Hacker News Reader

Comment by rmc | Hacker News Reader

Yes they do. All countries claim to be the best.

That is patently false. I'm Greek, and I don't know any Greek (except maybe some right-wing fascists) who believes that their country was the best. Mindsets range from "it's shit" to "it might not be great, but it's my country".

Seeing Americans in movies go "best country in the world!" sounds absurd to us, and "you can't do this to me, I'm an American" sounds ludicrous.

The fact that everyone considers their country to be the best really seems to me like an American generalization. I've lived in the UK and I've had friends from a multitude of countries, and not one of them considers their country to be the best, unlike my American friends.

I think the history of Europe has resulted in a lot of Europe knowing how much evil can and has been done under the banner of 'my country is the best in the world', and rightly becoming very skeptical about that kind of attitude.

Maybe, although I'm probably too young to be directly aware of that. I just grew up that way.

Everyone in Greece believes that our country was the best ever. How many times have you heard something along the lines "when we used to have civilization they were eating from the trees".

We believe in a common heritage and we think that because our ancestors were pioneers in so many aspects, from mathematics to theater and from philosophy to commerce that the whole world owes us some (actually a lot) respect.

The mindset you're referring to is true but applies to the state. We all thing that the government in particular and the state in general is crap but as far as we're concerned as individuals or as a nation we walk in the footsteps of our glorious ancestors.

And it's exactly this mindset which have led to our recent problems, which are not only financial as many believe. If you keep thinking that you are someone special there's no reason to change anything.

> Everyone in Greece believes that our country was the best ever. How many times have you heard something along the lines "when we used to have civilization they were eating from the trees".

That doesn't follow. The fact that some people say "we were civilized before you" doesn't mean they think it's the best country in the world. Not to mention that nobody even really says that, unless they're looking for a cheap insult. It's the equivalent to the American "we'll bomb the shit out of you".

> Seeing Americans in movies go "best country in the world!" sounds absurd to us

That sounds absurd to most Americans too. I've only heard that kind of rhetoric spoken by politicians, and it's definitely not a view most of us espouse.

There are a large number of Americans who believe the U.S. has the most powerful military in the world, and there are a sizeable number of Americans who believe that the U.S. provides the most opportunity for poor people to become rich through hard work (the "American dream"), but there are at least as many Americans who disagree with both, and I've never heard anyone in real life state that the U.S. is categorically "the best country in the world." Interestingly, I think it's safe to say that almost all Americans hold one view in common: no one likes the central government. That might be true in most democratic countries--I wouldn't know. But I don't think I've ever in my life heard an American state that they were satisfied with the government.

Hmm, I think that we probably don't know the sort of people who would consider their countries the best in the world, but I have a feeling that there's a larger percentage of those in the US (think Bible belt) than in Europe. I imagine that this is localized, though, as there are people in Greece who are all Golden-Dawn fascist-patriots too. They're seen as uneducated caricatures, which I imagine is how their American counterparts are also seen there.

Your statements have way more to do with your personal views then any facts.

As a person that lives in the Bible Belt, I can tell you that a significant number of folks that do not think America is the best. Many do believe it was at one time, but some of the strongest critics are in the Bible Belt now. The Tea Party movment, while arguably misguided, is a great example of that.

In EU, a number of ministers have been disgraced enough to be thrown out of politics when their cooperation with USA "extraordinary rendition" came known.

Where is the outrage in USA about Gitmo - which high-ranking officials have resigned in shame (or been thrown out for being shameless) about keeping these torture centers?

Sure, and some countries had their own Gitmos. The UK had hunger strikes and imprisonment without trial during their own civil war in Northern Ireland.

It's not as black and white as "USA bad, EU good".

Whilst internment was a pretty nasty thing, I don't think that what went on in British prisons is comparable to what goes on in Guatanamo Bay.

The point was that whilst nowhere is perfectly just and or free, there is the perception that the USA promotes itself as being so.

The British didn't do forced feeding, but I'd hardly say it was great. As well as hunger strikes the prisoners also protested wearing prison uniforms. So the staff didn't empty their toilets. The prisoners smeared their feces on the walls. I'd recommend the film Hunger, it's a bit raw.

