NationStates Jolt Archive

*pre-sident* from pre-sedere = sitting in front. It's not THAT novel, and no, the majority of nations actually have different titles for their heads of states.


Btw;

1."President", "republic" and "constitution". All of them directly from latin. Clearly no influence coming from the neolatin-speaking world, I DON'T think.

2.About the influence of France on the american colonies: where was the peace treaty between USA and UK signed? A house in Paris (in Rue Jacobe iirc). And don't you forget La Fayette... the USA became independent with a great help from France, which thought a good idea to support anything that weakened the UK. The US tried to return the favour later by invading Canada, but failed.

I have, REPEATEDLY, mentioned that city-state republics have been common,


and Rome wasn't a CITY-STATE republic, because, as it expanded, the conquered populations became first socii then cives.


and that the notorious example of the Roman Republic and the rapid decay of its republican institutions

Ok... let's talk about rapid decay. The Roman Republic was instituted about between VI and V century B.C. and became an autocracy around the half of the I century B.C. That's at least 400 years, and a good 200 years as the SOLE superpower in Europe and Mediterranean (after the fall of Carthage).

400 years, that is almost TWO TIMES the life of the USA.

Rapid decay, you say?

You despise it, now, because you are in an era when you have the luxury of taking it all for granted.
I despise what? Granted what? I don't owe MY constitution to the USA.

The head of state was a dictator for life. The rules were not written down and were subject to change only through violence.
One formally true and one plain false.

wiki, as usual, is my friend:

The Venetian governmental structure was similar in some ways to the republican system of ancient Rome, with an elected executive power (the Doge), a senate-like assembly of nobles, and a mass of citizens with limited political power, who originally had the power to grant or withhold their approval of each newly elected Doge. Church and various private properties were tied to military service, though there was no knight tenure within the city itself.

Venice remained a republic throughout its independent period and politics and the military were kept completely separate, except when on occasion the Doge personally led the military. War was regarded as a continuation of commerce by other means (hence, the city's early production of large numbers of mercenaries for service elsewhere, and later its reliance on foreign mercenaries when the ruling class was preoccupied with commerce).

The chief executive was the Doge (duke), who, theoretically, held his elective office for life. In practice, a number of Doges were forced by pressure from their oligarchical peers to resign the office and retire into monastic seclusion when they were felt to have been discredited by perceived political failure.

So, peer pressure, not violence.


Venice was in sad decay in the 18th century and was a major example used by those at the time who considered "republics" a bad idea. The contrast between this republic and what America created is exactly what I am talking about.

You focus on the XVIII century... omitting that Venice lasted as republic from the IX century to the end of the XVIII. That is, about 900 years, more than three times the life of the USA. The fact that it was in decay at the end of the XVIII century is ALSO due to a small factor, called the New World, and the shift of trade from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic.

My question was: what ARE you referring to? I do not know what you even mean by this word "crafting".

Lets give you a first grader's definition of the word "crafting", since apparently, you do not know it.

craft (krft)
n.
1. Skill in doing or making something, as in the arts; proficiency.
2. Skill in evasion or deception; guile.
3. a. An occupation or trade requiring manual dexterity or skilled artistry.
b. The membership of such an occupation or trade; guild.
4. pl. craft A boat, ship, or aircraft.
tr.v. craft·ed, craft·ing, crafts
1. To make by hand.
2. Usage Problem: To make or construct (something) in a manner suggesting great care or ingenuity.


Your country has adopted a modern model of governance because other European countries have done so and taught Spain how it is done. France was the first to try it. I do not say whether France MIGHT or MIGHT NOT have eventually attempted a nation-scale republic without the American example, since "what ifs" are unknowable, just that on the planet we actually live on, France only attempted its first republic because America had shown it to be possible.

Which, once again, has absolutely nothing to do with the US of A. The US imitated the European models. And no, France wasn't trying it because America did. The French were fed up with the exces of the monarchy, the Revolution was bound to happen wether a tiny newborn nation across the Atlantic did it or not.

