Replies

"Two things, the UK is in reality an invented nonstarter of internal nations, so we live with other nations being our own and yet totally different." Okayyy. . . But then you say: "America is so large and so diverse you have to have a focal point that all the different peoples can feel part of. In the UK it is more internal. " I see you arguing that the UK is "diverse" and yet one. . .and you argue the US is also.

I NEVER said the UK is diverse, you have quoted me incorrectly. I said America is diverse, but that the UK is a nation-state made up of different nations.

"Join now. . .THEIR country needs you" (A MoD recruiting slogan from the late '90's, and hardly appealign to the patriotism of the soldier). I'd say this indicates no sense of true patriotism. That slogan was asking recruits to serve--and possibly die--for another country. . .not the UK. That is not patriotism. American's serve to defend, to protect American interests. . and absent American national security concerns, such service would be no different than mucking about while wearing a blue helmet. American's serve their nation and if there is any question that the loss of blood or life is not in support of the national security of the United States, then the American people have no tolerance for such nonsense. See http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj01/spr01/vorspr01.html This article explains the concept easily.

So no American soldiers have died to defend another country? At least you are being truthful that Iraq, Afghanistan, WW2 etc were not for the benefit of liberating the opressed but in America's national self-interest. At least you are not falling for the myth, of which I salute you.

"Never surrender?" I hope that is true but the islamification of your country is frightening and unchecked. Best get a patriotic grip on that and abandon that multicultural creed. Multiculturalism is anti-patriot.

There is the same proportion of muslims in Britain as there is in America. Around 2.5%. Plus America is the most multi-cultural place on the planet. No-where else in the world is there so many peoples, religions, open sexualities etc.

When did you get let out of the penalty box?

The moderator knows I am not anti-american! :)

>>So no American soldiers have died to defend another country?<<

Never said that. Said we fight best and enjoy the support of the people when we fight in support of US national security interests.

>>At least you are being truthful that Iraq, Afghanistan, WW2 etc were not for the benefit of liberating the oppressed but in America's national self-interest.<<

Of course, remember 9-11? We were attacked. Freedom and democracy is a bonus.

Remember Pearl Harbor?

Germany declaring war on the US?

These were attacks that threatened the national security interest of the US and we fought in defense of our nation and we helped an ally. . .always a bonus, and defending the UK is a national security issues for the US.

It takes no great leap to understand that sometimes, most times, national security interests align with humanitarian concerns ("Do something" missions).

The desire to “do something” is there because we are human, after all. However, the real question is a matter of degree; is it moral to ask the American people to have their sons die in order to stop some African war that neither threatens the security of the United States nor affects anyone else but those within that nation? Take Rwanda. When the civil war was raging and the two tribes warring and murdering, what is the moral imperative to invade and kill (and more importantly, BE KILLED) as we place American troops between the two enemies and say, "Ya'all play nice, hear?"

There must be a defining national security threat before you place American lives at risk because if you merely invade because of humanitarian issues then where do you stop? Cuba is an awful place of brutality, murder and abuse. Should we invade because of humanitarian issues? How about Chechnya? The defining issue before you risk American lives is based upon the threat to American national security.

And don't forget invasion and force is not the only method of action, and the US does employ economic and political pressures to try and affect change. Old Europe calls this, “Soft Power.” Now if the US employs “Hard Power” (invasion) we are attacked for such actions (Iraq), and when the US employs Soft Power (sanctions) we are attacked for such actions as well (Iraq). As you can see, in the case of Iraq we used BOTH methods and were vilified for doing anything at all.

The US has history of isolationism but will act to "do something" if the need is compelling (like WWII). Therefore, in September of 1940 with WWII looming for America, FDR understand the humanitarian aspect of intervention but simply can't justify sacrificing American lives to sort (another) European mess. What does he do? he initiates the “Destroyers for Democracy” Program and in 1941 the “Lend-Lease Act” is passed (we now Lend/Lease/Sell Arms to Britain, Commonwealth, China).

>>At least you are not falling for the myth, of which I salute you. <<

Myth? What myth?

>>There is the same proportion of muslims in Britain as there is in America. Around 2.5%.<<

Perhaps, but you guys are going waaayyy overboard with this tolerance stuff. We are too but you guys take the cake on that one.

>>Plus America is the most multi-cultural place on the planet.<<

I disagree. . .we are one culture (American), but we are multi-ethnic. Big difference. Multiculturalism is now at a stand-still and will be defeated.