Well, the Brits did actually do force feeding:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_Price

Though there are/were certain conditions on when it could be ordered such as when the inmate has an eating disorder or becomes mentally incapacitated:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/493713.stm

I believe that the inhumane treatment that went on in UK/NI was not systemic but a result of individuals acting of their own accord. Guantanamo Bay was chosen to locate the camp in order to allow these kinds of things to go on because American law does not apply there.

I was talking about that particular hunger strike in the 80s. Many died who didn't get force fed. That's not to say they never did it, nor will ever again, I was merely comparing that hunger strike to the one in the article.

I do think a lot of the Northern Ireland stuff was institutional. Gerry-mandering of election results, police oppression, etc.

Why da faq are you arguing on this nitty gritty of UK? US cannot justify gitmo just on the basis of something that UK did sometime back. You cant change what UK did, let it be. Every country has its heritage, both contributions and black spots.

But, you know, on the upside, they were all convicted terrorists.

If they want to smear shit up the walls because they don't get Casual Friday then let them.

Not sure you are right there, speaking as a Brit. Torture was used on internees, as detailed in the book Cruel Britannia by Ian Cobain. I believe that torture also took place in Guantanamo, but I don't know whether it was worse. (Black prisons in other places like Baghram are another matter.)

In any case, in Guantanamo, the detention without trial is almost worse and more disgraceful than the torture. How can the democracies hold our heads up if this is how we behave?

I'm not aiming at "USA bad, EU good" - I'm aiming at "Gitmo bad, please fix NOW". Whatever was in earlier years, now there doesn't seem to be any justification whatsoever in keeping it.

Your parallel is off. Ireland itself was the "war" zone, which would be analogous to the US black sites in Afghanistan. You don't want the comparison.

And civil liberties in the mainland were nowhere near as bad as this stupid war on terror.

The UK had internment without trial in the 1970s. The hunger strike episode was in the 1980s, and was started by people who had been tried and convicted. Not people being "rendered" illegally from other countries and certainly not random people handed in for bounty who never received trial.

Finally, the internment episode, which shows the UK in the worst light, is documented in this link in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Demetrius

The timeline is from 1971-1977. "Gitmo" has been going for twice that long already.

Here is an obvious analysis:

The idea with terrorism against democracies is to scare the living daylight out of voters in a country. The politicians in those democracies want to win the next election do everything to stop the terror.

Afaik, most every democracy that had a serious terrorist problem over years threw out the law book -- UK, Germany, Israel, Spain, USA, etc.

It is a reaction built into democracy, if you have a better way of organizing society that is well tested, please tell me. (That "well tested" is critical; failure modes for testing systems often kills millions of people.)

No, I really don't know any better way but this way that you are supposedly telling others to accept as 'al right' is not a a way at all. It's not even democracy.

And if you keep doing[1] this - detaining innocents and keeping them in the vacuum for years without a trial and without letting them know what is their crime, if tall; and killing hundreds of children in one drone strike(even though your country's Sec.OS was against it) then you have got two clear choices -

(1). Either wipe out all those innocents, their supporters, family and non-innocents who get another reason(or show it to innocents) to hit you back. This is already happening in my own country on the northern/top tip - for decades.

(2). Or be ready for more aggressive attacks when you are no longer in a position to drone the shit out of entire villages of children and women at your whims(very soon). Well, in this case you might as well be looking for the collective wipe out. you and me together get perished in the shit that we let grow and multiply.

On a more gory(violence ahead) note I'll give a very far fetched but possible example - you might find your, on pre-college RTW trip, teenage son's neck slit by some disgruntled, frustrated, suicidal, lost kid who had lost his father or maybe entire family just the way above mentioned - only because he was born in the wrong geography. Of course your RTW kid was innocent too; as innocent as the kid who struck the blade!

It's a lot worse than the time of colonization, damn it!

Here this you can be me, you, your CIA top boss or just anyone.

