wikipedia cites articles. you click on the little number and it takes you to the source. that source isn't necessarily less reliable just because it happens to be on the internet rather than in a book or something. and it's a lot more reliable than 'my friend down the pub'.

wikipedia gets slammed a lot, because of vandalism and facts from spurious sources (or uncited facts) which appear, because anyone can edit it. but anyone with half a brain can discern what to put credence in by looking up the source and making their own judgement on whether it's reliable or not.

Thank you x.

While I recognize and understand the reliability concerns, wikipedia is a good source for straightforward facts that aren't a matter of public debate. So long as there is no controversy surrounding the subject in question there is unlikely to be an unreliability issues.

In this instance, the numbers were all cited as coming from annual filings to the government.

RvW:

First of all, I'm not a US citizen.
Secondly, while I do think America-bashing is quite dumb, none of my posts in this thread were actually "supportive" of the US in any way. The one about France was just general smart-assing around and "halelujah" was meant to be ironic. Because it is my opinion that if there's one thing more primitive than an actual penis comparison, it's a penis comparison without actual junks (hurr durr my country has more nukes than your's we would SO beat you hurr durr). So much for that.

now:

That's pretty hypocrite; when was the last time the US fought a war out of "some noble democratic sentiment"?

Where did I say they have? But okay. World War II. And boy am I glad they won.

Don't forget, Europe / the Western World will only stay obedient so long; sooner or later our politicians are going to figure out there's no incentive to roll over every time the USA wants us to

Oh you so sure about that? Way I see it, the Western World as a whole has 99% shared interests, that's why we refer to it with that term. To make clear that it's mostly common goals on both shores of the atlantic on a geopolitical level, despite some superficial (and rather minor) differences. Those goals include: secure global trade routes, secure access to raw materials, keep up "stability" at the periphery as much as possible (we don't want all those refugees...).
The Netherlands is part of NATO. The Netherlands has an export oriented economy. AFAIK, the Netherlands take part in that counter-piracy mission off the Somali coast. So does Germany. And France. And most other NATO countries, too.
Now, do they do that out of some "noble democratic sentiment"? No, they don't. They do it to secure global trade routes. Why did France, GB & the US "intervene" in Lybia? To 'stabilize' the periphery, most likely. And to secure access to some raw materials (oil^^). All economic reasons, we agree about that.
But there is no "peace-loving Europe", and there is no "big bad jingoistic US imperium". There is no easy black and white. It's all one and the same -> one big pile of grey shit.
War is waged for money. Around the globe. Noone is "the good boy". To say otherwise is either very naive or, yeah, hypocritical.

WWII ... Pearl Harbour had nothing to do with it? No of course being attacked by the axis powers came second to noble sentiment. Silly to think otherwise of course God save America

Why cant we all just get along it is this type of arguing that causes hatred and hatred causes wars
if we didnt need to fight wars the the US would be able to spend its massive military budget on other things like u guys want

The US mostly creates the wars. They aren't the victim. It's not like "because those vile Libyans had to start a revolt, so our intervention was necessary" The Libyan revolt started with not anything like what happened in Tunisia and Egypt, there were less people against Kaddafi. He did great things for his country! Going to a university was free! After 9/11, Libya was the first Arabian country to reject Al Qaida. He disarmed his nuclear weaponry.

Yea, great guy for his people... who cares if he 'liquidated' Libyan dissidents or financed terrorist acts in other countries on foreign citizens...

I thought that in this thread we were supposed to talk about why the french suck at wars. Not about the amrican revolution or why the U.S dont have good reasons to declare war.

The French had good times and bad times in the history of warfare. They produced one of history's greatest military leaders, Napoleon Bonaparte. The French Empire swallowed up most of Europe at one point. They have went into a decline, sure, like in WW2, but just look at WW1. They did an excellent job fending off Germany. I think the French have all in all, been a great military nation.

i agree with you on that. I dont see why people think they suck at wars. If any, even england got owned more often then them.

The employment numbers were taken off wiki and aren't likely to be subjected to research bias as your numbers are.

Ska, I have to agree with Richard on this; these are cold hard facts, there's no room for interpretation (the worst you can do is round incorrectly). Besides, why would anyone mess with these numbers? Which way (increase or decrease) you should "nudge" them depends on the point you're tying to make. An infographic from an article titled "Don't Buy the Spin: How Cutting the Pentagon's Budget Could Boost the Economy" may have a point, it may even be fully correct, but it has no sensible claim to objectivity and therefore needs to cite its sources.