What all those did was very different.

San Marino is a tiny city-state. As I keep on mentioning, city-states have always been regarded as very different from nation-states, and it was the common wisdom before the American experiment that what works in a city-state cannot be scaled up to a nation. Venice and Florence (and Genoa, also mentioned in another post) were city-states with dependent territories: none of the inhabitants of those vassal territories outside the city participated in the republican institutions at all, with all the difficulties in maintaining their loyalties that this implies; it is why they were easily destroyed. Rome started out the same way, but after the Punic Wars their dependent territories were so large it became necessary to try granting citizenship to reliable people outside the city; this thoroughly destabilized its "crafted" constitution, which was only suitable for a city-state and had no agreed-upon procedure for changing it; the disastrous outcome of the Roman Republic was the main example people used in arguing that large-scale republics are unfeasible. And "Greece"? It did not exist as a nation until the Macedonian monarchs united it. Certain of the city-states, such as famously Athens, were republican, but the republics were always destroyed when they acquired any sizable dependent territories.

Wrong. These cities and empires did the same thing you claim the US was the first in doing.

The more relevant examples of large-scale republican institutions developing before the American experiment would be the Dutch and Swiss. Neither of them however created a model which was imitated. America did.

America imitated what the ancients did. Again, you fail to comprehend that.

Like most of my opponents on this thread, you seem to be arguing with things I have never said, while denying the very basic fact that is all I was trying to point out. I am not, actually, a patriotic American: as I have stated on numerous threads, I don't feel welcome in this country and would emigrate in a heartbeat if Canada would have me (at my age, Canada wants to see me put a large sum of money in the bank before I immigrate). Neither am I claiming that America invented its system out of the blue: quite the contrary, I have been emphasizing that the founders carefully examined the histories of the republics that had gone before.
However, it is just a plain fact that America created the first sustainable nation-scale republic, and that all the other governments following this model, starting with the first republic in France, exist because, yes, the world DID follow America's lead on that. Just about every nation on earth calls the head of state "President", and has a written charter called a "Constitution", because those are the words the Americans chose.

Wrong again. La Serenissima, or the Republic of Venice, sustained this model for almost 900 years. That's far more than what your country, with a mere 200 years has. Rome did too, for 1,500+ years. For the last time, do get your facts straight before spouting nonesnese.

True. Those American bastards have been rolling up a horrible kharmic debt... leading the fight to free Kuwait, bankrupting Communism, working with the UK and other allies in destroying Fascism, putting a man on the moon, giving aid all over the world,
True, though I'd note the strings attached to much of the aid for personal advantage, and (like most countries) have plenty to count against the good things.


helping destroy Monarchy with the fall of the four Great Houses in WW1, Explain? I assume one is the Habsburg but I'm still confused.

developing the first modern Republic
Wrong

and being the crucible of human rights...
You contributed, but were hardly the crucible. Plus you had that whole slavery thing. Are Human rights, human rights if they don't apply to all humans?

the myraid of new inventions, technologies
Not as many as people commonly think


and being the world's financial engine for the last century. :D
True enough.

Btw;

2.About the influence of France on the american colonies: where was the peace treaty between USA and UK signed? A house in Paris (in Rue Jacobe iirc). And don't you forget La Fayette... the USA became independent with a great help from France, which thought a good idea to support anything that weakened the UK. The US tried to return the favour later by invading Canada, but failed.

And a good thing they failed. I like my Canada, thankyouverymuch.

On the French-USA relationship: The very idea of a republic and constitution was largely inspired by french thinkers and french books on the subject of governing.
If it wasn't for Voltaire, Rousseau, Descartes, et al. the USA would probably be more like the UK than what they are today.

The USA was lucky in that they overthrew the yoke of british oppression before the french overthrew the yoke of french oppression by a few years. Otherwise we wouldn't even have deluded USians with delusion of grandeur about being the first in everything.

