PDA

View Full Version : Nations Other Than America


Incongruity
08-10-2005, 12:35 AM
Now, America's pretty pwnage; quite a few people know this. Yes, there is the rebel-i-hate-the-world anarchist goth, but even if one despises our current oligarchy, everyone has already come to realize that the perfect regime will never come. So I'll be satisfied with what I can get.

But! What about nations OTHER than America? Yes, they do exist. How do you think they are doing? Now, how are they really doing? What about us?Are we still the pwnage we once were? Are we still leading the way with all other nations decades behind us? Are we still progressing faster than other nations and widening that gap?

The reason I bring this up, is because I recently went on a vacation, and half of the nations I visited were doing extremely well, and the other half was progressing extraordinarily quickly despite being only moderately well off. Although, I only visited two nations.

Are my views distorted because I've lived in the United States for so long? Does anything new and unknown simply look amazing, which is why those two nations seemed to be in good shape? Or are they what they appear to be...


Now, admittedly there are plenty of nations that are in total chaos out there. Forget them, everyone knows that. We're not here to discuss how an elephant is stronger than a poodle. Discuss the nations that are barely behind us, or perhaps even past us..... LMAO! "perhaps even past us." YEAH RIGHT!

When showing statistics, btw, consider actual monetary value. Compensate for distorted currency exchange rates, population, poverty, etc. (for example, if a nation is pretty wealthy, but has a poverty rate of like 40%, it's obviously not doing that well). Or, if a nation has an extremely high average income, but has 5 people in it, consider that too. Or, if a currency exchange is so overblown that a foreign currency is in actual use twice as valuable as our dollar, compensate for that.

Yes, all three of my examples allude to actual nations (albeit, "slight" exaggerations in each one :wink:)

Dragon Lover
08-10-2005, 02:42 PM
You want fast progressing? Come to Dubai. The population has grown dramatically since last December. The city has never been better before. Although it cant match U.S.A especially with currency [26 cents is one Dirham] it can still bost with its hospatallity :wink: Though there is poverty [I've only seen one begger with the 7 years of living here]. The only city by far with the slightest of poverty is Abu Dhabi. Of course with it being in the Middle East Oil is the main sorce of wealth as well as energy [What other energy is there :rolleyes:].

I tried to make exactly as you wanted but w/e I didn't understand a few of the words you used :P

~DL~

Guilder
08-18-2005, 07:31 AM
hahaha, technologically you've been beaten by Asian countries, except in the space department, and furthermore, I strongly disagree America is such a great nation. It's arrogant, loathful towards others, indoctrinating and basically just of poor history which they trake to make up for by making roman stylke houses and putting down those big pillars (which I don't know the English word for). Screw America!

(sadly I must note you this is merely my opinion: do not get mad).

cittykat
08-18-2005, 07:57 AM
well, america is the worst country i know. it may be good in technology :goofy: but it has no culture! even u.k. has culture!

Genesis 1.0
08-18-2005, 08:39 AM
Now before I leap into the fray, so to speak, let me get a few things out of the way. SK, great topic, but I have a feeling things are going to get ugly when we start comparing one person's country to another. Guilder, some very strong views, unfounded or no, where do you reside? I think that in order to make a proper rebuttal, I need all the facts. Citty, I really don't this is the topic for you, I'd have to guess that you're too young or ignorant of certain facts, judging solely by the content of your last message.

Zenaku
08-19-2005, 12:28 PM
Unfortunately, I'll need to get some research to argue my opinions (Both to ensure I don't make mistakes, and to ensure people can't ask "what proof do you have of this?"), although as far as currency goes, that I can argue.

British money is (And most likely will be for a very long time) worth more than American money, as far as exchange rates are concerned. The current exchange multiplier from GBP (Great Britain Pounds) to USD (U.S Dollars) is 1.8.

Although this part cannot be proven as of yet, what is the average wages in America? UKs average is around £30000 I believe, which would be around $54000.

Oh, before I leave this thing for a reply, remember when thinking about culture or other important social issues; comparing them is difficult unless you have VERY detailed information, or if you've experienced both areas within your lifetime (My guess would be about 6 months of living in the area, at least; if you stayed in a country for a shorter period, or have never been there before, arguing about culture/social issues is not a good idea).

Incongruity
08-19-2005, 04:27 PM
You want fast progressing? Come to Dubai. The population has grown dramatically since last December. The city has never been better before. Although it cant match U.S.A especially with currency [26 cents is one Dirham] it can still bost with its hospatallity :wink: Though there is poverty [I've only seen one begger with the 7 years of living here]. The only city by far with the slightest of poverty is Abu Dhabi. Of course with it being in the Middle East Oil is the main sorce of wealth as well as energy [What other energy is there :rolleyes:].

I tried to make exactly as you wanted but w/e I didn't understand a few of the words you used :P

~DL~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_Emirates

yes, it looks wonderful, at first, then you get to the human rights violations... labor complaints... etc. But of course, every nation has this

hahaha, technologically you've been beaten by Asian countries, except in the space department, and furthermore, I strongly disagree America is such a great nation. It's arrogant, loathful towards others, indoctrinating and basically just of poor history which they trake to make up for by making roman stylke houses and putting down those big pillars (which I don't know the English word for). Screw America!

