Yeah, you and Mr. Musk are both entitled to your opinions, but unless you're willing to expound in details about how one would measure exactly the "greatest single force for good the world has ever seen", apply these measures systematically to every major world entity history has seen, and show that the US comes out on top, this is just basically 1am THC fueled dorm school debate.

I really like this french article detailing how public opinion about "which nation contributed the most to victory in WW2" has changed dramatically over time in France.

In May 1945, 57% of the respondents claimed the USSR, 20% the USA, 12% the UK. By 2015, the figures are 23% USSR, 54% USA, 18% UK.

Wonder if American WWII movies have anything to do with it?

http://www.les-crises.fr/la-fabrique-du-cretin-defaite-nazis...

Back then people knew more about what happened. The generation that grew up afterwards was fed pro-American propaganda. I know because I grew up in the 80s and remember the school books. We got told lies about how e.g. the Soviets killed children in Afghanistan with bombs shaped like toys.

Because of the threat of communism most western democracies saw it as important to emphasize American contribution over the USSR.

The soviets did kill children with bombs shaped like toys. Those bombs were called the PFM-1. They may not have done this intentionally, but they absolutely did do it.

> PFM-1 (Russian: ПФМ-1, short for противопехотная фугасная мина - anti-infantry high-explosive mine; NATO name: Green parrot, also known as butterfly mine) is a land mine of Soviet production, very similar to the BLU-43 US Army landmine. Both devices are very similar in shape and principles, although they use different explosives.

> BLU-43/B and BLU-44/B (Bomb Live Unit) "Dragontooth" were air-dropped cluster-type land mines used by the United States during the Vietnam War.

> The use of Dragontooth mines in Vietnam went largely unnoticed, likely as a product of its essentially classified usage primarily in Laos as part of Operation Igloo White. Production of the system had ceased by 1970, and it was predicted that existing stocks would be exhausted by the end of 1971.

> In stark contrast to the lack of public commentary on the Dragontooth system, the subsequent Soviet analogue, the PFM-1, spurred a lot of controversy after being used in Afghanistan during the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, being a key element leading to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines.

Sounds like the "killing children" line, used exclusively against the soviets, would be a bit loaded

Two points in response:

1. The US also doing something does not invalidate my correction.

2. The USSR did this after the US had already done it. The first person who deploys weapons like these can claim ignorance of the issue of children picking them up - at least for a while. The second, much less so.

That being said, both sides hands are clearly dirty in this case.

There as cluster bombs that look slightly like dolls if you use a lot of imagination. But in no way as this deliberate as my 80s textbooks and teachers in Norway claimed. The Soviets had nothing to gain by such a policy.

This was propaganda served by the US that we swallowed up in Norway and retold to our kids. Ironically, the Soviets told the same kind of propaganda to their kids about US involvement in Nicaragua where they used similar types of cluster bombs.

More likely there isn't one single true answer to this question - it's open to different interpretations.

What isn't open to interpretation however is that it was a joint effort to win WWII. Many nations contributed to that victory. I simply think it is arrogant and insulting for Americans to claim they saved everybody in WWII. It implies that America single handedly came in and did the job. Russia and Britain also saved America in that sense.

The implication of this line or reasoning is also that all of Europe and the USSR would have become Nazi Germany. That would have created an enormously powerful empire which together with Japan had been a serious threat to America. It is not like it would have been irrelevant to the US what the outcome would have been.

What other organization qualifies? There are 2billlion more people in the world directly because of the US. Many have longer legacy's but few have for example removed polio from the world. China and England both played major roles in Smallpox's demise, but you quickly find only major nationstates are in the running.

It's hard to think of world issues on this scale, but we are making a lot of progress as a species. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eradication_of_infectious_di...

PS: US had a major role in the Green Revolution which does have downsides, but as saved more lives than all the 20th century was combined. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution the world population was 2.5 billion in 1950.

Well we've had to save Europe twice now from destroying itself and possibly the rest of the world. So we've prevented a heck of a lot more bad than we've created IMO.

By the time the US entered WW1, Europe had already destroyed itself, the major belligerents were exhausted (or had already dropped out), and the war was on the edge of ending anyway.

And, while the US contribution to the outcome in WWII was more significant globally than in WWI, we absolutely did not get involved to save Europe from anything, or anyone from Europe. It wasn't Europeans that attacked Pearl Harbor.