True. Those American bastards have been rolling up a horrible kharmic debt... leading the fight to free Kuwait, bankrupting Communism, working with the UK and other allies in destroying Fascism, putting a man on the moon, giving aid all over the world, helping destroy Monarchy with the fall of the four Great Houses in WW1, developing the first modern Republic and being the crucible of human rights... the myraid of new inventions, technologies and being the world's financial engine for the last century. :D

Has the US done some bad things? Yes. Every country does. It's the problem of the country being run by human beings. But on the whole, the US has a *far* lesser "kharmic debt" than I think you claim. In terms of national achievement, it's done quite well for a state only 230 years old.

Although I understand and agree with your points, your example could have been chosen better. Let'S look at the bolded part shall we?

*bankrupting Communism
Winning an ideological war while putting millions of people around the world in harm's way to do so isn't what I consider a good deed. Hell, Capitalism should be bankrupted for all the evil it did in the world too.

*helping destroy Monarchy with the fall of the four Great Houses in WW1
Monarchy is doing very fine in places like Denmark, Britain, etc. So that's not a good example at all.

*developing the first modern Republic
Hardly :rolleyes:
Unless you define republic and modern differently. Besides, a republic is not "good" per se. Your republic hasn't been "good" moreso than "evil", I think.

*being the crucible of human rights...
Ha! Slavery was abolished in Canada long before the USA, the death penalty is still in use and I will not even elaborate on gitmo. Shit, ask the Gays if they feel like the USA is the crucible of human rights. Fact is, the USA has a long history of being dragged kicking and screaming into accepting more human rights. Although the same hold true for most of the rest of the world. So no, the USA is not the crucible of human rights.

As with most places, I love the country, but the government's a fucking disgrace.

I tell you what. Disregarding party affiliation and policies, if the US elects Barak Obama as president it will be gob-smackingly awesome. I can't see Australia being able to do that sort of thing.

The US is so amazingly democratic at times but so f**king horrible at others. Definitely a love / hate relationship for Australians.

Well considering Obama isn't even an Australian Citizen nor is he attempting to become a member of Parliament either do I ;)

I agree with you though, we do love to hate Americans even if we do enjoy a lot of them

and Rome wasn't a CITY-STATE republic, because, as it expanded, the conquered populations became first socii then cives.

they had to go to the city of Rome to vote in an election or hold office, and was by and large impractical for anyone out side of Italy. And even for most of Italy, unless of course you were very rich.


Ok... let's talk about rapid decay. The Roman Republic was instituted about between VI and V century B.C. and became an autocracy around the half of the I century B.C. That's at least 400 years, and a good 200 years as the SOLE superpower in Europe and Mediterranean (after the fall of Carthage).

400 years, that is almost TWO TIMES the life of the USA.

Rapid decay, you say?

so your saying the US has another 200 years? splendid.


I despise what? Granted what? I don't owe MY constitution to the USA.


One formally true and one plain false.

wiki, as usual, is my friend:


So, peer pressure, not violence.



You focus on the XVIII century... omitting that Venice lasted as republic from the IX century to the end of the XVIII. That is, about 900 years, more than three times the life of the USA. The fact that it was in decay at the end of the XVIII century is ALSO due to a small factor, called the New World, and the shift of trade from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic.

I likely jumped into the conversation ? how did it begin did someone claim the US was the first large scale republic?
It is debatable depending on criteria you use.

I likely jumped into the conversation ? how did it begin did someone claim the US was the first large scale republic?
It is debatable depending on criteria you use.

Thmutarkan did imply that. And yes, it is completely debatable.

I likely jumped into the conversation ? how did it begin did someone claim the US was the first large scale republic?
It is debatable depending on criteria you use.

Someone claimed that the USA as the first "real" republic was the model for all republics that came afterwards...

Someone claimed that the USA as the first "real" republic was the model for all republics that came afterwards...