[1]. By keep doing I want to say keep on accepting as a world citizen.

>>killing hundreds of children in one drone strike

Hundreds of children? Why? When? How -- where they put in a pile?!

>>you are no longer in a position to drone the shit out of entire villages of children and women at your whims(very soon)

The point with drone strikes is that they are targeted, not like artillery which do wipe out villages, etc.

I stopped reading. Please increase your trolling quality.

>>where they put in a pile?

Did you mean were? No, they were not. A drone strike is not a shot on a dart board by a marksman so they don't need to.

>>hundreds in one strike>>

My mistake. I was angry and I just mentioned it in flow - I originally wanted to portray remote strikes in general. But drone strike are not sniper shots either! Can I humbly ask you to go here[1] and you might be enlightened http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

>>I stopped reading.

I believe that you've stopped reading - literally, especially after reading your last sentence.

[1]http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/

Actually, that's not completely true.

afaik, India - which is one of the largest democracies in the world follows the legal process in almost all the terror related cases. The fact that they try to adapt their laws to keep up with terrorism is a different story.

Yeah, India is weird. But a democracy with that kind of fraction of the population in total poverty (not to mention the corruption) is not going to react like others.

France, as someone else noted, is also different. My model do seem to work for Europe (afaik re GB, Spain, Italy, Germany.)

A better way? Easy: what Norway did after Breivik.

If a country is aping the Israelis, it's failed as a democracy.

That was one lone crazy person. Are there other members of Breivik's gang out there? Totally different from an organisation of many people (possibly growing).

ucee054 made the same claim re Breivik a year ago when I posted the same argument -- he didn't answer that same point then either.

ucee054 earlier also argued for jewish conpiracy theories, etc.

Here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4059752

Edit: Brevity, spelling error, link.

Breivik was a zionist nut job, there are many others out there that fit that classification, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Defense_League.

Similarly, Tim McVeigh was a militia nut job, there are many others like him out there, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_Republican_Army

However, these are white people, so when they blow something up they are just "one lone crazy person".

When 19 brown people bring down a couple of trade towers, suddenly it becomes "totally different"?

To be consistent with your logic, the Clinton administration should have carpet bombed Elohim City and suspended human rights in Oklahoma, including keeping innocent people locked up without trial, until they got every last Klan nut/ Church nut/Gun nut out there.

Breivik was a single crazy -- not a set of organized terror groups with thousands of members (and hundreds of millions of dollars in finances) which regularly execute complex simultaneous bombings, etc, etc.

That makes the existing alQ 2001 at least a million times larger problem than Breivik in his cell 2013.

AGAIN, Breivik is only a member of a group in his own mind -- and in your mind. (I seriously wonder if there are more similarities.)

Usually at this point, I write "But you know that you're arguing nonsensically, troll".

I can't do that in your case, so instead:

I hope you're just a sad loser failing to troll and not such a hatemonger that you make bad arguments just to get some support for your conspiracies.

Edit: Clarity.

You assert Breivik was a single crazy but you ignore the fact that his kahanist buddies in outfits like the JDL are well funded organized groups.

You also ignore that in terms of the domestic terror threat, according to the FBI organized jewish loons are a larger threat than yemeni moslem loons - and that jewish loons aren't being locked up indefinitely

http://forums.anandtech.com/archive/index.php/t-2135229.html

You also ignore that when the US was in a similar situation, during the McVeigh episode, the US did not respond towards the militiamen by locking them up without trial. They used normal law enforcement procedures. And McVeigh was not a lone wolf. That lot are organized and well funded

But if you didn't ignore these parallels, you'd be forced to see that there is an alternative called "the rule of law". And you wouldn't like that. You prefer the policy "lock up the towelheads and throw away the key".

And you call me a hatemonger.

Just so I get your position right:

1. Al Qaeda can be described as 19 brown people -- not thousands of members (and hundreds of millions in finances) with repeated attempts at mass murder through terrorism.

2. If the Western world wasn't racist -- Breivik should have gotten as much attention as al Q, despite his whole gang (he, himself) being in jail.

