Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

jog · Jul 14, 2002, 10:32 PM

a lot of US citizen state that their country is the best in the world. what is their opinion/conviction based on?

not the usual US bashing here - see: I like my country very much, but I haven't seen much of the world yet, so I wouldn't say it's the best in the world. can you name something that you can do in america but not overhere in western europe?

el lindo · Jul 14, 2002, 11:09 PM

Off the top of my head, no. But I can think of plenty of stuff you can do in other countries that you can't here.

tinrib · Jul 14, 2002, 11:26 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by jog:
a lot of US citizen state that their country is the best in the world. what is their opinion/conviction based on?

not the usual US bashing here - see: I like my country very much, but I haven't seen much of the world yet, so I wouldn't say it's the best in the world. can you name something that you can do in america but not overhere in western europe?<hr /></blockquote>Is that the guy from metal slug in your sig? cooool!

Pikeman · Jul 15, 2002, 06:31 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by jog:
can you name something that you can do in america but not overhere in western europe?<hr /></blockquote>Get arrested for buying beer at age 20.

TNproud2b · Jul 15, 2002, 09:42 AM

Hmm...what can I do in America?

Carry a concealed handgun. legally.

Spend less than $2 per gallon of gasoline. Then burn it in a humongous 8mpg SUV that isn't taxed based on its engine's displacement.

Date girls that have all their teeth.

Enjoy human rights that are guaranteed by a constitution.

surfacto · Jul 15, 2002, 10:45 AM

I believe the opinion/conviction is based on a combination of pride and ignorance. comparing countries and deciding which one is the "best" is really a stupid idea. Each nation has it's pluses and minuses and unless you've visited each one and spent time sampling the food, culture, legal systems, etc, then maybe we should just agree that people will always favor their home. Unless of course you're from some tyrannical, poverty stricken hell hole like Texas. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Developer · Jul 15, 2002, 10:54 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by TNproud2b:

Enjoy human rights that are guaranteed by a constitution.<hr /></blockquote>Huh? Except the right to live obviously.

Anyway, the US and Switzerland are both amongst the best places to live.

MacGorilla · Jul 15, 2002, 11:00 AM

Yes, deciding the best is silly. The best based on what standards? There are many fine nations and as many not so fine places (Uh, Rwanda, etc).

TNproud2b · Jul 15, 2002, 11:11 AM

yeah it's silly.

The best place to live is wherever you are happy. Since three-fourths of the mofos that live in the US don't appear to be exceedingly happy, it stands to reason that you probably wouldn't be happy simply by living here.

Developer · Jul 15, 2002, 11:16 AM

"Home is where you love."

M�lum · Jul 15, 2002, 11:20 AM

There is no doubt about it:

The best country to LIVE in is Italy.

Switzerland is probably the most oring place on earth.

Developer · Jul 15, 2002, 11:28 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by M�lum:
There is no doubt about it:

The best country to LIVE in is Italy. <hr /></blockquote>I thought Vancouver is the best place to live in?

jamesa · Jul 15, 2002, 11:32 AM

ok, I'll bite.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by TNproud2b:
Hmm...what can I do in America?

Carry a concealed handgun. legally.
<hr /></blockquote>this is a good thing? really?

The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 15,517 murders in 2000 were committed with firearms.
Source: <a href="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm" target="_blank">US Bureau of Justice</a>

Wait - murder is a good thing too?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
Spend less than $2 per gallon of gasoline. Then burn it in a humongous 8mpg SUV that isn't taxed based on its engine's displacement.
<hr /></blockquote>

Yep, and then take a big, deep breath of that fresh, clean Los Angeles air. It'll do your lungs a world of good.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
Date girls that have all their teeth.
<hr /></blockquote>

Good luck if you live in Mississippi. Or anywhere in the deep south.

Seriously, what a load of bull****. You think the US has a monopoly on good looking women?

One thing it is fast getting is [http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/03/05/obesity.poll/?related]a serious weight problem[/URL]. Maybe it would do a few of you some good to lose some teeth?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
Enjoy human rights that are guaranteed by a constitution.<hr /></blockquote>You don't need a constitution to enjoy human rights. It's the US that seems to have the <a href="http://www.amnestyusa.org/icc/" target="_blank">problem with human rights</a>, not so much the rest of the world. Anyway, how many days ago was it that I was watching some US cop beat some handcuffed kid up? Is that protected under your constitution? Did it help him?

I like your country, but I wouldn't shut yourself off to its failings or try to disguise them as strengths. Nor would I try to write off the rest of the world as crap <img border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" title="" src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" />

-- james

[ 07-15-2002, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: jamesa ]

SimeyTheLimey · Jul 15, 2002, 11:42 AM

The US is clearly the best country in the world. Why else would people in far away places like Australia spend their waking hours worrying about minor American domestic issues that do not impact them in any way? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

M�lum · Jul 15, 2002, 11:53 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The US is clearly the best country in the world. Why else would people in far away places like Australia spend their waking hours worrying about minor American domestic issues that do not impact them in any way? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> <hr /></blockquote>You mean that they don't have that kind of worries Down Under?

Isn't it nice when people care about you?

ink · Jul 15, 2002, 12:00 PM

Let's pick the best color, the best gender and the best race while we're at it...

