That’s a very Western perspective. Did Rome control Persia? India? China? Japan? Africa, beyond the Mediterranean coast? Certainly not the Americas. Besides, they actually controlled less land area- Wikipedia gives the maximum extent of the Roman Empire as 2,300,000 square miles, and the United States as just under 3,800,000.
You could make a slightly better claim that the Mongols under Kublai Khan controlled the known world, but even that one is deeply flawed.
Yes : if, indeed. Note that I think the USA won’t be in the same position in a relatively close future, but I was discussing the present situation.
Maybe. But I was comparing countries, not discussing asymmetric warfare. The USA can’t control Iraq. They couldn’t control Vietnam, either. But who could? France couldn’t control Algeria, the Soviet Union couldn’t control Afghanistan, recently, Israel failed against the Hezbollah in Lebanon.
It just means that western countries and modern armies aren’t all powerful. But Israel isn’t at risk of being invaded by the Hezbollah, Russia wasn’t at risk of being invaded by Afghanistan, France wasn’t at risk of being invaded by Algeria, the USA isn’t at risk of being invaded by Iraq (contrarily to what some fear mongers seemed to say).
It’s certainly a (probably necessary) lesson in humility. Guerilleros and assorted freedom fighters can inflict losses on a conventional army. It’s not easy and painless, and sometimes it’s impossible to invade and control a foreign nation. Not everybody’s going to kiss your feet because you have big guns and claim to be more enlightened. Who would have guessed? (well…apparently, some wouldn’t have).
But it’s not an existential threat in itself. The USA is safe (for now, at least). Safest than everybody else. Doesn’t mean absolutely, 150% safe. It’s the most successful nation (for now, at least). Doesn’t mean it’s an all powerful nation. But I agree that hubris is dangerous. And the USA is the nation most prone to hubris, too (for now, at least).
You might have a point if allowing fewer poor immigrants in meant that the low-wage jobs necessary to the economy didn’t need to get done. Someone in Europe must be bagging the groceries, flipping the burgers, and washing the dishes. I don’t know if they are mostly immigrants as they are in America, or if they are native Germans, French, or British. But I do know where I’d rather be if I had to work that type of job, and it isn’t the United States.
I don’t want to subscribe to the idea that technological aids are cheats, but I agree the Roman Empire was pretty amazing considering how they were able to organize and run things without any of the modern tech we take for granted.
Stuck with that definition of success. I can’t agree that it is while there is such a massive difference between the wealthy and the poor. I’m one of those that judges based on how a society treats it’s worst off. And I’d rather be in a low paying job anywhere else in the Western World
Thanks for all the replies, it’s been interesting reading. I’m in a different time zone to the most of you, which is why I haven’t replied earlier. I’ve also got suddenly hectic busy.
So just some quick thoughts:
[ul]
[li]I still think the better technology thing is a cheat. If Achilles comes at me with his sword and I shoot him, does it make me the better warrior? I think we need to imagine us with equal resources to make a comparison.[/li][li]Its often said that the US could whip anyone, anywhere in the world. But, as has been pointed out, when they actually try to they fail.[/li][li]Obviously the US has a huge cultural influence over certain areas. But the US culture was not in itself created in a vacuum.[/li][li]I agree entirely that one of the major problems with the statement is finding a universally acceptable definition of ‘successful’.[/li]Given the above I think it is unwise to throw these kind of statements around. It raises hackles - it certainly raised mine, and I’m a big fan of the US.[/ul]
Yes, it does — if you’re at war with him. You’re better because you’re smarter and better armed. Even worse than your hypothetical happened in reality when Indians with bows encountered Europeans with guns. You can argue that Indians had a greater “warrior spirit” because of the their warrior ethos (some nations, anyway). But a modern American Marine is a warrior, too, and shares the same warrior ethos. And he will arm himself to the teeth in order to have every advantage.
“Successful” is too vague and needs to be qualified. Successful at what?
Without qualification I would say a country’s success should be measured by providing the best possible well-being, happiness, satisfaction etc. to the greatest possible part of their people and doing this in the most sustainable way possible.
In that sense I think America is far from being the most successful or even greatly successful. It has the highest prison population per capita, with a huge difference, when compared to other countries. A nation that needs to put so may of its citizens in prison cannot be called a success.
Then there is, as has already been mentioned, health care. And there is a lot of poverty in America: too much difference between rich and poor. I would say there are many other nations which are more successful.