(sadly I must note you this is merely my opinion: do not get mad)."Asian countries." PLEASE! Don't even try this. The majority of Asian nations are not only technologically inferior, but ruled by despots who can only gain money through oil. The nations that are actually technologically better are Japan & South Korea. Some other nations are doing well (Singapore, China [including Hong Kong & Taiwan], etc.) but they have not technologically beaten the U.S. Oh, and concerning the poor qualities of the US. While all of those are true for some citizens, it is certainly not true for all. Perhaps 40% of the nation is openly like that, and maybe 20% max is in the closet, yet has similar feelings. But the rest of us are fine. And btw, "poor history." Ugh, if you would really like to, I will debate nation vs. nation the faults of their respective histories.

Also, btw, if we can now state insulting opinions w/o getting banned, this is my opinion: the Dutch "sodomize sheep and drink piss straight from the cock. Straight from the cock"


well, america is the worst country i know. it may be good in technology :goofy: but it has no culture! even u.k. has culture!Actually, we have no nation-wide culture, but we do indeed have small sects of culture.

Now before I leap into the fray, so to speak, let me get a few things out of the way. SK, great topic, but I have a feeling things are going to get ugly when we start comparing one person's country to another. Guilder, some very strong views, unfounded or no, where do you reside? I think that in order to make a proper rebuttal, I need all the facts. Citty, I really don't this is the topic for you, I'd have to guess that you're too young or ignorant of certain facts, judging solely by the content of your last message."Things are going to get ugly". My response: so?

Btw, it seems Guilder lives in "Rotterdam"

Unfortunately, I'll need to get some research to argue my opinions (Both to ensure I don't make mistakes, and to ensure people can't ask "what proof do you have of this?"), although as far as currency goes, that I can argue.

British money is (And most likely will be for a very long time) worth more than American money, as far as exchange rates are concerned. The current exchange multiplier from GBP (Great Britain Pounds) to USD (U.S Dollars) is 1.8.

Although this part cannot be proven as of yet, what is the average wages in America? UKs average is around £30000 I believe, which would be around $54000.


Eh, nice try: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/socind/inc-eco.htm

US: 36,924

UK: 30,355


But, this does allow me to point out the flaws of the GDP system. Look at the mean income of the Republic of Korea. 11,000 or so. However, I have recently visited Korea (third time) and I have found that is certainly a misleading statistic. You see, 1 dollar "officially" exchanges into about 1000 won. Ok, this will get complicated, so if your mental age is lower than 18, please stay away.

While 1 dollar "equals" 1000 won, what one can buy for 1 dollar in the states costs about 500 won. This goes for rent, land, most food, cars, everyday products; basically, nearly EVERYTHING other than gas and rice costs "less" in Korea. However, it does not in actuality cost "less". The actual problem comes from the exchange rate. It is inaccurate. When concerning PPP, the won is much more powerful than the official exchange rate says. And btw, PPP should not imply a pejorative. In fact, Korea is doing extremely well. For example,

Population below poverty line for US: 12%
Population below poverty line for Korea: 4%

In fact, you might as well compare nations by using the CIA factbook.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ks.html

I dislike how they give out 2004 estimates, however, since the Census bureau has yet to disclose the 2004 info... But I suppose it is the CIA.


Oh, before I leave this thing for a reply, remember when thinking about culture or other important social issues; comparing them is difficult unless you have VERY detailed information, or if you've experienced both areas within your lifetime (My guess would be about 6 months of living in the area, at least; if you stayed in a country for a shorter period, or have never been there before, arguing about culture/social issues is not a good idea).

Not Treecko
08-19-2005, 05:06 PM
Dude, visit other smaller countries. Ever since I went to Indonesia, I've found that it completely pwns America. Life is simple there, and quiet. And my woman lives there ;).

Seven
08-19-2005, 08:48 PM
Dude, visit other smaller countries. Ever since I went to Indonesia, I've found that it completely pwns America. Life is simple there, and quiet. And my woman lives there ;).

Lol, I'd hardly call Indonesia small with 241,973,879 inhabitants, and being the 4th most inhabited country in the world.

---
---

I guess it's pretty difficult - maybe even impossible - to judge what country is the best. In fact, I don't think there really is a best country. Depends on your culture and upbringing, the things you find important. Keeping the things in mind I personally find important, I can honestly say that I would NEVER want to live in the US. Well, maybe Massachusets, but that's about it.

The UN makes an index every year, the so called UN Human Development Index, wich measures...
Wait, I'd better let good ol' Wiki explain it:



The UN Human Development Index (HDI) measures poverty, literacy, education, life expectancy, and other factors. It is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare.

(...)