Ca$h68 · Jul 15, 2002, 12:22 PM

I think we base that the US is the best because we're the most successful. We have the highest standard of living, the longest average life, and we basically control what the world does. Try to imagine the world without the US. It'd be completley different. Now imagine the world without some stupid country like Denmark. >shrug< No difference. Plus I think America has the best freedoms, like the ability to get into a car and drive ALL OVER the place and see deserts, mountains, everglades, rolling hills; the varied scenery here is just gorgeous.

- Ca$h

malvolio · Jul 15, 2002, 12:29 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Ca$h68:
I think we base that the US is the best because we're the most successful. We have the highest standard of living, the longest average life, and we basically control what the world does.

- Ca$h<hr /></blockquote>Wrong. Several countries have higher standards of living and longer average life spans than the USA. For example, all the Scandinavian countries.
<sarcasm>And it's sooo nice that we control what Iraq and Iran and North Korea and China do...</sarcasm>

Mr Heliums · Jul 15, 2002, 12:36 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Ca$h68:
I think we base that the US is the best because we're the most successful. We have the highest standard of living, the longest average life, and we basically control what the world does.
- Ca$h<hr /></blockquote>So the richest, healthiest and most domineering guy in your class was generally considered the best person too?

SimeyTheLimey · Jul 15, 2002, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by Mr Heliums:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />So the richest, healthiest and most domineering guy in your class was generally considered the best person too?<hr /></blockquote>As opposed to the whiny, pasty faced, red-haired, chronically unemployed and insecure Scot, yes.

Lighten up. The patriotism of others does not threaten your patriotism in any way. The sooner Europeans start developing a healthy and positive patriotism that isn't just resentfulness and insecurity, the better things will be.

daimoni · 01:26 PM

.

DBursey · Jul 15, 2002, 01:08 PM

The most recent United Nations Human Development Report ranks 162 countries according to per capita income, health care, life expectancy and educational levels.

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/07/10/un.list/index.html" target="_blank">UN Ranking of Countries</a>

and the winner is ...

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/07/10/un.development/index.html" target="_blank">Norway Ranked Best Country</a>

daimoni · 01:26 PM

.

ringo · Jul 15, 2002, 01:58 PM

<a href="http://www.sealandgov.com/" target="_blank">Sealand, </a>gotta be Sealand, relaxed laws...100% employment rate.

Jul 15, 2002, 06:27 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ink:
Let's pick the best color, the best gender and the best race while we're at it...

<hr /></blockquote>blue, male, and human. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

rampant · Jul 15, 2002, 06:38 PM

It's nationalism, not patriotism.

juanvaldes · Jul 15, 2002, 07:10 PM

**** it, I live here, I love it. Simple.

Lerkfish · Jul 15, 2002, 07:29 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by juanvaldes:
**** it, I live here, I love it. Simple.<hr /></blockquote>this is a silly thread because most people, unless they are traitors, will prefer their country of origin. It's what they are most familiar with and the most comfortable with.
this sort of thread just becomes a test of one's own nationalism....which is so subjective as to be pointless.

Of the few countries other than the US I've been in (very few) I've enjoyed them immensely within their own context, but I was always glad to come home again. That's true of most people who travel.

I think its hard to judge also because you can spend an entire life in one country and not experience all that it has to offer, so making a judgement between one and another is automatically skewed by your own life experience.

On the other hand, if this thread is just another US bashing excuse thinly veiled, then its even MORE pointless.

daimoni · 01:26 PM

.

undotwa · Jul 15, 2002, 08:41 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by daimoni:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DBursey:
The most recent United Nations Human Development Report ranks 162 countries according to per capita income, health care, life expectancy and educational levels.

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/07/10/un.list/index.html" target="_blank">UN Ranking of Countries</a>

and the winner is ...

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/07/10/un.development/index.html" target="_blank">Norway Ranked Best Country</a><hr /></blockquote>Yeah. I think I read that in the Economist a while back. Too bad they didn't factor in 'fun' in the rankings...

Well, maybe it's time to move to Scandinavia?<hr /></blockquote>According to that list, Australia is second on that list

WOOT! Heh. Maybe it's time to move to a country like Australia - where it aint so cold or hot on the coast, and you still enjoy the high standard of living

.

SimeyTheLimey · Jul 15, 2002, 09:47 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Lerkfish:
[QUOTE]this is a silly thread because most people, unless they are traitors, will prefer their country of origin. It's what they are most familiar with and the most comfortable with.
this sort of thread just becomes a test of one's own nationalism....which is so subjective as to be pointless.

Of the few countries other than the US I've been in (very few) I've enjoyed them immensely within their own context, but I was always glad to come home again. That's true of most people who travel.

I think its hard to judge also because you can spend an entire life in one country and not experience all that it has to offer, so making a judgement between one and another is automatically skewed by your own life experience.<hr /></blockquote>Very true up to a point. But I think it is possible to prefer other countries to your own without actually being a traitor. My own father prefers to live in the UK, but I don't think he is ready to renounce his country. My mother (who was English) always claimed that America became her country in addition to, but never instead of, her home in England.

I have lived roughly half my life in Britain (and three years in Germany) and the other half in the US. There are things I miss regardless which side of the Atlantic I am on. Since I had to pick one place to make my life, I chose the US. At bottom, this is "where my heart is." I was happy to serve in the US Army and it would have felt wrong, or at least odd, to serve in the British Army. Still, I remain a very English American.

