Why the U.S. are not so bad, after all..

[Matteo Martini]

I hear a lot of criticism, recently, about the foreign policy of the U.S., and I have criticized them too.
However, I think the U.S., and their policy, are not so bad, after all, for the following reasons:

1) yes, the U.S. have invaded few countries, in the last 50 years, have organize plots for destabilizing other countries, have sold a lot of guns and fighter jets all over the world, have organized assasinations of foreign leaders and so on, but, is there any superpower on the human history, that, when had the power, did not the same or worse?
Just a brief recap: U.S.S.R., Germany, during the Nazism, Japan under Hirohito, France, England and Spain, during the colonial times, the Mongol Empire, the Roman Empire, the Ancient Greek, ..
2) the U.S. have basically, together with Japan, created the modern IT industry, which has lead to the popular use of the PC and of the internet, using which, people from different countries can communicate and democracy can spread;
3) the U.S. have contributed to the world-wide spread of the English language, now adopted by many professionals and every-day people in almost all the countries of the world; this way, people from different countries, can talk to each other, and solve common problems, and democracy spreads;
4) a lot of countries under the N.A.T.O. cap ( France, the U.K., Japan, Germany ) have enjoyed a long time of economic prosperity;
5) the world major philantropists, seem to be for the most part Americans
http://www.rediff.com/money/2006/dec/02forbes.htm

[MilwaukeeMike]

Ok, are you asking anything here or just pointing out facts? I'm trying to find something to debate here but I am having a hard time doing that.

[Cheesejoff]

You know, just because the Nazi's did it doesn't make it right :P

Of course the U.S is not 100% bad, it's not 100% good either. No country is perfect, including my own.

[Blank]

I'd put in just one reason why the US isn't too bad:

1) A country that gives the chance of it's citizens to openly disagree with the nations actions, can't be all that bad.

[Darth Rotor]

I hear a lot of criticism, recently, about the foreign policy of the U.S., and I have criticized them too.
However, I think the U.S., and their policy, are not so bad, after all, for the following reasons:

1) yes, the U.S. have invaded few countries, in the last 50 years, have organize plots for destabilizing other countries, have sold a lot of guns and fighter jets all over the world, have organized assasinations of foreign leaders and so on, but, is there any superpower on the human history, that, when had the power, did not the same or worse?
Just a brief recap: U.S.S.R., Germany, during the Nazism, Japan under Hirohito, France, England and Spain, during the colonial times, the Mongol Empire, the Roman Empire, the Ancient Greek, ..
2) the U.S. have basically, together with Japan, created the modern IT industry, which has lead to the popular use of the PC and of the internet, using which, people from different countries can communicate and democracy can spread;
3) the U.S. have contributed to the world-wide spread of the English language, now adopted by many professionals and every-day people in almost all the countries of the world; this way, people from different countries, can talk to each other, and solve common problems, and democracy spreads;
4) a lot of countries under the N.A.T.O. cap ( France, the U.K., Japan, Germany ) have enjoyed a long time of economic prosperity;
5) the world major philantropists, seem to be for the most part Americans
http://www.rediff.com/money/2006/dec/02forbes.htm

Jessica Biel (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://thefeed.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/jessicabiel.jpg&imgrefurl=http://thefeed.blogs.com/the_feed/2006/11/in_case_you_wer.html&h=912&w=605&sz=57&tbnid=UZ0RtWaYdr5TDM:&tbnh=147&tbnw=98&prev=/images%3Fq%3Djessica%2Bbiel%26um%3D1&start=1&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=1)seems a good enough reason to think positively.

(WARNING: The link is a slightly risque picture, might be close to NSFW, not nudity but not a lot of clothes on. If unsure, don't open at work.)

DR

[sackett]

Jessica BIEL?

A German name, needless to say.

You ex-military are all alike. If the Germans created it then it must be A-OK terrif.

Oh well. (Sings) Here's to Jessica, so gentle and good./ God made her/ And I wish I could.

[casebro]

Ok, are you asking anything here or just pointing out facts? I'm trying to find something to debate here but I am having a hard time doing that.

This IS a FORUM. I thought forums were for the exchange of ideas. I may be in the minority, since so many here seem to try to "win the debate" rather than discuss the concepts put forth. I guess I lose a lot of debates, but winning debates is not why I come here.

Or would you consider this post a strawman? Darn, I lose again...

Oopos, Imus spelt something. Lose again.

Yada, Yada, oops, I appeal to "common knowledge", bad strategy, I lose again...

