Americas Greatest Strength

[TinCow]

Disagree. It's greatest strength is a totally ruthless support for freedom of speech. Few other places in the world allow for the same level of protection of minority opinions as the US. Freedom of speech is the bastion of liberty, and thus its preservation from any and all encroachments is very important.

Which is not to say that the US is perfect in these regards. The FCC and indecency/obscenity laws are heavily flawed. Still, the US has a very good track record despite these unfortunate policies.

[atheotes]

Disagree

...
...she remains a beacon for the oppressed and downtrodden who wish nothing more than to come here work hard and make something of themselves. ...

I think that is Americas greatest strength..results in a country built upon hard and honest work .

[Viking]

Such absoluteness, hum hum. I'd say that the US' greatest strength is a product of: sheer size multiplied with population multiplied with economy multiplied with technological standard.

But of course..uh...strength in which respect?

[yesdachi]

I think America’s adaptability is a major strength but what allows its adaptability are its freedoms. Freedom of speech, religion, etc. and I don’t think we can discount the entrepreneurial spirit of Americans (immigrants or natural born). The ability to own your own business and ideas is a fantastic concept that has been allowed to proliferate across the county. I don’t think there is a place on earth with as many independent people and small business owners (Hong Kong has lots too). Sure there are some simple minded, book burning, nutters out there that stifle creative minds but overall I think America is a melting pot where innovation is born and that is our greatest strength.

America’s greatest weakness is our tolerance for those who don’t think we are the greatest; they should all be crushed and burned.

[Louis VI the Fat]

It's greatest strength is a totally ruthless support for freedom of speech. Few other places in the world allow for the same level of protection of minority opinions as the US. Freedom of speech is the bastion of liberty, and thus its preservation from any and all encroachments is very important.

I would not disagree with the above. But I think it is subordinate to America's propensity to re-invent itself.

Free-flowing information, the exchange of ideas, competition of ideas, this leads to an easily adaptable society. Which, I must agree with Strike, I think is America's outstanding quality.


(As an aside, this is why I consider W. Bush I the least patriotic administration in (modern) American history. Their flagpins, their call for uncritical, 'patriotic' devotion to set ideas, for toeing the line, immediately had a debilitating effect on America's capacity for a free competition of ideas, with disastrous effect)

[Martok]

Such absoluteness, hum hum. I'd say that the US' greatest strength is a product of: sheer size multiplied with population multiplied with economy multiplied with technological standard.

But of course..uh...strength in which respect?

You read my mind, Viking. Although I would also add "multiplied by its abundance of natural resources".

[Louis VI the Fat]

I disagree with Viking and Martok. I think that Viking's qualities are a result of America's strenghts, not a cause.

sheer size multiplied with population multiplied with economy multiplied with technological standard.

As for natural resources, they're vastly overrated. The Congo, Iraq, Venezuela - they have natural resources. Japan doesn't have any. Switzerland neither. Not much in the way of them for Denmark, Belgium, Hong Kong or Singapore either.

[Yoyoma1910]

Disagree...

America's greatest strength lies in our closely guarded secrets concerning atomic weapons. As long as no one else has them, nobody can touch us. And good thing those are airtight secure.

[KukriKhan]

I would not disagree with the above. But I think it is subordinate to America's propensity to re-invent itself.

Free-flowing information, the exchange of ideas, competition of ideas, this leads to an easily adaptable society. Which, I must agree with Strike, I think is America's outstanding quality.


(As an aside, this is why I consider W. Bush I the least patriotic administration in (modern) American history. Their flagpins, their call for uncritical, 'patriotic' devotion to set ideas immediately had a debilitating effect on America's capacity for a free competition of ideas, with disastrous effect)

I wish I could construct a viable argument against that last bit - but I cannot. The "Fortress America" policy not only failed to build a fortress, but caused a constipation of creativity in solving our problems, our ability of which, we were once humbly famous. And America is sick and tired and frankly pissed about it. We'll be back soon, reinventing ourselves yet again, whether because of, or in spite of, whoever wins next month's contest.

[drone]

Our greatest strengths are the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

[Viking]

I disagree with Viking and Martok. I think that Viking's qualities are a result of America's strenghts, not a cause.

