Things you'd like to see changed in America

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Haha I hope housebroken lunatic never runs for a country leader position. He would have all the other countries wake all over his for the sake of "peace".

I'd leave other countries to their business, and care little for all the genocide and other crap that they enact upon eachother. It's not my problem and it's not the problem of my people. But if any other country would threaten our borders, there would be hell to pay for the aggressor.

Also, if there's room for it in the budget and the country im leadning isn't suffering from too bad social problems within, I'd try squeezing in some humanitarian aid and try to take on some non-combatant refugees. After all, they didn't ask to be born in such crappy countries where the leaders consider the entire population to be playthings in their wargames, and if they get sick of being treated as such, im sure I could find some decent living space at my country, provided that the budget covers it.

As the leader of a country, it wouldn't be my job to create world peace. But I could make damn sure my own country doesn't involve itself and contribute in creating more military conflicts in the world.

It's not that hard really. We've been doing it for almost 200 years over here now. Can you say the same about your country? Didn't think so.

Peace might be boring business, but at least it's not so damn wasteful as war is...

 

[oppp7]

So many things... Health care, officials, environmental standards, officials, founding for water treatment and power, officials, crime rates, death penalty, adoption laws, officials, army, the war, chemical standards, for god's sake get rid of the government officials we have...

 

[bushwhacker2k]

More healthy food (tho it has to taste good too, I'm picky), this will sound odd but I think cars should be abolished, less retards not taking care of their places (I REFUSE to eat at places that don't clean their bathrooms), and more Martial Arts would be nice.

There are more, but I don't have them on mind ATM.

 

[Hakazaba]

Everything

I agree with you completely and I hope you realize that you are not alone in your opinion.

And to everyone else, this is the internet. When you speak out its the world that is listening, this is no place for ignorance.

 

[Zemalac]

snip

You make some good points--mostly about the US not really needing offensive capabilities, though I would argue that they are needed, if only very slightly, as a deterrent--I dislike seeing them actually used, and I'm not sure if the benefits outweigh the costs associated with maintaining such a military machine, but that's an argument for another day. My biggest problem with your argument is that you keep on making white-or-black, there-are-only-two-options-here statements. For example:

So quite frankly, there's no excuse what so ever for the U.S to keep such an extensive military force with blatantly obvious offensive abilities like the current one, nor is there any excuse for the U.S constantly butting in into conflicts that has nothing to do with them.

No excuse whatsoever? Really? I can come up with three off the top of my head, and that's without doing any research. They might not be good reasons, but they're still reasons. Please, if you're getting into a debate, don't make blanket statements like that.

Reason 1: As a weapon to wage war against other superpowers, should the need arise. This is left over from the Cold War, and bears little relevance to the modern geopolitical situation, but it's what the machine was designed to do and it does it well.

Reason 2: As a deterrent to prevent other nations from going to war. If you attack the allies of the US, the US will attack you. Politics at its finest.

Reason 3: As a tool for intervention in international politics. This is the "War is an extension of diplomacy by other means" theory, and I don't particularly like it, but it's there.

Now, for the rest of your statements:

Even if another superpower would have the slightest interest in invading the U.S, the only viable way to do it when half the country is a pretty well armed militia would be to exterminate the entire population with ICBM's and considering that the U.S keeps a pretty extensive defense grid of weaponry capable of shooting down ICBM's it would make the endavour far to costly to even consider it. In fact, it would bankrupt any given superpower trying. And any form of rewards that could be gained from such an endavour wouldn't really make it all worth it. Especially since the European Union is pretty unlikely to just sit by when this potential superpower tries to take out a country that's keeping to it's own borders and just wants to be left alone.

Okay, first of all, where did you get this idea that the American population could in any way constitute a "heavily armed militia?" Maybe Texas could muster something, I dunno, but that seems like a huge assumption to me. According to the National Opinion Research Center, as of 2006, 21.6% of Americans own guns, and most of those are handguns--not exactly the most useful tool for guerrilla combat.

Second, about the "extensive defense grid of weaponry capable of shooting down ICBM's..." That doesn't actually exist. At all. Reagan proposed the Star Wars initiative, it was mocked by everyone, and it never got off the ground. The entire thing was mainly used to make the Soviets think that the USA was beating them in the arms race. If the US did have a defensive grid like that, the Cold War would not have been nearly as tense as it was.

