I'm 46, an a history nut. Yes I have seen every last one of America's 20th century screw ups.
But let's not forget their good deeds.
Disasters, where does the MOST aid usually come from?
Yes many help many a lot, but who does the most?
Ever hear of the Berlin Airlift?
How about the Marshall Plan?
The US didn't really need to put Germany or Japan back together in the 50s considering what they did in the 40s. But they still did it.
Yes we all have blunders, and embarrassing moments. We all have dark deeds we hate to have brought up.
I have actually never met an American I didn't like. Been to the US so little I have not really had the chance to meet Americans just being themselves. But I do know, your funniest examples, your most embarassing doofuses are not unique.
Our school kids can look just as stupid and unworldly. Our common person on the street can be made to look just as idiotic. We have politicians that say things I wish never became public.
The US is ok, they are just different, slightly, sort of eh.
:D God bless America!
I will have to add, what makes America great is not the American government, it is Americans. The founding fathers knew that, that is why they drew up the bill of rights.
This seems to be lost on the same people who give America a bad reputation.
They think it is the government that must make a nation good or bad; socialists and fascists, they know not history.
Otherwise the rest of my prayers are on a rational election...
Ethics and Equality, hot dogs for all.
Otherwise the rest of my prayers are on a rational election...
I don't think there is such a thing as a rational election. We always seem to be forced between picking the lesser of the two evils
I will have to add, what makes America great is not the American government, it is Americans. The founding fathers knew that, that is why they drew up the bill of rights.
The Bill of Rights was an after thought. This is why they are the first ten amendments and not a part of the original constitution. Many of the founding fauthers believed that if the constitution never stated that governent could violate these rights then there is no reason to state that they are protected.
EX: Government was never given the power (via constitution) to cencor the public, so many founding fauthers did not see the point of stating that everyone has the freedom of speach.
It was actually an unpopular idea at the time to add the Bill of Rights. The arguement was that if you sprotected a few spicific rights then you were allowing government to encroch upon other related but unlisted rights (because they were never stated as protected). Many founding fauthers believed that by adding the Bill of Rights the rights of the people were actually being greatly restricted.
I do believe the american government is incompotent (but I believe this about every government). The public sector is what make the country run and not the government. I like the Free Market econemy of America and the competitiveness and inovation that it brings with it.
what i hate is the army....
i dislike military in general. it is pointless. and countries use it to wag their tale around.
if no one had a military, the world would be a much better place... The U.S. government feeds billions and billions of dollars into the military every year, and yet there are homeless jobless people in the streets.
the world needs to reprioritize and stop funding war... THE USA included..
I was in the army, and i ASSURE ALL OF YOU...98% of soldiers dont join for patriotism, or some noble reason...
they join for the paycheck and college benefits.
many will claim to be patriotic after a few years, but it is a form of brainwashing.
i will say that i like people in general... of course there are exceptions such as idiots and what have you...
what i hate is the army....
i dislike military in general. it is pointless. and countries use it to wag their tale around.
if no one had a military, the world would be a much better place... The U.S. government feeds billions and billions of dollars into the military every year, and yet there are homeless jobless people in the streets.
the world needs to reprioritize and stop funding war... THE USA included..
I was in the army, and i ASSURE ALL OF YOU...98% of soldiers dont join for patriotism, or some noble reason...
they join for the paycheck and college benefits.
many will claim to be patriotic after a few years, but it is a form of brainwashing.
You're an odd bloke, but as we have both been in the army I guess we are at able to see it more than others might.
But I am comfortable with the knowledge that mankind is a mean greedy stupid forgetful wretched creature, and I will support having a military so my
mean greedy stupid forgetful wretched citzens don't have to worry about other mean greedy stupid forgetful wretched citizens
I will be endlessly grateful for all those who will never grow old, have or will see to it I can sit safely and espouse often totally idiotic thoughts online
If we had no militarys around the world, we also wouldn't have nations, and the people that make clubs would be contiuously supplying barbarians that spent all their time warring on others as individuals.
And none of us would have the time or security to ponder idiotic utopian ideals even marx would laugh at.
it's the fact that people are willing to go to war for their government that we have these problems to begin with.
i truly believe that some people really LIKE war.
so i dont feel for those who die in wars over money. Especially in a country where the armed forces are volunteer. They have a choice.
Statistically, for the amount of enemies killed, amount of "good" done, lol, and how long the war and/or standoff has ensued, we have suffered minimal casualties. Hence why everyone tallies them off. Two died a day ago, 4 died last week. If you look at the rest of the wars in history, we have lost so few soldiers in comparison that it is almost ironic to call it "butchering Americans," but we do, oh well.