Basically, ranking countries is pointless in much the way those US News & World Report college rankings are pointless. Once you are in the top 25 or so, who really gives a damn? Life in any of the major First World countries is pretty good, and picking between them really comes down to taste.

talisker · Jul 15, 2002, 09:48 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Lerkfish:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by juanvaldes:
**** it, I live here, I love it. Simple.<hr /></blockquote>this is a silly thread because most people, unless they are traitors, will prefer their country of origin. It's what they are most familiar with and the most comfortable with.
this sort of thread just becomes a test of one's own nationalism....which is so subjective as to be pointless.

Of the few countries other than the US I've been in (very few) I've enjoyed them immensely within their own context, but I was always glad to come home again. That's true of most people who travel.

I think its hard to judge also because you can spend an entire life in one country and not experience all that it has to offer, so making a judgement between one and another is automatically skewed by your own life experience.

On the other hand, if this thread is just another US bashing excuse thinly veiled, then its even MORE pointless.<hr /></blockquote>I dont see how not prefering your own country makes you a traitor, but nevermind. I think you've hit the nail on the head there - you're always glad to come home again. It's not the country that's important, it's the idea of home. I imagine if an American from Florida lived in Seattle for a year he might be glad to come home, even though he never left his country. As Michael Gambon's character said in the fine film "Charlotte Gray", "Nobody fights for their country. They fight for their family, people they love"

zigzag · Jul 15, 2002, 11:25 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by jog:
a lot of US citizen state that their country is the best in the world. what is their opinion/conviction based on?<hr /></blockquote>Always an interesting question.

I second lerkfish's comment that it's only natural to favor one's own country. This shouldn't be mistaken for "better".

Still, to the extent that U.S. citizens think their country is "the best" in some objective sense, I'd say that among the reasons are:

(1) For a long time, it has been, more or less, the official "Land of Opportunity". It isn't entirely class-free (there's no such thing among humans), and opportunity has been unfairly denied to certain classes of people, but for almost everyone else, compared to almost anywhere else, thanks to democratic/secular/capitalistic principles, it has been a place where one can improve one's lot without undue interference from the state or the church or the vested interests of the ruling class.

(2) Political, intellectual, cultural and religious freedom. Yeah, I know it hasn't always lived up to its ideals, but for most people, compared to almost everywhere else, thanks to constitutional protections, it has served as a refuge.

(3) Diversity. Human nature being what it is, there are many people who wish it were less diverse, but in any case it has been more diverse for a longer time than anywhere else on the planet. It hasn't been called "The World's Melting Pot" for nothing.

(4) Education. As bad as many of the public schools have become, the U.S. has led in this department for a long time. More and better schools and universities, for more people, than anywhere else for the past century.

(5) As a consequence of (1), (2), (3), and (4), the U.S. has provided a unique environment for technological and cultural innovation and dynamism. It isn't the only place where innovation has occurred, and many of its innovators came from elsewhere, but for a solid century it has been the place where the most important innovations have either originated or achieved critical mass. For better or worse, the U.S. can claim: blues, jazz, bluegrass, country, Tin Pan Alley, rock and roll, Hollywood, television, the mass production car, the mass production camera, the copier, the telephone, the film projector, the phonograph, the light bulb, the transistor, the semiconductor, the computer, the nuclear bomb, the airplane, the skyscraper, the world's greatest agricultural output, etc. I'm sure I've left a lot of important things out, but in any case I don't think any other single country or region could lay claim to as many important innovations in the past century.

(6) Overall quality of life. This is rather subjective, of course, and some countries have better health care and longer average life spans and so forth, and not everyone in the U.S. has benefited, but I don't see a lot of people risking their very lives to get into Sweden. There is more to quality of life than guaranteed health care.

(7) Military strength. Some people wouldn't consider this a positive, and the U.S. has faltered on occasion, but the fact remains that for the past century, the U.S. has been the country that everyone else has looked to for military (and therefore political) leadership.

(8) Natural resources and beauty. In this respect, I don't know if the U.S. has the most to offer of any single country, but it would certainly be high on any list.

I think I've just about covered it. You could probably argue with certain points but, in combination, it's not hard to see why so may people think the U.S. is "the best", even excluding more subjective preferences like baseball, James Dean, and Louis Armstrong.

Now, just so people don't think I'm merely bragging, I want to point out that the poster asked the question "Why do some Americans think the U.S. is the best country?", and I'm just trying to answer it. You'll have to make your own judgments as to whether these things are positives or negatives, and how they compare to the attributes of other countries. Obviously, if you want the most refined food and culture, you'll be better off in France.

I would also point out that these things have a cost - in the U.S., you're free to prosper, but you're also free to fail, without the benefits that accrue in many other developed countries. Of course, as many Americans would be quick to tell you, it's that freedom to prosper or fail that makes it such a dynamic, innovative place. France has great refinement and beauty, but it hasn't exactly been a hotbed of innovation over the past century.

I would also point out that there is much ugliness in the U.S. But that's a natural consequence of having a free and open society - you will tend see the best and worst in people. If you try to control things too much, even in the name of beauty, you become static.

I would also point out that the U.S. is a hopelessly varied place both geographically and culturally, so any attempts to generalize are likely to fail. It's partly the contradictions that make the U.S. a special place.