3. This attention of Breivik is merited because: Two groups of crazies in USA, which did some terror a few decades ago, might have similar opinions as Breivik (according to you).

(One of those groups even have a different religion and the other group's members could hardly find Norway on a map.)

I'm sorry, my position is still that you're either a really pathetic troll or some sick hatemonger. But I did stop laughing, your existence is too depressing.

No you idiot. I was replying to rmc when he said Breivik was a lone nut job. I gave another example of McVeigh, who was definitely not a lone nut job, and pointed out that the same rule applies. And so the McVeigh example invalidates rmc's point by itself. Are you really that stupid that you keep missing the point?

You suggested that others should do as Norway did, re Breivik.

So, as usual, it was pointed out to you that Norway was a very different situation since Breivik was in jail, there is no big organisation that promise more terror.

Then you went troll and described 9/11 as "19 brown people" and started talking about unrelated crazies on another continent of Breivik -- decades earlier.

Edit: That you lie about what you wrote yourself means that you're an unusually sad troll and not a mental case. That makes me happy, believe it or not. Please get a life instead. If you go to a gym/psychologist it should be ok in the end.

And no, Al Qaeda is not some James-Bond baddy organization with hundreds of millions in finances, you pulled that out of your ass.

Al Qaeda is a common name used by lots of different little local terrorist groups to make themselves seem menacing. eg if the Al Shabab boys in Somalia want to make themselves seem badass, they call themselves "Al Qaeda in Somalia"

But facts don't matter to you because you are a complete fraud.

So we'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and pretend that you are talking sense. We'll pretend that you were referring to Osama Bin Laden's organization in 2001. His actual organization, not the one in your fever dreams.

That organization had hardly any people outside of Afghanistan. And didn't use much money. Their entire budget for the attack was 19 air tickets and some box cutters.

The facts about the attack are also that it was small. Large for a terrorist attack, but small in the grand scale of things. 2 or 3 buildings knocked down, and about 3000 people killed.

We'll throw in the US embassy bombings and the attack on the USS Cole as well.

And you are saying this grand total justifies extraordinary rendition, suspension of habeas corpus and the Geneva conventions, the Patriot act etc etc etc. while the Korean war didn't?

Mao's China and Kim Il Sung's Korea put together, with their legions of commandos (and now their nukes) were a threat.

Are you trying to say a few thousand suicide bombers are a bigger threat? Such a bigger threat that we have to give up civil liberties for them that we did NOT have to give up when at war with China?

Are you really that stupid?

I skimmed enough to see that you didn't argue against my description of your position.

So I take it the description was accurate.

I note that you lie about what I wrote, which was: All (functioning) democracies tend to ignore human rights and laws when its citizens are threatened with terrorism.

I removed the rest and references. You phantasize something without me having to help anyway...

By the way, I grew up in London in the 80s.

The IRA were bombing Britain all the time. There are still no trash cans in the London subway system today; they were taken out because the IRA might leave bombs in them.

The IRA even hit Downing Street and one of Thathcer's political conferences.

There might have been stepped up security in Northern Ireland itself, but security in London during that period was far less than during this stupid "War on Terror", and there weren't all these stupid "anti-terror" laws. The regular police didn't even carry guns back then.

Thatcher tried to use a regulation banning the voices of Sinn Fein from being put on air because they were advocating terror. The BBC just played the footage and used voice-over artists to say their words.

And this was how 80's Britain responded to the IRA, which was a large and well funded organization.

So I have an existence proof that you don't have to turn into a police state as a response to terrorism, because I grew up in a country that chose another option.

This is the third time this is posted to you...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevention_of_Terrorism_Acts

For the last time in the 80s it did not work like you are implying.

During the "War on Terror" an old man and anti-Nazi RAF veteran was arrested under "anti-terror" laws for holding an anti-Blair placard at a demonstration. During the IRA years, well ... Find me an example of "security" that egregious during the period I mentioned, I double dog dare you.

Stuff was blowing up all the time but the people simply did not get all paranoid. Business as usual.