Regardless, war is a necessary evil that begets evil. There will always be evil people who want to assume power and then dominate, and their will always be the freedom fighters and the allies who think its their responsibility to aid them. Then there will be the retaliation and racism and concentration camps and inquisitions. Throughout history this has been a major part of our "civilized" society.
There will always be people who believe they are so full of wisdom, that they think everyone else in the entire world is a degenerate because they haven't found the ability to rid themselves of violence just as you have.
Besides, and yes I dare go there... What would have already become of this wonderful planet if humans had never had war, but were just as successful at prosperity and procreation as we have been throughout history? Either we would have been so overpopulated a long time ago that the planet had already been barren of those wonderful trees . Or we would have had to adopt some sort of permanent population control like China and throw babies off cliffs to keep ourselves from becoming so overpopulated that we destroy the planet. Which evil would you choose?
"...the balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside... Horrid mischief would ensue wre one half the world deprived of the use of them... the weak will become a prey to the strong."
and feeding people free money devalues the dollar and kills economies. plural.
There will always be people who believe they are so full of wisdom, that they think everyone else in the entire world is a degenerate because they haven't found the ability to rid themselves of violence just as you have.This is called elitism. I have an example down below.well if everyone thought like me there would be no wars...Besides, and yes I dare go there... What would have already become of this wonderful planet if humans had never had war, but were just as successful at prosperity and procreation as we have been throughout history? Either we would have been so overpopulated a long time ago that the planet had already been barren of those wonderful trees . Or we would have had to adopt some sort of permanent population control like China and throw babies off cliffs to keep ourselves from becoming so overpopulated that we destroy the planet. Which evil would you choose?
There also the chance that everyone upon the earth would still be hunter gatherers running around in loincloths.
That being said, the closest we ever came to peace was during the cold war.
There will always be people who believe they are so full of wisdom, that they think everyone else in the entire world is a degenerate because they haven't found the ability to rid themselves of violence just as you have.This is called elitism. I have an example down below.
@dirtyfrank. i never claimed anyone was a degenerate. or that i was full of wisdom. but i will claim that you have tried to twist what i said and put words in my mouth. Good for you!
and im hardly an elitist....im stating a FACT! not an opinion. it is a fact that if everyone shared that same ideal there would be no more war. PROBLEM SOLVED! If you believe that makes me elite, then thats your assumption. I never claimed superiority over anyone.
Before saying and country/government/process/army is stupid or pointless, consider the fact that every aspect of human life is better today then it was 50 years ago.
And again 10 fold from 100 years ago, Etc.
The fact is that despite mistakes, the evolution of human civilization over all continues to improve exponentially due in part to all these things you may dislike.
When making remarks about what you think, I urge you to consider what you should know.
Before saying and country/government/process/army is stupid or pointless, consider the fact that every aspect of human life is better today then it was 50 years ago.
And again 10 fold from 100 years ago, Etc.
The fact is that despite mistakes, the evolution of human civilization over all continues to improve exponentially due in part to all these things you may dislike.
perhaps technology, and living conditions have improved, but thats it...
i think things have reached an all time LOW this last 100 years...
Never in history has there been a WORLD WAR... we have had 2. Never before in history has mankind actively destroyed the planet we live on... only in this last 100 years. never has mass starvation been a problem in countries that have FOOD as a chief export (governments greedy for money). 100 years ago children respected and obeyed there parents. 100 years ago overpopulation was not even an issue. 100 years ago divorce was almost NONexistant, and 80% of Americans were not obese. Crime rates were much smaller, and most peoples lives did not revolve around money.
yeah there were exceptions back then...some kids disobeyed, some people were fat, some people were lovers of money, some people starved to death..
but it was nothing compared to today.
That being said, the closest we ever came to peace was during the cold war.
Just don't mention this to the people of Afghanistan or Vietnam. Proxy wars are fun. ;)
perhaps technology, and living conditions have improved, but thats it...
i think things have reached an all time LOW this last 100 years...
Never in history has there been a WORLD WAR... we have had 2.
The reason the people back before modern times didn't have world wars was because they didn't know there was a friggin' world outside of them and their neighbors. It's hard to start a world war when you don't know what the entire world looks like. Or when you can't traverse an ocean. Jeebus. If they had planes and ships, they'd have been killing everyone they could reach. Just like they did with the technology they had available. And just like we do now.
Just don't mention this to the people of Afghanistan or Vietnam. Proxy wars are fun. ;)
The reason the people back before modern times didn't have world wars was because they didn't know there was a friggin' world outside of them and their neighbors. It's hard to start a world war when you don't know what the entire world looks like. Or when you can't traverse an ocean. Jeebus. If they had planes and ships, they'd have been killing everyone they could reach. Just like they did with the technology they had available. And just like we do now.
i laughed when i read this!!! i got this mental image of mankind just killing everything they could like it was our destiny to kill everything in sight!...
it really makes me feel primitive.. it does show though that due to technology and communication the worlds problems have also increased exponentially.
i laughed when i read this!!! i got this mental image of mankind just killing everything they could like it was our destiny to kill everything in sight!...
it really makes me feel primitive.. it does show though that due to technology and communication the worlds problems have also increased exponentially.
It's not that our problems have increased due to technology. It's that technology has allowed us to be more efficient in demonstrating our problems. People have warred since there were people. They will continue to do so until there are none. Technology has nothing to do with it. No planes or ships? No problem. Smash your neighbor's skull to pieces with a rock. Just like Bible times. Wherever there were people there were murders and war. You don't need a global approach. This side of the pond kills it's own just like the other side does. That's how it has always been and how it will always be. Until we're gone.
It's not that our problems have increased due to technology. It's that technology has allowed us to be more efficient in demonstrating our problems. People have warred since there were people. They will continue to do so until there are none. Technology has nothing to do with it. No planes or ships? No problem. Smash your neighbor's skull to pieces with a rock. Just like Bible times. Wherever there were people there were murders and war. You don't need a global approach. This side of the pond kills it's own just like the other side does. That's how it has always been and how it will always be. Until we're gone.
that was not my point, my wording was bad...i did not mean that technonogy or knowledge was the cause...it has always been flawed humans.
that was not my point, my wording was bad...i did not mean that technonogy or knowledge was the cause...it has always been flawed humans.
Fair enough. Nothing to argue about there. ;)
Never in history has there been a WORLD WAR
History is rife with massive, brutal wars that affected most of the "known world" for all values of "world" (geographical locations). Frequently, the invaders would ****, enslave, and/or slaughter the defeated and take all their stuff.
With the exception of Hitler's concentration camps, war's aftereffects are a lot less brutal these days.
...except for places like Africa, where people are still living like they did hundreds of years ago.
Never before in history has mankind actively destroyed the planet we live on
Humanity has hunted species and gathered plants into extinction since its inception. The planet has also actively destroyed the majority of life that's ever lived upon it, to the point of over 99% of all species that have ever existed. And the level of destruction currently being waged on the planet is extremely debatable.
never has mass starvation been a problem in countries that have FOOD as a chief export
Possibly true, but do you even know for sure.
And mass starvation used to be a problem almost everywhere.
100 years ago overpopulation was not even an issue
How does this possibly mean that things have gotten worse?
100 years ago divorce was almost NONexistant
Maybe. Because women were a short step above property and didn't really have the option. Misery in marriage and domestic violence were rampant. Sure, they still are, but at least we now have a way out.
It's annoying when people make claims like this one, because they always seem to be pushing the idea that somehow men and women got along better, lived happier lives together, or some similar kind of nonsense. They did not.
80% of Americans were not obese
But they still didn't live as long. And they had more health problems.
most peoples lives did not revolve around money
Say what? This hasn't really been true since the conception of trade. Where on earth did you get an idea like this? Even self-sufficient farmers had desperate need of the stuff.
People didn't live paycheck to paycheck, but they did live harvest to harvest, hoping for a good crop so they could sell the excess and buy tools and other things they didn't make themselves.
And of course, people working in the factories in the cities did live paycheck to paycheck.
Your world view is... quaint. And by "quaint" I mean "possesses a high level of distortion of history."
Statistically, for the amount of enemies killed, amount of "good" done, lol, and how long the war and/or standoff has ensued, we have suffered minimal casualties. Hence why everyone tallies them off. Two died a day ago, 4 died last week. If you look at the rest of the wars in history, we have lost so few soldiers in comparison that it is almost ironic to call it "butchering Americans," but we do, oh well.
If you look at a year by year breakdown of the casualties in Viet Nam, the casualties in Iraq are a year ahead. That is to say that the 4000 mark was reached in Viet Nam in the sixth year and in Iraq in the fifth year. If you compare the casualty figures from the two world wars, Iraq is a drop in the bucket.
