Thanks for your reply Lolowut.

I think you should begin looking at every country's foreign policy before you declare America's is the worst.

I wouldnt say american politics is the worst, even if it is, I wouldnt know enough about it to mention such a comparisson. Right now it's just in the focus of the discussion, which might depends on their global impact.
You mentioned Afghanistan. Do the afghanistans have any economically benefits due to the american foreign policy? the economic output of the iraq depends on their trade with oil. To mention that they have stabilized their politics and economy during the american occupation is kind of cynical. Dont forget that there has been a total embargo for twelve years. which destroyed at least massivly the local economie.
It is obviously true that everyone wants to make profits throughout their trades, but that doesnt mean that cruel ruthlessness is necessarily presupposing. In case of the ukraine the deal with the russians would be a lot better for the ukrainians, than with the EU. All they've got right now is nearly a civil war.
anyway, I really appreciate your answer and I would really appreciate a respond due to my question: What makes America the top country in the world right now, if you dont include economy and military forces in your enumeration?

@Ranek: Did I not answer your question well enough in the first paragraph? For now I will provide more detail about Iraq, Afghanistan, and Ukraine.

Iraq peaked economically in 1980. This was partly due to the rise of Saddam and the production ramped up during the Iran-Iraq war. During and after the Iran-Iraq war, the economy plummeted. It would plummet again in 1990 for Saddam invading Kuwait due to sanctions and embargoes like you suggested. The American occupation was between 2003-2011, it's now 2014 and their economy has spiked higher than before and they're not overrun by terrorist organizations yet. That's a big deal. Their unemployment was down by a lot, so there's not many people to take advantage of for military/terrorist reasons. Had Saddam stayed in power none of this would've been accomplished.

Afghanistan is hard to really call a country, it has a central government of some sort but it is really a lot of tribes who do their own thing. There's a lot of books concerning how Afghanistan works and it's very interesting. I'll give you a break down. There's 3 forces at work in Afghanistan: The Taliban, The Northern Alliance, and neutral tribes who don't participate in either. What America has been doing is essentially helping the Northern Alliance resist the Taliban and trying to convince the neutral tribes to throw their lots in with the Northern Alliance in order to push the Taliban out. The economic benefits? Well if the country is no longer in the hands of a terrorist organization that's a lot of money than can be spent on the betterment of their country. If the Taliban were pushed out, you'd see Afghanistan's economy spike rapidly. Infact, since 2006 Afghanistan's GDP has doubled and the Northern Alliance only has about 30-40% of the country out of Taliban control.

Russia's deal would be better? You've got to be kidding me. Go read some of Putin's speeches on minorities. There are no minorities in Russia and they aren't allowed to speak, because if they do they're thrown in jail, and if loud enough are assassinated. I guess if you're a Russian who lives in Ukraine this isn't that bad, but every Ukrainian that wishes to keep living where they are in the Russian occupied zone is going to have to become a Russian citizen which is a lengthy process with no guarantee of success. So they're stuck in limbo for a couple years. The populace will suffer because of it. A civil war doesn't involve one side that had no control over the Ukrainian military suddenly having large amounts of ammunition, supplies, and Russian tanks. It's a military takeover plain and simple. That's why the Ukrainian military was so quick to begin deserting. No supplies, smaller army, and no support from outside countries. Why would you stay and starve to death?

The full details on why this all happened are this:

When the Soviet Union was around and Ukraine joined as a satellite country, the USSR decided that they would give Ukraine a token of gratitude. This token was the Crimean port, a very important and strategic port on the Black Sea. Since the USSR had no intention of letting Ukraine ever leave, it was really only a symbolic gesture. Forward a couple years and the USSR collapses, but Ukraine retains control over that port. The Russians keep their navy there but have no real access to the port. It's a pretty big deal to Russia, but with the threat of Ukraine joining NATO/EU it's clear they don't have a great chance of just taking it over with brute force. Luckily, the Russians have plenty of people who live in Crimea and are pretty influential despite not being the majority of the population. It's interesting when you see polls in Ukraine showing that only 19% of the people trust the political parties, and for good reason. One has been bought by Russia, and the other is just a little too aggressive about Russians in general. When signs showed true to the people's thoughts, they protested. The army stayed out of it and what we had was a natural revolution brewing, but Putin was worried. Putin has ships docked in Crimea and a pretty good claim on it, so he immediately deployed his army and took the port by force. Now his army just stands freely in Ukraine as the Ukrainian army deserts, looks like Putin will probably get everything, not just a slice.

I can tell Lolowut is an American.

Oh well. I think this topic is awesomely controlled in regard to the topic.
I would blame democracy. The west uses it because it treats everybody equal and is somewhat "not evil". But just because it is not bad does not mean it is good or efficient.