1. Norway
2. Sweden
3. Australia
4. Canada
5. Netherlands
6. Belgium
7. Iceland
8. United States
9. Japan
10. Republic of Ireland



I hope we can all agree that the things measured in this index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index) are very important, right? Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the US would be the best country to live in, wouldn't it be #1? Or is that just a dumb thought? Sure, the US isn't doing very bad, but...the best = the best.

True, the US has one of the biggest economies in the world ( if not the biggest ( depending on whether you call the EU one country or not - I prefer not to ), but what does that mean? Hmm, again, what one finds important matters here, personally, I find it important that there isn't too much inequality among the citizens of a nation. And yes, I am a great fan of the welfare system =b.
Suprisingly! The equality in a nation is measured, with a so called Gini coefficient (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient).Click the link to see how it works - but basicly, the lower the coeffecient is, the more equal wealth is distributed.

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality) , you can see the list. Note how the US is in a WHOPPING 78th position - the lowest position out of all the countries of the so-called Western World ( no, Russia doesn't count ). So I guess the US kinda suck in that aspect :o. Or is it just me?

But of course, America is the land of the free! You can say anything you want there! Isn't it great? Of course, gays can't marry, even soft drugs are strictly forbidden, religiousity is almost compulsery if you want to achieve something, but surely, the press is free :o.
Yeah...kinda. But it isn't the freest in the world, as one'd expect of the biggest nation in the world.
Uhm, actually, the top 10 in press freedom is:

1 Denmark
1 Finland
1 Iceland
1 Republic of Ireland
1 Netherlands
1 Norway
1 Slovakia
1 Switzerland
9 New Zealand
10 Latvia

( Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders) )

US is 22nd - yes, 22nd - on the list. Hm, not bad, but certainly nothing to be proud of.

All these things result in me not thinking the US is all that great, and be honest, can you blame me? I haven't even the mentioned the enourmous Judeo-Christian lobby in the US yet, and that alone would be a reason for me to not want to live there. Apart from the above mentioned things, one other reason for me to never want to live in the US, is the sickening misplaced nationalism great parts of the population seems to suffer from. There are very few things I can stand less than nationalism.

I'd rather be a sheep-sodomizing, and straight-from-the-cock-piss-drinking than a citizen of the US any day.

Though, I'd like to add that I have nothing against Americans themselves, the ones I know are very nice and I value them as good friends.

liquid crystal
08-22-2005, 11:26 PM
Interesting topic.

Yeah, I agree with Seven, you can't really measure countries fairly, because, well, there isn't a good fair unit of doing so.

As for America, it might be the land of the free, but it is certainly a land of the corrupt. The election system doesn't really make sense, at least to me, and whoever we elect usually is a puppet of corperate america. The people don't rule the country, Money does. But, there countries whose governments are just as bad or worse.

I guess everyone is somewhat biased when it comes to this kinda thing. Everyone comes from somewhere. I guess we should ask an alien ^>^ My vote for the best country would either go to Sweden/Finland/Norway or the Netherlands, but my favourite country (which is essentially what you're asking) is Georgia. I seriously doubt even 50% of you even knew that there was a Georgia that wasn't just a state, but geographic illiteracy is quite an epidemic, if you ask me. *points to sig* For those of you who don't know, Georgia is a nation recovering from communism near Turkey. It has a whopping two serperatist states, one of which declares itself seperate. Georgia has a very interesting history, but I won't delve into that now. You couldn't really say many people there are "rich"; many Georgians don't even get a monthly salary, but money doesn't really fuel happiness there. Lots don't work at all; they are subsistance farmers.

Oh, and after Japan, Georgia apparently has the most centegenarians.

Incongruity
08-23-2005, 01:21 AM
Lmao, liquid crystal. Your pompous actions in both debating and grammar obsessions make you look like an assclown. We all know where Georgia is, please stop acting superior.

Please stop exalting terrible nations because of your ridiculous desire to be seen as a rebel.

Georgia has plenty of pollution problems, including a lack of drinking water. Not only that, farming is in trouble because of all that pollution; the soil is "unhealthy" because of the toxic chemicals invading much of the nation

Apparently the people don't like it there either, since more people are emmigrating than immigrating.

And you're all "oh, they're not all rich there." Well, you put that in a good light; they're primarily poor.

Population below poverty line: 54%

GDP (PPP) per capita: 3100

It also has a terrible communications network; 7 AM stations, 12 FM stations, 4 shortwave. 12 television channels. 5,000 internet hosts. 150,000 internet users.

Something that everyone hates but has to do: conscription obligation, 18 months.

OH! And another thing: about the centegenarians. Well, that's all fine and dandy, but let me show you this.

US Life Expectancy
Men: 74.89 years
Women: 80.67 years

Georgia Life Expectancy
Men: 72.59 years
Women: 79.67


Hm...



Oh. And to show you how annoying you are, the beginning of your post should read like this:

This is an interesting topic.

Yeah, I agree with Jur (Seven); one cannot really measure countries fairly, because there isn't a fair method with which to compare nations.



The point? Quit with your condescending blindly rebellious nature.