By the way, your wiki link refers to laws that were put in place in the 70s. If I recall correctly, Britain tried full scale internment in the 70s and got bitch slapped in court by Ireland, and then stopped. That may be the reason Britain was acting in a saner way in the 80s, but I wasn't debating the history of it.

I was simply saying that 80s Britain was an existence proof of a society not responding to terrorism by turning into a police state. The IRA terrorism hadn't stopped in the 70s, by the way - it continued into the 90s making it far longer-lasting than Afghanistan.

And finally, the topic was Guantanamo Bay, where people have been held without trial for more than a decade. You are trying to compare that to British emergency powers that held people for one week?

You can post that wikipedia page a fifth and sixth time, it still won't change anything. It will just make you look stupider and more of a liar.

>>It will just make you look stupider and more of a liar.

My claim was:

The idea with terrorism against democracies is to scare the living daylight out of voters in a country. The politicians in those democracies want to win the next election do everything to stop the terror.

Afaik, most every democracy that had a serious terrorist problem over years threw out the law book [...]

You argue that the Brits of the 1980s weren't that scared, Blitz-style. That might be true (your personal experience isn't that big support) -- but it is not relevant for my point, which is about politicians' reactions to scared civilians.

But you know that, troll.

For British response: I posted a link to the law above. Google site:hrw.org yourself, for more -- it was definitely harsher than pure criminality would need.

Congrats troll, you got another answer. Now you can lie more about what I wrote, to see if you get another...

I don't need to lie about what you wrote, you are doing that yourself.

Firstly, you come out with this stuff whenever an even tangentially related topic comes up on HN. So you are not making an observation about political science, you are engaging in advocacy. You are saying "Hooray for throwing out the rule book! That keeps us safe and stops the towelhead terrorists!". Like you did here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4474143

Secondly, you are engaging in the no true scotsman fallacy whenever I give a counterexample. Breivik wasn't true terrorism because he was just one guy. Well that's irrelevant. The size and scale of any terrorist attack ever made up to now has been insignificant next to the damage to civil liberties from "security" or even to the death toll from road accidents. The difference is whether the population get hysterical, as you are advocating, or maintain their sense of proportion, as I am advocating. Marinus Van Der Lubbe was also just one guy, but we got Hitler and the Nazis being given emergency powers as a result of the Reichstag fire, because the Germans in the 30s ran around screaming about how the scary, scary legions of communist barbarians (well funded by their Russian backers) were a serious threat to all of civilization, just like you keep screaming about how the scary, scary legions of islamist barbarians (well funded by their oil-sheikh backers) are a serious threat to all of civilization.

Well we don't have to treat this crap as natural. Any sane society, like the Norwegians today and unlike the Germans in the 30s, can just refuse to be scared, and put checks and balances in place to curb the politicians, like the European courts curbed the British government.

Politicians taking away liberties under the excuse of "security" is the oldest fraud in the book, as anyone can see from Julius Caesar's comments on Sulla. Nobody who grew up in a country with functioning schools and books has any excuse for not knowing better.

Wow, you are totally shameless in lying about what I write!

>>You are saying "Hooray for throwing out the rule book! That keeps us safe and stops the towelhead terrorists!".

>>The difference is whether the population get hysterical, as you are advocating

I have written that terrorism against democracies is generally to influence/scare the population. See quote in what you comment on, troll.

You are fully aware that I have never discussed the motivation for (/morale of) that reaction, just noted that it is the usual outcome.

(I only read a few seconds until I saw a couple of quotes to show that you lie, troll.)

"Afaik, most every democracy that had a serious terrorist problem over years threw out the law book -- UK, Germany, Israel, Spain, USA, etc." ...

Can you precise?

I can talk about something I know. I'm french. France got problem with islamic terrorism in the 90's. France is having problem with terrorism for the last 10 years. France has done two wars in the last 3 years (Lybia, Mali and still do stuff in Afganistan). My country is not the best country in the world but we did not end up with some terrible thing like Guantanamo ... I would say the same about many others european countries and it should be the same for USA. If you believe in human rights and dignity, what ever enemy you have to fight, you should not forget the values you are fighting for.

