Destroying the USA

[redeye]

There are several reasons why, in my opinion, the United States deserves either a revolution, preferably a peaceful one (a new constitutional convention will do), or dissolution into several nations.

1. The US is unable to protect its citizens. It failed to avert 9/11, and it still can't promise us that this thing will never happen again. Conspiracy or no conspiracy, 9/11 could've been averted had intelligence been more efficient, less bureaucratic (not even Fascist Act II will make the CIA and the FBI communicate), more modern and Arabic-speaking than Russian-speaking, less dependent on technology, with at leat soem human intelligence.

2. The US is unable to exert its responsibilities as world power. One of those responsibilities is never to care solely about itself and what happens within its borders, but to develop the world. This means either pouring money on third-world nations or encouraging corporations to do so. If you have a problem with that (and judging by the responses to my thread on outsourcing, 90%+ of you do), then move to a country that's not a world or even regional power, or work to make the USA a weak nation or several nations.

3. The US is almost unstoppable and self-sufficient. It doesn't need to import food and it has enough energy to sustain a short siege, which means that if it defies the world, sanctions won't work even if all countries other than it cooperate. It has slightly over 10,000 nuclear warheads, the capability and the materials to increase the number to 40,000, by far the largest military in the world, and no intentions of reducing its power voluntarily; thus, if it defies the world, military action won't work against it, either. Therefore, either the US must be undermined/destroyed, or worked on in such a way that it will always do what the world, or some of the world, wants it to do.

4. The US hasn't succeeded to improve social conditions sufficiently within its borders. After 40 years, we still need affirmative action, there are more blacks in prison than in college, and southern states disenfranchise too many blacks by not letting felons and ex-felons vote. Downtown Detroit is more similar to Mumbai than to, say, Vancouver. Real wages have been falling since 1973. There is still too much violent crime, too much punitive sentencing, and too little time and money spent on solving problems instead of their symptoms.

5. The US destroys the environment. The Clinton years saw a regress in fuel efficiency of cars, which has always been dismal anyway in this nation; for Hank's sake, I hear they got cars that do upward of 20 kilometers per liter (Smart, as expensive as it is, comes to mind) and there're still SUVs roaming roads at 5 km/l. It refuses to sign the Kyoto Treaty or to recognize that global warming is real, something that I doubt that the more left-leaning nations that would rise in its stead would do. Worst of all, it doesn't help third-world nations solve the pandemic of overpopulation by providing birth control and education to their people.

I submit that given those problems, the United States should either experience a peaceful revolution that would solve them or disintegrate.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[redeye]

4. Greatest coutnry in the world?

Says who - the gun? The bomb? The UN diverges, and it factors mean income rather than median income. Amensty diverges. Prison figrues diverge. Education tests diverge. Health care comparisons diverge. A brief glance at how many parties are represented in Congress and how many seats are actually competitive diverges.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[redeye]

7. It doesn't matter

You talk of people, who may well be deluded by the myth of American greatness. I talk of hard facts: health care figures, comprehensive studies of education, the gini index.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[redeye]

13. Hey, I only argue with facts...

...and not with speculations (there are several ways to explain why the US has so many immigrants, not only the we're-the-best mantra).

[Ignoramus]

16. Crack and Heroin are..

very popular. Their continued use is not feasible.

[tkmorris]

30. Man

What a dorky idea. Here's what the people coming here really think:

"Y'all stole all the stuff so can we come live at your house?"

I happen to believe that there is more to making a country great than material wealth. In fact, too much wealth is a sure-fire recipe to undermining the very principles that make it great. Ask Rome.

[Wonk]

42. What the world thinks of America - BBC poll results (lose your illusions)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/programmes/wtwta/poll/html/cultural/life.stm



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/wtwta/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/programmes/wtwta/poll/html/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsa/n5ctrl/progs/03/wtwtoa/programme.ram

[ScotTissue]

2. BS

That post is BS, pure and simple.

[bryant69]

3. This is a Cheery upbeat letter.

I particularly like #3. We need to be destroyed because we are successful.

You say you want a revolution? Good luck with that, but I would stick with peaceful protesting myself. Violence done in the name of idealism is still violence.

As for me I believe in America.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[redeye]

6. Two things

1. I don't advocate a violent revolution; read the conclusion, which says peaceful revolution.

2. Point 3 doesn't mean that the USA should be destroyed because it is successful, but because it abuses its success and because no one can stop it. Besides, think who needs the USA's wealth more: Americans who make 34k a year on average or, say, Mexicans who do 9k a year adjusted for cost of living, Indians who do 2.3k a year, and so on.