[Marquis de Carabas]

I'm trying to find something to debate here but I am having a hard time doing that.
Since United States was originally conceived as a noun phrase containing an adjective and a noun, should the name--and its abbreviation U.S.--retain plurality when it comes to such grammatical issues as subject-verb agreement, or has long-standing use rendered the phrase entire a singular noun in its own right, thus rendering the formulation of the thread title incorrect?

[blndrhed]

I'd put in just one reason why the US isn't too bad:

1) A country that gives the chance of it's citizens to openly disagree with the nations actions, can't be all that bad.
You have heard about the contract for $384 million to KBR (Halliburton subsidiary) to build concentration centers throughout the United States, or Senator Graham's comments about "fifth column movements", or those who aren't loyal to America's "War on Terrorism" hoax? (*cough* Zionist propaganda *cough*).

[Beerina]

Since United States was originally conceived as a noun phrase containing an adjective and a noun, should the name--and its abbreviation U.S.--retain plurality when it comes to such grammatical issues as subject-verb agreement, or has long-standing use rendered the phrase entire a singular noun in its own right, thus rendering the formulation of the thread title incorrect?

I used to think the former; now I follow the latter.

The United States are located in The New World.

That a phrase becomes a name does not alter its meaning.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I used to think the former; now I follow the latter.

The United States are located in The New World.
I think you switched your former and latter.

That a phrase becomes a name does not alter its meaning.
It can, I believe. When one hears United States, which concept is more likely to be aroused in the head: that country or that collection of states? If the former, then United States refers to a singular entity (grammatically speaking) and should take verbs accordingly. If the latter, then the title is correct and it should remain plural.

In either case, what of the abbreviation U.S.? Must abbreviations necessarily follow the grammatical rules which apply to the things they abbreviate?

[NotJesus]

According to Shelby Foote, the grammar was changed by the Civil War:

"Before the war, it was said 'the United States are.' Grammatically, it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war, it was always 'the United States is,' as we say today without being self-conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an 'is.'"

[TragicMonkey]

According to Shelby Foote, the grammar was changed by the Civil War:

"Before the war, it was said 'the United States are.' Grammatically, it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war, it was always 'the United States is,' as we say today without being self-conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an 'is.'"

In the same way that someone with multiple personality disorder is a single person.

[Schneibster]

An old joke about incorrect pluralization of an incorrectly singularized word comes forcefully to mind here.

[geni]

1) yes, the U.S. have invaded few countries, in the last 50 years, have organize plots for destabilizing other countries, have sold a lot of guns and fighter jets all over the world, have organized assasinations of foreign leaders and so on, but, is there any superpower on the human history, that, when had the power, did not the same or worse?
Just a brief recap: U.S.S.R., Germany, during the Nazism, Japan under Hirohito, France, England and Spain, during the colonial times, the Mongol Empire, the Roman Empire, the Ancient Greek, .


Technaly china because it was so inward looking.


3) the U.S. have contributed to the world-wide spread of the English language, now adopted by many professionals and every-day people in almost all the countries of the world; this way, people from different countries, can talk to each other, and solve common problems, and democracy spreads;


English isn't that good a langue and the UK probably had a fair part in that (because when you set up a local administration in your empire it is convient that it uses your language).


4) a lot of countries under the N.A.T.O. cap ( France, the U.K., Japan, Germany ) have enjoyed a long time of economic prosperity;


Japan isn't in NATO untill there was that blip in WW1 the countries had been doing ok.

[Darth Rotor]

Jessica BIEL?

A German name, needless to say.

You ex-military are all alike. If the Germans created it then it must be A-OK terrif.

Oh well. (Sings) Here's to Jessica, so gentle and good./ God made her/ And I wish I could.
Well, my dad STILL has a Zeiss camera he traded a carton of cigarettes for, and two chocolate bars, while a soldier stationed in Berlin during the Blockade.

I also like the busty beer wenches in Munich -- fraulein mit bier -- so sue me. :D

DR

[Earthborn]

1) yes, the U.S. have invaded few countries, in the last 50 years, have organize plots for destabilizing other countries, have sold a lot of guns and fighter jets all over the world, have organized assasinations of foreign leaders and so on, but, is there any superpower on the human history, that, when had the power, did not the same or worse?"Others did worse" is not much of a justification.

2) the U.S. have basically, together with Japan, created the modern IT industry, which has lead to the popular use of the PC and of the internet,Malaysia and Thailand have had their fair share of influence on that as well. Just look at the chips in your computer to see where they were made.