And third, as Purple Rain pointed out, maintaining nukes costs a lot of money. How, therefore, would getting rid of the things that are costing them money bankrupt anyone? You'd think they'd have more cash lying around afterwards because they don't have to pay anyone to dust the things.

The U.S government is just acting like the power hungry despot it is, thinking it has some sort of god given right to police the world, and doing a pretty shoddy job of it to boot.

The United States military policy as it is today is just a waste of resource and human lives. But hey, at least the average Joe can feel good about himself watching american bombers obliterate clay buildings which those "brown, commienazis of terrorist descent" lives in. I guess the sacrifices in resources and human lives is worth that feeling of self satisfaction... Or is it?

Okay...this is actually insulting. Sir, if you can think of no better statement than to call another country a "power hungry despot" and imply that your opponent is a racist ignoramus, then you should not say anything at all. You spent about a page arguing with the troll LOLESCAPIST: please do not descend to his level. I'd like to have an actual debate here.

 

[Sosakitty]

You have poor people in your own country already! How about taking care of them first before spending yet another gazillion dollars on building the next superweapon?

And also, im not jealous. In fact my country is pretty much doing the same thing im saying that the U.S could do. We don't have an offensive military force over here, in fact our military might is a joke, most people over here consider giving it up altogether mainly because we don't have the need for one.

And frankly, how the hell are you "keeping to your interests" by sending armed troops to countries that have nothing to do with you in the first place?

Im not saying that anyone should put a stop to giving aid if that's what they want to do, what im saying is that the military forces of the U.S don't serve a "defence" purpose at all. You're not "defending" your borders by intervening in military conflicts of other countries, you're butting in where nobody wants you to be in the first place.

If it's not your fight, how about staying the fuck out rather than butting in? The rest of the world hates you for butting in. Not because they are jealous, or because Bush is the devil, but because you butt in where nobody wants you. Now the Russians aren't innocent of those crimes either, but really if you just for once waved the white flag, pulled all the troops out and kept to your own borders, why would anyone have a reason for attacking your homeland?

If you just learned to keep to yourselves, 9/11 wouldn't have happened. If your idiot government had learned not to send it's military might to bomb the hell out of countries where "all them brown people live" who don't even present a real threat to you, then you wouldn't have to deal with terrorists and their bullshit.

If your government just pulled out, and said: "Sorry lads, but we're out. We don't want anything to do with your military conflicts anymore. You're on your own. We can trade with you or provide a safe haven for some civilian refugees, but we're not gonna use any military unless you threaten our home borders. Good day, and excuse the mess." to all american allies and enemies alike, things would change. Sure some nations would carry a grudge because the memory of american bombers destroying civilian homes would still be a bit fresh, but overall the anti-american feelings would pass.

And frankly what would you prefer to be looked upon as?

Possibly callous and indifferent towards the rest of the world and it's conflicts, but a land that keeps to itself.

Or

That fucktard who always shows up in conflicts no one really wanted him to show up in in the first place.

It's blatantly obvious. Neutrality and military isolationism is the way to go.

And no, the existence of nukes does not warrant this gross intrusion. Yes other countries have nukes, but anyone can understand that if one of those nukes are fired we're all dead, so no one's going to do it anyway...

I read over that page and I noticed that you are effectively stabbing this guy with the word 'you' and its variants. You're calling us out as a country as if a nation of 300,000,000+ acts a single entity with one agenda and one set of priorities. If I was him reading that post, I would feel like you were jabbing your finger in my chest and exhaling cigar smoke onto my face every time you used the words 'you' or 'your.' JimmerDunda made one statement and you berated us as a whole because of what he said. I never wanted Bush, the warmonger that he was, to be president, because I thought he seemed like too much of a cowboy, and as such never supported him. McCain was the same way, so I went with Obama. This president made a promise to pull out of the Middle East, a place we never should have gone to in the first place anyway, and, whether or not he actually goes through on this promise, it was a hell of a lot better than McCain's promise to crush the terrorists and 'finish the fight' before we left.