[bryant69]

8. Well, let me make two points too

1. You don't rule violent revolution out--you just claim to prefer peaceful revolution.

2. Compariing saleries is meaningless, if you don't take into account the respective cost of living. But let that go--I'm not opposed to us helping out the third world--just don't think your revolution is the way to go. Because at the end of the day, your strategy is probably a lot more about taking my salery down to 9k rather than bringing the Mexicans up to 34 k. In other words, it sound a lot like you are in favor of me, as an American, suffering right along with the rest of the world.

[redeye]

12. I do take respective cost of living...

...as I say again and again every time I draw those figures. Anyway, what I'm saying is not that the USA should take its national income to the global mean of 7k a year, but rather work to help the third world help itself. That means supporting outsourcing as long as third-world workers aren't exploited (and in many cases they aren't), substantially increasing foreign aid, and for Hank's sake start funding birth control worldwide.

And as for revolution, I'll say what I really think now: it should be peaceful, period. Are you satisfied?

[bryant69]

14. This is still a foolish way to put it

I mean if you want to convince people to change the way they do things, starting out by telling them they are full of shit is a horrible way to do it.

If all you are saying is that we need a Democratic president--why not build on what we have done right, as opposed to all the myriad ways we screwed up? By expressing your disdain for America right up front, and by openly suggesting the United States should be destroyed--well, you make me, for one, very very suspicous of what changes you would make.

I don't get the impression you would shed a tear if the American people suffered a little.

[redeye]

17. I would shed tears...

...all other things benig equal. I would shed absolutely no tears if I heard that the American GDP was stagnating because of corporate outsourcing which also let India experience its largest annual GDP increase ever.

On another note, I don't think I ever told you or anybody else you were full of shit. Mind you, I don't say that Americans have to sacrifice themselves for the world, only that they have to do so if they want to remain a world power.

Moreover, I'm just saying what I think, not what I think is best strategy or what I think helps Democrats the most or what I think is politically correct. Sometimes I'm just frustrated by how the USA can't seem to bear the full responsibilities its power requires it to fulfill; this time is one of them (just read my thread "I don't want corporations to take away my job" in this forum to understand why I am frustrated).

[leftyandproud]

21. so...

"Besides, think who needs the USA's wealth more: Americans who make 34k a year on average or, say, Mexicans who do 9k a year"

From each according to his ability--to each according to his need eh?

you damn dirty socialist ;)

[Chicagonian]

24. a little history question-

when was the last time a world empire went thru a peaceful revolution?

I'll hang up and wait for my answer...

Them's that has the power ain't too keen on givin it up, son...did you think they's just gonna roll over all happy like a little puppy-dog and let you rub their tummies while they go an a waggin' their tails...?
Now did ya?

[Ignoramus]

25. 2000

USA

[Chicagonian]

36. a revolution and a coup are 2 very different things.

what happened in 2000 was in no way a revolution.

[redeye]

44. The Nazis in 1933 took over democratically...

...and only then started the bloodbath.

Britain experienced the Glorious Revolution.

France in 1958 moved from the Fourth to the Fifth Republic.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that we need a peaceful revolution (and, to repeat myself, a new constitutional convention will do) OR dissolution.

[Chicagonian]

47. You're asking for a peaceful revolution-

in which the people with the power and the wealth humbly surrender all they have of each...
It's not going to happen.

[Imajika]

49. America could have a revolution...

...every time we hold national elections. The closest we have come to one in recent memory, unfortunantly, was in 94' when the Republicans took over Congress.

But the tide will swing back to the Democrats. It is just the way of things. The GOP is having, or has had, their day in the sun. The public will, over time, tire of Bush and be ready to move in a new direction. All we have to do is provide average Americans with compelling candidates who present real forward looking polices. We put a good nominee forward, run a good campaign and give people a reason to vote FOR us - and we will win.

"and, to repeat myself, a new constitutional convention will do"

I'm still not understanding what your point is. If we are not yet at a point where we can convince a majority of Americans to vote for Democrats instead of Republicans, what exactly is a Constitutional Convention going to accomplish? How do you know, with the political landscape being what it is post-911, that a Constitutional Convention wouldn't actually result in just the opposite of what you are dreaming of?