I would also point out that the U.S. has had the advantage of being new, a blank slate. Europe, for example, has had much more history and tradition to overcome. I've never been to Australia but it strikes me as being somewhat like the U.S. - wide open and settled by Europeans but without many of the traditional constraints. I could be mistaken, of course.

I would also reiterate that too many people have been prevented from sharing equally in the benefits of being American, although I doubt that anyone could name a country where this hasn't been true at one time or another.

I would also point out that just because the U.S. has led in so many ways doesn't mean that it will continue to do so. As conflict has subsided in Europe, and Europe has become more democratic and less class-bound, Europe is in some ways becoming more dynamic and more open than the U.S. But, just as the U.S. originally grew out of European culture, much of the new openness and dynamism of Europe is the result of American influence.

At the same time, due to age, affluence, increased population, and mass media, the U.S. is becoming more homogenized, more tightly regulated and potentially less dynamic. More European, in other words.

OK, flame away.

jog · Jul 15, 2002, 11:45 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by zigzag:
I think I've just about covered it.
<hr /></blockquote>yes, great post, thanks. many interesting thoughts here.

and yes, this is marco from metal slug in my sig...

� · Jul 16, 2002, 12:06 AM

When you are young (under 30) I think western Europe is your best bet. We are quite liberal here about drugs and alcohol. After all the partying, I suggest you find a nice place outside (western Europe) where it's nice and warm, and nature is beautiful. When you get old, return to Europe again where there are plenty of elevators and good public transport to get you anywhere. And when you are REALLY old and lonely, and you don't give much about seeing places, go to the moon (which will be possible by that time). I have said stupid things again, didn't I?

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Jul 16, 2002, 12:30 AM

Wow, words of wisdom from Zigzag. Nicely put.

Not sure why you ended with "flame away" though. Most of that is pretty obvious to anyone who actually isn't ignorant of the US and what it's really all about. (IE: those that actually live here with eyes open and don't have some axe to grind).

I agree with Lerkfish's point to, that most people identify with where they are from and prefer it. (Which I would think is normal and healthy). Also, wouldn't go so far as to use the term 'traitor' for those who don't. I do think however, that those who claim to hate where they are from, tend to do so via blaming their own failings and problems on where they live, rather than taking the time to make their own lives better wherever they are. One is a lot easier than the other to do.

talisker · Jul 16, 2002, 01:20 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by zigzag:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by jog:
a lot of US citizen state that their country is the best in the world. what is their opinion/conviction based on?<hr /></blockquote>Always an interesting question.

I second lerkfish's comment that it's only natural to favor one's own country. This shouldn't be mistaken for "better".

Still, to the extent that U.S. citizens think their country is "the best" in some objective sense, I'd say that among the reasons are:

(1) For a long time, it has been, more or less, the official "Land of Opportunity". It isn't entirely class-free (there's no such thing among humans), and opportunity has been unfairly denied to certain classes of people, but for almost everyone else, compared to almost anywhere else, thanks to democratic/secular/capitalistic principles, it has been a place where one can improve one's lot without undue interference from the state or the church or the vested interests of the ruling class.

(2) Political, intellectual, cultural and religious freedom. Yeah, I know it hasn't always lived up to its ideals, but for most people, compared to almost everywhere else, thanks to constitutional protections, it has served as a refuge.

(3) Diversity. Human nature being what it is, there are many people who wish it were less diverse, but in any case it has been more diverse for a longer time than anywhere else on the planet. It hasn't been called "The World's Melting Pot" for nothing.

(4) Education. As bad as many of the public schools have become, the U.S. has led in this department for a long time. More and better schools and universities, for more people, than anywhere else for the past century.

(5) As a consequence of (1), (2), (3), and (4), the U.S. has provided a unique environment for technological and cultural innovation and dynamism. It isn't the only place where innovation has occurred, and many of its innovators came from elsewhere, but for a solid century it has been the place where the most important innovations have either originated or achieved critical mass. For better or worse, the U.S. can claim: blues, jazz, bluegrass, country, Tin Pan Alley, rock and roll, Hollywood, television, the mass production car, the mass production camera, the copier, the telephone, the film projector, the phonograph, the light bulb, the transistor, the semiconductor, the computer, the nuclear bomb, the airplane, the skyscraper, the world's greatest agricultural output, etc. I'm sure I've left a lot of important things out, but in any case I don't think any other single country or region could lay claim to as many important innovations in the past century.

(6) Overall quality of life. This is rather subjective, of course, and some countries have better health care and longer average life spans and so forth, and not everyone in the U.S. has benefited, but I don't see a lot of people risking their very lives to get into Sweden. There is more to quality of life than guaranteed health care.

(7) Military strength. Some people wouldn't consider this a positive, and the U.S. has faltered on occasion, but the fact remains that for the past century, the U.S. has been the country that everyone else has looked to for military (and therefore political) leadership.

(8) Natural resources and beauty. In this respect, I don't know if the U.S. has the most to offer of any single country, but it would certainly be high on any list.

I think I've just about covered it. You could probably argue with certain points but, in combination, it's not hard to see why so may people think the U.S. is "the best", even excluding more subjective preferences like baseball, James Dean, and Louis Armstrong.