Hm... I think that if we blew up the average European country to American standards, we'd have another USA; all but culturally. Not every great invention happened in the U.S., not every great corporation is based off U.S. soil. The more great inventions and corporations from the same country, the greater the cultural impact and the greater the country compares to the outside world.

I think that the U.S. is a part of the larger "Western World"; to which a large number of countries belong. They all have in common wealth and high living standards. What sets U.S. apart is this:
In the measure of area, the US is only beaten by Canada; and in the measure of population, it wins by a long shot (US' 300 mill vs. Germany's 82, that's the closest) (couple of interesting links here and here)

[gaelic cowboy]

America's greatest strength is its ability to ignore the principles of thermodynamics

Since energy cant be created from nothing some work must be entered into the systen.

This work energy comes from outside America and so is effectively free to US citizens.

Since no likes working for nothing they obviously must be forced to do so.

This means that only Americas military ensures prosperity free speech population growth etc etc etc.

Any reduction in Americas millitary reduces its abilty to put off paying for what it eats effectively.

Until either all the resources are gone or the less powerfull nations increase in power this will continue.

Obviously once resources are gone millitary power is useless as there is nothing to protect

So this means any and all enemies or even potential enemies should be .

All Americas freedoms and priveliges stem completly from the barrel of a gun

I pray this continues for at least as long as I am on on the earth.

Collegy stuff and other things thought up by men with beards

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Oh stuff and piffle.

If I must take a serious stance, I would say that I emphatically concur with Tincow.

[atheotes]

Our greatest strengths are the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

tbh... i think there is a lot of truth in that statement...

[gaelic cowboy]

Disagree. It's greatest strength is a totally ruthless support for freedom of speech. Few other places in the world allow for the same level of protection of minority opinions as the US. Freedom of speech is the bastion of liberty, and thus its preservation from any and all encroachments is very important.

Which is not to say that the US is perfect in these regards. The FCC and indecency/obscenity laws are heavily flawed. Still, the US has a very good track record despite these unfortunate policies.

This still ties back to millitary firepower America's freedoms are defended by guns which are held in check by the guns belonging to its civilians ergo america's greatest power is its guns.

Freedom of speech is a consequence of a ruthlessly defended country at all levels.

A strong economy is a consequence of freedom of movement and of ideas etc

A strong economy leads to more money for the millitary which leads to more money for Americans.

More money for ordinary American means they can afford guns too which keeps them free.

I seem to be going in circles so I think its pretty obvious Guns equals Americas greatest strength.

[KukriKhan]

I seem to be going in circles so I think its pretty obvious Guns equals Americas greatest strength

Or any country's, by your reasoning.

[Husar]

For america to have a greatest strength it would have to have a strength at all in the first place.

[Koga No Goshi]

Hm... I think that if we blew up the average European country to American standards, we'd have another USA; all but culturally. Not every great invention happened in the U.S., not every great corporation is based off U.S. soil. The more great inventions and corporations from the same country, the greater the cultural impact and the greater the country compares to the outside world.

I think that the U.S. is a part of the larger "Western World"; to which a large number of countries belong. They all have in common wealth and high living standards. What sets U.S. apart is this:
In the measure of area, the US is only beaten by Canada; and in the measure of population, it wins by a long shot (US' 300 mill vs. Germany's 82, that's the closest) (couple of interesting links here and here)

Just throwing this out there as food for thought... if not for immigration, the U.S. population would be shrinking, just like Japan. For quite awhile now our population growht has been only due to immigration... I think the native born pop was at replacement birthrate for awhile and now is net negative.

[gaelic cowboy]

Or any country's, by your reasoning.

Yes I would agree any country can claim these rewards that are given by guns.
Dont get me wrong I aint some loony living in a bunker in Ireland but I think my previous statement is true.

[TinCow]

This still ties back to millitary firepower America's freedoms are defended by guns which are held in check by the guns belonging to its civilians ergo america's greatest power is its guns.

Freedom of speech is a consequence of a ruthlessly defended country at all levels.

...

I seem to be going in circles so I think its pretty obvious Guns equals Americas greatest strength.

I disagree. With the notable exception of the Civil War, throughout its entire history the US military was actually much smaller than most European nations until we entered WW2. Since the Revolution, the country has never experienced a serious external threat to its existence barring Soviet nuclear weaponry. Simply put, the geography of the US makes domestic defense a relatively insignificant aspect of our nation. Our military exists almost exclusively to project power, not to defend our borders.