Imajika

[Chicagonian]

52. "Bush or Revolution"

was my favourite sign that I saw during the television coverage of the Selection theft in florida in Nov.2000...It made me want Gore to win out more than ever.
My point being- that with the country as polarized as it certainly seems to be these days, a new constitutional convention(which I agree would/could be a very good thing) is not going to happen in a country where this type of mentality seems to reign.

the two sides have been very thoroughly trained to not trust anything about the motives of the other side.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ignoramus]

15. I think it's "will" not "should"

Regarding the last paragraph, I think the US will radically change or disintegrate.

Why is this country so wealthy? Is it because we are so much smarter than the rest of the world? I doubt it. That notion borders on being racist, so I would hold it as highly suspect. I think it is due to this country's supreme brutality. US Corporations can suck the life out of other countries because they have raw brutality to secure their exploits.

An idea suggested by the 911 event is that nearly anyone can cause terror on the scale that only wealthy militaries did before. Whether that is what happened or not, the notion is there that overwhelming brutality is not the exclusive domain of those with supreme power. I think that is a sign that towering towers of babel are going to fall, and that it represents discontent.

Rapists can't go on raping for ever, and you can't just invite everyone to be a rapist too. Someone has to be left to be raped, and that's just not feasible.

[redeye]

32. I'm not so sure it's inevitable...

...the USA is bound to fall someday, just because nothing lasts forever, plus China is pulilng itself up by its own bootstraps and it has four times as many people as the US. However, the USA is likely to stay at least a regional power for the Americas even after China becomes world power

[Against ME]

18. Almost self-sufficient?

Ha, you talk about being a world power, and then you go into self-sufficiency? Any world power will/would be intermingled withint the whole world, and any world power is nothing without the rest of the world. While you want us to recognize that we are a world power, you will not recognize that we need to the world to survive. Something unsavory about that.

The first thing we need to do is get people to recognize that we are not self-sufficient, and need the rest of the world. This mind set breeds jingoistic views of the Unites States and breeds ignorance. We have many problems, many unsovable problems, but then again every other country does to, and any Democracy will have these problems. To change these we would have to change out of a Democracy.

[Pillowbiter]

19. Dissolutions would be the worst thing for the country and the world

Imagine Russia, except with trigger happy neo-cons suddenly in control of some nukes, unrestrained by a liberal check against their schemes. Can't let it happen. It's all or nothing in the modern world.

As for revolution, for it to be peaceful it will have to work within the current system to be effective as a new system. This means voting along with other "standard" non-democratic processess such as protesting, lobbying, and funding organizations.

As for those of you who fear violent revolution, sometimes one needs to suffer pain themselves to allow for the safety of a greater number of people. Right now the 2004 election is not only the most important event in American history, but world history also. If the neo-cons are given the appearance of justification by being elected, then more wars will be brought upon weaker nations by the US, and thousands more will die, possibly much much more.

PB

[Emillereid]

20. I agree that America needs a new revolution, a constitutional convention

or that it be broken into two countries. We no longer function as a real democracy -- we need to readdress our governing structure and our vision. The advent and power of large multinational corporations and the influence of moneyed interests in our government has completely undermined democracy such that a constitutional conventional is necessary to write amendments that would a) get big money out of elections b) insure that congress not be allowed to abdicate their constitutional duties to the executive branch as they have done repeatedly with their constitutional duty to declare war c) something in our constitutional that would outlaw the use of our military for anything other that real defense and not for corporate interests. We also need a national resolution renouncing the US as an empire, etc. If that fails, and as a believer in the right of self determination, we could break our country into two parts: one for progressives who believe that government represents the collective will of the people to solve problems and make life better and to insure the widest possible range of civil and human rights; and one for fascists who want corporations and religion to control their lives or whatever it is that the right wing want. Basically it's an admission that the civil war is ongoing. I propose that the progressives get the Northeast, the northern states bordering Canada and the the West coast states. The Repukes can have the rest and live the way they want as long as they leave the rest of us alone.
The following article is instructive:

A Kind of Fascism Is Replacing Our Democracy
By Sheldon S. Wolin
Sheldon S. Wolin is emeritus professor of politics at Princeton University and the author of "Politics and Vision: The Presence of the Past" and "Alexis de Tocqueville: Between Two Worlds."

July 18, 2003


Sept. 11, 2001, hastened a significant shift in our nation's self-understanding. It became commonplace to refer to an "American empire" and to the United States as "the world's only superpower."