To those who say America is #1 militarily I say “so what”? What is the point of that? Is that an end in itself? I find it silly. A country needs to be secure and security is achieved by many means. Diplomacy, making friends and not making enemies unnecessarily are some of them. Maybe the need for such a huge army is a sign of failure rather than success.
You’re missing my point. I’m not at war with him.
I’m trying to find a way to compare how ‘successful’ we both are at being warriors. In which case we have to take notice of context.
To get away from the hypothetical, do we decide that the US has a more ‘successful’ army then the Mongols did because the 5th Armoured Brigade would roll right over their mounted archers. I suppose you could argue this, but it seems silly. Surely you look at each of their achievements in their own historical context.
And, once again, the vaunted US army doesn’t seem to have done too well since about 1945. (I realise I’m being somewhat unfair in this last comment - it’s hyperbole with a point to it).
In their prime, the Vikings, though not a “nation” as such, were bloody (!) successful in their own right. I’d think they count… When I’m not neck deep in work, I’d be glad to pull out the reference materials. Just tossing the idea out there for debate.
Of course, there’s always the Welsh. Beware. We’re everywhere, with diluted genes or pure ones, ready to take over the world. 
Pretty much everyone of European descent in Australia and New Zealand seems to have at least one grandparent from Scotland or Ireland…
We ruled over a quarter of the World’s population. Is your definition of ‘successful’ whether you can ‘win’ a hypothetical war? 
In what sense is the dollar ‘the World’s major currency’? The Euro is used by more people than the US dollar.
‘The Eurozone (officially euro area, or informally Euroland) refers to a currency union among the European Union member states that have adopted the euro as their sole official currency. The Eurosystem, headed by the European Central Bank, is responsible for monetary policy within the Eurozone.
The Eurozone has fifteen members, with a further nine states and territories using it as their sole currency. It circulates widely beyond that, and has started to serve as a reserve currency.
Based on official estimates of 2007 GDP and purchasing power parity among the various currencies, the Eurozone is the largest economy in the world.’
In what way does the US ‘rule the waves’? Does it control the Straits of Hormuz? Does it control the Panama Canal?
Why would the US take on all the World’s navies?
Sheesh. Always with the military possibility. The British Empire ruled over a quarter of the World’s population and a quarter of the land area.
The US military does not control Iraq and certainly has lost control of most of Afghanistan. The Taliban alone are beating the US (e.g. heroin production in Afghanistan has reached record levels during the US occupation).
Well, as I said, you need to define your terms. Yes, the US makes a lot of money. It also has a vast debt, plus a lot of homeless, illiterate poor (who can’t afford medical treatment).
We were happy ruling a quarter of the World. We didn’t need to impose our cultural values on them too. 
Apart from the fact that we ruled a quarter of the World and the US can’t control any other country.
Also the British Commonwealth shows how successful we were in making friends and gaining respect from former colonies:
‘The Commonwealth of Nations is a voluntary association of 53 independent sovereign states, most of which are former British colonies, or dependencies of these colonies. No one government in the Commonwealth, British or otherwise, exercises power over the others, as in a political union. Rather, the relationship is one of an international organisation through which countries with diverse social, political, and economic backgrounds are regarded as equal in status, and co-operate within a framework of common values and goals, as outlined in the Singapore Declaration. These include the promotion of democracy, human rights, good governance, the rule of law, individual liberty, egalitarianism, free trade, multilateralism, and world peace, and are carried out through multilateral projects and meetings, as well as the quadrennial Commonwealth Games. The symbol of this free association is Queen Elizabeth II, known for this purpose as Head of the Commonwealth. This position, however, does not imbue her with any political or executive power over any Commonwealth member states; the position is purely symbolic, and it is the Commonwealth Secretary-General who is the chief executive of the organisation.’
Please compare Queen Elizabeth to the influence and loyalty President Bush has. On anywhere - even this year’s Republican conference?! :smack:
To those mentioning that we are having a hard time controlling Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time, as well as Vietnam:
Remember, we are having these troubles because we care about the outcome of the civilian state and the establishment of a non-hostile, independent state. That’s hard work, and something that was not common until recently. The Romans did not enter a country, occupy it, and establish a local government in peace. They came in, executed the leaders of the conquered land, and said 'you’re all Roman subjects now." If you resisted, they pretty much slaughtered you.
If the US were so inclined, we could wipe out entire nations in a matter of months. But, thankfully, we don’t like to do that. (I’m still upset we invaded Iraq. Despite the horrible regime of Saddam, we didn’t have a valid reason to topple a foreign nation’s government. At least we didn’t try to annex it to the US, though.) If the US didn’t care about the after state, and just went total war on everyone, we’d be able to pretty quickly take down anyone except for maybe China or Russia. I still think we’d win, but it would be much, much, much, much harder, and the conflict would last years.