Can you precise?

Look at the UK & Northern Ireland.

"I'm french.... My country is not the best country in the world but we did not end up with some terrible thing like Guantanamo"

Let me preface this by saying I'm a big fan of France. In fact, I think France was a good ally recommending caution with Iraq (precisely because they had the most recent experience with fighting a counter-insurgency in an Arab country).

But I take exception with your claim that France didn't end up with Gitmo.

Read 'A Savage War of Peace: Algeria 1954-1962'. France pretty much invented torturing arab terrorists.

You are totally right. In the 20th century, France committed ugly things as well. In my previous post, I was talking about the recent period but Algeria is a good example what should be avoid. It's still a sensitive topic here, even 50 years after. I think it makes lose credibility and damage the soul of a country when this kind of episode happen. It's what our countries should avoid.

To these examples, afaik you can add Italy, Spain and Germany.

For UK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevention_of_Terrorism_Acts

Edit: This is about RAF in Germany http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction#Trial_manipula... (But certainly, maybe the lawyers were guilty, etc.)

Edit: This is about ETA in Spain (not so strong, but still) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETA#Human_rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Spain#Basque_se...

Really? I've never once, despite living in the EU for my entire life (in various countries), heard anyone claim the country they live is anything like "the land of the free".

Well, the UK claims to be the "Mother of all Parliaments" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament#Origins , and has songs calling itself "Land of Hope and Glory, Mother of the Free" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Hope_and_Glory ).

I know more about UK & Ireland than others, but it's not hard to find other countries similar. France's national anthem ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Marseillaise ) is a song about overthrowing tyranny, the national motto of France is "Liberty, Freedom, Fraternity" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libert%C3%A9,_%C3%A9galit%C3%A9... ).

All countries claim to be the best.

Honestly, no.

Every country has people in it believing that, and songs accordingly. It is called nationalism, which is more common in some countries then others. If you would say those thinks over here, people would suspect you being a nazi.

This "America is the greatest country on earth"-slogan is pretty specific for the USA. It is so typical that it became a klischee, we call it "american pathos". It is the same category like beauty queens wishing world peace in a country leading two wars. It is the movie independence day with a american president being a jet fighter fighting aliens and saving the world, once again, and us thinking that this fits to the image the USA has of itself. It is right-wing nationalism as a political party (republicans) and 24h on tv (Fox News). It is "god bless america".

And there are those american politicians saying things like "we are the greatest country in the world" and "the land of the free". No other country has that, at least no democratic one and not with the same prevalence, to my knowing.

It is hybris, because in many objective ways, america is the worst countries in the world. Poverty, education, leading wars, prison system, death sentences, amount of guns per capita, killing and abduction of foreign civilians, torture of prisoners, broken democratic system, religious fanatism. No other country fails in so many ways so high, not even your beloved rogue states.

PS: Doesn't mean there are only bad parts, there are even great ones.

PPS: Your examples, "mother of all parliaments" and the tyranny-overthrowal in France, relates to historical events and facts. That is something else than a broad generic claim.

This is congruent with my observations as well. In my experience, Europeans do see the whole "God bless America" thing as ridiculously nationalistic, the same way many Americans do (cf Parker and Stone's Team America (is that the name?)).

And most Americans see the whole "monarchy" thing as ridiculously anachronistic with kings, queens, dukes, grand dukes, etc. and aristocracy of any kind as having no place in the modern world.

And we Europeans think your big, boxy cars are ugly, so there!

(As a Dutch person I believe The Netherlands is the greatest country of the world)

You say this is hubris, but you fail to mention that in many if not more objective ways America is the greatest country in the world. It has the largest amount of wealthy people, the largest amount of educated people, it has freed an entire continent of war, its justice system covers and protects an enormous amount of people, it holds individual rights to a very high standard, it is the largest true democracy in the world.

Then we haven't even mentioned the results of that great economy it has. It presents the world with a dazzling amount of technological progress, from computers to medicine. The fruits of american science have increased the quality of life and longetivity of a vast majority of people on this planet.