Instead of those formulations, try to conceive of ones like "superpower democracy" or "imperial democracy," and they seem not only contradictory but opposed to basic assumptions that Americans hold about their political system and their place within it. Supposedly ours is a government of constitutionally limited powers in which equal citizens can take part in power. But one can no more assume that a superpower welcomes legal limits than believe that an empire finds democratic participation congenial.

No administration before George W. Bush's ever claimed such sweeping powers for an enterprise as vaguely defined as the "war against terrorism" and the "axis of evil." Nor has one begun to consume such an enormous amount of the nation's resources for a mission whose end would be difficult to recognize even if achieved.

Like previous forms of totalitarianism, the Bush administration boasts a reckless unilateralism that believes the United States can demand unquestioning support, on terms it dictates; ignores treaties and violates international law at will; invades other countries without provocation; and incarcerates persons indefinitely without charging them with a crime or allowing access to counsel.

<snip>
Americans are now facing a grim situation with no easy solution. Perhaps the just-passed anniversary of the Declaration of Independence might remind us that "whenever any form of Government becomes destructive ..." it must be challenged.


http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpwol183376588jul18,0,3380237.story



Copyright © 2003, Newsday, In

[Ignoramus]

29. Amendments

Those are some great amendment ideas.

One of the most frustrating things about politician speak is that people can just say anything. You can't pin anyone down on any issue. Interviewers generally ask a question only twice, if the second answer is nonsense, they move on.

I watch representatives on cspan say things that contradict each other and their points are not addressed. I wonder if there were a better scheme that could be used that would force people to address the points that are made, for example what people say could be made into a list of arguments and each person would have to register a comment on the points. Deadlock would be noted and the contradictory arguments would be clearly stated.

For example, say people are debating funding for plan columbia. One person says in general terms that cocaine exports have been reduced, and another says they have not actually because the production has just moved to another location. Those points could be stated and a response would have to be registered for each point. To avoid infinite regression some limit would be placed on how many times a point could be belabored and the points made would be registered.

[SnowGoose]

22. There's something you're not taking into account.

At least as I read your position.

The United States (my home and personal favorite country) is most certainly NOT independent.

Don't you remember the oil embargo? Redeye, if oil stopped flowing into this country, everything would ground to a halt. We don't generate nearly enough to meet our needs. What do you think 5 dollar-a-gallon gasoline would do to our economy? As far as food, can't grow our huge monoculture crops without tractors. Tractors run poorly without gas.

Aside from that (and potentially even bigger) is that a good share of our economy is floated by foreign investors (private and governmental). Just today I recall seeing a story about the effects of (I think it was the German central bank) changing its asset allocation by selling off a percentage of their holdings of one of our major mortgage providers. If foreign central banks began to divest themselves of their US holdings in large amounts, it would be a bloodbath.

Where we agree: If your basic argument is that no person/nation/organization should wield unchecked power, I think almost anyone would agree to that.

peace.

[leftyandproud]

23. I heard..

that the USA is only 4% of world population but is responsible for 60% of world exports. An embargo against the US would hurt us no doubt, but the rest of the world would be hurt even worse. no win situation

[sweetheart]

28. those statistics are a bit dodgey

69% is more believable cuz at least both parties get some ;-)

Seriously, if you remove financial products from your export stats, i'm curious the hard goods balance... as i understand it last time i checked, america is a very atrophied exporter... hence the trade deficit... we export financial products (paper) and import goods... thats not trade, its graft.

[Chicagonian]

26. kilometers per liter?

Ummmm...we gave up on the conversion to that metric stuff a while back- you're tilting at windmills, lad.

"...then move to a country that's not a world or even regional power, or work to make the USA a weak nation or several nations..."
:eyes:

[redeye]

45. Sorry...

...I am connected to the world, which uses the metric system. And just in case you're wondering, a kilometer per liter is equal to 2.35 mpg's.

[Chicagonian]

48. I wasn't wondering.

I'm connected to reality.

[Tigermoose]

27. You must be bored at work,

otherwise I don't see any reason to post such speculative, immature blather.

[Ignoramus]

33. Meanie

If you can't thow sticks and say nice bones than rubber bounces off of you. Scolding people into silence is dumb (unless it's someone scolding people into silence who you're scolding into silence (actually I'm begging you to reconsider)).

[Tigermoose]

51. But the Purple Monkey Flies at Dawn!

Can't you see?

[Chicagonian]

37. I get the impression that redeye's not doing this at work...

sometimes immature blather is just...immature blather.