Let me make this clearer. You are making me feel the way I did earlier today in my English class. A group of particularly noisy individuals had failed to do a simple task set forward by the instructor in favor of spending their time chattering. A large portion of the class and I did as we were told and finished the assignment in less than five minutes. Fifteen minutes later, the talkers had not started their work. The teacher then reprimanded the entire class for the next fifteen minutes, and all I could do was sit there bored, because I knew that this lecture did not apply to me. I don't feel that paragraphs 1-7 of your post apply to people like me, who opposed pretty much every war that the U.S. has gotten involved in since the Korean War. We cast our votes, but we were overwhelmed by the ignorant majority that feels the need to wipe out the "commies" and the "brown people" that you mentioned. Though you are making "kind of" valid points, I don't think you're being fair.

 

[jpoon]

Funny how many non-americans are telling us what to change! =)))

Only thing I wish to "change" is to restore more of our constitutional rights and more intelligently improving our ridiculous foreign policy. For instance, Posse Comitatus and the right to keep the government out of my own fucking business.

 

[YuheJi]

2) The worlds best golfer is black. (Tiger Woods.)

Hey now, let's not forget his Asian side.

On an unrelated note, I would prefer the two-party system over a three-party one. The reason? With the two party system, at least one candidate will receive over half of the country's votes. Electing a president when over half the country disagrees doesn't bode well.

 

[davidbaker88]

I implore you to name one stable democracy (so, Italy doesn't count, what with the "we're completely dismantling the government every three years or so" thing) which has a vibrant third-party. In America, third-parties have always subsumed and replaced existing parties. Japan just recently formed a second party for the reasons I listed.

The Netherlands, Germany, France, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland, Norway, Finland... I could go on quite a bit longer

I think there should be some clarification made when citing a "stable democracy" because there are many different forms of Democracy. The U.S. has a Constitutional based Democratic Republic, i.e. The law of the land resides within the constitution and elections are done by the proportional representation system, and there are clear separation of powers. I really don't feel like giving an intro to U.S. government lecture to explain this, but the system used in the U.S. is much different than most European forms of Democracy.

Basically, most other countries use some form of Parliamentary Democracy (or a mixed Parliamentary-Presidential system) and ironically the most stable form of Democracy has been the Parliamentary form. I think the best way to have phrased this question is "what other democracies that use the Presidential System are and have been consistently stable".

*Before I start on that I will note that almost all modern day Democracies follow the seven basic guidelines of "Dahl's Polyarchy" (look it up, it takes too long to explain).

So to begin with, the answer to the question: "what other democracies that use the Presidential System are and have been consistently stable" is quite simply none, including the U.S. (In spite of 3rd parties). Every single one of them has had a internal revolution of some kind that has radically altered or restructured their governments. In South America this is exceptionally prevalent as the nations there are in what is now called their "3rd wave of democratization", because of military coups or otherwise.

Before I start getting lambasted by other Americans, I would like to point out that after the civil war (yes, that fun little period of internal strife), the 14th Amendment greatly expanded and restructured the scope of our Government. Three specific ways it did this was through the "due process clause", the "privileges or immunities clause" and finally the "equal protection clause" .

I don't really get what the original question meant by "vibrant 3rd parties", I can only assume that meant interest groups, civil organizational groups (ie labor unions or other such type groups), and basically anything other voluntary organizations in civil society. So by that definition the U.S. would not be the only "stable democracy" with vibrant 3rd parties. In fact, in Marc Morjé Howard's book The Weakness of Civil Society in Post-Communist Europe, he explains that the U.S. is on par with and in some cases less involved in third party activism than other "western" Democracies (such as GB, and most western European Democracies).

So to sum up this wordy response, the U.S. is the most stable Presidential form of democracy, but it does not have the most vibrant 3rd parties to speak of. Also, the Parliamentary form of Democracy has proven to be much more stable.

*yes, I am from the U.S., in case you didn't get that by now

 

[Combined]

Basically everything.

Starting with the population.

 

[PurpleRain]

Get rid of their nukes so that they can use that money and feed the world.

Sir I wish not to question your intellect but who on earth might you suggest is gonna buy all these nukes?

A more proper strategy would be, stop spending the yearly budget on the military and take all that money and feed and clothe the poor.