There is certainly merit in saying that the lack of a military threat against us has allowed freedoms to flourish, but that is far more a result of our location on the planet, not the quality or quantity of our weapons. Canada and Australia experience very similar levels of freedom, yet neither have ever been dominant military powers. Like us, their location is all the defense they need.

Even so, I am very skeptical of calling our weaponry, or even our geographic defenses in general, our greatest strength. During the 1950s, we firmly believed (even if that belief was erroneous) that we were under serious threat of a Soviet invasion. Despite that belief in a very serious threat to our integrity, we decided that our citizens were free to advocate the violent overthrow of our own government, as long as they didn't actually act on it. This is not something to be shrugged off lightly and ascribed to simple force of arms. We, during a time of intense fear of a foreign threat, allowed our own citizens to publicly advocate the policies and beliefs of our own enemy. We trusted not in our ability to suppress them by violence if they got out of hand, but rather in our ability to resolve our own differences with dialog rather than arms.

This is a tradition which has carried on to this day. I am immensely proud that the ACLU itself defends the KKK's right to march and to speak in public. I believe this is represented perfectly well in the constant political debate over the future of SCOTUS. There is constant debate in this country (and in this forum) over what SCOTUS will do on many different issues. Yet, there is essentially no chance whatsoever that any SCOTUS justice, no matter who appointed them or where they stand on the political spectrum, would support any infringement on the First Amendment. It is the single most coveted law in our nation, and the one on which there has been no serious attempt outside of a few temporary and limited measures that were imposed during WW1, WW2, and a few years in the McCarthy Era. Even then, the limitations imposed by the US were far, far less severe than those imposed by our brethren in Europe.

It is no small feat that the United States held a free democratic election during the midst of its own Civil War in 1864. That was a monumental achievement in free speech which has never been equaled in the history of the world. It is worth noting with a sense of irony, however, that Lincoln himself was responsible for the single most egregious violation of the law (far outstripping George W) with his suspension of habeas corpus.

What this all boils down to is a fundamental belief and trust in the US Constitution by the American citizenry as a whole. Despite its many flaws and the many difficulties this nation has encountered, the vast majority of Americans are loyal to the principles of the laws upon which this nation was founded, not its government or its military. The latter garner respect and obedience to the extent that they themselves uphold our laws. When our own institutions violate our laws, the people consistently and inevitably reign them back in. This is due to the near universal belief in our own rights, of which Freedom of Speech has always been the first and foremost.

[Koga No Goshi]

I snicker at the idea that the right to bear arms holds the government in check. Please. What happens to militia complexes when they try to resist the government? And if that was going on on a wide and large scale, trust me, they wouldn't be worried about the bad PR rap.

It will never be little guys with handguns and hunting rifles that stop a slide into fascism or authoritarianism. You could just as easily argue those guys will be helping it along as fighting it.

[Louis VI the Fat]

What happens to militia complexes when they try to resist the government?

Well...I heard about this one instance where a militia uprising led to a hugely succesful new nation founded on democratic principles 232 years ago.



@Viking: now I get it. We read two different things in the question. You: 'what constitutes America's strength?' Whereas I read: 'what is the cause of America's strength?'.
We're talking about different things.

This being the case, I would agree with both you, and surprise, with myself. For your case, one can argue that America historically shared many characteristics with Northwest Europe. In which case, for both areas the same causes led to their rise in the past two centuries. And the overriding cause for the difference in strenght between Norway and the US is sheer size.

And I also agree with myself that size matters not. Brazil has almost the same area and natural resources as the US. And 200 versus 300 million people. Yet, Brazil is not a superpower, and America is.

[gaelic cowboy]

Isolation is a relative term freedom is a relative term in fact most things we believe as self evident truths are only just the fashions of our time.
Our beliefs can and do change the civil war in the US changed a heck of a lot of ideas.
My idea on guns=freedom is really more the idea if the society can defend itself it will be allowed to flower.
This defense doesnt neccessarily mean to my thinking that a militia needs tanks to keep the feds out.
Just that the banning of a civilian gun is the rocky road this means restrictions would be okay but embargo is wrong.
It is however funnily enough not even neccessary to own a gun to enjoy america however guns do enter the equation somewhere.
My right to not have a gun is defended by a gun, we now I would say are more into a period where instead of us owning guns its an understood value like money which is based on trust as we know.
All this trust in my view is backed by guns.
If the guns turn against us faith is lost and the market must work to regain confidence or be kicked out.