!CeMAn
08-23-2005, 02:31 AM
At the risk of getting roasted by SSK, i'll say Canada is a pretty sweet country.

Not the best, but every country has it's problems. Ignore our complete joke of a military, our mostly unpopulated northern region and a government whose biggest accomplishment is doing fook-all in the past 10 years.

There's a decent import/ export thing going on and our currency(dragging behind the States) isn't the most worthless out there. Think United States but with less guns, more drugs and friendlier tourism. Oh yeah, i heard they have an edge over us in the entertainment industry, the corporate sector and red necks.

:susp: Flame away.

Incongruity
08-23-2005, 02:46 AM
Well, too tired now to make an exhaustive explanation as to why I agree, but Canada's aite.

Just the tax is a bit high up there (although, I understand why; yet, I don't understand why it needs THAT much more tax w/o a huge military budget), and I personally prefer slightly warmer weather than what's up there in Canada (although, I'm sure with global warming it'll be fine soon enough).

I suppose the biggest problem with Canada is pride. Eh, Canadians probably love Canada, but the baseless Canada jokes will never end.

MystiKal
08-23-2005, 03:23 AM
Lmao, liquid crystal. Your pompous actions in both debating and grammar obsessions make you look like an assclown. We all know where Georgia is, please stop acting superior.

Please stop exalting terrible nations because of your ridiculous desire to be seen as a rebel.

Georgia has plenty of pollution problems, including a lack of drinking water. Not only that, farming is in trouble because of all that pollution; the soil is "unhealthy" because of the toxic chemicals invading much of the nation

Apparently the people don't like it there either, since more people are emmigrating than immigrating.

And you're all "oh, they're not all rich there." Well, you put that in a good light; they're primarily poor.

Population below poverty line: 54%

GDP (PPP) per capita: 3100

It also has a terrible communications network; 7 AM stations, 12 FM stations, 4 shortwave. 12 television channels. 5,000 internet hosts. 150,000 internet users.

Something that everyone hates but has to do: conscription obligation, 18 months.

OH! And another thing: about the centegenarians. Well, that's all fine and dandy, but let me show you this.

US Life Expectancy
Men: 74.89 years
Women: 80.67 years

Georgia Life Expectancy
Men: 72.59 years
Women: 79.67


Hm...



Oh. And to show you how annoying you are, the beginning of your post should read like this:

This is an interesting topic.

Yeah, I agree with Jur (Seven); one cannot really measure countries fairly, because there isn't a fair method with which to compare nations.



The point? Quit with your condescending blindly rebellious nature.

Wow, that was one hell of a pwn. Okay just had too say that, now contuine debating.

!CeMAn
08-23-2005, 03:45 AM
I suppose the biggest problem with Canada is pride. Eh, Canadians probably love Canada, but the baseless Canada jokes will never end.

Hey every country gets teased. Believe it or not, the States are the subject of much ridicule as well.

Q: How is American beer like having sex in a canoe??
A: It's f*cking close to water!

I got a million of em :wink:.

EDiT: RiDiCULE

liquid crystal
08-24-2005, 04:04 AM
ssk,

I am sorry if I insulted your, or anyone else's, intelligence. Obviously, you are much more geographically litterate than most of the people I know; the people of whom I was reffering.

However, I have to wonder: why are you so desperate to insult me? You are a well-respected member here, whereas if I never posted again, no one would either notice or care. What could you achieve from "pwning" a member so far down the totem pole?

On Georgia: No, I have never lived in or visited this country, but it would be very cruel of fate if anyone else here knew more about it than me. lol, now that sounds like condenscending... >.>" But of course, you have numbers on a computer screen.

So? People emmigrate from just about every country, and I suspect a large part of the immigration "problem" is a reason I've stated many times before.

And so many other post-communistic countries are doing better? Go find a web site in Qaraqalpak.

For the reason stated above, and by the reasons you gave, wouldn't you think Georgians live much shorter lives than those of Americans? I think that says something about both countries.

If I were so [/i]blinding rebellious[/i] why would I choose, of all things, grammar, something only old english teachers are interested in? Why would I be interested in fields that no one else I know is interested in? The way I think about it, rebellion is quite social. You must rebel with someone to be heard. I am all alone.

If I am so annoying, why not just ignore me?



PS: Oh, that's never happened to me before! Someone finding a grammar error in my typing? Buddy, I am used to it. You won't make me feel like hypocrite easily. I type the way I speak, because posts are just dialogue, are they not? I do not, nor does anyone, however, speak with green grociers' appostrophes.

Steven
08-27-2005, 03:22 AM
Well USA has a superiority complex, they think they're better than everyone else, and look down on anyone lower than them. It's quite pathetic.

Facts:

The United States has a literacy rate of 97%. There are many countries with a higher literacy rate including Japan with a literacy rate of 99%, and Australia, Denmark, and Estonia among others with literacy rates of 100%.

Most Americans only know English, and very few know more than 2 languages, and of those most are from foreign countries where learning up to 5 languages is normal.

and some other stuff that is about america not being good and other countries being good.