You already have the right to bear arms, no country is going to try invading you because it would be impossible to pacify a population where pretty much everyone is packing heat.

Quite simply, America doesn't really need a military force. All that money being spent on stealth bombers, Nimitz class carriers, nukes, firerarms humvees etc. etc. is money wasted...

Ok you are asking a country to give up its military superpower to help the poor, we already provide the most aid out of any country in the world.

If you are gonna point fingers lets not forget France, UK, and Russia. These three countries have a very large stock pile of nukes. Russia has more nukes than anyone and alot of their people are suffering.

But hey lets be jealous and pick on the stronger country that tries to get things accomplished.

USA is a very powerful country but just like any other country, they have to keep their interests first.

Also do I own a gun? no. My dad owns some hunting rifles, and I believe very few to little people in my neighborhood own an assault rifle or pistol. Stop stereotyping to countries you don't know anything about.

Whoa, whoa dude. The thread is about America. It seems pretty offtopic to start talking about Russia now. Also, I just said, get rid of your nukes and so you can feed the poor. Russia's military spending's isn't as big as the US's, ditto for France, etc. I can't see anything wrong with saying putting away the nukes and feeding the poor. The US can actually do it.

 

[heyheysg]

On another note

You have NASA, probably the best space program in the world, I'm not sure if it's funded by the military or something. But more money is needed and space elevators, space colonies, space truckers. Work with Japan and you get GUNDAMS!

Also more Americans that are in tune with the rest of the world, know what's going on with different religions and culture etc.

This isn't a problem for people on the Continent because they are surrounded by other countries. Turkey is surrounded by Russia, Iran, Iraq, Greece etc. China is next to India, Mongolia, Tibet, Japan, Both Koreas.

America has Mexico and Canada.

Luckily, Obama seems to have the right idea, opening talks with Iran and Mymmar instead of just sanctions.

I've been to Iran and its really a popular spot for the more adventurous Asians/Europeans. It's amazingly beautiful and I see that many Americans don't know that. An interesting is the absence of anything that has Western Capitalism on it, everything is of Iranian brand and made in China probably, Korean cars seem to have entered though.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

I would rather like to see America as a socialist nation

 

[JimmerDunda]

Haha I hope housebroken lunatic never runs for a country leader position. He would have all the other countries wake all over his for the sake of "peace".

I'd leave other countries to their business, and care little for all the genocide and other crap that they enact upon eachother. It's not my problem and it's not the problem of my people. But if any other country would threaten our borders, there would be hell to pay for the aggressor.

Also, if there's room for it in the budget and the country im leadning isn't suffering from too bad social problems within, I'd try squeezing in some humanitarian aid and try to take on some non-combatant refugees. After all, they didn't ask to be born in such crappy countries where the leaders consider the entire population to be playthings in their wargames, and if they get sick of being treated as such, im sure I could find some decent living space at my country, provided that the budget covers it.

As the leader of a country, it wouldn't be my job to create world peace. But I could make damn sure my own country doesn't involve itself and contribute in creating more military conflicts in the world.

It's not that hard really. We've been doing it for almost 200 years over here now. Can you say the same about your country? Didn't think so.

Peace might be boring business, but at least it's not so damn wasteful as war is...

Well excuse me for living in a country that has a military thats worth a damn. Excuse me for my country not closing its boarders and not sending military aid to countries that need it. Excuse me for my country not being a bunch of cowards that look only to protect themselves and not help countries that are being attacked by people who would like to see them wiped off the map.

I like how Eurofags can determine what our country needs improvement on. How about you stop picking on the big guy because its easy to find the most well known country and point fingers at it. Look in a mirror Europe. Your hands are not clean either.

EDIT: I take that back, I have been to Europe and met some great people, I will not judge Europe for some of the liberal retards that are on this site. Sorry Europe.

 

[Bloob Face]

Something has got to be done about that dreaded two-party system! As soon as those silly Americans discover that someone is in an opposing party they immediately dismiss that person and his or her opinions as idiotic. Despite any evidence one side may give, they are determined to ignore it and assert their own opinions. Since I have personally met 300,000,000 Americans, I know that they are all the same; they are all ignorant, selfish, elitists who are so quick to bash any dissenting opinions that they never consider that someone else may have valid opinions. Thank goodness that this abominable attitude has not swept over the Internet!

