Yap had the biggest coinage in the world. Big round boulder with holes in them. Haven't thought about Yap for a long, long time.
may vote goes to "newfoundland" ! here are some of my reasons : 1 ) for producing newfie SCREECH 2) for having some of the most hospitable people in the world - remember the airplanes that were diverted to the rock at 9/11 3) for having wanted to join the united states 4) for having joined canada 5) for STILL wanting to join the united states - well, at least some newfoundlanders still want to 6) for having a dish made of codfish tongues - the codfish don't get a vote here 7) for having survived on the rock for centuries 8) for having the provincial capital with more fog than any other one 9)for having some of the most beautiful postage-stamps (and in limited quantities; not very many wre issued in the first place and now they cannot be issued at all any more) ... hbg
I think we can´t name THE country, but we can included in our list the following:
Rome (Italy nowadays)
England
The Mesepotamia
China
By the way this is my first post in this forum
. I don´t know much english but will try to answear some posts and if possible try to create a new topic.
Back to the future,
Welcome, Bienvenida, Bienvenue, Benvenuto, Wilkommen etc. to a2k.
Please have a look around and enjoy!
KP
Thanks, in spanish is BIENVENIDO.
China because of its age.
Rome because of its once huge spread.
England for the same reason.
Germany, starting 2 world wars, which provided the impetus for creating so much new technology.
Japan, being credited with waking the "sleeping giant" that was pre-war USA.
Russia which provided the motivation for so much the US's technological research.
The US now.
And taking the long view of the Asian mind, China likely to rise once again.
The comment that no one country has had a universal impact is misleading at best. Charles Murray's study-"Human Accomplishment"clearly points out that Europe has produced more significant figures in the last three thousand years than any other area.
Important in what way? (I quite agree with Setanta that a serious answer to this question is not really possible.) For me, Latvia is the most important counrty. Why? Because I was born there.
Eden, the wellspring from which came the homo-sapien.
America because it is the world's undoing.
America is the best hope the world has for peace, prosperity, and the triumph of human dignity.
If you are a U.S. citizen you can contribute to the effort, you can stand mute, or you can work against your country. Of course, no one can ever KNOW with any degree of certainty what the eventual outcome of ANY policy will be. In this country at least, you are exercising your rights as a citizen to argue for, or against, any policy. The fulcrum point is probably what eventual outcome you most desire. Do you want the United States to be successful in fulfilling it's promise to it's citizens and the world, or do you want to see the United States fail and fall into the dustbin of history? What nation, or political system would you rather see prevail? Do you want a world dominated by fascists, communists, or a radical theocracy?
I favor the liberal representational government, under law and the Constitution of the United States.
Ash, many of us see the current US government as either fascist, or fascist in the making.
Wilso, I think you are referring to the current administration, not to the US governmental structure per se. And administrations come and go. As Asherman says, it is up to each citizen to help insure that we get the government we desrve. (If we desrve what we've got right now, we've been very bad children indeed.)
My post does say current.
But I think you're right about the government we deserve. Not just in the USA but all democratic countries. I'm never able to understand the fact that we often vote into office people who we would not allow into our own homes.
Modern political structures tend to be either "totalitarian", or "democratic". Totalitarian States can be divided into Fascist, Communist, or Theocratic.
Fascism is a totalitarian political structure with the following characteristics. Fascist structures are highly centralized, single party systems that are repressive at home and expansionist in foreign policy. A single, all-powerful leader holds office by brute force, and by ruthless political coercion. The means of production are owned either directly by the State, or are so completely controlled by State, that private ownership is almost illusory. Fascist "justice" is based on a system of political police whose behavior is extra-legal. The primary purpose of the courts is to maintain State control over the lives of citizens. In theory, fascist governments own or direct everything within their grasp. Fascism glorifies the State and promises a rising standard of living for those who submit to the power of the State and it's servants. Individuals are merely instruments of State policy, and are valued by their loyalty to the Party.
Communism, at least the sort that became a threat to the 20th century world, has many similarities to fascism. Both political philosophies are totalitarian, and intolerant of dissent. Both insist that the State and it's ruling elite knows better what should be done than any individual or smaller group. Neither permits the individual any say in policy formation or implementation. Both are highly repressive at home and demand a high degree of obedience from individuals who are highly regulated. Both are expansionistic and use subversion and/or direct military intervention to export their Idealistic philosophies. The Communist "justice" system is so similar to fascist ideas of "justice" that virtually no difference can be readily seen. In the Communist State the means all means of production belong to the State, but at least in theory the rulers are the People on whose behalf the Communist Party exists. In theory, everything belongs equally to all the people and the individual counts only insofar as they contribute to the welfare of the State.
Theocracies are where a religious group dominates the State. All State policies are, at least theoretically, derived from the dogma and doctrines of the dominant religion. In the modern world radical Islamic States tend to be the most common of these structures. However, both India and Israel have strong religious movements that recently exhibited political power within States that are more generally socialist, or democratically liberal.
Though some aspects of each of these totalitarian systems can be detected in the policies of individuals or parties of liberal democratic systems, they are not the dominant themes. In the developed nations more liberal structures accommodate and encourage the interests of numerous interest groups and political parties. Individual rights are at least equal to the rights of the State, and many individual rights are inviolable. The State is not permitted to dictate thoughts or believes, but is expected to persuade a large percentage of the populace to accept its policies. Laws are not arbitrary, and they are made either by representatives of the people, or by plebiscite. These forms tend to be liberal at home, and reluctant to engage in foreign expansion. By elevating the individual, these sorts of systems tend to weaken and limit the strength of the State.