Now, just so people don't think I'm merely bragging, I want to point out that the poster asked the question "Why do some Americans think the U.S. is the best country?", and I'm just trying to answer it. You'll have to make your own judgments as to whether these things are positives or negatives, and how they compare to the attributes of other countries. Obviously, if you want the most refined food and culture, you'll be better off in France.

I would also point out that these things have a cost - in the U.S., you're free to prosper, but you're also free to fail, without the benefits that accrue in many other developed countries. Of course, as many Americans would be quick to tell you, it's that freedom to prosper or fail that makes it such a dynamic, innovative place. France has great refinement and beauty, but it hasn't exactly been a hotbed of innovation over the past century.

I would also point out that there is much ugliness in the U.S. But that's a natural consequence of having a free and open society - you will tend see the best and worst in people. If you try to control things too much, even in the name of beauty, you become static.

I would also point out that the U.S. is a hopelessly varied place both geographically and culturally, so any attempts to generalize are likely to fail. It's partly the contradictions that make the U.S. a special place.

I would also point out that the U.S. has had the advantage of being new, a blank slate. Europe, for example, has had much more history and tradition to overcome. I've never been to Australia but it strikes me as being somewhat like the U.S. - wide open and settled by Europeans but without many of the traditional constraints. I could be mistaken, of course.

I would also reiterate that too many people have been prevented from sharing equally in the benefits of being American, although I doubt that anyone could name a country where this hasn't been true at one time or another.

I would also point out that just because the U.S. has led in so many ways doesn't mean that it will continue to do so. As conflict has subsided in Europe, and Europe has become more democratic and less class-bound, Europe is in some ways becoming more dynamic and more open than the U.S. But, just as the U.S. originally grew out of European culture, much of the new openness and dynamism of Europe is the result of American influence.

At the same time, due to age, affluence, increased population, and mass media, the U.S. is becoming more homogenized, more tightly regulated and potentially less dynamic. More European, in other words.

OK, flame away.<hr /></blockquote>Zigzag,

No flaming, but a few comments on your post. On your specific points:

1) Agreed, probably America's outstanding feature, although one shared with most other "New World" countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc.

2) Compared to almost everywhere else? I dont really think so, there's lots of other (generally western) countries where this applies. Historically I dont see how America was a "refuge" to American Indians or imported African slaves for example.

3) More diverse for a longer time than anywhere on the planet? How on earth do you measure that, compared to the huge mixing of cultures in Asian or European countries for hundreds of years before Europeans set foot in America for instance? Yes, the USA is ethnically diverse, but claiming a "win" in the mixed ethnicity World Series seems a little meaningless.

4) What?! While there are some great universities no doubt, the general standard of American education, particularly regarding world geography and politics has long been regarded as fairly laughable. Can't agree at all on that one.

5) I take it you're not claiming these are American inventions, as the telephone and television were both invented by Scots, and the computer by an Englishman. The reason that so many inventions have flourished in America is surely a function mainly of its large wealthy population more than anything else?

6) Yes, it is subjective, although America's quality of life is pretty good. People risk their lives to get into many countries, not just the USA. Sweden probably isnt one of these simply because it doesnt have many "third world" countries on its doorstep that people are trying to escape from. If you seriously think America has a generally higher standard of living than Sweden then you are mistaken.

7) We (speaking on behalf of the rest of the world) certainly dont look to the USA for military leadership. For the past century? Lets look at a few examples -

WW1 - America did nothing.
WW2 - Didnt get involved until your own interests were hit directly, until then let the Nazis overrun Europe.
Vietnam, Korea - Your own wars. Failed.
Falklands Conflict - no involvement.
Gulf War - involved as part of a multinational task force under joint command, left the difficult work to foreign troops.
Balkans - again, lots of low risk bomb dropping, but left the nitty-gritty on the ground to foreign troops.

Look to you for leadership? You're having a laugh aintcha?

8) Yes, lots of beautiful places in the USA, just like lots of other countries, which arguably have much more diversity in a smaller area. But arguing about that really is futile.

TNproud2b · Jul 16, 2002, 01:54 AM

we couldn't allow a pro-America post without being subjected to follow-up militant anti-American propaganda under the guise of 'equal time' - now could we?

nonhuman · Jul 16, 2002, 01:56 AM

It's impossible to decide on a best country in the world because there's no way to measure it. Everyone was raised in a different culture and values different things.

To judge by standard of living is useless because different people have different ideas about what's important. Is one's standard of living defined by ones affluence? How much money do you need to have to live a good life? Do you need to be able to afford more than one tv per household? Why? You can't watch more than one tv at once. Do you need to be able to afford multiple cars per household, or a house with a certain number of rooms? Again, you can only use them one at a time. Excess (assets) is just waste. Who gets to decide at what tax bracket one has a 'worthwhile' lifestyle?

Is a native Jamaican who lives in a one room, tin roofed hut in the jungle yet has enough food to be well fed and is happy with what they have any less off than Bill Gates? Are we measuring by people's satisfaction with life? In that case the countries that have the most would be the worse off. America, for all it's wealth and power, is greedy. No matter how much we have we always want more. As long as we feel like we need more than we have we aren't really satisfied with our lives are we? A poor family in the third world who was just able to make enough money this week to buy the loaf of bread and thin, leaky roof that will keep them alive is much happier about that than a dot com multi-billionaire in silicon valley who just made another several million dollars (that isn't even real money because it's all tied up in stocks) but still worries about losing more money than most people in the world will see throughout their life.

