What Does America Really Mean in Modern Governance?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jimmie
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the multifaceted definition of "America," primarily referring to the "United States of America." Participants debate the implications of President Bush's use of the phrase "defend America," suggesting it often aligns with defending the "American lifestyle" rather than constitutional principles. The conversation critiques the justification of military actions, particularly the Iraq War, questioning their constitutional validity and the moral implications of such interventions. The discussion concludes that the idea of America as a noble concept is overshadowed by the actions of its government, particularly in the context of recent wars and political rhetoric.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of U.S. constitutional principles
  • Familiarity with the Truman Doctrine and its implications
  • Knowledge of the historical context of U.S. military interventions
  • Awareness of political rhetoric and its impact on public perception
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of the Truman Doctrine on modern U.S. foreign policy
  • Examine the constitutional debates surrounding the Iraq War
  • Analyze the evolution of political rhetoric in U.S. governance
  • Explore the concept of American exceptionalism in contemporary politics
USEFUL FOR

Political analysts, historians, students of American government, and anyone interested in the intersection of U.S. foreign policy and constitutional law.

jimmie
Messages
163
Reaction score
0
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?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
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".
 
jimmie said:
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.
 
rachmaninoff said:
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
pattylou said:
He has destroyed america from my perspective. It ain't the country it was five years ago.
A Yankee Dime for Pattylou!
 
What's that worth these days? About three cents?
 
pattylou said:
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. :-p
 
pattylou said:
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 :smile:
 
  • #10
In this context it means Iraqi oil.
 
  • #11
Smurf said:
You'll forgive me if I never regarded it in high esteem in the first place. :-p
Yeah. Well. You know.
 
  • #12
jimmie said:
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?
 
  • #13
jimmie said:
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...
 
  • #14
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?
 
  • #15
Anttech said:
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?
 
  • #16
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 :-p
 
  • #17
Anttech said:
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.
 
  • #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 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)?
 
  • #19
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.
 
  • #20
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #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.
 
  • #22
pattylou said:
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.
 
  • #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:
  • #24
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:
  • #25
Echo 6 Sierra said:
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. :blushing:
 
  • #26
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.
 
  • #27
So, is "America" "right"?
 
  • #28
jimmie said:
So, is "America" "right"?
Where have you been living for the past five years?! :wink:
 
  • #29
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"?
 
  • #30
jimmie said:
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. :smile: Seriously, I think I addressed this question above.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
6K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
9K
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
11K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K