There you have it. The facts.

Ace
08-27-2005, 06:42 AM
Well USA has a superiority complex, they think they're better than everyone else, and look down on anyone lower than them. It's quite pathetic.

Facts:

The United States has a literacy rate of 97%. There are many countries with a higher literacy rate including Japan with a literacy rate of 99%, and Australia, Denmark, and Estonia among others with literacy rates of 100%.

Most Americans only know English, and very few know more than 2 languages, and of those most are from foreign countries where learning up to 5 languages is normal.

and some other stuff that is about america not being good and other countries being good.

There you have it. The facts.

Being literate isn't about everything. Even if 99% of our nation would be literate, I still think only .1% of that will actually have very high positions, anyway.

Otherwise, we have our military and it's branches to hide behind. :tongue:

More Facts:

Our 7th "Commander" Fleet's homeport is at Japan, regardless them having 3% of their population being more literate than we are.

We forward deployed three aircraft carriers to the Taiwan Strait when China was threatening to take action against Taiwan, and then they stopped. In conventional warfare, China knew they didn't have the upper hand. That and the fact that the U.S. Navy is considerably much bigger than China's was why they withdrew their impending assaults on Taiwan.

The PLA Navy (Chinese) consists of around 150 naval vessels (active or inactive unknown), quite a number of them being based on some of the older Soviet Russian Navy’s designs.

Compared to Japan’s, however, the Chinese are approximately 5 ships short.

Despite all of that, The United States Navy includes 300 active vessels and even two decommissioned Tomahawk missile able and combat capable Iowa-class Battleships, one of the most feared classes of vessel other than the older Japanese Yamato-class battleship (there was only 1, really), which fate was to be sunken at 1945 after US planes assaulted the Yamato and it’s escort, and the British Vanguard class, which was scrapped in 1959.

Now, when it comes to the Air Force, USAF’s F-16s hold a 71-to-zero aerial combat record, and even with that, it is still likely going to be decommissioned with the impending deployment of the F/A-22 Raptor, scheduled for this December, I believe. Now if F-16 could hold that record, imagine the F/A-22 Raptor in service? Not only that, but the Sukhoi Berkuts are no longer a threat for this generation's fighters, as it is safe to say it died along with the Soviet Union.

Yeah, some people say our army sucks just because of some of our losses in our Middle-East Campaigns. Though I do admit our tactical and logistical outlooks on the war, mainly taking a conventional approach, is an incorrect course of action, our complete ground forces can really take on any direct conflict.

The only problem with us not doing really well in Iraq is because our leaders in the United States Army branch are using tactics that are too conventional. Seriously, we aren't facing Napoleon, here, no battle that did and will go on in these current campaigns will ever be in the scale and strategy-set that Waterloo was. We're, really, facing a mere man who's using the most cowardly tactics yet still doing a lot of damage. It's like a hacker and a bank except in a real life, larger scale.

It was just like how the ancient Roman republic handled barbarians. They used their own conventional tactics, but even if they managed to capture or destroy a barbarian settlement – even an entire barbarian province, the women, children, and a small group of men would just migrate to another barbarian settlement. Then the Romans would just leave the former barbarian province/settlement and move on to the next. They force those barbarians out, a group of them just migrate to another, or just rebuild in their old homes Rome captured and left to combat their new one. Eventually, Rome’s grip shortened until Rome was sacked. By then, the Roman Empire was split in half, signaling the end of the true republic.

It is the same with the U.S. in the Middle East, we storm in Afghanistan and Iraq, remove whatever dictatorships exist, and then flush out whatever terrorists we sniff out. Despite all of that, the terrorists just flee to other nations, nations that might even be our ‘allies’.

Now, a terrorist can’t stop a tank head-to-head, it’ll only have its brains shot off by tanked-mounted machine gun or a large tank shell.

If the tank doesn’t see that terrorist, however, all the terrorist has to do is sneak up behind or next to it, and blow itself up.

What we can do? Either resort to unconventional tactics ourselves, (when I say unconventional, I don’t mean the use of nukes or biological weapons, don’t lightly regard my terminology) or simply build super heavily armored tanks.

What I mean by “super heavily armored tanks”, I refer to, mainly, the Maus, the largest tank ever built.

M1A1 Abrams 65 Tons w/ Uranium upgrade vs. the German Panzer VIII Maus 188 Tons

If the Germans accomplished building two Maus tanks back at World War II, both, however, never seeing combat, we can produce many more of the such.

The only reason the Maus never saw combat was because its designs were finalized while the Allies were pushing the Germans back. One of the two combat-capable Maus tanks were destroyed by the Germans themselves after a Soviet ambush just so the Soviets could not salvage and use the technology with their tanks, and the last one was deeper within Germany and founded after the war ended. Instead of being salvaged, however, the last Maus made its way to a tank museum.

