Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Do you know what America is?

  1. Oct 3, 2005 #1
    do you know what "America" is?

    President Bush uses the phrase "defend America", often.

    Is there a common definition as to exactly what "America" is?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 3, 2005 #2
    Yes, in context it's an informal name for the country called the "United States of America", which is a much longer country name than say, "Spain". The official 'short form' of the country is "United States". Most people call it "America". Occasionaly it also refers to the entire region of the North and South Americas, as in "Interamerican trade".
     
  4. Oct 3, 2005 #3

    cronxeh

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I'm pretty sure that includes North, Central, and South America for economic as well as historic reasons (Monroe doctrine, Cuban missile crisis, etc)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Americas
     
  5. Oct 3, 2005 #4
    His actions seem more in line with defending the "american lifestyle." This is just about as hard to define, or perhaps harder. His actions have eroded what "america" means to me. He has destroyed america from my perspective. It ain't the country it was five years ago.
     
  6. Oct 3, 2005 #5
    Actually, the name Spain itself is short for the Kingdom of Spain.

    http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sp.html#Govt
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
  7. Oct 3, 2005 #6
    A Yankee Dime for Pattylou!
     
  8. Oct 3, 2005 #7
    What's that worth these days? About three cents?
     
  9. Oct 3, 2005 #8
    You'll forgive me if I never regarded it in high esteem in the first place. :tongue2:
     
  10. Oct 3, 2005 #9
    Just think how happy the Iraqi's will be once they are able to launch their own versions of The Jerry Springer Show and Desperate Housewives.
    Oh the Freedom :rofl:
     
  11. Oct 3, 2005 #10
    In this context it means Iraqi oil.
     
  12. Oct 3, 2005 #11
    Yeah. Well. You know.
     
  13. Oct 3, 2005 #12
    pattylou's perspective that the reference is to the American way of life is one aspect, and probably more applicable to terrorism. But in other instances, such as the invasion of Iraq, it is a twisting of terms to gain support. For example, changing the 'Department of War' to the 'Department of Defense' -- it sounds a lot better, right?
     
  14. Oct 3, 2005 #13

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The US is literally defined by the U.S. Constitution. This is what soldiers, Supreme Court Justices, and Presidents are sworn to defend. When a US soldier dies while fighting a war, in principle he or she dies for the Constitution. At least, that's how it's supposed to work...
     
  15. Oct 3, 2005 #14
    So how could anyone justifiably say that a soldier who has died in the Iraq war was defending the Constitution?
     
  16. Oct 3, 2005 #15
    Who's saying it's justifiable?
     
  17. Oct 3, 2005 #16
    I'll take that as 'nobody could'. If that is the case, then isnt the Iraq war unconstitution, and thus Bush has comitted treason against the constitution :tongue2:
     
  18. Oct 3, 2005 #17

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Well, that's why Bush tries to make this a war on terror. But beyond that we do have the Truman doctrine which declared that we are the policemen of the world. We use this rationale to justify intervention when American interests are not directly at stake. That is, we view freedom as a right of all people be they Americans or not.
     
  19. Oct 3, 2005 #18
    The Truman doctrine states that the United States would support "free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures."

    I cant see how this can be used as a rational to start a war in Iraq, unless "armed minorities" can also mean goverments...

    Has any antiwar campaigners used this slat againt Bush (that the war in unconstitution)?
     
  20. Oct 3, 2005 #19

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The war in Iraq was justified by the alleged threat of WMDs. When we didn't find any, the focus shifted to "freeing the Iraqi oil...I mean, people".

    But for the record, I believe the war is unconstitutional, and I think Congress and the American people have failed to do their jobs.
     
  21. Oct 3, 2005 #20

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yes, based on the idea that the Bush administration hid information from Congress. And even though he did lie and obfuscate, it seems that too many Americans now find this sort of behavior acceptable; that is, as long as people are dying and not just getting easy sex.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2005
  22. Oct 3, 2005 #21
    Although in hindsight it appears that Ivan is 100% correct, yet it might be a lot more complicated. There is that individual human uncertainty factor and the perception of threat which causes a slippery slope upwards. In the tension of the game, the intell guys interpret anything as a worst case. Worst cases are compiled together and bingo Iraq is loaded with WMD.

    I'm convinced that GWB, whatever you may think of him - and I'm no fan of his, believe me, had no other information than that and he feeled that he had no other option but to handle the way he did. It's not a conspiracy, just a complicated maze of human interaction, filling in the blanks with fear.
     
  23. Oct 3, 2005 #22
    Depends on who's giving it. For those of you that don't know, a Yankee Dime is a quick smooch on the cheek.
     
  24. Oct 3, 2005 #23
    I like Ivan's definition of the Constitution being what America "is". I'm pretty sure the Framers had no idea that the more recent and most current events would have been made possible by a complete graying of the whole paper.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2005
  25. Oct 3, 2005 #24

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Andre, I would agree were it not for the information known to have been withheld from congress. It may not have been Bush, but people around him knew that the case for WMDs, and in particular the aluminum tubes, was weaker than they claimed. Even Powell has talked about this directly.

    But the most important point is even after we knew all of this, he got re-elected: That was a crime.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2005
  26. Oct 3, 2005 #25
    Oh honey. I had no idea. :blushing:
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook