It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

America: Leader of the Free World?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Let's talk about this "Leader of the Free World" slogan. How can we get away with billing ourselves as the leader of the "free world"?

What is the "free world" comprised of? Non-communist countries. From Wikipedia,



The Free World is a Cold War-era term used by non-communist nations to describe themselves. The term was used to contrast the supposed greater freedom enjoyed by citizens of non-communist countries that called themselves democratic, such as the United States and Western Europe, with the Soviet Union and its East European allies. The usage of this term, however, generally does not take into account the many other non-communist states allied with the "Free World" during the Cold War, most notably in South America, Asia and Africa, many of which have been criticised as repressive and dictatorial.

Because of America's prominent role in the Cold War, the president of the United States was often dubbed the "leader of the Free World", particularly in the United States itself.

Although the term had its vogue during the Cold War, it had been used before, at least occasionally, to refer to the nations fighting Germany in the Second World War. Such use may have included the Soviet Union by implication.


So the term "Free World" describes the entire world minus socialist states. America touts itself as being the LEADER OF THE WORLD (minus communist states). How is this so? Are we really? Do other countries think so? If not, which countries do other people perceive as being the "Leader of the Free World"?

What is it about our economy, military, standard of living, technology level, infrastructure, education level, and medical healing ability that puts us ahead of the pack -- because taken individually, we are bested in almost every aforementioned area by at least one other country.

So being "adequate" in several areas makes us superior in every area? In my mind, this "adequacy" is effectively "mediocrity" -- and we aren't striving very hard these days to improve the country in these areas.

So, how about that term "Leader of the Free World," eh?

- Zipdot



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot
So, how about that term "Leader of the Free World," eh?

- Zipdot


Every time I hear that phrase, I cringe.

The self-important ethnocentricity of it.

It's hubris at its worst.

Leaders of 300 million people who think they rule 6 billion. It's the press who refer to a US president as such or to the country as a whole. I never hear anybody but sycophants do it.

YeahI hate it.



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 08:55 PM
link   
I certainly, and all of my friends and family members agree, do not think of the American president as my leader, or leader of the free world, as i know it to be false.

There is no one leader, that what makes it free, everyone has their strengths and weaknesses and working together is what helped us beat the scourge of dictatorship and oppression.



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Isn't "leader of the free world" a term applied either satirically or seriously (with accompanying aggrandizement) to the POTUS, rather than to the United States?


* already addressed, somewhat, above, while the leader of this zone of ATS cyberspace wasn't looking *

[edit on 20-10-2004 by MaskedAvatar]



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 10:08 PM
link   


Leaders of 300 million people who think they rule 6 billion.


There aren't 6 billion free people in the world. Now let's not get into a philisophical debate on what freedom is because I think we all have the same general idea on what it is. Anyways is the UK the leader? There has to be a leader and there is one regardless of what you think. The free countries needed a leader during World War 2 and America stood up. The free peoples needed a leader to combat Communism and America stood up. The world now needs a leader to defeat terrorism. Who will stand up for that? America already has. Even Kerry will be forced to be the leader if he wins the elections because the war on teror has started and will not end until one side is gone. I think Kerry wants the terrorists gone just as much as Bush.



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by verfed I think Kerry wants the terrorists gone just as much as Bush.


I think this only partially true......But if cornered his cabinet and NSC would pursue war also.



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Of course publicly Kerry cannot express his desire for the deaths of all of the terrorists as that would lose him the Muslim vote and the hippy vote. Maybe he really is a lefty who would rather shake hands with a terrorist then shoot one.


*fllooded with memories of Clinton giving Yassar the red carpet treatment*



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 10:59 PM
link   


The free countries needed a leader during World War 2 and America stood up.


Yes, indeed, whatever you say. America won the war all by itself. America, america america....I see that we have a new brick wall on ATS to which to bang our heads against.



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 11:03 PM
link   
The fact that the ATS members who are most ignorant about "America's" place in the world are American does not lead to the conclusion that "Americans" are ignorant, nor even that "American" members of ATS are ignorant.

But it is true that xenophobia and rampant nationalism are the symptoms of the worst forms of ignorance amongst some people who post at this site.



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Dont get me wrong, I am not anti-american, there are indeed many Americans on here with valuable and worthwhile opinions....

it just seems that there are alot of right wing, national zealots here on ATS, who continue to post utter garbage without thought for wether it has any semblance of truth.



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by verfed
Of course publicly Kerry cannot express his desire for the deaths of all of the terrorists as that would lose him the Muslim vote and the hippy vote.


Not to be off topic, but is that a Puerto Rican flag on that soldier behind the carriage in your sig?



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason



The free countries needed a leader during World War 2 and America stood up.


Yes, indeed, whatever you say. America won the war all by itself. America, america america....I see that we have a new brick wall on ATS to which to bang our heads against.


Hah, yeah. I suppose it's commonly accepted now that the attack on Pearl Harbour was pretty much baited by the USA to gain support for jumping into the war. It's kind of sad that that's what it took, but once we stepped in we were Nazi-hatin' Jap-bashers. It was easy for us to be, though -- we weren't having the crap bombed out of us nightly like you Brits.

The Allies in WW2 were a partnership and every country that fought on the right side deserved to be proud of themselves. I sure wouldn't say that the Allies were calling out for a leader and the USA stepped up to the plate, though. I'd say we stuck to our isolationist policy until we simply couldn't hold out anymore and still be considered decent people (or without becoming accessories...)

I say, We, but really I'm Canadian, whatever.

Zip



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by verfed
Of course publicly Kerry cannot express his desire for the deaths of all of the terrorists as that would lose him the Muslim vote and the hippy vote. Maybe he really is a lefty who would rather shake hands with a terrorist then shoot one.
*fllooded with memories of Clinton giving Yassar the red carpet treatment*

Dude, this is pure garbage. Irrelevant to the thread and at best, tripe. Do you really want a good history lesson in US Foriegn Policy towards the Middle East, you sound like you could use one. Would you like a picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussien as he signed a deal that sold Saddam crop spraying helicopters for the dispersal of chemical agents against Iranians? Or would you like a good brief on the Iran Contra Scandal? Believe me, if you are so hell bent on conservative 'values', I wouldn't go dragging that kind of garbage around in a 'debate' forum, somebody might teach you a little something.
In relevance to the thread, I can't think of a better way to spend our tax dollars than policing the rest of the world and spreading 'democracy'. Hell I like paying four dollars for a gallon of milk, or two for a gallon of gas. What i really like is hearing that 12 billion dollars of our money allocated to get the Iraqi people's power back on line or to get those folks some clean water got swallowed up by defense contractors for security measures. WOOT! Let's dump some more tax money into policing the world, god knows that filthy five thousand year old culture is just abohrent, they don't even have a mcdonalds in baghdad.

Leader of the free world? No, we aren't. If we want to set an example to the rest of the world, that is fine, but you don't do that by militaristic invasions and withdrawing from the world courts and organizations. Accountability, transparency, integrity, you know the things a 'leader of the free world' should be preaching.. and practicing. We have done nothing to lead the free world, we have only isolated ourselves and bred contempt.

[edit on 20-10-2004 by twitchy]




top topics



 
0

log in

join