Otherwise, the US will have to rely more on covert operations more than direct contact. The Navy Seals, Delta Force, Green Berets, and the Rangers are all Special Forces of the United States and it’s military branches that can be utilized. The only way that being unconventional with them is if other, ‘allied’ Middle-East countries would allow their insertion to a region where terrorist operations are held to halt them. Even still, it is those Middle-East countries themselves that should handle such a threat. Regardless, Special Forces are still a good unconventional means.

You may all respond with the events at Mogadishu, Somalia, (mainly known as “Black Hawk Down”) but the flaw of the lack of communication and the unprepared and disorganization of all forces involved then caused the Marine Corps to create the “Urban Warrior” program. It was a start to the field of being unconventional and mobile in warfare, but it still needs to spread among the other branches.

In order for disasters such as “Black Hawk Down” occurring, we just need more fields of support during situations such as what went on in Mogadishu. Also, the military needs to be more aware of possible approaches in situations where enemies use ‘civilian-screening’ as a tactic.

Now, going closer to the topic at hand.

Seriously, no matter how literate a nation is, there still needs to be a fraction in the workforce. It’s not like having a 99% literate population is going to get them all jobs as scientists or government officials, there still needs to be people running the factories, people running the offices, and people running the military.

Also, 99% of the population can be literate, but that won’t make them any less vulnerable to a desk job, a factory job, or even a bullet than the 3% of illiterates in our nation.

Although a superiority complex may be running through the lesser informed of our nation, it is simply wrong to say that all of America has a superiority complex. 99% vs. 97% of population literacy really doesn’t decide a nation’s ability over the other. Really, we only have 97% literates, yet we still manage to run one of the best ran and best armed Navies, Armies, and Air Forces in the world.

Not only that, but the U.S. economy is also excellent. Under the International Monetary Fund statistics of April of 2005 comparing the Gross Domestic Product of each nation, it is only second to the European Union (EU’s GPD in USD $13,926,873 vs. U.S.’s GPD in USD $12,438,873.) Although Japan is 3rd, the comparisons are much more drastic. (U.S.’s GPD in USD $12,438,873 vs. Japan’s GPD in USD $4,799,061)

And although the U.S. is 8th in GDP per capita, the seven nations that have a better GDP per capita are lesser-populated nations that do not require a strong industrial economic base, at least not in the scale of the U.S. What I mean is that money (in income) for workers in the seven nations that beat the U.S. in GDP per capita is more easily distributed than money (in income) for U.S workers, with the third largest population and the third largest area in the world. Japan, however, is fifteenth in this area, having, in USD, a GDP per capita of $37,566, compared with US’s GDP per capita (also in USD,) of $41,917. Denmark may be 6th in GDP per capita, but I once again put population + mass argument up.

In the end, economy, productivity, and military all show a nation’s power and capability over literacy. Not only that, but I have mentioned the U.S's ability of those three subjects compared to others. (I only used Japan out of the %s because it is likely what most people would say "oh, that nation totally pwns the U.S" or supporting such an idea, if not that. Besides, our most literate man in our 97% population of literates may even be more literate than the most literate man of the populations with a 99% or 100% of literates.

France breeding Napoleon Bonaparte and Germany breeding Hitler and Einstein are really not at all decided by literacy percentages, so using that is an argument here is just out of question.

Your ‘facts’ may be correct, but other ‘facts’ are more important than those you present.

And so I say, "There you have it, the facts."

Magare
08-27-2005, 08:39 PM
I didnt want to get involved in this but....


Being literate isn't about everything. Even if 99% of our nation would be literate, I still think only .1% of that will actually have very high positions, anyway.


Like you said, your opinion. I actually completely disagree on this one... If nothing else, .1% of 99 and .1% of 97 is not the same. Or even close...


More Facts:

snip. Army


The only thing that is obvious, is that USA has a higher military budget then any other country in the world.

And on the note of USA's superiority....

By your own words, you are NOT doing well in Iraq, and as for the superiority of your ground forces.... Do you really want me to start talking about Vietnam? :confused:


Now, going closer to the topic at hand.

Seriously, no matter how literate a nation is, there still needs to be a fraction in the workforce. It’s not like having a 99% literate population is going to get them all jobs as scientists or government officials, there still needs to be people running the factories, people running the offices, and people running the military.


Please dont tell me that you think "people running the factories, people running the offices, and people running the military" dont have to be literate :eek: . Because thats what you wrote. Edit that, will you....


Although a superiority complex may be running through the lesser informed of our nation, it is simply wrong to say that all of America has a superiority complex. 99% vs. 97% of population literacy really doesn’t decide a nation’s ability over the other. Really, we only have 97% literates, yet we still manage to run one of the best ran and best armed Navies, Armies, and Air Forces in the world.


Again, that only shows a high military budget. Which doesnt show a country thats "trying to promote world peace" in a good way....



Besides, our most literate man in our 97% population of literates may even be more literate than the most literate man of the populations with a 99% or 100% of literates.


Sure he MAY be. But the chances are that he's not. Why? Simple numbers... 97<99.


France breeding Napoleon Bonaparte and Germany breeding Hitler and Einstein are really not at all decided by literacy percentages, so using that is an argument here is just out of question.