Comparing wars is pointless really because of the nature of the fighting. Army against army wars are different and they rack up casualties alot faster. What we have in Iraq, just as in Viet Nam is a counter-insurgency. What that means is that the combatants are concealing themselves among the population. Short of wholesale slaughter of the civilian populace there is no way to conventionally fight the kind of war that we're currently embroiled in. That's not to say that it can't be fought, it just can't be fought with conventional weapons.
If you look at a year by year breakdown of the casualties in Viet Nam, the casualties in Iraq are a year ahead. That is to say that the 4000 mark was reached in Viet Nam in the sixth year and in Iraq in the fifth year. If you compare the casualty figures from the two world wars, Iraq is a drop in the bucket.
Comparing wars is pointless really because of the nature of the fighting. Army against army wars are different and they rack up casualties alot faster. What we have in Iraq, just as in Viet Nam is a counter-insurgency. What that means is that the combatants are concealing themselves among the population. Short of wholesale slaughter of the civilian populace there is no way to conventionally fight the kind of war that we're currently embroiled in. That's not to say that it can't be fought, it just can't be fought with conventional weapons.
the worst thing about guerrilla warfare is that there are only two ways to fight it:
Near genocide (or the actual thing)
or conquering the region, implementing the best brainwashing you shrinks can come up within the local schools, and waiting a few generations.
that is it.
or you lose.
And because the american politic hates both genocide, and conquest, every bad guy in the world knows exactly how to defeat us.
And because the american politic hates both genocide, and conquest, every bad guy in the world knows exactly how to defeat us.
It didn't help much that the Vietnamese and Soviets shared that little bit of knowledge with every third world leader that would listen, did it?
History is rife with massive, brutal wars that affected most of the "known world" for all values of "world" (geographical locations). Frequently, the invaders would ****, enslave, and/or slaughter the defeated and take all their stuff.
With the exception of Hitler's concentration camps, war's aftereffects are a lot less brutal these days.
...except for places like Africa, where people are still living like they did hundreds of years ago.
Humanity has hunted species and gathered plants into extinction since its inception. The planet has also actively destroyed the majority of life that's ever lived upon it, to the point of over 99% of all species that have ever existed. And the level of destruction currently being waged on the planet is extremely debatable.
Possibly true, but do you even know for sure.
And mass starvation used to be a problem almost everywhere.
How does this possibly mean that things have gotten worse?
Maybe. Because women were a short step above property and didn't really have the option. Misery in marriage and domestic violence were rampant. Sure, they still are, but at least we now have a way out.
It's annoying when people make claims like this one, because they always seem to be pushing the idea that somehow men and women got along better, lived happier lives together, or some similar kind of nonsense. They did not.
But they still didn't live as long. And they had more health problems.
Say what? This hasn't really been true since the conception of trade. Where on earth did you get an idea like this? Even self-sufficient farmers had desperate need of the stuff.
People didn't live paycheck to paycheck, but they did live harvest to harvest, hoping for a good crop so they could sell the excess and buy tools and other things they didn't make themselves.
And of course, people working in the factories in the cities did live paycheck to paycheck.
Your world view is... quaint. And by "quaint" I mean "possesses a high level of distortion of history."
i think my point was pretty obvious and true....no need to break it down and try to discredit me. all of those things have gotten far worse in the last few generations. I need to learn from experience that you can make a fair stereotype of the posters that bisect posts into 20 parts.
I know more than enough about the situation in Iraq, but I was mainly interested in focusing on things I liked about the US.
There are lots of things about my own brother that **** me off, but when asked, I can also say I like a lot of his accomplishments too.
It's not healthy to never acknowledge a persons genuine good points. You only end up bitter and hateful.
perhaps technology, and living conditions have improved, but thats it...
There is so much more. I think your anger might be clouding the overall possibilities. Ideologies, economies, the humanities and arts in general, education, etc...
i think things have reached an all time LOW this last 100 years...
I can appreciate that you at least preface it w/ "I" in that your opinion is noted but not taken as gospel. Good protocol.
However, I must respectfully disagree though as it would seem what we know w/ what we are ignorant of impose a certain degree of bitterness and nihilism which is terribly fashionable these days. Most of what you are citing is a product of education & media consumption (books, cinema, news, etc).
Very little has been experienced 1st hand, thusly, you are beholden to other people's POV of situation 'x' w/out having intimately known it yourself.
Due to the proliferation of mass media you're simply hearing about more things on a faster level than you would've previously. A flood of data really, enough to make people less so, dehumanized if you will. Ironic as its fostering more and more contact w/ one another and as a result we're growing more and more alienated w/ one another.
