5 Reasons America Is The Greatest Nation in History

And to which of those dependent states do you refer? Or, even better, where is our control over other areas of the world?

America is exceptional, and to say otherwise is a lie. There has never been a country that has wielded power so lightly. She is not perfect, and never can be, however her sins have never resided with her military. We have always been run by civilians, and the worst policies have come from that domain.

You and your revisionist friends are in good company. True history proves that those who shout to the world that they speak for the poor are the very ones who murder the poor wholesale.

And to which of those dependent states do you refer? Or, even better, where is our control over other areas of the world?

You and your revisionist friends are in good company. True history proves that those who shout to the world that they speak for the poor are the very ones who murder the poor wholesale.

Three points:

1. Bush signed the agreement for troop withdrawal from Iraq.

The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008.

It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. combat forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.

2. More importantly, there has never been a true free republic of Iraq since then.

3. Most importantly, when exactly was Afghanistan made a free republic by America? They are the same as before we invaded them. If you can refute that, I will be mighty impressed.

America is a great country. Great enough that there is no need to lie about its accomplishments.

....And the liberal progressives top 5....

1) A man can butcher his body and be on the cover of Vanity Fair as a “stunning” woman.

2) Christians are no longer bound by silly notions of morality and biblical teaching through mandated government coercion.

3) Politicians are no longer bound by the silly notion of representing citizens of the nation and can openly court the votes of illegal aliens.

4) A fat black woman has ensured all children get healthy nutritious meals in school cafeterias.

5) Affordable health care for all with Obamacare.

Articles like this make me nervous because they represent a line of thought that is a trailing indicator of greatness and leading indicator of disaster. Let me explain.

A century ago, Britain, France and Russia patted themselves on the back for their greatness and exceptionalism to the point where each practically dislocated its collective shoulder. The French had a highfalutin and barely pronounceable term for it: ”la gloire,” “the glory.” Russia called itself “The Third Rome” with the understanding that Constantinople had been the Second Rome. The Brits had more homey expressions like “Britannia rules the waves” or “The sun never sets on the British Empire.” The Germans were too new to the game for such self-congratulation; their turn would come later.

Then in August of 1914 the hammer fell. By the time the bloodletting was over, each nation had lost its best and brightest on the fields of war. Russia dived headfirst into the toilet with its acceptance of communism, and now it had a new sense of exceptionalism: “The Workman’s Paradise.” Britain and France merely circled the bowl. Germany finally found its voice: “The Thousand Year Reich.” No one was strong enough or confident enough to stop Germany, so we had a second bloodletting.

After that, the Thousand Year Reich was split into pieces. Britain dived into the toilet with its Labour government, and the United Nations and the US Foreign Policy Community forced it to give up its empire, thus creating a global playground for the CIA and KBG. France lost its empire under the mandate of the same combine, and in 1958 the military had to come out of the barracks under De Gaulle to restore fiscal and political order. The Workman’s Paradise drifted and finally fell apart due to its corruption, brittleness and inability to face a new American challenge.

So where are they today? A century after patting themselves on the back, France is being colonized by Muslims because their high birthrate permits the French welfare state to survive, Britain is a shabby nation in a state of sad decay facing the same demographic problem with the same solution, Russia is vainly attempting to get its ethnic house in order by territorial expansion to prevent the same kind of Muslim colonization, and Germany has gotten back together to become the economic engine of Europe but with its own Muslim problem.

So when I hear Americans talking about their greatness and exceptionalism, my first instinct is look overhead to locate the hammer that is about to fall. Regrettably, I think I’ve found it, and the only thing I don’t know is the exact date it will clobber us. And I can’t help but wonder what historians in 2115 will write about America in this era.

And to which of those dependent states do you refer? Or, even better, where is our control over other areas of the world?

At this moment in time Syria and Ukraine come to mind. Our attempts at subversion and arming rebels as a means to install (or back) friendly dictators who bend to our will is in fact imperialism, which our government has a long history of. Not to mention the fact that it worked so well when we were arming the Taliban, or more recently the moderate Muslims in Syria who are now referred to as ISIL. Which begs the question: Why do we want to replace Assad? Or how many people is it acceptable for ISIL to murder before they get to him? Are you aware that in a leaked 2012 IIR this group was referred to as a “strategic asset”?

You should more closely examine my previous comment. I did not say that this country was not exceptional. I did however say that its exceptionalism does not blind me from seeing the glaring flaws in our foreign policy, or our imperialism.

