Do you know what America is?

[jimmie]

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?

 

[rachmaninoff]

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".

 

[cronxeh]

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

 

[pattylou]

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

Is there a common definition as to exactly what "America" is?

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.

 

[hitssquad]

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".

Actually, the name Spain itself is short for the Kingdom of Spain.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sp.html#Govt

 

[Echo 6 Sierra]

He has destroyed america from my perspective. It ain't the country it was five years ago.

A Yankee Dime for Pattylou!

 

[pattylou]

What's that worth these days? About three cents?

 

[Smurf]

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.

You'll forgive me if I never regarded it in high esteem in the first place. :tongue2:

 

[Tarheel]

His actions seem more in line with defending the "american lifestyle."

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:

 

[TRCSF]

In this context it means Iraqi oil.

 

[pattylou]

You'll forgive me if I never regarded it in high esteem in the first place. :tongue2:

Yeah. Well. You know.

 

[Informal Logic]

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

Is there a common definition as to exactly what "America" is?

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?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

Is there a common definition as to exactly what "America" is?

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...

 

[Anttech]

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...

So how could anyone justifiably say that a soldier who has died in the Iraq war was defending the Constitution?

 

[TRCSF]

So how could anyone justifiably say that a soldier who has died in the Iraq war was defending the Constitution?

Who's saying it's justifiable?

 

[Anttech]

Who's saying it's justifiable?

I'll take that as 'nobody could'. If that is the case, then isn't the Iraq war unconstitution, and thus Bush has comitted treason against the constitution :tongue2:

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So how could anyone justifiably say that a soldier who has died in the Iraq war was defending the Constitution?

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.

 

[Anttech]

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 can't 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)?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Has any antiwar campaigners used this slat againt Bush (that the war in unconstitution)?

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.

 

[Andre]

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.

 

[Echo 6 Sierra]

What's that worth these days? About three cents?

Depends on who's giving it. For those of you that don't know, a Yankee Dime is a quick smooch on the cheek.

 

[Echo 6 Sierra]

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[pattylou]

Depends on who's giving it. For those of you that don't know, a Yankee Dime is a quick smooch on the cheek.

Oh honey. I had no idea.

 

[jimmie]

it is a twisting of terms to gain support.

I can understand that, but do not agree with that.

Twisting terms, spin-doctors, gray areas.

I believe in morals. Right is right. Period. Either an action is right or it is not right. No middle ground. On or off.

An individual can talk about 'justifiable' actions, but a justifiable action is not a right action.

I think that particular individuals either elected or appointed to an office have either become dizzy/confused (twisting terms, spin-doctors, inside the gray area) as to what the word "right" means, or they do not care about what the word "right" means and what it represents.

And even though he did lie and obfuscate, it seems that too many Americans now find this sort of behavior acceptable

BUSH April 10, 2001

"This administration is doing everything we can to end the stalemate in an efficient way. We're making the right decisions to bring the solution to an end."

If we as human beings lose sight of what the word "right" represents, and find that sort of behavior acceptable, then anything goes. And I mean anything. Everything can be justifiable. Suicide bombers--go for it. Terrorism--do your worst. Nation A invades nation B-- did it before, can do it again. Errors in 'intelligence' gathering--relax, we're working on it. Economic sanctions--they don't deserve food.

All shall be lost because one side believes they are right, and the other side believes that they are right. Neither side is right because there is no side, and believing that one is on a 'side' precludes the possibility of that one attaining right perception and being "right".

If human beings that currently govern the planet cannot agree what the word "right" represents (order, peace, truth, not duality) then any action by any human at any point is 'OK', and 'good-to-go', and 'alright'.

And nothing shall be right.

 

[jimmie]

So, is "America" "right"?

 

[Archon]

So, is "America" "right"?

Where have you been living for the past five years?!

 

[jimmie]

uhh... Canada.

And after reading your response, Archon, (the smilie gave it away), it occurred to me that my previous question could be construed as: Is America "right-wing"?