We're the 1st generation to be born into the Telecommunications Age at its advent more or less. However, as it's grown, so has its output you consume, and your level of consumption is only measured at what it being given to you. Ultimately, yes, you have many choices about channels 'x' through 'z', but they have sponsors, producers w/ political interests, cultural/religious/social/geographical biases and so on. Hard to be pure.
More specifically, what you listen, see, and so forth in terms of mass media is ultimately EDITED. That which is elected to be shown to you for mass consumption is tinkered w/, adjusted, filtered on some level(s). Whether a simple matter of CGI (photoshopping Ms. Sept's breasts) or twisting flow of info (Palin has secret baby!, oil/gas prices, etc.). Always a bias, slant, or agenda will be present (Fox News, Al-Jazeera, etc) no matter how discrete. It's just these days, things are way less discrete and loyalites among media outlets and 3rd parties become more convuluted.
Only thing you can do is look w/ a more critical mind and not be taken in by sensationalism, give yourself over to apathy & bitterness, or make a total rejection of society due to media entrenchment in all aspects.
Never in history has there been a WORLD WAR... we have had 2.
The known world per civilization 'x' has been conquered many times over. Please direct your questions to the Mongols, Romans, Greeks, etc. If they had the means to expedite conquest/attrition, they would've. And war was far bloodier too despite modern tech; all male captive over "an axl tall" were executed by Mongols. Women & kids into slavery was standard.
Now, you're expected to quarter, feed, and prot. even enemy troops...not partisan fighters though. Tech helps us kill, morality limits how and who.
Never before in history has mankind actively destroyed the planet we live on... only in this last 100 years.
Early man (cave men, whatever) & wooly mammoths. The Dutch in Madagascar are credited w/ the extinction of the Dodo bird. Clear cutting woodland for farmlands (my state used to be one giant forest once). Salting of the earth during military campaigns (see Rome vs. Carthage I, II, and III [still parts in N. Africa that are blighted due to this]).
never has mass starvation been a problem in countries that have FOOD as a chief export (governments greedy for money).
Plauges can do that. So can killing off a sh-tload of birds and the resultant unchecked insect population causes famine (see Mao & Chinese cultural revolution, 33 million dead). Bread lines in Soviet Union: plenty of means to make the food, very poor means of execution/distribution.
100 years ago children respected and obeyed there parents.
It's "their" btw.
Harsher degrees of discipline, more responsibilities for kids to aid family, less social and cultural diversions/outlets for entertainment/downtime.
100 years ago overpopulation was not even an issue.
Sure it was. Just depends on the impetus for it, be it famine and what not. Granted, yes, we have exceeded carrying capacity to be sure.
100 years ago divorce was almost NONexistant
It was a major social stigma to get a divorce too, like an admission of defeat.
Alot of women died in childbirth as well that might've left their men.
Staying together was often a means of survival too.
Mistresses were exceedingly common as well. Legality vs. needs/wants.
and 80% of Americans were not obese.
Thought just over 50% was overweight. Not sure. Yeah, we've got alot of fat asses running around, I'll give you that. Too many processed foods, more sedantary lifestyles. There's no mystery yet we are compelled by the diet of the we(a)ek; watch your consumption and physical activity. Done, simple.
Crime rates were much smaller
Definitions of crimes were different though; you could beat your wife unmerciful and no one would say jack. Capture of enemy prisoners was often unheard of (waste of resources). Ethnic cleansing was a way of life. Rapes would go unreported or "tidied up" quickly for saving of face, etc.
To be fair though, as populations rise, so do the statistics of their negative affects, like crime.
and most peoples lives did not revolve around money.
They don't all these days. Its just in most capitalist based governments you are expected to play ball or forego the luxuries, and often, necessities of life. Serfs were expected to generate taxable crops too you know.
It's all relative really and cannot necessarilly be compared in b/w terms. That is, even a like social problem radically changes after time passes in the demographic it has the most impact on.
But you have stumbled upon a universal truth. Lower the population, you lower the % of social problems. That is, sometimes you gotta' thin the herd for the good of the farm...
i think my point was pretty obvious and true....no need to break it down and try to discredit me. all of those things have gotten far worse in the last few generations. I need to learn from experience that you can make a fair stereotype of the posters that bisect posts into 20 parts.
Wow. Assertion that you're correct, complaint that anyone dared to disagree, repeat of the original argument without any modifications from clear points made against it, and not-so-subtle personal insult at the person who responded to you.
I think you covered every last one of the "I don't actually have any real argument, so I'll just do instead" reactions. Except, perhaps, for quoting an Internet meme and posting a picture of a bunny with a pancake on its head.