Originally Posted by Vael

If countries are people, is the US a mass murderer?

Originally Posted by swinginglory

Only if you don't believe in the concept of justifiable homicide.

Originally Posted by wil318466

I think many people are equating "great" to some sort of level of "happy and satisfied citizens".

The US is great. It's great because it fights for things it believes in. Some of these are debatable, but there is no doubt that it does what it *thinks* is right most of the time, many times to it's own detriment. That takes courage, it takes belief, it takes "greatness".

It's funny you should mention Nazi Germany and America, since that situation is what catapulted America into it's status. America could have been a country that just sat back and stayed neutral. It didn't, and the world changed - for the better.

America is great because it's a leader, and you can't be great without being a leader.

Originally Posted by swinginglory

The answer to OP's query was answered 40 years ago, as today is the 68th anniversary of the D-Day invasion. Just remember, all the freedoms you enjoy today are a direct result of the courage of the American GI and their allies:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...hoc_96877.html

Originally Posted by Jake7777

I don't know of any legal theory which justifies U.S. foreign policy by this analogy. There's certainly not one in international law.

Originally Posted by PokerIMO

I thought we had been through that point several times re: having the most money! To continue with the analogy the (U.S.) person would not be the richest. It would be like arguing that China is a richer country than Monaco – you need to check the GDP per capita figures….

Yes, the person would have the most influence economically, politically, militarily, and culturally. Wil, you made some good points in your post, and you were one of the very few in this thread to clearly articulate what you thought made a country “great”. But I, and many others here, find this definition….unsatisfying?

Having the exact type of influence you describe could be said of Nazi Germany. But surely you would not use the term “great” here, would you?

Sure, I accept that the example may in some ways be a little extreme, but I think it captures what I am getting at here. As a side note, the two governments (Nazi and U.S.) are responsible for the death and misery of millions of people around the world, but that’s a different story….

Kim Karadashian seems to also have this kind of “greatness” you describe. But to consider her as a “great” individual? She has a lot of influence (at least over her fan base), a lot of money, and she has shared her “culture” of greed and selfishness with many. However, she is not a particularly well-respected individual and, just like the U.S., is even hated by sizable numbers of people around the world. When I think of greatness, Mother Theresa, Leonardo da Vinci, Abraham Lincoln, Isaac Newton, etc all come to mind. Donald Trump also seems to fit your standard of greatness.

Also, I am still struggling to understand how being part of a country with such a powerful military and such a strong (but declining) influence is so important to many individuals ITT, on a personal level? How are you benefiting personally from this? In the case of the U.S., this kind of state power is largely independent of the quality of life its citizens enjoy… or don’t enjoy, as the case seems to be.

As a final note, a country that whose inhabitants, relative to the rest of the word, are not the most likely to be employed, do not have the greatest potential for upward social mobility, do not enjoy good healthcare, do not have the highest income per capita, do not rank the highest on the U.N. Human Development Index, nor are they freest, the most compassionate, the most educated, or enjoy the greatest quality of life, yet is still considered by many as the “greatest” paints a pretty bleak picture of the world we live in.

In conclusion, yes, the U.S.A. is definitely the “greatest” by some definitions of the word. But not everyone seems to share the same idea of “great”, and that’s just fine too. This has been a very interesting thread.

Originally Posted by pvn

what happened on the 28th anniversary of the invasion that answered the question?

Originally Posted by Andz

I hope both of the above posters are joking.

Originally Posted by krmont22

Outside the states there are two types of people: those who yearn to be an American openly, and those who openly detest America but would snap become an American if given the opportunity.

Originally Posted by Andz

The liberation of >50,000,000 from tyranny in Iraq and Afghanistan and giving their peoples a chance at democracy?
You did not liberated Iraqis and Afghanistanis. Nothing has changed on better there , infact a lot of things are worse there now.

Originally Posted by Andz

The stopping of genocide in the Balkans?
Lol at this. I am from Balkan and I can garantuee you that USA had nothing to do with stoping a genocide.

Originally Posted by Andz

You helped libereting the Europe as much as UK or Russia have. We don't need your defense and lol at reconstructing it.

Originally Posted by swinginglory

The answer to OP's query was answered 40 years ago, as today is the 68th anniversary of the D-Day invasion. Just remember, all the freedoms you enjoy today are a direct result of the courage of the American GI and their allies:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...hoc_96877.html

Originally Posted by krmont22

Outside the states there are two types of people: those who yearn to be an American openly, and those who openly detest America but would snap become an American if given the opportunity.