Born in Poland, currently living in Germany but also having lived in the US for one year I can only say that I hate all of those governments. In Germany and Poland you can practically have multiple parties but eventually there are always two major opposing powers.

I also blame overpopulation for pretty much everything. Oil is going to run out by the end of this century. Gas in 150 years. Coal will last for much longer.
Other resources are being used without the possibility of ever getting them back

Just look at the smatphone and tablet market. It was not there 10 years ago.


The US, or rather the system which controls it, tries to remain its status and evolve faster than others. It is just about survival. There might not be a world war but the fight for resources has already begun.
In the end nothing matters. Bad and good are just human made constructs. We are lucky if the humanity goes on at all - be it Nazis, Russians or Americans.

Anyone here read "1984" by George Orwell?


Concerning Lolowut's post.
I do not see how peaking economy does any good. The worldwide economy is totally messed up, it goes up and down like a d*mn roller coaster.

It seems like US and Russia are not that different after all with their military involvement and the massive disparity between the poor and rich.
In Germany the Swiss system is regarded as the best, although Germany is recarded as "the most democratic of all democracies" - not perfect, just best. But still any good.

Edited 6/10/2014 23:55:29

I notice that you have patriotic for your own country and I don't judge, me too ;)

Like if I was born in Germany, then I'll be like "GERMANY IS THE BEST IN THE WORLD". I actually think S.Korea or Japan has a better economy and system even though I'm american born.

But other then that I agree with the war on Resources. War is just going to make things worse.

I also blame overpopulation for pretty much everything. Oil is going to run out by the end of this century. Gas in 150 years. Coal will last for much longer.

I dislike it when anyone puts arbitrary timelines on overpopulation and talk about how it's going to ruin everything. Go read papers back during the British Empire talking about how they would literally ruin themselves with overpopulation. The population in London alone dwarfs their estimates and the city and country are fine. The hardest thing to judge is technological advancement and how that will affect things. In regards to energy resources, (I'm studying as a chemical engineer, with some petroleum engineering knowledge, so energy is something I research a lot.) Sure if nothing changes your estimates make sense. However, everyday we're discovering how to reach even deeper pockets of oil, we're learning how to use it more efficiently, and we're starting to understand other sources of energy more. The research budget in Exxon alone is stunning.

I do not see how peaking economy does any good. The worldwide economy is totally messed up, it goes up and down like a d*mn roller coaster.

This may be true for some countries that have crashed really badly like Greece, but it's not a totally messed up roller coaster like you're describing. I have a few sources if you want to take a look at the raw numbers, and a couple graphs if you want to visualize it.

It seems like US and Russia are not that different after all with their military involvement and the massive disparity between the poor and rich.

I'd rather be poor in the US than poor in Russia. Standard of living etc.

I just want a Government to where when I own something, I own it. Tired of the whole idea of ownership being trodded on.

I have respect for Lolowut now.

HE HATH IMPRESSED THE KING OF LAWLZANIA! MAGNUS DOTH LOOK AT SIR LOLOWUT WITH PROPER PRIDE AND JOY!

its ridiculous what lolowut wrote.
a couple of halftruths, some wrong facts, jingoistic propaganda, illogical conclusions and an all in all terrible analysis.

And getting a "well said" from the least mentally capable guy in the forums would give me something to think about if i were him.

Edited 6/11/2014 02:59:27

Oh Yay, the bitchiest person on the forums had returned -_-

its ridiculous what lolowut wrote.
a couple of halftruths, some wrong facts, jingoistic propaganda, illogical conclusions and an all in all terrible analysis.

And getting a "well said" from the least mentally capable guy in the forums would give me something to think about if i were him.

The validity of information and arguments aren't derived from the mental state of the people who agree with them, so I really couldn't give a shit.

Haha funny one

From the first page, America has made the world a better place. Things that came from America: Internet, Lightbulbs, the use of electricity, the telephone, toilet paper, the computer, airplanes, the assembly line, e-mail, credit cards, air-conditioning, airbags, artificial hearts, autopilot, barcode, bifocals, bulldozer, calculator, communications satellite, crayons, dental floss, digital camera, dishwasher, the first video game, flashlights, GPS, jeans, computer keyboard, microwave oven, microwave popcorn, shopping cart, touch screen, traffic cone, transistor, tupperware, USB, Vacuum cleaners, weather satellite, windscreen wiper, and the zipper.