The predominant form of democracy is the representational republic. This is, of course, the system that has existed within the United States for over two hundred years, and before that in Great Britain. I'd say it's worked pretty well, and proven successful in building the most amazing government the world has ever known. Parliamentary government has worked well, and for a time made Britain the leading nation of the world. The U.S. has adopted many British institutions and laws, but has been unfettered with aristocracy.
The U.S. Constitution is a balanced mechanism that pits interest groups against one another so that no single part of the whole can ever dominate for very long. This system has fundamental guarantees built in that limit the power of government over its citizens, and has strong mechanisms to prevent any individual, or group, from seizing total power. Decisions and policies were invested in the Executive Branch from the very beginning with good reason. The Executive commands the military, and must deal with international relations and the domestic economy daily. Decisions and policies are made and implemented as the problems arise. To counter the Executive from using their immense power, the Congress controls the purse strings, and must concur with treaties and national policies if they are to be successful. The Senate was originally intended to represent the interests of the powerful property owning classes, while the larger and more fluid House of Representatives was intended to represent the individual, and the masses as a whole. Unfortunately, time and the strength of populism has greatly eroded that system. In our system the Justice system is still, and I expect always will be founded on the notions that every citizen is equal before the Bar, and is innocent until proven guilty before a jury of their peers in open court.
A large number of people today truly believe that the President and the Republican Party are somehow plotting the downfall of the Republic. I don't see that. There are no secret or political police here, and there almost certainly never will be. The Bill of Rights is intact and probably more vigorously defended than at almost any time in our history. The courts are open and the principles of the Common Law remain strong. Our system of Appellate Courts and Stare Decisis based on the Common Law and the Constitution are guarantors that no single individual or group will seize total and perpetual power. There is at least a reasonable chance that the Democratic Party will win the upcoming election, and no one is doing anything illegal or unconstitutional to prevent a fair and open election. The current administration has adopted certain policies that are unpopular, but they are not in conflict with either Constitution or the intent of that document. Because we have been under attack for over a decade, we are being asked as citizens to accept some government policies that in times of peace we would never consider. However and so far, there seems to be no significant erosion of individual rights, and those policies do seem to have prevented at least some terrorist attacks upon our people and our interests. No single party, political philosophy is ever likely to go unchallenged by some segment of the People. This is a wonderful balance that has resulted in making the United States the envy of the world.
What is "fascist" in the policies of the current U.S. and U.K. administrations? Has either country made political opposition or dissent illegal? Are free and open elections available, and is the franchise narrow or broad? Are the courts and justice systems radically different than they were fifty years ago, or even a decade ago? Are the U.S. and Britain's interests in Iraq colonial and of relatively short duration, or are we there to exploit the land and its people for our own benefit far into the future? Why is it that so many want to believe the worst about their own government, the government that they elected themselves? The facts are that this administration has taken every possible step to avoid un-necessary costs in lives and property. The administration has acted to counter threats that they reasonably believed to exist. Many of these policies may not be popular, but I believe that any responsible administration, Democratic or Republican, would have acted in similar ways.
Some have suggested that given advancing communications technology we might change our system to something closer to a pure democracy. The government should be driven entirely by the popular will expressed by some sort of plebiscite. Pure democracy gives every citizen the right and duty to vote on virtually every policy undertaken by the government. Every citizen is politically equal. We have steadily expanded the voting franchise in recent times. Now some seem to want substitute popular opinion for submission to the policies and laws set by those we've elected to represent us. That sort of system has never worked very well for a number of reasons. Self-interest tends to fragment opinion among many possible government policies. Timeliness is lost as the number of people involved in developing policies is increased. In the modern world, where change is so swift and the risks are so great, we can ill afford the time required to build strong national condenses. The frequency and risks faced by modern governments requires the specialized knowledge and experience of full-time government administrators. Even if national plebiscites on only the most obvious issues were adopted, this form of decision and policy making would fall short. Few will take the time to become familiar with the issue(s), the alternatives and costs before forming their opinion. Many will have no interest, or will fail to see the importance of the issue before them. In effect, pure democracy is rule by the mob. Emotional responses tend to rule, and they change constantly. With this sort of approach no policy or constancy is ever likely, and the national government would cease to have any credibility at home or abroad. We simply cannot have chaos both in domestic and international affairs. In the 21st century, this approach would lead almost inevitably to ruin.
The alternative is accepting the notion that any administration is likely to have significant opposition within the electorate. Resorting to name-calling and exaggeration can only further widen the gap between opposing political factions.
In answer to the original question...
England.
Egypt- for their advanced technology and ideas concerning the deceased
Italy- they gave us Michelangelo and Da Vinci, among other great masters
asherman wrote febr. 20 : "Because we have been under attack for over a decade, we are being asked as citizens to accept some government policies that in times of peace we would never consider. " ... am i to infer from this that the united states are at war ? i am a little puzzled by your statement, asherman. i can assure you that, when we travel in the u.s., we certainly do not feel like being in a country "under attack for over a decade ". i think it is fair to say that the world has never been completely at peace, but looking back over - let's say - the last 150 years, it seems to me, that the world - including the u.s. - is at least reasonably at peace. perhaps the day will come when the sheep will lie wih the lions (or will at least come a little closer, without worrying about being eaten for breakfast), but in the meantime ... this isn't such a bad place to live in. PEACE, MAN ! hbg