Well actually its not. While it isnt even good placing the worlds most famous scientist and a mad man (while still a genious in his own field). However, as you put it, breeding a person in a higher literacy is simply easier, because an iliterate person can NEVER get to high positions. Or be a scientist for that matter...


Your ‘facts’ may be correct, but other ‘facts’ are more important than those you present.


So what exactly have you presented :confused: ?
That USA spends a lot in developing weapons? Sure...
That USA has a great economy? Thats very true, but not unparalleld.

Besides that I didnt see a lot of facts :wink:

DaRkUmBrEoN
08-27-2005, 08:45 PM
Please dont tell me that you think "people running the factories, people running the offices, and people running the military" dont have to be literate :eek: . Because thats what you wrote. Edit that, will you....

Well, you don't have to be literate to press a button in a factory. Hence why those jobs pay relatively low.

Except that I agree with you Magare...

Ace
08-27-2005, 11:26 PM
Interesting counterargument, Magare, but you have not yet entirely destroyed my purpose of writing the earlier, so I now present the latter:

Like you said, your opinion. I actually completely disagree on this one... If nothing else, .1% of 99 and .1% of 97 is not the same. Or even close...
..

Did you not comprehend what I explained?

Even if there are 99% literates for one nation and 97% literates for another, only .1% of those percentages likely have high positions in government. Really, it doesn’t matter about the differences of literacy percentages for a nation, as in the end, there is just .1% of that percentage running it.

The only thing that is obvious, is that USA has a higher military budget then any other country in the world.

And on the note of USA's superiority....

By your own words, you are NOT doing well in Iraq, and as for the superiority of your ground forces.... Do you really want me to start talking about Vietnam? :confused:

Would you like me to talk about the Roman Republic during the Carthaginian Campaign against it? :confused:

Rome, though not at its actual imperial height yet, still had claimed to have the best ground forces in Europe. The Carthaginians, however, thought otherwise, and Hannibal, raising a large army, had crossed the Alps and won victories against Rome at Trebia and Lake Trasimene. Cannae was only another victory – a great victory for Hannibal in fact, known to be his greatest.

Now, by then, many of them saw Rome as many of you are seeing as the United States by today.

Rome had the best armed, best trained, and best disciplined legions of it’s time and it lost to a man who came from a land where mercenaries were used more than the core of an army.

So, why did it lose?

Because there was no presence of tactics being used by the Romans in neither that battle nor the two other defeats compared to Hannibal’s experience and genius that brought him victories in all of them.

As the Romans first faced Elephants for the early stages of Hannibal’s campaign, the United States first faced true guerilla warfare.

We advanced and won every major victory and ended up pulling out anyway, why?

As the Romans, the United States lacked the presence of tactics. Yes, conventional warfare tactics, but they were nothing. The first thing that should have been done, learning from not even the first U.S. engagements in Vietnam but the ambushes against the French who occupied the area beforehand, was to adapt to their unconventional, guerilla tactics.

Sure, Cannae was humiliating for the Romans, yet, eventually, it had entirely crushed the Carthaginians and burnt it’s capital to the ground.

And yeah, Vietnam may have been humiliating for the United States as much as Cannae humiliated the Romans. Even still, Communism, like Carthage, had come to decline anyway, and the Soviet Union was forced to disband itself. China is still known to be Communist, though many of its systems have changed compared to the Soviet Union’s enough to be not as bad as the Soviet Union’s Communism. Vietnam is also technically Communist itself, but it is a very poor nation, and follows the same model China uses.

North Korea is the only one to worry about, but that is not because they will launch nuclear warheads in form of missiles, but instead is viewed with cautious by the U.S. because of it’s capability to sell nuclear bombs to likely terrorists, terrorist cells, and/or terrorist organizations/networks.

Please dont tell me that you think "people running the factories, people running the offices, and people running the military" dont have to be literate . Because thats what you wrote. Edit that, will you....

Like Dark Umbreon said, most of all factory workers have to push a button.

Most people in the offices just have to push papers or take/make phone calls.

And in the U.S. Army, Sergeant is the highest rank someone without a college eduction can hold. (And since the larger part of the Army is at the rank of Sergeant or below in order to uphold a chain of command, what most nations also usually do, you don’t really need to be a literate to be running the military as sergeants do usually run platoons [other than lieutenants], which makes up a company, which makes up a battalion, which makes up a brigade.

So, in the end, it’s the Sergeants in the platoons that follow orders, get their platoon out alive and get it's job done.

Again, that only shows a high military budget. Which doesnt show a country thats "trying to promote world peace" in a good way....

“Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum”
“Let him who desires peace prepare for war” – Vegitus

You think it’s easy to promote world peace without weapons of war, go try it yourself. People are still biased and blinded regarding religions, cultures, governments, ect., ect., and hate each other for such, and will not agree to a “world peace” until virtually every person converts to their religon, to their culture, or to their government. Now, it may not be the case with people from our civilized nations, but you cannot really try that where organizations such as Al-Queda call for a ‘jihad’ and attempt to exploit most of the western civilization, in general, as ‘evil’. You talk to people influenced by such organizations about “world peace”, they shall be fine with it… as long as the ‘false’ or ‘demonic’ religon or civilization is destroyed. It doesn’t only happen with them keep in mind, India and Pakistan, and also Israel and Palestine and partially Egypt dislike each other’s way of life, too.

Sure he MAY be. But the chances are that he's not. Why? Simple numbers... 97<99.

Oh, so you have literacy percentages from France during Napoleon’s reign? You have literacy percentages from Germany when Einstein released his theory of relativity?

Numbers never were or are much unless supported by more specific numbers or facts. At the Battle of Marathon, around 10,000 Athenians defeated no more than 26,000 Persians while losing only 192 of their own to the 6,400 kills they inflicted on them. Want to explain why 26,000>10,000 didn’t influence much here?

Magare
08-28-2005, 01:00 PM
Did you not comprehend what I explained?

Even if there are 99% literates for one nation and 97% literates for another, only .1% of those percentages likely have high positions in government. Really, it doesn’t matter about the differences of literacy percentages for a nation, as in the end, there is just .1% of that percentage running it.



I'll just drop this for now because I dont think its relevant.


snip Army talk
We advanced and won every major victory and ended up pulling out anyway, why?


Did you just call Vietnam a victory?
Iraq MAY be considered a victory, but Vietnam no!


“Let him who desires peace prepare for war” – Vegitus


Very true. But if (your example) F-16's have a such high aerial combat record (which is false btw, there have been F-16 crashes which I can and will tell you about in my later replys, they are just now official), why develop a better version?


Even still, Communism, like Carthage, had come to decline anyway, and the Soviet Union was forced to disband itself.



Somehow I doubt the Soviet Union disbanded because of the Americans.
It disbanded because the people were not satisfied with the regime, those same people were freezing and starving and ofcourse that a rebellion had to happen.

And its good that they did, because democracy is superior to communism in ALMOST every way...


Oh, so you have literacy percentages from France during Napoleon’s reign? You have literacy percentages from Germany when Einstein released his theory of relativity?


Numbers? No. Facts? Yes.

During the Napoleons reign, France was the leading country OF THE WORLD in culture and education. So yeah, I kind of think that had a bit to do with it...

Hitler, while mad, was a pure product of German education (he was an A student from grammer school through college). He was a great tactician, and german people (at that time) were thrilled to have him as their leader.


Numbers never were or are much unless supported by more specific numbers or facts. At the Battle of Marathon, around 10,000 Athenians defeated no more than 26,000 Persians while losing only 192 of their own to the 6,400 kills they inflicted on them. Want to explain why 26,000>10,000 didn’t influence much here?


Roman Army conquered half the world because they were so numerous. The only thing that stoped them from conquering the entire world were inner conflicts.

Do you know the average time a roman imperator spent on the throne? 2 WEEKS! Then they would be assasinnated and another one would come on the throne. Imagine if the USA changed a president every 2 weeks...

Now, about that battle.

True, in that battle at the Salamina pass (maybe you call it differently) the Persian army suffered a massive defeat. However, until that day, the greek army suffered nothing but losses. That was a final stand of the greek nation and they fought with everything they had. Furthermore, it was a battle in a small pass, where the big persian ships werent able to manouver and the small greek ships destroyed the persian warships because they werent even able to attack the greeks...

Incongruity
08-29-2005, 08:02 PM
Before I read all of what you guys have to say, I'd just like to point out that the 99% literacy rate figures are actually more like 100%, it's just that the adult population in anation just declines and grows so rapidly that it is impossible to survey every single person in a nation, which is why most nations that have 100% lower it to 99%. For an example of this, see Cuba.


Alright, after reading it all, I've determined a few things.

Ace, you're a fascist who would love strict classes in which only .1% of any given nation would receive any education, health care, food, shelter, clothing, police support, fire department support, and right to vote.

After all, if only .1% of the nation's gonna run it, why even bother giving the proletariat anything?

Btw, this .1% thing just proves how wide the gap is in the United States. How the land of freedom, justice, and equality is not so equal at all. This is what Seven was saying before about the Gini coefficient. Btw, you don't necessarily have to be poor or communist to have a good Gini coefficient: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality in case you forgot already. Hey, wait a second, Japan's on that list. Hmmm isn't that the really rich nation everyone talks about? How do they manage to be rich AND have a low Gini coefficient? :rolleyes:


oh, and just a note, democracy isn't the opposite of communism (see: "democracy is better than communism in almost every way"). Democracy is the opposite of fascism, which is basicaly what every communist leader has done. Yes, communists are false anti-fascists that just wish to usurp the bourgeois and take their place, using the proles as tools, as opposed to creating equal society. Interestingly, communism in theory is pure democracy. So, what you should have said is, "Capitalism is better than communism in almost every way, because people are driven by greed; when the rewards for greed disappear, the people become lazy."