How Great Is Your Nation?

[Autumnpuma 0]

Bruce, I don't know about you, but I'm not conviced yet that somewhere else is better than what we've got here in America....perhaps I'm missing something? Perhaps our international friends can do a better job at convincing us?

btw, welcome back!

[Max Mosley 2]

USA is not the cause of any problem in the world, if you know something about history you know that we had war all the time and we will continue having war even if USA doesn't exist any more, can anyone tell me just a single time before USA of world peace, what I think is that USA made the world a better place after WWII, you can be sure that muslim extremist have made more damage to the world than USA, thay want to impose their religion and that the only reason why that religion still exist, you want to make the world a better place to live? all you have to do is give every country religion freedom like we have in USA and that's it, it will be the end of middle east problems, muslims are causing the problem over there is not USA, and in UK they have that problem too tehy can stand each other because they are catholic or protestant (I think this is the word) but none of them is really doing what Jesus want them to do it all in the bible and they are fighting each other when Jesus healed the ear of a man hurt by Peter, a man who was there to take jesus to jail and to be kill, and he healed him anyway so how can be somebody hurting another person and say that they are doing it in Jesus's name whoever has done this before, never did it in Jesus's name (like the Crusade) they did it in their own name and this is confusing a lot of people who think that real Christian did this, I can tell you that those were not real christians they were just killer like any other killer in the world.

Is not my intention to offend any body or any religion I just think that nobody can kill in the name of God, we were all created by God and if one of us can kill in the name of God, then we all can too but is not this way, if you think you can do this, you are not really praising and serving the real and only God.

Interesting post Schumikonen. My thoughts are as follows: the example of the UK suggests that solving the problems in the world is much more complex than simply promoting religious freedom. Remember here everyone has religious freedom already, but some religious fanatics cause problems nevertheless, albeit mainly in Northern Ireland. Despite what Fox news might have you believe, religious freedom does exist outside of America.

Rather than any change in religious freedom it is a change in the tolerance of other religions by the religious that is required. I think religion causes many of the world's problems. Were you suggesting that Islam only exists after spreading through the world by conquest? If so I agree (and so has Christianity).

[Autumnpuma 0]

Rather than any change in religious freedom it is a change in the tolerance of other religions by the religious that is required. I think religion causes many of the world's problems. Were you suggesting that Islam only exists after spreading through the world by conquest? If so I agree (and so has Christianity).

In America, it's only the vocal religious idiots on television that aren't tolerant. The vast majority of us here are very tolerant of other religions.

You make a valid point when you put Christianity's 'world conquest' as past-tense and Muslim as present-tense. That puts the argument into perspective.

Here in America, Christians make up roughly 86% of our population, yet we continue to be tolerant of the 14% that live here with us. So tolerant, in fact, that we are altering such things as city seals to eliminate the cross symbol in the fear that it will offend the 14% minority, forgettting that it offends the 86% majority.

Religion causes it's fair share of problems, but I would put greed far before religion, wouldn't you? Religion is an excuse to gain money and power. Rarely is it the end to a means.

[Max Mosley 2]

In America, it's only the vocal religious idiots on television that aren't tolerant. The vast majority of us here are very tolerant of other religions.

Of course. Its the same here: only a tiny minority aren't tolerant.

You make a valid point when you put Christianity's 'world conquest' as past-tense and Muslim as present-tense. That puts the argument into perspective.

Nice try Mike! I think I put Islam's conquest stage in the past too, although I agree there are more muslim terrorists than christian ones today.

Religion causes it's fair share of problems, but I would put greed far before religion, wouldn't you? Religion is an excuse to gain money and power. Rarely is it the end to a means.

Yes I'd put greed before religion too. Saying that religion isn't quite as bad as greed is not a defense many religious people would consider satisfactory, and so I'm happy to concede it.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Indeed to all your points, Murray.