I am a proud American but that is most certainly an incorrect statement.

I am a proud American but that is most certainly an incorrect statement.

That's what we've been trying to tell him for a good dozen pages now. ;)

Mind you, nobody disputes that the US constitution and republic were significant stages in the development of modern constitutions and forms of governments, we just object to the claim that all modern constitutions are little more than copies of the US constitution.

*helping destroy Monarchy with the fall of the four Great Houses in WW1
Monarchy is doing very fine in places like Denmark, Britain, etc. So that's not a good example at all.Not to mention that the British blockade and the German revolt had more to do with removing the Kaiser from rule than dropping leaflets. Also, the Americans were completely uninvolved in removing the Czars from power.

True, though I'd note the strings attached to much of the aid for personal advantage, and (like most countries) have plenty to count against the good things.

Explain? I assume one is the Habsburg but I'm still confused.


Wrong


You contributed, but were hardly the crucible. Plus you had that whole slavery thing. Are Human rights, human rights if they don't apply to all humans?


Not as many as people commonly think


True enough.

I'm talking about American private aid (which eclipses most other aid given by countries), not direct US Gov't Aid. But even then the strings attached are no more or less unreasonable than other countries' aid.

Habsburg, Hohenzollern, Osmanli (Ottomans). I screwed up, the Romanovs of course shouldn't be counted since although they fell, the US had nothing to do with it.

Name a modern Republic older than the US. There are none.

Not the crucible? If not, then whom? I hear the women in Switzerland got the vote a decade back, bully for them! :D

The assembly line and interchangable parts alone makes the modern world possible. Nevermind the development/improvement of other techs to the point where they are actually useful. (Some may put interchangeable parts in this category, but that's splitting hairs).

Habsburg, Hohenzollern, Osmanli (Ottomans). I screwed up, the Romanovs of course shouldn't be counted since although they fell, the US had nothing to do with it. Neither should the Hohenzollern or Ottomans. Both were ousted by their own people.
Name a modern Republic older than the US. There are none.San Marino.
The assembly line and interchangable parts alone makes the modern world possible. Nevermind the development/improvement of other techs to the point where they are actually useful. (Some may put interchangeable parts in this category, but that's splitting hairs).So did the Haber-Bosch process.

I dislike its commitment to simultaneously meddling in everyone else's affairs while maintaining that immigrants and foreign labour are destroying their country, and I dislike how churches and faith groups have far too much political power. I dislike how it thinks it's the greatest country on the planet when there is no such thing.

There are parts of it and a good deal of its populace that I like, of course; when I refer to the U.S. in this post, I refer primarily to the kind of people that are trying to push the American government towards a Christian theocracy.

Although I understand and agree with your points, your example could have been chosen better. Let'S look at the bolded part shall we?

*bankrupting Communism
Winning an ideological war while putting millions of people around the world in harm's way to do so isn't what I consider a good deed. Hell, Capitalism should be bankrupted for all the evil it did in the world too.

*helping destroy Monarchy with the fall of the four Great Houses in WW1
Monarchy is doing very fine in places like Denmark, Britain, etc. So that's not a good example at all.

*developing the first modern Republic
Hardly :rolleyes:
Unless you define republic and modern differently. Besides, a republic is not "good" per se. Your republic hasn't been "good" moreso than "evil", I think.

*being the crucible of human rights...
Ha! Slavery was abolished in Canada long before the USA, the death penalty is still in use and I will not even elaborate on gitmo. Shit, ask the Gays if they feel like the USA is the crucible of human rights. Fact is, the USA has a long history of being dragged kicking and screaming into accepting more human rights. Although the same hold true for most of the rest of the world. So no, the USA is not the crucible of human rights.

At that time in the morning, I'm lucky I did that well. :)

They were already in harm's way. It's not like they're Canadians and could just freeload off of having a big, armed neighbor to protect them after 1945.