Should we measure by a countries military might? By most people's measurements the US would be in the lead here. And yet all America's strength has made it the target of an enemy it can't defend against. How does that make it the best country? China, Pakistan, India, and Israel are all also pretty powerful in terms of military. Would you rather live in one of those countries? Why not?

Don't ask what country is the best to live in, ask how to best live in your country.

simonjames · Jul 16, 2002, 03:49 AM

Any country where you don't get shot at or vilified for your skin colour, sex, age, sexuality, etc etc must be fairly good. Which countries can say this doesn't happen inside their borders?

l'ignorante · Jul 16, 2002, 09:02 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by jog:
a lot of US citizen state that their country is the best in the world. what is their opinion/conviction based on?

not the usual US bashing here - see: I like my country very much, but I haven't seen much of the world yet, so I wouldn't say it's the best in the world. can you name something that you can do in america but not overhere in western europe?<hr /></blockquote>I lived in

Netherlands
Germany
Switserland
USA
Iceland
Belgium

(No, I'm not on the run)

And my conclusion is:

The best place to make friends is:
Amsterdam, Netherlands

The best place to take the car for a spin and see worlds' nature at its best:
USA

The best place to meet the best women on earth:
Iceland

The best place to eat French cuisine outside France:
Belgium

The best language for sex:
German (this will cover both Germany and Switserland, can't think of anything else)

The best thing to be is a 'citizen of the world'.

M�lum · Jul 16, 2002, 09:08 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by �:
....When you get old, return to Europe again where there are plenty of elevators and good public transport to get you anywhere. ....<hr /></blockquote>I just found out that elevators are the SECOND MOST COMMON transportation system in Italy (which has the highest concentration AND numbers of elevators in the world too)
But I have to climb 58 steps to get to my place...

Lerkfish · Jul 16, 2002, 09:18 AM

To the thread in general:

sorry, I shouldn't have used the word "traitor" as I didn't mean that in the worst sense of the word. I meant it more like if you were a Chicago white sox fan and stated you liked the cubs better....that level of "traitor". Sorry for the confusion.

Zigzag had an excellent post further up, y'all should catch that if you haven't.

There's a scene from "3 days of the Condor" where the alsatian freelance agent offers Robert Redford an opportunity to come to europe and work for him or stay in america and face certain assasination.
Redford says something like " I like america, I was born here....I'd miss it too much if I were gone for too long".
That kind of sums up how a lot of people feel.

solitere · Jul 16, 2002, 09:32 AM

The socially best country�s on earth today is Sweden, Finland and Norway.
Need i say anything else!

M�lum · Jul 16, 2002, 09:38 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by talisker:

5) I take it you're not claiming these are American inventions, as the telephone and television were both invented by Scots, and the computer by an Englishman. The reason that so many inventions have flourished in America is surely a function mainly of its large wealthy population more than anything else?
<hr /></blockquote>Dangerous territory!! It's often hard to say who invented what, as there are many examples of paralel inventions in the world.

But the telephone, long declared a US invention, was recently officially declared an Italian invention by Meucci. (he didn't have enough money to buy more than 2 years of copyright/patent on his invention, Bell ( a Scott) did have enough money and bought the patent/copyright for his own model after Meucci's money had run out)
Meucci lived on Staten Island NY when he invented the telephone.

The Russian born, in Germany living Paul Nipkov didn't invent television but did invent the principle of television which Baird developed further.
Another Russian, Wladimir Zworykin, (lived in the USA) invented the modern electronic television.
Others who had significant roles in the invention of tv are the Russian Boris Rosing and the Britt Campbell-Swinton and also the Italian Caselli.
Zworykin later became vice presedent of RCA

The first electronic calculator was made by Eckert and Mauchly and Goldstine in Aberdeen (Maryland) called ENIAC.
In 1973 their patent was cancelled and John Atanasoff got the recognition of the invention of the first electronic calculator. Another Russian living in the USA.

But the microchip, the essence of a computer was an Italian invention by Federico Faggin in collaboration with Hoff and Mazer at the company INTEL (founded by Noyce and Gorden Moore) The INTEL 4004.......

[ 07-16-2002, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: M�lum ]

Spheric Harlot · Jul 16, 2002, 09:45 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by talisker:
5) I take it you're not claiming these are American inventions, as the telephone and television were both invented by Scots, and the computer by an Englishman.<hr /></blockquote>ERhm.

*One* of the slew of inventions involved in television was made by Mr J. L. Baird.
<a href="http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bltelevision.htm" target="_blank">http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bltelevision.htm</a>

That's as silly as if you'd claimed that the computer was invented by one man! - oh, wait... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
The first mechanical computer? The first electronic computer? Analog computer? Programmable computer?
Babbage, Zuse, there were several people involved in the history.
[Edit: Ah - hello, M�lum!

]

Sorry about the tangent.

-s*

[ 07-16-2002, 10:08 AM: Message edited by: Spheric Harlot ]

M�lum · Jul 16, 2002, 09:55 AM

very misterious double post

[ 07-16-2002, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: M�lum ]

zigzag · Jul 16, 2002, 12:09 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by talisker:
No flaming, but a few comments on your post. On your specific points:

1) Agreed, probably America's outstanding feature, although one shared with most other "New World" countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc.