[cavallino 2]

USA is not the cause of any problem in the world, if you know something about history you know that we had war all the time and we will continue having war even if USA doesn't exist any more, can anyone tell me just a single time before USA of world peace, what I think is that USA made the world a better place after WWII, you can be sure that muslim extremist have made more damage to the world than USA, thay want to impose their religion and that the only reason why that religion still exist, you want to make the world a better place to live? all you have to do is give every country religion freedom like we have in USA and that's it, it will be the end of middle east problems, muslims are causing the problem over there is not USA, and in UK they have that problem too tehy can stand each other because they are catholic or protestant (I think this is the word) but none of them is really doing what Jesus want them to do it all in the bible and they are fighting each other when Jesus healed the ear of a man hurt by Peter, a man who was there to take jesus to jail and to be kill, and he healed him anyway so how can be somebody hurting another person and say that they are doing it in Jesus's name whoever has done this before, never did it in Jesus's name (like the Crusade) they did it in their own name and this is confusing a lot of people who think that real Christian did this, I can tell you that those were not real christians they were just killer like any other killer in the world.

You generalise Islam and then speak of real Christians and 'unreal' Christians in the same breath. What people tend to forget is what happens internally in the U.S. (and to be fair it is one of the most liberal, democratic s0cieties in the world) holds little relevance to its actions in the world at large, and citing that everytime American foreign policy is criticized isn't really a rebuttal of anything.

USA did it when they were fighting Russia, This is like when you get the Driver license, you get it to drive by the law but it's up to you not to do it, you can blame the RMV ( Registry of Motor vehicle) for any accident you can cause by driving over the speed limit or not stopping a the red light or any other unlawful thing you want to do with you car and the license they gave you.

What I mean is that you can use anything in your hand to do eather a good or a bad in the case of talibans they use it to a bad thing, and as you said taliban did it, USA just provide them with the resourses but talibans did it is not USA's fault.

Another example is this: you can get a gun from somebody and a license to port that gun, but you don't get a license to kill anybody if you kill somebody is jsut your fault not anybody else's.

No you have all the wrong analogies there. The United States covertly and openly backed and funded radical Islamic elements, the same ones it claims to be fighting now (and indeed claimed to be fighting then), simply to remove at any cost a left wing regime with communist leanings that allied itself to the U.S.S.R. A regime that was in any sense far more modern and effective than the Islamist entity that replaced it, or the current puppet regime and the current state of the country. The "I just gave the gun, I didn't shoot it' argument doesn't go very far, proxy wars like the Afghan war by both the sides in the cold war only hurt the country and its people. By your argument, what if someone decided to provide a rogue nation like North Korea with arms that could hurt the US, would that be perfectly acceptable, since ultimately it would be someone else pulling the trigger? Waht if someone had provided huge military backing to the IRA in its heyday?

Nice try Mike! I think I put Islam's conquest stage in the past too, although I agree there are more muslim terrorists than christian ones today.

Depends on how you define terrorist

[Autumnpuma 0]

Cav, none of that makes me believe India is a better place to live than America....try again, please.

[narain fan 0]

Cav, none of that makes me believe India is a better place to live than America....try again, please.

he wasnt even trying

[pumpdoc 2]

Cav, none of that makes me believe India is a better place to live than America....try again, please.

India make better use of public transportation, where else do you find 7,000 people on a train that's built for 4,000?

[narain fan 0]

India make better use of public transportation, where else do you find 7,000 people on a train that's built for 4,000?

[pabloh20 1]

India make better use of public transportation, where else do you find 7,000 people on a train that's built for 4,000?

Bit harsh, pumpdoc.

I'm not trying to convince either of you that any other country is a particularly better place to live. If you're happy, what's the problem?

The only thing I would try to convince you of is that it's worrying that Bush is in charge if you don't live in America. And that's coming from one of your allies. By the way did either of you see my earlier post about the perception of Bush - I wondered if the perception was different if you're American.

[Autumnpuma 0]

he wasnt even trying

Perhaps he should start trying, considering that's the whole point of this thread....try harder, Narain.