There's some subjective stuff too. It has in my opinion the greatest cultural industry, it produces the most impressive books, movies, music, paintings, whatever you like you're bound to find an expert in the US.

Yes guantanamo bay is a black mark on the US's grey slate, but it doesn't immediately disqualify it as a great state of this world.

Just as a short note: Sure, you are not wrong. I tried to mention that viewpoint with my PS - i sure don't condemn the whole USA.

One could argue about specifics. I agree more with your subjective part - i like many american movies and series, but i would disagree with the high standards of individual rights (that was maybe true in the period after the communist-hunt and before 9/11, though) and the true democracy (for one, a true democracy in a literal meaning, according to my education, is a direct one, and the usa has many issues with its democracy like the needed money for becoming a successful candidate to qualify as a true democracy in the strictes sense, even if we count a non-direct one as such).

> (As a Dutch person I believe The Netherlands is the greatest country of the world)

Why would you do that? For real now. It is highly unlikely that exactly the country one comes from is the greatest, bestestest, whatever, in total or only in any way.

>> (As a Dutch person I believe The Netherlands is the greatest country of the world)

As another dutch person, I don't agree with that. This isn't the greatest country overall by any stretch of the imagination. The problem is that for every axis that you come up with some things will be better, others will be worse. No country wins on all points.

>> (As a Dutch person I believe The Netherlands is the greatest country of the world)

>Why would you do that? For real now. It is highly unlikely that exactly the country one comes from is the greatest, bestestest, whatever, in total or only in any way.

No need to be so rational. I happen to have grown up in a way that's enabled by only a few countries in the world for which I am extremely grateful. I am sure you could be as happy in any other country.

> (As a Dutch person I believe The Netherlands is the greatest country of the world)

Uhm, really? As another Dutch person I now suspect you to be a member of some extreme rightwing ideology (PVV?) because no sane Dutch person I've ever known would say such an absurd thing.

Then you have a naive view of the world around you. Many things suck in other countries that you just don't notice in The Netherlands.

Also, viewing your country as great has nothing to do with rightwing ideology. I do not for a second think that past immigration laws have done anything to degrade The Netherlands as a great country.

Also, immigration laws (PVV's main issue) have nothing to do with rightwing ideology, it is merely associated with it due to conservationists often being right wing. Hitler for example was famous for his dislike of immigrants and also was a leftist.

Also, please don't post dumb assumptions over other peoples ideologies on public websites..

Hitler was not left.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Could_Hitler_be_described_as_right...

Sorry, random rambling on the internet doesn't count.

The nsdap had a left, socialist wing. Most of the members of that wing were executed, which is a good indicatior on how much Hitler himself agreed with them. He himself didn't had many political views one could describe as left, that there are similarities in the methods is mainly a coincidence. Your linked article is plainly wrong in that regard, the nationalization of industries for example didn't really happen after the Kapital agreed to cooperate (and ideologically, nationalization of industries in a facist regime is something else entirely than in a communist one).

For a good article about the subject, read http://www.h-ref.de/organisationen/nsdap/nazis-sozialisten.p.... Anyway, I don't think we should discuss this any further here, it is OT.

You could've just said, "Hitler was not left, despite being in a nationalist socialist party he focused mainly on national goals and left the capitalists for what they were." My german is not so good, so I read the wikipedia article on the history of the socialist part of the nsdap and it seems you are right, there was not much of a leftist in him.

What is a "klischee"? Wherever you were educated can't have been much better than the US, which has the worst education system in the world (according to you). I'm sure the US also has the worst poverty in the world, the worst prison system in the world, the most killing and abduction of foreign civilians in the world, the most torture of its prisoners, but could you back that up with some sources or some rational thought?

Sadly i can't downvote yet. So i will write that as text: No, as you merged two ad hominem attacks into your comment, I won't discuss anything with you.

Leonard Cohen (a Canadian) described the US as the "cradle of the best and of the worst..." in the song "Democracy".

In fact that song I've thought was a good snapshot of where we (the US) are right now.