[gaelic cowboy]

Now I've thought a tiny bit more on this it is really down to trust of the American system.
The people must trust the system if it seems broke they lose trust in it and replace it.
This means were into a more philoshopical area now cos trust varys with age background etc.
Technically any part of your constitution could be changed as long as proper procedures were followed.
If a totally autocratic constituition were in place as long as the people trusted it the country would run along fine I suspect.
Economic or technological development are not neccessarily totally dependant on freedom Nazi Germany was full of high tech goods and an autocratic goverment and the people trusted it too.

[Koga No Goshi]

Well...I heard about this one instance where a militia uprising led to a hugely succesful new nation founded on democratic principles 232 years ago.

That's because it was musket vs. musket. Let's not pretend it's the same thing when we're talking about hunting rifles vs. tear gas, tazers, flashbombs, a media coverup, bunker busting explosives and satellite-guided weaponry.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That's because it was musket vs. musket. Let's not pretend it's the same thing when we're talking about hunting rifles vs. tear gas, tazers, flashbombs, a media coverup, bunker busting explosives and satellite-guided weaponry.

The single most necessary prerequisite is a significant segment of the population -- not just a handfull of fringers -- ready to fight for their cause. To date, no infringement of rights has been viewed as being so egregious as to provoke this. Should such a threshold be reached it is likely that significant segments of the professional military would opt in with the rebels.

By the way, I don't read the 2nd ammendment as barring possession of any of the tools listed above, albeit some are almost impossibly expensive for a person/small group to acquire.

[TinCow]

That's because it was musket vs. musket. Let's not pretend it's the same thing when we're talking about hunting rifles vs. tear gas, tazers, flashbombs, a media coverup, bunker busting explosives and satellite-guided weaponry.

Actually, I think it is. In the American Revolution it wasn't just musket vs. musket. It was musket vs. musket, vastly superior cannon, the world's most powerful navy, and one of the most disciplined and drilled armies in the world. It was by no means equal.

It was followed shortly thereafter by the Guerrilla fighters in Spain, who used muskets and rifles against the strongest army the world had ever seen at that point. Despite pummeling Britain, Austria, Italy, Prussia, and Russia, often all at the same time, Napoleonic France could not deal with the Spanish Guerrillas, even though they were vastly out-gunned.

This continues right through to the modern day, where the Vietcong used essentially the same tactics to eventually wear down and defeat the US military, which was backed by essentially every modern weapon in existence today. The same was true in Iraq until recently, where the tables have turned mainly due to a change in local support for the guerrillas there, not really the effectiveness of the US military itself. Had the local populations continued to support the insurgents instead of turning against them, the situation in Iraq would look vastly different.

As Seamus said, it really comes down to numbers. If you have sufficient numbers and popular support behind you, even the most primitively armed people can defeat the most advanced invading armies. It is simply a question of whether the population is willing to bear the brutal costs of such a conflict. If they are, there is little prospect for victory by the invaders except the complete eradication of the entire local population.

[Koga No Goshi]

Well, we can agree to disagree. What you guys both described sounds like a nice fairy tale. If it was ever the citizenry of the U.S. vs. its government, I would expect blood, detention camps and nuclear fallout in the water.

[Samurai Waki]

I'm pretty sure any nations greatest strength at one point or another was it's ability to adapt to the situations that presented itself at the time.

America's strength is that we're annoyingly hopeful that there is salvation in every situation.

[yesdachi]

Well, we can agree to disagree. What you guys both described sounds like a nice fairy tale. If it was ever the citizenry of the U.S. vs. its government, I would expect blood, detention camps and nuclear fallout in the water.

I think the gov would act quickly to quell a few nutters but if even 1% of the population were fanatically opposed to something it would resonate with millions of others to a disapproval rating high enough that the gov would be forced to quickly fix the issue that caused the uprising.

Everything the gov does is based on approval rating and if people don’t like it the gov will stop doing it. We are not living in some futuristic sci-fi world of oppression… Yet.

That’s why W. has taken little bites of Americans freedom, because a big bite will cause too much opposition, but a little bite every month or so will only be an annoyance.