[sweetheart]

31. That's what the American way is all about.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Last time i checked, its time for a constitutional convention... or perhaps some states should declare independence from washington... but redeye, without deferring to goobergunch's maps, what are your new national borders on the breakup.... i still don't understand why the self sufficiency of drainage basins is wrong... its worked for egypt and the indus and ganges cultures regardless of the nation states coming and going....

constitutional convention... the nation no longer exists, i vote we create one.

[Imajika]

34. Nonsense. Utter nonsense.

First, this is exactly the kind of sentiment on the left that drives average Americans away from us. Imagine any middle of the road Americans looking for answers who happen upon the forum today and get to read how their country should be dissolved...

This is exactly how liberals gets tagged "hate America leftists".

"The US is unable to protect its citizens. It failed to avert 9/11"

This is just ridiculous. We also failed to avert Pearl Harbor. Perhaps FDR should have just thrown in the towel then and disolved the nation? So when a country fails to stop an attack the answer is to disolve? Lots of countries have been attacked, most don't give up on the spot.

"The US is unable to exert its responsibilities as world power. One of those responsibilities is never to care solely about itself and what happens within its borders, but to develop the world."

I agree with you to some extent on this point, but when exactly did it become a world powers responsibility to develop the world? Where is that written? What previous world powers attempted such utopian goals? Most previous world powers developed the parts of the world they wanted by invading whatever they could conquer and keeping it. Just because America, at this time, is not as socially responsible as you'd like does not mean it should be broken up.

"The US is almost unstoppable and self-sufficient. It doesn't need to import food and it has enough energy to sustain a short siege, which means that if it defies the world, sanctions won't work even if all countries other than it cooperate."

Oh gee, how terrible. Isn't self sufficiency something many countries strive for. I mean, that is literally something most nations could only dream of. So your saying a super power should strive to avoid self sufficiency so they can be punished by other nations? What fool country of people would make that one of their goals?

"The US hasn't succeeded to improve social conditions sufficiently within its borders."

Boloney. Social conditions in the United States are not that bad at all. Have you travelled anywhere in the 3rd world? Have you travelled throughout modern, 1st world Asian countries where racism is alive and well to a degree far beyond what is seen in the USA.

"There is still too much violent crime, too much punitive sentencing, and too little time and money spent on solving problems instead of their symptoms."

The problem is, your fellow citizens just disagree with your policies for fixing these things. What makes you think breaking up the United States would improve anything on your list. What makes you think people wherever these same citizens live they wouldn't just vote for candidates that did the same exact thing in the new smaller countries?

"The US destroys the environment."

I agree with you somewhat here. The answer ofcourse is certainly not to break up the country because you don't like the environmental policies of both Democratic and Republican administrations.

"something that I doubt that the more left-leaning nations that would rise in its stead would do. Worst of all, it doesn't help third-world nations solve the pandemic of overpopulation by providing birth control and education to their people."

Why do you think left-leaning nations now won't just elect rightwingers at some point down the road? Nations with leftist governments now could be nations with rightist governments 20 years from now. Again, why would the citizenry of a broken up United States vote any differently?

"I submit that given those problems, the United States should either experience a peaceful revolution that would solve them or disintegrate."

And I submit that you really are one of those people on the left that so hates the free market capitalist engine that fuels the biggest, strongest most vibrant economy in the world that you wish to see the USA destroyed because your ideal socialist model simply can not compete. I suspect it is as simple as that.

I am for regulated capitalism. I agree to some degree with a few of your points such as the environment and world responsibility, but the answer is to elect leaders that hold your views. The answer is not to throw up your hands and spill out fantastic notions of breaking up America thinking the result would somehow be more to your liking.

Just my opinion,

Imajika

[DoveTurnedHawk]

39. Bravo!

I love reading your posts, Imajika. You are a welcome voice of reason.

:loveya:

DTH

[Imajika]

41. Thanks!

n/t

[WilliamPitt]

40. Or...

This person is approximately 15-19 years old.

[Imajika]

43. The topic...

originates from someone with over 1000 posts on this forum. If it were a new member I would have probably just ignored it. Someone with over a 1000 posts, who seriously believes it might be time to dissolve America is much more likely to draw a response from me.

"Or this person is approximately 15-19 years old."

Perhaps.

Imajika

[Ignoramus]

54. So, you read everything everything...

and belittle people who you disagree with...

neat

[whoYaCallinAlib]

46. How thoughtful and articulate.

Your gifts of expression are truly remarkable. Not to mention that I agree whole-heartedly with everything you said.