So, one more question: Is right-wing America "right"?

 

[Archon]

uhh... Canada.

And after reading your response, Archon, (the smilie gave it away), it occurred to me that my previous question could be construed as: Is America "right-wing"?

So, one more question: Is right-wing America "right"?

I interpreted it as meaning "are America's actions correct." Given the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the domestic and foreign policy bungles, etc, I think the answer is clearly "no." But of course, this depends on your definition of America. You could argue that the idea behind America is "right" (in the sense of noble and good), but current administration is another story entirely.

Your new question: it depends on what your definitions of "right" and "is" are. Seriously, I think I addressed this question above.

 

[jimmie]

I interpreted it as meaning "are America's actions correct."

And after reading your response, Archon, (the smilie gave it away), it occurred to me that my previous question could be construed as: Is America "right-wing"?

Uhh..OK... I blew that speculation out of the water.

But your last post brought up a very important point.

You could argue that the idea behind America is "right" (in the sense of noble and good), but current administration is another story entirely.

I believe that "right" is non-changing and absolute. In the sense of noble and good and that the IDEA behind America is "right", the fact that a system (democracy) allows a variable (administration) to 'twist' the constant word "right" to suit its own agenda and what its IDEA of "right" is, is not "right".

Right?

 

[Echo 6 Sierra]

I believe that "right" is non-changing and absolute. In the sense of noble and good and that the IDEA behind America is "right", the fact that a system (democracy) allows a variable (administration) to 'twist' the constant word "right" to suit its own agenda and what its IDEA of "right" is, is not "right".Right?

Exactly. It depends on who is using the word and what position of government they occupy. Can anyone pinpoint when the US Presidency became Grift Central for me? Or, which Administration started the overtly crooked dealings and twisting of the word of the law to suit their agenda?

 

[jimmie]

Can anyone pinpoint when the US Presidency became Grift Central for me?

yeah, the year 1776. At that point, they made the particular (which they thought was the whole) the precedent. Of course, at that point, the founders believed they were creating a whole by uniting the particular states, "one nation under God". And at that point in their minds, they did create a whole. A whole in a particular geographic location.

The year 2005. The U.S. is but one state among 192 other particular states.

Should the very words and intent that the U.S. was founded upon be used again to unite all the particular geographic states on the planet to form one united whole?

 

[loseyourname]

I believe that "right" is non-changing and absolute. In the sense of noble and good and that the IDEA behind America is "right", the fact that a system (democracy) allows a variable (administration) to 'twist' the constant word "right" to suit its own agenda and what its IDEA of "right" is, is not "right".

Right?

If that is what you mean by "right," then no government can ever be right. If you invest power in a leadership structure, you always run the risk of people coming to power who will do things that not everyone agrees are morally appropriate. On the other hand, if you have no leadership structure and invest all power directly in the hands of the populace, you run the same risk, only that this time the people themselves will do things that are not right. The best you can do is to have a rule of law that states clearly and unequivocably what is right and that sets up a balance of power to ensure that what is right is what will be done. That is what any constitutional republic tries to do, and none have ever done so perfectly. Even the perfect government does not ensure the perfect country or perfect actions. That requires a confluence of perfect culture and circumstances as well. Good luck finding those.

 

[loseyourname]

Exactly. It depends on who is using the word and what position of government they occupy. Can anyone pinpoint when the US Presidency became Grift Central for me? Or, which Administration started the overtly crooked dealings and twisting of the word of the law to suit their agenda?

I don't know about 1776. Plenty of constitutional compromises were made to balance particular agendas, and there were problems with vice presidents who were adversaries of the presidents they worked under early on. The first administration I can think of that may have had ulterior motives in a policy decision was the Monroe administration. The Monroe was explicitly designed to keep European colonialism out of the Americas for good, but on the other hand, it created a near de facto colonialism of the US on its American neighbors. The earliest overtly crooked administration I can think is the Jackson administration.