Monarchy does *not* actually exist in Japan, Spain, the UK, etc as an actual government. Unless Prince Charles has actual powers? Mostly these are nostalia, barring a few places like Bhutan.

Great. *NAME* an older modern Republic. You won't find one.

You talk like the death penalty is a bad thing.
Gitmo is not a violation of human rights, as proven by the Red Cross.
Correction: slavery. Canada did not abolish slavery until 1867, which is after the US did. You see, Canada wasn't a COUNTRY until then. Or 1931, whichever. :D
With gay rights, you make a good point as to WHY it is and had been a crucible for human rights. Ditto for universal suffrage, religious tolerance, etc.

Out of interest, why do you think that? Especially regarding the Lib Dems.
New Labour - have done very little right since 2001. Tragically similar to Mussolini - popular and successful until bumming up with a larger power who does the same but more so.

Leader totally lost it, and his successor, Gordon Brown, should never have become PM simply because he's too pragmatic for most people. That they reckon David Milliband should be their new leader is the final nail in the coffin. They won't be back in power until 2017 at the earliest.

The Conservatives - simply do have a greedy and xenophobic power base. Which I do not admire at all. The party is also intensely smug, and has policies which simply do not stack up properly, especially regarding crime and 'pay on results', which will inevitably lead to the prison system turning even worse due to a vicious circle of poor treatment, leading to less funds, leading to poorer treatment, leading to even less funding etc. etc. etc.

The Lib Dems - Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Their policies may be pretty sound overall, but the leadership of the party has been extremely weak in the last few years. Nick Clegg also irritates me because he's such a flip-flopping tool. "I don't like religion" *10 minutes later, someone complains* "By 'I don't like religion', I meant the opposite... yes..."

And as to every other party, the greens are anti-Europe for seemingly no reason, UKIP and Veritas are like the Conservatives, but anti-Europe, and the BNP should be strung up.

Like the people, but not the government. So I voted 'other'.

At that time in the morning, I'm lucky I did that well. :)

Hooray for you, and all that :p


They were already in harm's way. It's not like they're Canadians and could just freeload off of having a big, armed neighbor to protect them after 1945.

Monarchy does *not* actually exist in Japan, Spain, the UK, etc as an actual government. Unless Prince Charles has actual powers? Mostly these are nostalia, barring a few places like Bhutan.

Great. *NAME* an older modern Republic. You won't find one.

You talk like democratic republic is all that. It works for you, great. Constitutional monarchy works for us. There is not a "good" government. All forms of gevornemnt can be "good" or "evil". What you are and for how long is irrelevant. Getting rid of monarchy is not a good goal in itself. Getting rid of a harmful head of state is good, be it a King, a Mullah or Bush Jr.

You talk like the death penalty is a bad thing.
It is.

Gitmo is not a violation of human rights, as proven by the Red Cross.
Correction: slavery. Canada did not abolish slavery until 1867, which is after the US did. You see, Canada wasn't a COUNTRY until then. Or 1931, whichever. :D
With gay rights, you make a good point as to WHY it is and had been a crucible for human rights. Ditto for universal suffrage, religious tolerance, etc.
If you want to pussyfoot around, fine. But discrimination was around way after the abolition of slavery. The blacks had to fight tooth and nail for everything they deserve. Some say that fight isn't over.

Same with women.
Same with Gay.
Same with everyone who's not WASP.

You helped in some cases of human rights, true. But to say that you're the crucible is a joke. If it weren'T for the Greek thinkers of yore, we wouldn't even talk about human rights.

THAT's the crucible.

Now, how 'bout you (meaning the USA government) sign a few of the treaties you're dragging your feets in like anti-personnel landmines or the death penalty if you're so big on human rights.

Neither should the Hohenzollern or Ottomans. Both were ousted by their own people.
San Marino.
So did the Haber-Bosch process.

As a direct result of WW1. This is particularly true with the Ottomans as they nearly sided with the Allies instead of the Central Powers. The Kaiser likewise would have held power if Operation Michael had succeeded and a peace treaty that was not Versailles been concluded.

