If you wanted to say that there is a greatest country, you should point out the measures, right, you did so. But I say one cannot compare nations in regard to finding acountry with the highest score. I do think that one can compare countries into classes (like great, valuable and non-valuable countries), e.g. say that Tunisia or Albania are no great countries, because they have and never had much to contribute to the advance of humanity. But since one has to put in different factors in the measures, like size, number of inhabitants, raw materials, inventions, circumstances of inventions, etc saying that one country is greater than other great countries is pure arrogance and does more harm (-> the individual feeling superior even though he isn´t) than use. I cannot create a fair list which shows the "greatest nation", can you? There is no "greatest nation" because it´s impossible to do such a list. You may have categories, but that´s all. Continuing to say that American men are the best men is therefore arrogance, and nothing else.
"I cannot create a fair list which shows the "greatest nation", can you? There is no "greatest nation" because it´s impossible to do such a list. You may have categories, but that´s all. Continuing to say that American men are the best men is therefore arrogance, and nothing else."
***
I still stand by what I said. Exporting political and economic freedom and a respect for human rights is the one and only measure of what makes a country great. It's true that countries with larger populations are generally going to have a larger effects -- but by my criteria every country has the potential to be great, even Luxembourg or any other tiny country you can think of.
Not being a woman, I have no comment on which "men" are better.