Either that or that cursed Christianity. All those poor misguided souls following that hatemonger, Christ, just makes me ashamed of them. If only there were no religion, then such atrocities as "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" might never have existed. Then human nature surely would have been changed for the better. No sins have ever been committed by an atheist, of course, because all evil stems from religion. Christians sinning surely proves that all evil is from their religion, and not from human nature.

Yes, Americans, I know you all too well. Your shortcomings are an embarassment to the entire human race. You are the single blemish on an otherwise spotless Earth. We can only hope that you receive mercy from your make-believe gods.

 

[TheGreatCoolEnergy]

Hmmm I would like to see a bit more coverage of the olympics. I live in Canada but I'm close to the border so I get alot of American stations, and the Americans only cover their athelets, not anyone else.

Not a big thing, but perhaps it could cut down the amount of "America is the only country in the world that is good at anything"

 

[Cody211282]

Les goverment intervention, more personal freedoms, and that people wouldnt go crying to the feds to fix everything, oh also stop spending money that we dont have, i mean really have you seen the national debt recently?

 

[davidbaker88]

Something has got to be done about that dreaded two-party system! As soon as those silly Americans discover that someone is in an opposing party they immediately dismiss that person and his or her opinions as idiotic. Despite any evidence one side may give, they are determined to ignore it and assert their own opinions. Since I have personally met 300,000,000 Americans, I know that they are all the same; they are all ignorant, selfish, elitists who are so quick to bash any dissenting opinions that they never consider that someone else may have valid opinions. Thank goodness that this abominable attitude has not swept over the Internet!

Either that or that cursed Christianity. All those poor misguided souls following that hatemonger, Christ, just makes me ashamed of them. If only there were no religion, then such atrocities as "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" might never have existed. Then human nature surely would have been changed for the better. No sins have ever been committed by an atheist, of course, because all evil stems from religion. Christians sinning surely proves that all evil is from their religion, and not from human nature.

Yes, Americans, I know you all too well. Your shortcomings are an embarassment to the entire human race. You are the single blemish on an otherwise spotless Earth. We can only hope that you receive mercy from your make-believe gods.

I believe the answer you were looking for was 42.

 

[JimmerDunda]

Get rid of their nukes so that they can use that money and feed the world.

Sir I wish not to question your intellect but who on earth might you suggest is gonna buy all these nukes?

A more proper strategy would be, stop spending the yearly budget on the military and take all that money and feed and clothe the poor.

You already have the right to bear arms, no country is going to try invading you because it would be impossible to pacify a population where pretty much everyone is packing heat.

Quite simply, America doesn't really need a military force. All that money being spent on stealth bombers, Nimitz class carriers, nukes, firerarms humvees etc. etc. is money wasted...

Ok you are asking a country to give up its military superpower to help the poor, we already provide the most aid out of any country in the world.

If you are gonna point fingers lets not forget France, UK, and Russia. These three countries have a very large stock pile of nukes. Russia has more nukes than anyone and alot of their people are suffering.

But hey lets be jealous and pick on the stronger country that tries to get things accomplished.

USA is a very powerful country but just like any other country, they have to keep their interests first.

Also do I own a gun? no. My dad owns some hunting rifles, and I believe very few to little people in my neighborhood own an assault rifle or pistol. Stop stereotyping to countries you don't know anything about.

Whoa, whoa dude. The thread is about America. It seems pretty offtopic to start talking about Russia now. Also, I just said, get rid of your nukes and so you can feed the poor. Russia's military spending's isn't as big as the US's, ditto for France, etc. I can't see anything wrong with saying putting away the nukes and feeding the poor. The US can actually do it.

Okay buddy how safe do you think we would feel if we put away all our nukes while Russia and other countries have them. The only reason any country has nukes is because no one else will launch a nuke at them or there will be hell to pay. How do you think we will feel if we scrap our nukes while every other super power has one.

As for the poor thing, remember we are a Democracy/Republic. We encourage people to be proactive and not suck off of the Governments tits. Unlike Europe...