3) the U.S. have contributed to the world-wide spread of the English language, now adopted by many professionals and every-day people in almost all the countries of the world; this way, people from different countries, can talk to each other, and solve common problems, and democracy spreads;English being a world language has more to do with the spread of what was the British Empire than with the US.

4) a lot of countries under the N.A.T.O. cap ( France, the U.K., Japan, Germany ) have enjoyed a long time of economic prosperity;NATO is not AFAIK an economic community, so I don't see why this is at all relevant.

[Darth Rotor]

"Others did worse" is not much of a justification.

Malaysia and Thailand have had their fair share of influence on that as well. Just look at the chips in your computer to see where they were made.

English being a world language has more to do with the spread of what was the British Empire than with the US.

NATO is not AFAIK an economic community, so I don't see why this is at all relevant.
The political stability that American post war presence, which morphed into NATO security posture, provided was a key enabler to the economic boom, post war, the Europe enjoyed for about 40 years.

The actual mechanics of ecnomic policy and cooperative/competitive ventures are a bit more complex than that, and I don't quite understand it entirely myself, other than to note that the transAtlantic trading partnerships make both the US and its NATO allies wealthy, so far.

That is of course a bit of a carry over from the pre WW I and pre WW II trade linkages already in place.

DR

[Matteo Martini]

Jessica Biel (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://thefeed.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/jessicabiel.jpg&imgrefurl=http://thefeed.blogs.com/the_feed/2006/11/in_case_you_wer.html&h=912&w=605&sz=57&tbnid=UZ0RtWaYdr5TDM:&tbnh=147&tbnw=98&prev=/images%3Fq%3Djessica%2Bbiel%26um%3D1&start=1&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=1)seems a good enough reason to think positively.

(WARNING: The link is a slightly risque picture, might be close to NSFW, not nudity but not a lot of clothes on. If unsure, don't open at work.)

DR

I prefer Charlize Theron..
http://images.askmen.com/galleries/actress/charlize-theron/pictures/charlize-theron-picture-1.jpg
You can open this link during work-time..

[MelBrooksfan]

You know, just because the Nazi's did it doesn't make it right :P


No.. in fact, the Nazis doing it probably makes it very bad.

[Pardalis]

I prefer Charlize Theron..
http://images.askmen.com/galleries/actress/charlize-theron/pictures/charlize-theron-picture-1.jpg
You can open this link during work-time..

I believe Charlize Theron is South African.

[Matteo Martini]

Technaly china because it was so inward looking.


Do not get it..


English isn't that good a langue and the UK probably had a fair part in that (because when you set up a local administration in your empire it is convient that it uses your language).


English serves quite well, as the lingua franca in the scientific and economic world


Japan isn't in NATO untill there was that blip in WW1 the countries had been doing ok.

However, Japan is under the U.S. military umbrella..

[Matteo Martini]

I believe Charlize Theron is South African.

She is, why?
I appreciate beauty world-wide :)

[Pardalis]

She is, why?

Because she's born there I guess.

[Kopji]

And we suffer fools gladly.

I'm not sure if that is a positive trait or not, but it must certainly be an advantage to our critics. :D

[luchog]

Technaly china because it was so inward looking.

So, the Korean War didn't happen in your world? How about Vietnam? The Indochina Wars? Sino-Vietnamese War? Laos? Cambodia?

[PixyMisa]

Malaysia and Thailand have had their fair share of influence on that as well. Just look at the chips in your computer to see where they were made.
Sorry, but no. Malaysia and Thailand offer cheap manufacturing facilities, nothing more. Even if you had said Korea and Taiwan, which are far more significant players, you would still be far off the mark.

[Earthborn]

Malaysia and Thailand offer cheap manufacturing facilities, nothing more.Cheap manufacturing facilities are not significant in how the modern IT industry was created?

[geni]

So, the Korean War didn't happen in your world? How about Vietnam? The Indochina Wars? Sino-Vietnamese War? Laos? Cambodia?

Wrong millenium. China had the power to occupy anything near it and anything near that for far longer than the US has existed but tended not to do so.

[Matteo Martini]

Because she's born there I guess.

:)

[Tailgater]

Cheap manufacturing facilities are not significant in how the modern IT industry was created?

Cheap manufacturing significant-yes

The cheap manufacturing existing in Malaysia and Thailand-no

The chips could just as easily read, "Made in a cheap manufacturing place".