.

1) A potent large (500-1000) nuke force with ICBM's.
2) A potent terrorist force armed to the teeth, with dirties. (only used in war)
3) A small (250,000-400,000) man army which is highly trained and highly specialized.
4) A large and silent submarine force for that "naval blockade"

With 1,2 no nation would dare go to war against you. Terrorists wouldn't attack me because I don't pry in their nations affairs like the US. Having PNAC/imperialistic wars is not helping your situation. ;)

I don't think u realize how stupid it is Spkye. 13,000=7,000 it's of no concern they can both destroy each other to kingdom kom!

Nico, you're the one who made the comparison of arsenal sizes and indicated that the Russians had the real power because of the size of theirs, not me. My point was what you're now trying to argue. If the US can completely destroy Russia and then some with its nuclear arsenal of 7000 what difference does it make if the Russians have 7001, 13,000, or even 130,000?

My question to you american power trippers is if America is all so powerful, then why not inavde Russia, NK, etc.? Again conventional power is a joke when it comes to nukes

Obviously if you make the decision for war there should be a gain/necessity vs risk factor. In the case of Russia the risk factor would definitely outweigh the gain/necessity. In the case of NK I would say the risk factor is strong, while I don't see any real gains, nor do I see a necessity, at this point. If in the future NK was a direct and imminent threat to the US, the gain/necessity migh indeed outweigh the risk (although I don't see it that happening, but you asked).

As far as your last line, I agree, when weighed against nuclear power conventional power is rather pointless. If you look at the Cold War, however, at the US and the USSR, despite nukes conventional power was still very relevant. The reason being that Europe would have been the main battleground, not either of their own homefronts. Other potential battlegrounds could have been in the Mideast, and possibly Asia perhaps, so the necessity of major conventional forces were important, because if both sides had fought a major conflict either side could have sustained a loss and still pulled back within its borders and survived to fight another day. And either belligerent's nuclear arsenal would of course guaranteed their survival against invasion from the other. If China indeed does become a military superpower along with the US, then I think conventional strength will be very relevant. If two superpowers ever come to blows the world can only hope it is with conventional weapons and not nukes.

Nico, you're the one who made the comparison of arsenal sizes and indicated that the Russians had the real power because of the size of theirs, not me.

Well my posts after that cleary rebutte that postion wouldn't you say? MAD, it dosen;t matter how many nukes u have, as long as u have MAD capibility then what are u going to do? Fight and be destroyed?

If the US can completely destroy Russia and then some with its nuclear arsenal of 7000 what difference does it make if the Russians have 7001, 13,000, or even 130,000?


As I said in my previous points nothing.

If you look at the Cold War, however, at the US and the USSR, despite nukes conventional power was still very relevant. The reason being that Europe would have been the main battleground, not either of their own homefronts.

Yes but remember that still useless, they had those large militaries because both thought that they were belligerant against each other. The USSR thought the the west was going to invade and visa versa. Conventional armies only were considered in the 60's when the USSR i believe started a massive modernization process.

Other potential battlegrounds could have been in the Mideast, and possibly Asia perhaps, so the necessity of major conventional forces were important, because if both sides had fought a major conflict either side could have sustained a loss and still pulled back within its borders and survived to fight another day.

When it came to the USSR, yes a large military was needed. She had E.Euro to control, China a very real threat, and a ME. The US really had no use for a large military. Apart from protecting her allies worldwide. Now the last sentence in a sense did happen, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. Sadly the USSR fell apart.

If China indeed does become a military superpower along with the US, then I think conventional strength will be very relevant.

but not really against each other, they will both depend on Nukes for a deterant. To argue this is really wastful, China, USA, Russia will never go to war. The only reason why these states have militaries is because of good ole imperialism. To scare the smaller nations into sub-mission.

If two superpowers ever come to blows the world can only hope it is with conventional weapons and not nukes.

HAHAAHAHA! Good one.

To argue this is really wastful, China, USA, Russia will never go to war.

I agree. It would not be in any of those nations' best interests.

Just remember that if nukes ever do fly it will not necessarily mean the end of the superpowers involved. The superpowers would be weakened yes but with the help of martial-law they would survive in a much meaner (and possibly fragmented) state. Nobody would want to see that no matter how much you may think you do.

Imagine the bastard child of the Mongol Hordes, ancient Rome, modern North Korea, and Ethiopia. Now make one copy for each additional power that was involved in the nuclear exchange. THAT is what you would have. Some part of the government would no doubt survive and call the remaining forces to it and then it would throw any shred of ethics it ever had out the window. Welcome to the Dark Ages fellows!

Thats why its best not to rely on nukes as a defense. Its like a staring contest and if nobody blinks before the time is up everybody loses. Cuban missle crisis came within a hair of "boom". We thought just the threat would be enough and it almost wasn't.

Imagine the bastard child of the Mongol Hordes, ancient Rome, modern North Korea, and Ethiopia.

Sorry using your historical logic the bastard child of the two largest empires is the US not NK, and Ethiopia? WTF Ethiopia, she dosen't even have a nuke powerplant.

You clock maybe a nuke holocaust is what humanity needs to finally get it straight. You assume someone is as stupid enough to actually pull the trigger. Also a war btwn the superpowers? LOL. Also what gives u the right to say well, NK can't have nukes? Or Iran? If u look at history the most dangerous nation with nukes has been the US. Two against Japan (when there was a Japanese surrender in Moscow), and also two failed attempts in Korea, and Vietnam. Now with Rums talking about employing tactical nukes :rolleyes: . Nukes IMO are what keeps us away from a WWII situation.

Originally posted by nico
Also what gives u the right to say well, NK can't have nukes? Or Iran?
It's completely different. The US used them at the open of the atomic age, when nobody knew what the full repercussions of their use would be. And since then, we've kept the genie in the bottle. The US and other established powers have earned their stripes with nukes. The DPRK isn't even a definite nuclear weapon state yet, certainly not with an arsenal. They've already threatened to strike Japan, and immolate Australia. Nobody wants the DPRK do go nuclear. You can't begin to pretend that the playing field is level in the least. Iran and the DPRK have an unstable leadership, and coupled with dubious and unpredictable behavior past and present, this spells nothing but disaster if they're allowed to pick up the nuclear pistol.

On a side note, nobody's talking about actually using tactical weapons specifically, there has simply been authorization for development of high speed penetrating encasements for existing weapons. It can be argued that this development is in fact beneficial to the no-nukes agenda (provided their skin of demagoguery isn't too thick and they're conducive to rational discourse) because it will enhance the safety of said weapons.

I agree that NK and Iran's leadership is un-stable. But what do u propose here? I mean you can't seriously pull a 1981 attack on Yongbyon, and anyways that would be fruitless NK has underground nuke facilities as well. NK is IMO already a nuke power (she must have some), and all we are waiting for is the Spet.9th date to affirm this:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26646

Also about the governments, Pakistan is also very viotile. Yet she has nukes. Does the US go bombing her? The US has threatened the USSR with nukes and visa versa, the US has threatened Vietnam, and Korea. Even in Afghanistan there were whispers of tactical nukes for the caves. NK is nuke now don't fool yourself.

Lets look at a different way: if you ask someone in 1900 if they thought it was likely the USofA and Russia would be the worlds only superpowers by 60 years from then what do you think they would say?