[Imajika]

50. Thanks!

n/t

[Character Assassin]

35. Illogical and full of assumptions

1. The US is unable to protect its citizens. It failed to avert 9/11, and it still can't promise us that this thing will never happen again. Conspiracy or no conspiracy, 9/11 could've been averted had intelligence been more efficient, less bureaucratic (not even Fascist Act II will make the CIA and the FBI communicate), more modern and Arabic-speaking than Russian-speaking, less dependent on technology, with at leat soem human intelligence.

Quite frankly, so what? No nation is 100% able to protect its citizenry from suprise attacks. That's why they call them 'suprise' attackes. There is no guarantee of any future protection, either. Why would you presume that any nation could do so, short of perhaps a geographically isolated police state?

2. The US is unable to exert its responsibilities as world power. One of those responsibilities is never to care solely about itself and what happens within its borders, but to develop the world.

According to whom? Detailed where? Overseen by whom?

This means either pouring money on third-world nations or encouraging corporations to do so.

Are seriously maintaining that this hasn't already been the case?

If you have a problem with that (and judging by the responses to my thread on outsourcing, 90%+ of you do), then move to a country that's not a world or even regional power, or work to make the USA a weak nation or several nations.

Nonsensical and irrelevant. You are the one trying to justify a breakup of the nation.

3. The US is almost unstoppable and self-sufficient. It doesn't need to import food and it has enough energy to sustain a short siege, which means that if it defies the world, sanctions won't work even if all countries other than it cooperate.

Not too big on logistics, demographics and military strategies, I see.

It has slightly over 10,000 nuclear warheads, the capability and the materials to increase the number to 40,000, by far the largest military in the world, and no intentions of reducing its power voluntarily; thus, if it defies the world, military action won't work against it, either. Therefore, either the US must be undermined/destroyed, or worked on in such a way that it will always do what the world, or some of the world, wants it to do.

I'm sorry, but do you even understand what you're writing? Vagueries like 'it must be undermined/destroyed' so that it will either do what the world or 'some of the world' wants it to do are so full of unwarranted assumptions and undefined parameters as to be immediately irrelevant.

4. The US hasn't succeeded to improve social conditions sufficiently within its borders.

No nation on earth has, or had that escaped your notice?

After 40 years, we still need affirmative action, there are more blacks in prison than in college, and southern states disenfranchise too many blacks by not letting felons and ex-felons vote. Downtown Detroit is more similar to Mumbai than to, say, Vancouver. Real wages have been falling since 1973. There is still too much violent crime, too much punitive sentencing, and too little time and money spent on solving problems instead of their symptoms.

Well that's a lovely blanket condemnation. You do realize that every other country in the world has similar problems to greater or lesser degrees. Why aren't you proposing that every country be dissolved so that the world is simply a quilt of tiny city-states?

5. The US destroys the environment.

Every nation on earth does, and not many do as much as we do to protect/preserve it.

The Clinton years saw a regress in fuel efficiency of cars, which has always been dismal anyway in this nation; for Hank's sake, I hear they got cars that do upward of 20 kilometers per liter (Smart, as expensive as it is, comes to mind) and there're still SUVs roaming roads at 5 km/l.

You hear that? Please cite details.

It refuses to sign the Kyoto Treaty or to recognize that global warming is real, something that I doubt that the more left-leaning nations that would rise in its stead would do.

So what? Has every country in the world signed it? Already put it into action? Made improvements on their own? If not, why not?

Worst of all, it doesn't help third-world nations solve the pandemic of overpopulation by providing birth control and education to their people.

I must have failed to see this clause in the Constitution. Perhaps you could point it out?

I submit that given those problems, the United States should either experience a peaceful revolution that would solve them or disintegrate.

Mmm-hmmm. Sure.

[WilliamPitt]

38. Insane

230 people in this country would be thrown into insane deadly chaos. The world would come unglued; think it's bad now? There are solutions to these problems that do not involve lobbing the baby out with the bathwater. Let's concentrate on the bathwater, yes?

[Yentatelaventa]

53. Nonsense

America is the best nation on Earth. Most of us will defend it to the death regardless of who is serving their four year term.

[redeye]

55. Statistics diverge...

...on the US beign the best nation on earth. Read reply 4 for a partial list of divergent statistics.

And the second part does not mean I'm wrong, it only means that there's somethign wrong with American society, that it values the nation about the individual.