Still, I don’t think you can say we’re the most successful in history. The British Empire, as mentioned above, would certainly be in the running, and I would have a hard time debating that. Especially given the size and population of the mainland.
Last I checked no one was allowed in Switzerland without a working visa of some sort. They also have tighter control over their boarders than we do. Point is they don’t let people without jobs in the country, which eliminates a major source of poor people.
We have been driven out ,or fought to a standstill by nations with no navy or airforce. How strong is that.?
That seems like a very dubious statement. Can you expand upon your claim that French was the international language up until the rise of the USA? In particular I’d be interested in knowing what yardsticks you’re using to define “the international language” and at what point did english overtake it.
Bloody Romans. What’ve they ever done for us, anyway?
[quote=“Petrobey_Mavromihalis, post:25, topic:462484”]
Thanks for all the replies, it’s been interesting reading. I’m in a different time zone to the most of you, which is why I haven’t replied earlier. I’ve also got suddenly hectic busy.
So just some quick thoughts:
[ul]
[li]I still think the better technology thing is a cheat. If Achilles comes at me with his sword and I shoot him, does it make me the better warrior? I think we need to imagine us with equal resources to make a comparison.[/li][/quote]
Why? What is your definition for the purpose of war? It should be the complete and utter destruction of whom you view as the enemy. Anything less are half-assed attempts. I’m sure Achilles would agree.
If the US wanted to, they could level a country. There should be no debate on that. The rest of the world might retaliate, but vis-a-vis that one nation the US would be superior. I agree that such tactics are impractical, but I’m talking about pure power. Your statements in this thread allude to “successful” as having some sort of power/strength component. Undoubtedly, the US is very high, if not the highest in this category.
[quote]
[li]I agree entirely that one of the major problems with the statement is finding a universally acceptable definition of ‘successful’.[/li][li]Given the above I think it is unwise to throw these kind of statements around. It raises hackles - it certainly raised mine, and I’m a big fan of the US.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
What do you care? “Successful” is going to mean something different to someone else every time it is heard. It’s hard to argue that the US isn’t successful – in some sense. Once you agree to that, then the rest of the debate is a discussion over semantics and various “failures” all of which don’t ultimately detract that the US is indeed successful. At what, again, reasonable people will disagree.
I’m not sure he would, he was never known for his penetrating intellect. Just for his muscle and his hissy fits.
There isn’t. But so could the UK, France, Israel, Pakistan, China, India.
Pure power doesn’t amount to much if you admit that you’d never dare use it. Unless you just wanted to end civilisation making a point.
I’m trying to find out what other people count as ‘successful’. Personally I think basing it on pure power is dubious at best, and even if you do I’m not sure the US would win.
Totally agree with this.
Look, I’d have no issue if the original statement had been “the US is an extremely successful nation”, or even “one of the most successful nations ever”. I’ve already said that I wouldn’t have much of an argument if the statement was “the US is the most powerful nation in the world today”.
But it wasn’t. My issue is with the statement that the US is “the most successful nation in human history”. On any definition of ‘successful’ this remains indefensible arrogance.
But WHY?
You haven’t defined the purpose of war. Destroying your enemy is fine and all, but WHY should you want to destroy your enemy? Why is he your enemy? How did you chose this person to be your enemy and to be destroyed? What does “destruction” even mean? Genocide?
War is the use of violence to force your opponent to accept a certain political objective.
Let’s put it another way. The Taliban in Afghanistan cannot hope to utterly and completely destroy the United States. That isn’t their goal. Their goal is to convince the US military to leave Afghanistan. So are they fighting a half-assed war? The Trojans didn’t intend to utterly destroy the Greeks, they intended to defend their city until Achilles and the rest of the Greeks left. The American colonists didn’t intend to utterly destroy Britain. Even in so-called total wars like World War II, the Allies didn’t have the utter destruction of Germany and Japan as a war aim, but rather, first to stop the Axis from conquering Allied countries, and then to occupy and replace the fascist governments with friendly puppet governments.
Most warfare throughout history has had economic aims…you fight the other guy in the hope of stealing his goods and enslaving his daughters. Or you fight the other guy because he’s trying to steal your goods and enslave your daughters. But if you’ve got the strength the prevent the other guy from stealing your stuff, you’re well on your way to being able to head over to his village and steal his stuff.
And here’s a good start: War - Wikipedia
Roads, sanitation, irrigation, wine, public order, clean water, and education!