San Marino was occupied in 1739, and Cardinal Giulio Alberoni most certainly changed the government and forced a new Constitution. Sorry... they may be an older country, but they are not an older modern republic.

There are dozens of such examples, I'm sure. But as for H-B: where would they get the equipment they needed without mass production? :D

San Marino was occupied in 1739, and Cardinal Giulio Alberoni most certainly changed the government and forced a new Constitution. Sorry... they may be an older country, but they are not an older modern republic.

I did not know that. Link please so I can educate myself.

Hooray for you, and all that :p



You talk like democratic republic is all that. It works for you, great. Constitutional monarchy works for us. There is not a "good" government. All forms of gevornemnt can be "good" or "evil". What you are and for how long is irrelevant. Getting rid of monarchy is not a good goal in itself. Getting rid of a harmful head of state is good, be it a King, a Mullah or Bush Jr.

But, since you asked, San Marino.


It is.


If you want to pussyfoot around, fine. But discrimination was around way after the abolition of slavery. The blacks had to fight tooth and nail for everything they deserve. Some say that fight isn't over.

Same with women.
Same with Gay.
Same with everyone who's not WASP.

You helped in some cases of human rights, true. But to say that you're the crucible is a joke. If it weren'T for the Greek thinkers of yore, we wouldn't even talk about human rights.

THAT's the crucible.

Now, how 'bout you (meaning the USA government) sign a few of the treaties you're dragging your feets in like anti-personnel landmines or the death penalty if you're so big on human rights.

The Democratic republic gov't has supplied more prosperity for more people across a longer period of time than any other. That's not just "good for us".
Getting rid of non-Constitutional Monarchy is a GREAT thing. Ask the people in Bhutan right now how they like it.

I just refuted San Marino above.

You can talk against the death penalty if you will, but that (as we all know) can become a whole discussion on its own. However, for the sake of this example, I think we can both agree to exclude it as not pertinent as a violation of human rights for this discussion?

OF course. Just like discrimination is around RIGHT NOW in Quebec (Quebecois) or British Columbia against the Viet Namese and Chinese. Your point?

I'm not saying the US is the *only* crucible, but A crucible. I'm sorry if I inferred otherwise.

Because:
A) The Death Penalty is not a bad thing.
B) The landmines on the border are a MAJOR reason why North Korea hasn't tried a last-ditch effort to invade the South.

San Marino was occupied in 1739, and Cardinal Giulio Alberoni most certainly changed the government and forced a new Constitution.


And after protests from the Sammarinese, Pope Clement XII gave papal recoginiton to San Marino's rights, which restored San Marino's independence. Thus making Cardinal Alberoni's constitution illegitimate and irrelevant to this discussion. The San Marino constitution of today is the same (with obvious evolution) as the one from 1600.

Sorry.

As a direct result of WW1. This is particularly true with the Ottomans as they nearly sided with the Allies instead of the Central Powers. The Kaiser likewise would have held power if Operation Michael had succeeded and a peace treaty that was not Versailles been concluded. The Kaiser would likely have stayed in power if it hadn't been for the revolution that drove him out. The indirect causes for said revolution were the war and the British blockade. The direct causes were the OHL's decision to send the fleet out in a last stand against the British. The Americans were only involved in WWI, and not nearly as much as the Allies, and consequently don't really deserve the credit.
As for the Ottomans: Yes, it was a direct result of WWI. No, the Americans were not involved.
San Marino was occupied in 1739, and Cardinal Giulio Alberoni most certainly changed the government and forced a new Constitution. Sorry... they may be an older country, but they are not an older modern republic. And go ahead and back that claim up.
There are dozens of such examples, I'm sure. But as for H-B: where would they get the equipment they needed without mass production? :DStuff was produced without mass production before, it just became more expensive and took more time. Certainly surmountable obstacles as opposed to feeding 6 billion people without the ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen.