That's a re-write of history.

The Roosevelt administration Congress has approved the Lend-Lease act which meant active involvement in Europe with armaments, active naval combat in the North Atlantic, and ground troops in Iceland. The US had started building a 'two ocean' Navy almost two years before Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor was a final gift to the Roosevelt administration's multi-year program of full mobilization.

This program of support and mobilization absolutely was in response to events in Europe and a desire to see the UK in particular not fall. Note that when the US did enter the war, the Pacific was designated the secondary theater of operations.

> had to save Europe twice now

The impact on WW1 was rather small though. German forces were already at a low, especially because of the British sea blockade. The American entry into the war might have shortened it a bit, but it was not really the deciding factor.

Full disclosure: I'm German.

Of course it is. But if you want to paint him as a Trump-like demagogue using this sentiment of his, I think the burden of proof is on you to establish its absurdity.

The US was the first to embrace and enforce the radical view that people have rights - and showed that it worked, resulting in an incredible explosion of prosperity reaching to all levels in society.

Propagation of these rights to other countries have resulted in their prosperity as well.

If you need statistics, start with longevity, infant mortality, and average height starting in 1800 to the present.

No, the UK embraced that idea before the US did (many of the specific rights and the legal language used to describe them are taken directly from their articulation in British predecessors); the formation of the US was largely a reaction by elites educated in British norms being unhappy that the ideas that were accepted in Britain were applied with less consistency in overseas territories with special legal status.

A practice, one might note, that the US has also continued.

If you would compare the Bill of Rights to the UK system, I'd be interested.

If you leave out the Code of Hammurabi from about 4000 years ago. And the Magna Carta and a few other things.

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth? A written system of laws and punishments, duties and privileges, is not based on principles of inalienable rights of men, equality before the law, etc.

"Research by Victorian historians showed that the original 1215 charter had concerned the medieval relationship between the monarch and the barons, rather than the rights of ordinary people" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

Exactly. The U.S. is a pretty great place for innovation, liberal democratic values, and we haven't even committed genocide since at least the 1890s. We've had universal suffrage for nearly a century (some exclusions may apply, see states for black-out dates). And we promote civil rights around the world in all of the countries except the ones where we're propping up a dictator.

I guess my point is that America is a great thing with some serious problems. Not unlike some codebases I could mention. I don't know that blind nationalism is good for anything other than making you feel good, but patriotism isn't all bad. America is the best kludge ever.

Given all the various authoritarian regimes the US has enabled or installed [1], I must disagree strongly with your assertion. Certainly the arrogance you see in US nationalism is something not easily matched in history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authoritarian_regimes_...

The idea set forth by the parent poster is that America's does a lot of good, more so than any other country---not that the good is outweighs the wrong.

I think it is reasonable. The US international involvement far surpasses any other countries, which gives it a lot more chances to do right (and wrong).

I don't think you can speak of the good without considering the bad. Nobody celebrates Adolph Hitler for the good he did, although he did get Germany out of a serious recession and got rid of a huge unemployment problem quickly. Of course that is an extreme example, but we often use extreme examples to make a point.

The problem with just speaking of good things is that many good things are intrinsically linked to bad things. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was clearly a good thing viewed in isolation. But viewed in context with all the problems it caused it was probably a bad thing. Far more people have suffered due to the invasion of Iraq than people who have benefitted.

Opposing a socialists dictatorship in Afghanistan was in principle a good thing. But when the alternative becomes Taliban and bin Laden then clearly it was a bad thing.

Encouraging a capitalist democracy in Vietnam was also seen in isolation a good thing. In practice in turned into a horrible thing, causing huge amounts of suffering, not just in Vietnam but also triggering genocide in Cambodia.

This is a reoccurring thread with American foreign engagements. So much of what America does is theoretically good, but ends up being horrible in practice.

As long as Americans think they are mainly a force for good and don't acknowledge all the screwup properly, America will keep screwing up things. The best way for America to do good I think is to accept they are not exceptional, don't know all the answers and actually have to listen to others to find the best solutions.

I have no doubt that there is a tremendous will in America do to the good thing. The problem is that the will is not matched with the wisdom and humbleness needed to accomplish it.

No one is not acknowledging the screw ups. The point is that on balance America is a force for good in the world. At least, compared to every other country in the world.