I do not blame our military. As you point out it is civilian run. None the less those who make up our military are exploited because of their patriotism and used to further our hegemony. This is not to say that some dictators deserve to be removed from power. Only that we are perhaps a bit overzealous in this area. I would also suggest that our government has no problem with harsh dictators as long as they bow to our will. For example look at our allies in the Middle East.

I acknowledge that I am not always correct and I don't mind admitting this because I believe obtaining fact and truth to be the ultimate goal. I called you out because your argument relied on a deceptive use of semantics. I enjoy the discourse and exchange of ideas here but am troubled when people turn to deception, or name calling to further their argument. Before resorting to this you should acknowledge that you are not explaining yourself clearly or that there may be holes in your position.

I also have no problem admitting mistakes. I would agree with most of your last post. My issue is that the imperialist argument is presented not as a facet, but as the defining characteristic of America, and that is the great leftist lie.

Syria presents a unique conundrum. While I agree that we (primarily this administration) has tried to subvert Syria, there is a very compelling argument to be made that Assad maneuvered himself into this corner. I can assure you that the US military is not attacking Syrian forces nor aiding ISIS in Syria or Iraq, despite the frequent accusations on this board to the contrary.

That said, while the US military is not engaged in such acts, I cannot say the same for other Departments or Agencies. Some entities in the political and intelligence arenas, who may be more central to this administration’s actual policies, don’t play on the same board.

I am not blind to our faults, but I also understand that the world is a lot more complicated than most Americans ever will know. Looking at the issues is different from living the issues. Most Americans have little experience of how the rest of the world lives, and their assumptions are naive at best and academic at worst.

From another valid perspective, we intentionally marched troops into disputed territory and then claimed "American troops had been attacked on American soil." IOW, Polk staged the whole thing. I just listened to a book about Lincoln's term in Congress, and this issue dominated. Lincoln gained a (mostly unfavorable) national reputation by proposing a resolution requiring Polk to designate the "spot" on American soil where this blood was shed.
There is also the entire history of our expansion across the continent, merrily breaking solemn treaties as we went.
We also conquered the Philippines, though we didn't keep it long, and we acquired Hawaii by what can only be called dubious means. Not to mention the Panama Canal Zone.

All these and others have another side to the story, of course. I'm merely noting that our record is not as spotless as the writer seems to think.

On "the other side" you mention, Mexico "owned" a lot of land that the US took over - but only in the sense that I "own" a huge amount of gold which is in the molten core of the earth below land where I "own" all subsurface mineral rights. I may have paper title to it, but . . .
Mexico was a weak state, and couldn't even control the Indian tribes in the vast stretches of land to its north. In contrast, the US was drawing in lots of immigrants, and they were populating the Midwest. Mexico wasn't even strong enough to push back against Texas a decade or so after its independence, while it was part of the Confederacy which was losing its war with the Union!
The only reason Mexico exists at all today is that the U.S., even in its expansionist "Manifest Destiny" phase, didn't want to take over the whole thing.
Great post, Sherm!

As you say, the “other side.”

After US took Mexico City, there was actually a ferocious debated between Congress and the President about how much of Mexico we should take. Mexican POV on the matter more or less irrelevant.

Many southern congressmen and Democrats wanted to take it all. Many northerners and Whigs wanted to take less than we did. The root of the debate, of course, was over slavery. While CA, AZ and NM provided little land suitable to expand slavery into, other parts of Mexico certainly did. (Though the land we did take led directly to our WBTS.)

Polk did not want tp rush into a settlement, and ordered Nicholas Trist, our negotiator, home. Trist ignored the recall and finalized a treaty, then sent it back to be ratified. The Senate eventually did so, after which the war was over.

I’ve always thought it amusing that those who talk about America “stealing” the SW from Mexico are by definition admitting the validity of Mexican claims, based almost entirely on Spanish claims which utterly ignored the rights to ownership of the natives.

Then they criticize us for stealing it from the Indians. Obviously we might have stolen it from the Mexicans (who had stolen it from Spain) or we stole it from the Indians, who over the centuries had stolen it from each other, but there’s simply no way we could steal it from both.

Even more amusing, by saying we stole it from the Indians, they’re applying European standards of national sovereignty utterly foreign to most tribes. It’s a Eurocentric imposition of our value system.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.