No, not at all. And many rightly recognize that "best" is an absurd term to apply to a country.

What people will say is, "This country is the best for me" or "We're not perfect, but I love it" or "We have our ups and downs, but I'm proud to be here." Often people will say, "My country is the best" in the same way they say, "My wife is the best."

When I came to the US I was shocked at how many people openly, earnestly, unconditionally claim America is the best, the greatest, #1, etc. "On any objective scale, especially morally, America is the unqualified best." It's crazy.

in a post imperialist, post empire Europe we've grown beyond needing to swing our dicks around in a pissing contest. Some countries more than others it's true, but generally speaking there are better things to do than spend our time claiming our particular demesne in superior to all others.

Unless it's at a football match

And yet you're not post monarchy or aristocracy, so you haven't grown beyond needing to give people titles of duke and count and whatnot based on their birth.

American Exceptionalism.

$MY_COUNTRY Exceptionalism

I don't know of another country that has it quite so bad. I know of nowhere else in the western world where people fly flags or drape themselves in the flag with anything like the regularity of the US.

It really sticks out compared to everywhere else I've been, and I've travelled to/in 30+ countries now.

Oh yeah the USAians really seem to go for flags. In most of Europe, only right wing nationalists and sports fans wave flags.

We Americans suffer from flag inflation. We mostly don't even notice them anymore, so people have to put bigger and bigger flags to prove how patriotic they are. I was at a baseball game last weekend and only noticed midway through how many (and how obnoxiously prominent) the flags were. It's silly.

OTOH, many immigrants fly the flags of their home countries, I guess as a sort of badge of identity. For whatever reason, that's always seemed less ridiculous to me.

Another thing I've noticed from US TV & films (so it might not actually be true), is how it only seems to be the US flag that is flown. Here it's not uncommon to see flags from lots of countries. Only governmental buildings would "only fly the local flag".

What is a "USAian"? Are you really so ridiculous as to believe that "American" is not the correct term?

In my experience, we Canadians fly our national flag and wear flag-themed garb much, much more than Americans. Even more than in Texas, where people usually fly the American flag because they think it'd be rude to fly the Texas flag solo.

I suspect this Canadian flag-waving has more to do with our insecurities than it does with our comparative level of patriotism - we're not all that different from Americans, so we go out of our way to emphasize what differences we do have.

I'll admit I've not spent much time in Canada. Most of the time I did spend was driving along the top of lake Ontario and then back into the US via Niagara. Most of the flags I saw there were British!

Fascinating. I'm Canadian too and have made similar observations, yet was surprised to read what you wrote. Our self-image is so strongly one of not being nationalistic that we're for the most part unconscious of this behaviour. Most Canadians would react to your comparison to Texas as an obvious joke or a weird paradox.

Australia, believe it or not, is actually pretty bad in this regard. The amount of xenophobia disguised as "patriotism" is pretty eye opening (well at least for me). I haven't travelled through the USA though, but Australia definitely was a shock.

I know Aus has more than a few issues surrounding xenophobia and race but... I lived in Perth for two years and spent six months on the road around the country. Despite the fashion for Southern Cross tattoos, it comes nowhere close to the US for sheer number of flags. I never noticed flag poles and flags in people's front gardens (for example) like I saw in Texas.

Tongan Exceptionalism?

Danish Exceptionalism? Nah.

Have you tried immigrating to Denmark?

I'm a son of an immigrant. Why?

Yeah, American exceptionalism, like when you think you can say "I know you are, but what am I" just because you're American. Thanks for the demo.

Further, American Exceptionalism manifests itself entirely differently than other countries'. America sees its own as a right or even mandate to "spread liberty and freedom" to the world. The parent states the following:

>But those other countries do not claim moral high ground in the same way the US does on so many other issues, or claim to lead the world with respect to values such as freedom and democracy

This is effectively the definition of America's brand of Exceptionalism and it is that to which I was referring.

It is a far cry from simple nationalism or "thinking one's country is the best".

The US is exceptional in some hard statistical ways, in reality. Whether it's "best" is subjective, of course

Reply on news.ycombinator.com