Monarchy does *not* actually exist in Japan, Spain, the UK, etc as an actual government. Unless Prince Charles has actual powers? Mostly these are nostalia, barring a few places like Bhutan.

In each modern monarchy, the actual powers of the monarch are slightly different, but they are there. In the Netherlands, for example, the queen does appoint the government. It is customary that she appoints a prime minister of the party that gained most seats in parliament, but she doesn't have to. It wouldn't be a wise move to ignore the election results, as she would probably have a revolution on her hands, but technically she can appoint any ministers she likes. Also, the monarch is the formal representative of the state. The US is the only major country that I know where the head of government and the head of state is united within the same person.
A) The Death Penalty is not a bad thing
Yes it is, because the truth can never be found with 100% certainty, thus resulting in a real possibility for state-sponsored murder of innocent people. There is a lot more to say against death penalty. In a way, it sends the message to people "it's ok to kill if you are wronged".
Which leads me back to the original topic of this thread: one of the things I dislike about "the united states" is that there seems to be a certain mentality of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth"; combine that with a tendency to take rights in own hands, and you get a dangerous situations. Further, the "lawsuit culture" shows a certain avoidance of responsibility: you're no longer responsible for your own action, but others have to make sure that you are safe.
Now that I write this down, it surprises me that all Americans don't live in constant fear that they might do something which make others cause you bodily or financial harm, lol.

The Democratic republic gov't has supplied more prosperity for more people across a longer period of time than any other. That's not just "good for us".
I will kindly disagree. If we are to look at the tally from a prosperity and time period point of view, I think you'll find that constitutionnal monarchy is better.

For one thing, there's alot more of them around that democratic republic and some of them are from longer that the USA.

Not to trivialize what Democratic republic did, but you're the one saying "We're number 1!" while I think it's not true.

Getting rid of non-Constitutional Monarchy is a GREAT thing. Ask the people in Bhutan right now how they like it.
Getting rid of bad leaders is the ticket. A monarchy is a bad system to get rid of them, sure but ask the people of Denmark why they haven't kicked their monarch to the curb.



I just refuted San Marino above.
I saw, was amazed and snickered when your claim was refuted.

You can talk against the death penalty if you will, but that (as we all know) can become a whole discussion on its own. However, for the sake of this example, I think we can both agree to exclude it as not pertinent as a violation of human rights for this discussion?
Agreed.

OF course. Just like discrimination is around RIGHT NOW in Quebec (Quebecois) or British Columbia against the Viet Namese and Chinese. Your point?
You're the one saying "We're better". I'm refuting that claim. Never said we were better.

I'm not saying the US is the *only* crucible, but A crucible. I'm sorry if I inferred otherwise.
Must have misread your meaning. I apologize.


Because:
A) The Death Penalty is not a bad thing.
B) The landmines on the border are a MAJOR reason why North Korea hasn't tried a last-ditch effort to invade the South.
We agreed to disagree on the death penalty so that leaves the Korean thing.

I find it shameful that the only reason to deny the advancment of human rights is because of some political exception. There never should have landmines there in the first place even if North Korea is insane. It was politically useful to put them there as we are manifacturing them in the first plae and I don't think we looked very far for another deterrent.

I find it shamefull when the USA drags it's feet because of politics and I find it shamefull when Canada does it on aborigenal rights because of politics.

everyone who are not US citizens and dislikes the USA are terrorist and belongs in gitmo. The US citizens are protected by the first Amendment.

On behalf of the majority of American citizens, I'd like to apologise to the rest of the world for the quoted comment. The view stated in that comment represents AT MOST 2% of the total US population. The rest of us kind of like most folks until they try to blow us up or spit in our food.

And at the risk of getting banned...
Yes, greed and death, you are protected by the 1st Amendment. However, with that protection, comes the responsibility to accept that imflamatory statements may invoke a response in kind. Therefore, let me say...