2) Compared to almost everywhere else? I dont really think so, there's lots of other (generally western) countries where this applies. Historically I dont see how America was a "refuge" to American Indians or imported African slaves for example.<hr /></blockquote>I was careful to note that certain classes of people have been unfairly denied the rights that other Americans have enjoyed. The Africans were enslaved, and what happened to the Natives was genocidal. There are also countless cases of political, cultural, religious, and intellectual oppression in America's history. But a reasonable argument can still be made that America has served as a refuge for more people than any other single country.

Remember, I'm not necessarily endorsing these arguments - I was mostly trying to explain what Americans tend to be thinking when they say "America is the best country", because that's what jog wanted to know (and because I think it's an interesting topic). They are clearly generalizations, although I think there is a degree of validity to them as generalizations.

I don't want to come off as a boastful American. I'm anything but that - I've travelled elsewhere, and I see the ugliness in American life as well as the beauty. I mean, who wouldn't want to retire to a villa in France if they could afford it?

I do think that when someone poses the question "What's so great about the U.S.? I can do anything they can do . . . ", they most likely are too young to have much of an historical perspective. I'm not that old, but I'm old enough to know what the U.S. has meant to millions of immigrants from all over. Now that democracy and free enterprise and rock and roll and television have spread to all corners of the world, it's harder to see the advantages of living in the U.S. But those advantages were still quite clear only a generation ago.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />3) More diverse for a longer time than anywhere on the planet? How on earth do you measure that, compared to the huge mixing of cultures in Asian or European countries for hundreds of years before Europeans set foot in America for instance? Yes, the USA is ethnically diverse, but claiming a "win" in the mixed ethnicity World Series seems a little meaningless.<hr /></blockquote>

I don't like to use the word "win", since I myself see it more as a historical phenomenon than a competition, but I still can't think of a single country where such a wide variety of people have congregated in such a relatively brief time.

I understood the premise to be 'the best country", not the best continent, so I wrote on that basis.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />4) What?! While there are some great universities no doubt, the general standard of American education, particularly regarding world geography and politics has long been regarded as fairly laughable. Can't agree at all on that one.<hr /></blockquote>I knew this would rankle some people, but again, a lot of Americans believe that it's true. Personally, I'm not sure it's true, and I'm happy to accept counter-arguments.

Other countries also have outstanding schools and universities, but it could be argued that, considering the past century as a whole, the American system has offered the most educational opportunities to the most people. It's no accident that so many people come here from so many different places to study.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />5) I take it you're not claiming these are American inventions, as the telephone and television were both invented by Scots, and the computer by an Englishman. The reason that so many inventions have flourished in America is surely a function mainly of its large wealthy population more than anything else?<hr /></blockquote>As I said, many innovations and innovators originated elsewhere. But it's precisely because the U.S. provided an environment where innovation could flourish that it has led the way over the past century. Why did all those inventors and scientists end up in the U.S.? Why have so many cultural innovations taken place here? You can't attribute that to wealth alone.

To the extent that wealth is a factor, so what? If the U.S. has provided an environment where wealth can be generated more easily than elsewhere, that's arguably just another feather in its cap.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />6) Yes, it is subjective, although America's quality of life is pretty good. People risk their lives to get into many countries, not just the USA. Sweden probably isnt one of these simply because it doesnt have many "third world" countries on its doorstep that people are trying to escape from. If you seriously think America has a generally higher standard of living than Sweden then you are mistaken.[/qb<hr /></blockquote>No, I wouldn't argue that the U.S. has a higher quality of life than Sweden. I just meant to point out that statistical measures don't tell the whole story. I mean, England just decriminalized pot - let's all move there! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Apart from Mexico, the U.S. doesn't have any third world countries on its doorstep, yet people from all over have been risking their lives to come here for more than a century, many of them from Scandinavia. There was even a pejorative term for them (along with everyone else): "Squareheads"(!).

<blockquote>quote:<hr />[qb]7) We (speaking on behalf of the rest of the world) certainly dont look to the USA for military leadership. For the past century? Lets look at a few examples -

WW1 - America did nothing.
WW2 - Didnt get involved until your own interests were hit directly, until then let the Nazis overrun Europe.
Vietnam, Korea - Your own wars. Failed.
Falklands Conflict - no involvement.
Gulf War - involved as part of a multinational task force under joint command, left the difficult work to foreign troops.
Balkans - again, lots of low risk bomb dropping, but left the nitty-gritty on the ground to foreign troops.

Look to you for leadership? You're having a laugh aintcha?<hr /></blockquote>I was giving you the benefit of the doubt until now. Are you really going to argue that, for better or worse, the U.S. hasn't been the leading military force in the world over the past century? Name me another country with comparable influence.

1. WWI: The U.S. did nothing? What are you smoking? My grandfather lied about his age in order to fight in France.
2. WWII: I didn't say that the U.S. didn't look out for itself, I said that it has been looked to for military leadership more than any other country. That everyone was begging and pleading with us to enter WWII only serves to prove my point.
3. Vietnam and Korea: I acknowledged that the U.S. has faltered on occasion.
4. Falkland Islands: Who cares? Why would the U.S. stick its nose in that one?
5. Gulf War: Again, even if your point is true, which country had the leadership role (rightly or wrongly)?
6. Balkans: I don't know enough about that one to say. I don't think it invalidates my point about influence.