By the way did either of you see my earlier post about the perception of Bush - I wondered if the perception was different if you're American.

He may be an idiot, but he our idiot. That's the American perception.

[pabloh20 1]

Perhaps he should start trying, considering that's the whole point of this thread....try harder, Narain.

He may be an idiot, but he our idiot. That's the American perception.

Ok, I'll try a different tact - if Clinton had been in charge when 9/11 & subsequent events happened, how do you think he would have handled things differently? It may be a wide ranging question, but it could be quite interesting.

[Max Mosley 2]

He may be an idiot, but he our idiot. That's the American perception.

This is a problem surely? "The world may be messed up, but at least we're doing the messing up".

[ykickamoocow 0]

Against the Russians, not against their own people.

A Marxist governemnt was in place in Afganistan in 1979 and overall was reasonably well liked by the general population. But with the Marxist philosophy they banned religion and as a result a group called the Taliban were created. This group have very little power but later that year America saw the opportunity to destroy another communist governemtn so they supplied the Taliban with training, weapons and money so they could overthrow the ligament government. I must make is clear when i say that the Soviet Union was not involved when the USA supplied the Taliban with weapons and only became involved after it looked like the Marxist government was going to be overthrown.

[bajo39 0]

Cav, none of that makes me believe India is a better place to live than America....try again, please.

Are you sure, Mike?

India make better use of public transportation, where else do you find 7,000 people on a train that's built for 4,000?

[cavallino 2]

Cav, none of that makes me believe India is a better place to live than America....try again, please.

he wasnt even trying

What he said.

Admit it Mike, you got miffed by my post and again tried to take a dig at me

A Marxist governemnt was in place in Afganistan in 1979 and overall was reasonably well liked by the general population. But with the Marxist philosophy they banned religion and as a result a group called the Taliban were created. This group have very little power but later that year America saw the opportunity to destroy another communist governemtn so they supplied the Taliban with training, weapons and money so they could overthrow the ligament government. I must make is clear when i say that the Soviet Union was not involved when the USA supplied the Taliban with weapons and only became involved after it looked like the Marxist government was going to be overthrown.

they didn't ban religion, that is a misconception.

[ykickamoocow 0]

they didn't ban religion, that is a misconception.

Well the Afgan government was a Marxist government and not a Communist governemtn so they might have done things differently.

[AutoRacer5 0]

India make better use of public transportation, where else do you find 7,000 people on a train that's built for 4,000?

I once heard of a story of a bus with 200 people on it going down a cliff and killing all on board. My first thought was Good Lord! How do you fit 200 people on a bus?

[cavallino 2]

I once heard of a story of a bus with 200 people on it going down a cliff and killing all on board. My first thought was Good Lord! How do you fit 200 people on a bus?

Well not all are on it, some are actually inside

[Max Mosley 2]

[goferrarigo 0]

Well not all are on it, some are actually inside

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkwXC94S9zI

here to give you a picture image

(quite a funny ad i think)

[Autumnpuma 0]

This is a problem surely? "The world may be messed up, but at least we're doing the messing up".

I was answering a question about the average 'American's' perception.

Admit it Mike, you got miffed by my post and again tried to take a dig at me

Nope. I pointed out that you weren't doing a good job answering Bruce's question....and you still aren't So when Narain says 'He wasn't trying' I suppose that was 100% correct.

Dan, after hearing about India's public trasportation, yeah, I'm sure.

Ok, I'll try a different tact - if Clinton had been in charge when 9/11 & subsequent events happened, how do you think he would have handled things differently? It may be a wide ranging question, but it could be quite interesting.

Well, there's alot more in that answer than you might think. Lets just say that Clinton and Bush are not as far apart in their policies as you would think.

[ykickamoocow 0]

If President George W Bush was in charge of America during WW2 then America would have reacted to the bombing of Pearl Harbour by invading Norway.

[Autumnpuma 0]

If President George W Bush was in charge of America during WW2 then America would have reacted to the bombing of Pearl Harbour by invading Norway.

Pathetic.