It is my sincere hope that Osama bin Laden sneeks into your house one night and gives you a C-4 suppository.

C'THULU 2008
Why vote for the lesser evil?

A response to the Death penalty argument.

Personally, the Death penalty should be used, but not for all murders. e.g terrorists such as the IRA targeting army bases shouldn't be executed. As they are targeting soldiers when at the moment in time they were at war, therefore its fighting dirty not murder.

Move that scene to a public street, you have a different argument and as the civilians often have nothing to do with the example war, this should be classed as mass murder and should be punishable by death.

You lose your rights when you take someone else's away.

Of course, if the killer is provoked, or defending him/her self or a group, accidental murder, proof of insanity, etc. Then the Death penalty wouldn't be appropriate.

It's a very very thin red line.

I live in the US and love it.
Living a really good life and raising three kids that are loving life here.

Spent time in many other places -some nice and some not so nice.

I chose to stay here and keep living the good life.

I read a poll on CBC.ca (can't find it) that 51% or 56% of Canadians say the USA is the biggest threat to the world, or world security, or something like that. Iran got 26%.

What do you think of that?

I read a poll on CBC.ca (can't find it) that 51% or 56% of Canadians say the USA is the biggest threat to the world, or world security, or something like that. Iran got 26%.

What do you think of that?
Pretty sensible estimate. Iran can't really do anything.

I read a poll on CBC.ca (can't find it) that 51% or 56% of Canadians say the USA is the biggest threat to the world, or world security, or something like that. Iran got 26%.

What do you think of that?

I'd conclude that either 49% or 44% of Canadians have their head in the sand.

I am from the USA. I do not dislike the USA, as a whole. My personal opinion is that the concept of the USA was a really great idea that has since been lost in translation.

I do not dislike Americans, I just dislike the government at the moment, and a lot of the foreign policy.

Fairly well put...

I too am an "American", and feel pretty much the same.

P.S. I wonder what the rest of the people in the America's feel about U.S. citizens proudly procliming thatwe're "Americans"... as if they don't matter or count. Maybe that should be a thread as well...

I'm talking about American private aid (which eclipses most other aid given by countries), not direct US Gov't Aid. But even then the strings attached are no more or less unreasonable than other countries' aid.
Eh, because we do it through governments rather than private aid doesn't make US aid much better. Per capita I don't think the US is that exceptional.


Habsburg, Hohenzollern, Osmanli (Ottomans). I screwed up, the Romanovs of course shouldn't be counted since although they fell, the US had nothing to do with it.
As someone else said, monarchy is still alive and well in Europe, and surely the British Royal Family ranks in the top 4.


Name a modern Republic older than the US. There are none.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republics#List_of_Republics_by_Period
Enjoy. Several before, San Marino still going is the most notable. Plus as someone said, nothing wrong with constitutional monarchy.


Not the crucible? If not, then whom? I hear the women in Switzerland got the vote a decade back, bully for them! :D
Why anyone? Call it a collaborative effort. Magna Carta made a big difference, habeas corpus etc etc. US, and France contributed with their constitutions. As did numerous other countries at various points in history.

The US is still holding out on the convention on child rights. Plus that whole slavery and segregation thing carrying on for that long.

It's unrealistic to think that one country could reasonably be called the crucible of human rights.


I read a poll on CBC.ca (can't find it) that 51% or 56% of Canadians say the USA is the biggest threat to the world, or world security, or something like that. Iran got 26%.

What do you think of that?
Sensible enough. What can Iran actually do currently? The US is tthe only world superpower left, and a monkey with his funger on the button.

No.

people who do not like the USA don't due to jealousy or ideological reasons (read: Bush or Conservatism).

some have legitimate grievances such as many citizens in South America or peaceful residents in Palestine who would like American support as well and there are others who are just plain nuts, such as islamic terrorists.

I'm a US native and I think this country and most of it's people are blithering idiots.How else could we've elected Bush twice!:D