---

Health care ...
wait, what do you need good health for anyways? If you kids get sick, you better pay for their health you ****ing communist!

Are you using "communist" literally, or as a generic insult? Because I would consider a proper healthcare system (where everyone pays (through insurance premiums) and "the system" pays for whoever happens to need it) pretty socialistic. A communist (or rather, a person living in a country with socialist or communist policies) will actually have health care insurance and not need to pay a huge bill...

---

Oh you so sure about that? Way I see it, the Western World as a whole has 99% shared interests, that's why we refer to it with that term. To make clear that it's mostly common goals on both shores of the atlantic on a geopolitical level, despite some superficial (and rather minor) differences.

Our interests largely coincide, of course (which makes extensive collaboration practical). But there are certainly issues where opinions differ. Maybe not as much as with (extreme example) North Korean opinions, but still relatively much.
Some of those differences are internal matters (such as healthcare), but some of those go across borders. For instance, when the interests of big corporations and individual consumers clash (and we assume a perfect balance is infeasible), which side should the law favour? American legislation seems to favour big business (such as the film industry), while European legislation tries to protect consumers first and foremost.
Currently, when the USA tries to get their way (such as in the MegaUpload fiasco), it's pretty common for them to get away with it (MU has been offline for month already; even if they lose the legal battle in the end, effectively it will still be a victory because the site is still destroyed...). But, this seems to be changing already. I believe that if ACTA had been proposed five or ten years earlier, it would've been ratified in Europe, simply because the USA expected us to do so.

The Netherlands is part of NATO. The Netherlands has an export oriented economy. AFAIK, the Netherlands take part in that counter-piracy mission off the Somali coast. So does Germany. And France. And most other NATO countries, too.

I was only calling it hypocrite to mention fighting a war for "some noble democratic sentiment"; not meaning to imply the Netherlands is any different. The way I see it, going to war is (or, at least, should be...) the very last resort to any situation. For that very reason, I think it's incredibly unlikely that there even exists a single example of a country going to war for "some noble democratic sentiment" in all of human history; it's just not something you do if you don't have a very important reason to do it.

that looked interesting RvW but it is way to long to read u should think about making ur posts shorter

So Russia actually has more tanks than the U.S.
But the one and most important factor those uneducated Americans are the supreme rulers of the world is because of ..... let's hear it?

Military technological advancements.

nazi germany had technological advancements once. where is it now?

Haters gonna hate. America bashing is cool, having pride in one's country (despite it's faults, which I think most will acknowledge) isn't.

And Myhand, I live in the biggest "Communist" country in the world, and there isn't anything like free health care, or even free education. I would classify Norway, Sweden, and the other Scandanavian states as Socialist rather than Communist.

Also, am I correct in believing that the citizens of socialist-leaning states, such as the aforementioned Scandanavians, and even good portions of the EU, pay up to 40-50% of the monthly income in taxes? Don't feel like looking up sources, but the majority of European expats I have talked to constantly bemoan the massive taxes they are forced to pay every month.

@RvW and TexasJohn: 看到这一新的无知的表现，那当我的轻蔑上升到了不屑一答的地步

@RvW

Are you using "communist" literally, or as a generic insult? Because I would consider a proper healthcare system (where everyone pays (through insurance premiums) and "the system" pays for whoever happens to need it) pretty socialistic. A communist (or rather, a person living in a country with socialist or communist policies) will actually have health care insurance and not need to pay a huge bill...

Paying through insurance premiums is not socialistic because it leaves the poor to fend for themselves, since the system doesn't pay for the people. In countries like the US, where the medical system is a private sector held in the fist of the insurance companies, the system is not out for the benefit of the population but are out for the almighty dollar.

Another thing in countries with socialized medical systems, (like the one I live in), there is no insurance whatsoever, healthcare is free in the sense it is payed through taxes only.

Watch the film Sicko by filmmaker Michael Moore.

Just wanted to clear up the medical issue presented by RvW.

Myhand, LiLei says "English only please! Let's show how great our education is!"

In short, I dunna read Chinese. My gf says you were expressing your contempt for me. Fair play. Not really bothered. You aren't Taiwanese, by any chance, are you?

I said something like: "Seeing this fresh display of ignorance, my contempt rose too high for an answer"

And no, I am not Chinese.

Aruns clearly been flicking through the QI book of general ignorance.