I mean, everybody's always complaining that the U.S. throws its weight around too much, and you're arguing that the U.S. isn't all that influential?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />8) Yes, lots of beautiful places in the USA, just like lots of other countries, which arguably have much more diversity in a smaller area. But arguing about that really is futile.<hr /></blockquote>Agreed. Thanks for your comments.

SimeyTheLimey · Jul 16, 2002, 01:11 PM

Zig Zag, you have done an admirable job on this thread. I hope you don't mind if I contribute a couple of comments.

Talisker wrote: <blockquote>quote:<hr />4) What?! While there are some great universities no doubt, the general standard of American education, particularly regarding world geography and politics has long been regarded as fairly laughable. Can't agree at all on that one.<hr /></blockquote>Zig Zag replied: <blockquote>quote:<hr />I knew this would rankle some people, but again, a lot of Americans believe that it's true. Personally, I'm not sure it's true, and I'm happy to accept counter-arguments.

Other countries also have outstanding schools and universities, but it could be argued that, considering the past century as a whole, the American system has offered the most educational opportunities to the most people. It's no accident that so many people come here from so many different places to study.<hr /></blockquote>As someone who went to British secondary schools (up to A'Levels) but wasn't able to get into higher education until I was in the US I'd comment that there is a qualitative difference. American education gives tremendous opportunity to a much wider cross section of society than is common in most countries.

That leads to some difficulties comparing apples with apples. For example, you really can't compare an average high school student in the US with a British Sixth Former or (say) a German studying in Gymnasium for his Arbitur. The Brit and the German are relatively speaking, academic elites. They are selected into those programs by some very difficult national exams.

What the US system excels at is giving people who don't shine at age 16 a second, and even third chance. In contrast, European higher education is relatively restricted. British A' Levels are designed primarily to weed out people to stop them going to university. It cannot be said that intensively studying only three subjects is a serious attempt at providing a broad education.

This pattern is changing (e.g. Britain has added AS levels and has upgraded the Polytechnics to universities) as more countries realize that you simply have to give more access to higher education to non-elites. But the US has a significant head start. It goes back to the GI Bill after WW-II and demonstrates a completely different mindset to the whole issue of access to higher education.

As an aside, I can't help also noting <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/07/16/nhist16.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/07/16/ixhome.html" target="_blank">this</a> story from today's Telegraph about educational trends at Britain's #2 university and how unprepared even those elite students are in history.

Maybe that decline might explain taisker's history lesson which, as you correctly say, is seriously inaccurate. Here are some additions to the valid points you (Zig Zag) have already made:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />WW1 - America did nothing. (Correction: intervened, ended the stalemate, brought the war to a close).

WW2 - Didnt get involved until your own interests were hit directly, until then let the Nazis overrun Europe. Correction: Provided significant materiel support to Britain, without which Britain may have fallen, conducted secret submarine war in the North Atlantic, enabling shipping to get through. Provided the bulk of the forces that allowed Western Europe to be liberated. Often allowed units like the Free French to take the credit.

Vietnam, Korea - Your own wars. Failed. Correction: Vietnam was originally a French war. Korea: a success. South Korea liberated by a UN force consisting primarily of US troops, but also including troops from many other countries. It's worth mentioning that the Soviet Union provided troops to China in the form of covert pilots.

Falklands Conflict - no involvement. Correction: No troops, but lots of logistical support including weapons, fuel and intelligence. That was the stated reason for Cap Weinburger's knighthood.

Gulf War - involved as part of a multinational task force under joint command, left the difficult work to foreign troops.The Gulf War (really, the second Gulf War) was primarily a US show. The UK and France provided significant troops, but miniscule compared to the US involvement. Most of the other countries were there for show only. As anyone who knows anything about war knows, wars are won by logistics. Those logistics were American.

Balkans - again, lots of low risk bomb dropping, but left the nitty-gritty on the ground to foreign troops.Correction: Lots of European ineffectiveness ("the hour of Europe has arrived") followed by some horrible massacres that the Europeans were helpless to stop. Finally ended by NATO bombing led by Americans. Ditto Kosova, to which the Europeans were almost unable to contribute. European troops undoubtedly have been brave on the ground, however.<hr /></blockquote>Talisker also does not mention little inconvenient details like the Suez Crisis, a French/British colonialist fiasco which the US and Soviet Union properly put an end to; or successes like the Berlin Airlift. Or for that matter the whole Cold War. Has the cost of permanently stationing up to 300,000 troops in Europe been forgotten already? Really, Korea and Vietnam can only be understood in the proper context of the Cold War anyway.

The bottom line is that the US is not a perfect military power (there is no such thing), but it is clearly the preeminant military power of the last 60 years. Economically and politically, the US also remains the worlds preeminant power. Distorting history in persuit of an agenda isn't going to change that.

[ 07-16-2002, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: SimeyTheLimey ]

anarkisst · Jul 16, 2002, 01:36 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DBursey:
The most recent United Nations Human Development Report ranks 162 countries according to per capita income, health care, life expectancy and educational levels.

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/07/10/un.list/index.html" target="_blank">UN Ranking of Countries</a>

and the winner is ...

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/07/10/un.development/index.html" target="_blank">Norway Ranked Best Country</a><hr /></blockquote>Fark Norway...too cold. AUSTRALIA! Yes, that would be my second choice. America first though...I know my way around here...