USA WANTS TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD. SO CHINA CANT

Let's just phrase the situation into songs:

1)One referring to America in particular

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwDnDMdHeXM

2) And one referring to "Empires" in general

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2PWZxG3QJY

3) Oh and let's not forget the lapdog state of Great Britain with regards to the USA politics:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL5uFS74ZVU

Edited 6/12/2014 09:44:34

I glanced at the name of this thread, mistook it for 'why does Aranka want to take over the world?'
slumped onto the first page with great anticipation. What a let down. :(

Let's take a history lesson:

I cant say that I support everything that the U.S. does (btw I am an American), but you have to be fairly ignorant to say that the nation's best move is to step out of its role as a world policeman. Historically, world prosperity has been seen at its greatest when there is a strong power in that sector of the world (Rome, Greece, height of the British Empire). When a strong, localized "policeman" nation is not present within a certain sector, that area falls to ruin (Western Europe and the feudal era after the fall of Rome in 476 A.D., the 1700's during the fall of the British Empire).

In this new, modern world that is more connected than ever before, there must be a strong, global power that fulfills this role.

You demonstrate your ignorance by saying that the U.S. is trying to take over the world. The last time that the U.S. forcefully captured any land was over a century ago (the Philippines in the Spanish-American War). Since then, the only way that the U.S. has expanded its territory was through peacefully taking various obscure islands in predominantly the Pacific Ocean.

America is a great country,sure,it has its flaws,but what country doesn't...

Also,the Above comment by [M.C.]ARC-77 is totally true,in my opinion

Edited 6/13/2014 07:31:56

I have nothing personally against you but let's make a step by step analysis here:

I cant say that I support everything that the U.S. does (btw I am an American), but you have to be fairly ignorant to say that the nation's best move is to step out of its role as a world policeman. Historically, world prosperity has been seen at its greatest when there is a strong power in that sector of the world (Rome, Greece, height of the British Empire). When a strong, localized "policeman" nation is not present within a certain sector, that area falls to ruin (Western Europe and the feudal era after the fall of Rome in 476 A.D., the 1700's during the fall of the British Empire).

How would one define "world prosperity" in that regard ?? Income per persona ??
Even at the glory days of Rome, Greece and the British Empire the multitude of the people barely had enough coin to get through the day.

With regards to the "Dark ages" one could even see the living conditions of millions of slaves improved drastically and if one is not so blind as to focus only on Europe one can even argue that the arabians were in their Golden Age right after the fall of Rome.
Furthermore I fail to see how the decrease of war and violence actually means an area "falls to ruin". No current historian is going to use the term "Dark ages" since it was mostly an invention of a nationalistic 13th century Italian.

Furthermore, placing the fall of the British Empire in the 1700's is totally ludicrious since that would actually be even before the height of the British Empire during the Victorian Period which is later.

In this new, modern world that is more connected than ever before, there must be a strong, global power that fulfills this role.

What benefit does a "strong" "global" power fulfill ? One could even argue that the United States currently are not a world power but ok:
http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/07/18/americas-global-image-remains-more-positive-than-chinas/

Luckily at least the USA is seen as slightly more positive then China...so the USA must be great.....right ??

For any global power to have a beneficient effect one would expect judgement to be passed impartially.

How has the USA's policy in the middle east helped things for the better ??
America's constant backing of Israel (for their own gain and jewish lobbying in the White House) helped to spur the Israeli's on to peace talks ?

Even when they do mingle in a conflict it hardly leads to stabilization of a region. At best, the american actions are very often short sighted and at worst just sheer boiling points for disaester.

The whole point which makes the united states impossible to have any benefficient effect to the world is traceable back to the Manifest destiny which regards that America views itself above the law. They don't always stick to international agreements on human rights and the Vienna Convention (Guantanomo Bay, drone attacks on civilian targets).

The amount of foreign aid given by the United States 0.17% of the GDP is one of the lowest of the OECD countries. The actual effect the United States has on poor countries is even made worse by the heavy protectional import laws they have in place thus denying the poor countries the chance to sell their products in the American markets.

You demonstrate your ignorance by saying that the U.S. is trying to take over the world. The last time that the U.S. forcefully captured any land was over a century ago (the Philippines in the Spanish-American War). Since then, the only way that the U.S. has expanded its territory was through peacefully taking various obscure islands in predominantly the Pacific Ocean.

The American arrogance is clear in the last few lines of this "argument" as the following words will elaborate : "Peacefully" taking "Obscure islands".

While America might not always have claimed the country for it's own there are dozens of cases of the United States going to war in order to install a puppet regime in place which would be more approving of the United States. Countries such as Dominican Republic, Venezuala and Columbia come to mind to name just a few.

Furthermore having fought multiple large scale wars in the last 50 years hardly seems like the kind of actions of a peaceful nation. Even most Americans won't deny the Vietnam war, the Korean war and the war in Iraq were a waste of good men (American and foreign) and money.

Its the usa or them

USA USA USA USA USA IM FROM THE USA SO ILL DIE IN THE USA
BETTER THEN CHINAS CUROPTED NATION