@Sommers, Look, sorry for calling you a troll, but much of your arguments have qualities that I usually associate with trolling. Can you tell me that why you mostly ignore the main points in the other peoples' messages and concentrate on attacking on single cherry picked sentences or even parts of sentences and trying to find in the messages a hidden agenda that just isn't there? Only reason I could come up with is that you are intentionally trying to get a rise out of the other discussers. Is it just that we are in so different wave length that you really don't see what my or 2metra's or Calis' real points are? Add to that the fact that you have not really stated either that how you define the greatest and then you debunked each of 2metra's examples of what could also be considered as greatest nations ever. And you even used different criteria for each nation. That is exactly the tactic you accused me of using (which I wasn't since I am not bent on debunking US even if you think I am). For these reasons and others it really seems to me that you are intentionally trying to get a rise out of other discussers. Now I am also a bit hesitant to respond further as I'm not sure if this does any good. But here goes. Individual responses to your previous points: 1. I never said it is too dangerous to talk a topic of national pride. That is actually exactly the opposite I think. Only thing I am opposed to is the basic sentiment of really believing a nation is superior to others. That is what makes nasty business like wars and such possible. Believing that your country is better than others and is right in its cause. Discussing about the statistics that put the countries in different orders depending on the statistics picked is completely different thing. BTW, the actual rule about internet discussions is calledGodwin's law and in short it goes that when online discussion grows longer, probability of a comparison involving Nazi's and Hitler approaches 1. A point we yet to have reach even in this discussion. 2. See my previous answer. 3. Look, I do not imply that scientific approach is "the best". Science and law are completely different things and you have to use different rethoric in them. I am trying to tell that because of my background, I tend to think about things in certain ways, e.g. discussing about ill-defined parameters seems pointless to me. One lecturer I had actually used frequently a saying "Dung integrated is dung", which means that if you have crappy data to begin with, your results end up being crap no matter what sort of refinement you try to do for it. This is why I think that the whole concept of greatness is flawed and therefore only reason to use it is to boost national pride. Oh, and I am not aiming to get last word. I just said that you don't win arguments by getting other people to give up because they are frustrated with you, didn't I? I just would like you to understand that when someone does not immediately agree that the US is the greatest nation ever, it could be also because they think that "the greatest" is meaningless parameter as there are so many ways to define it. In conclusion, maybe in my last posts I have been nastier than necessary. Sorry about that. But I'd like to think that I am the best expert of what goes on inside my head and what my convictions are. So I may get a bit worked up when someone else claims to know that better. But don't worry, I don't feel insulted. I'm just annoyed. You'd have to attack way lower than you have to really insult me.