"I and my fellow citizens will act to defend ourselves and our liberty" <---Typical As far as I am concerned, American is not that much different from life in most other countries. The US is a bully, face it. It is the most powerful nation on earth but I doubt it can take on the whole world so they still have to tread carefully. "Tribute poors out from the US to the rest of the world, rather than the reverse, and on that tribute is written, "Disturb us not." And even so, we spend our blood trying to kill as few of our enemies as we can possibly can." When I read things like that, I don't know where to start to correct your thinking so I won't bother. Did you ever spare a thought for all the countries the US has invaded in the last 50 years? Did most of them ask for your help? "Perceived threat" is enough to make the US go to war. That is quite frightening, that means I can walk down the street and hit people just to protect myself. FYI, that war and most wars the US is involved in are motivated by profit. "Germany, Japan, North Korea, communist China, and Vietnam" It is not enough for you to say China but you have to write communist China but you leave out the communist when referring to Vietnam. A country like China which will pose an economic challenge in the future somehow deserves a prefix to make it sound more evil. You live in a wealthy society because the US has a lot of resources. It is just too much if you start equating liberty with economic power. I really don't have anything to say because I know how Americans. Just spare a moment and ask yourself, does America do anything wrong?

MTS: Sir, if anyone on this thread is not thinking for themselves, it is you. It's your diatribe that I've heard repeated ad infinitum. You have said nothing which would indicate any kind of original thought to me. You had said nothing which would indicate to me that you have read from multiple sources, that you have studied any history, or that you hold an opinion different from the rote platform of some political entity. It's your lack of logic, lack original thought, lack of insight, and lack of understanding which is at stake here - not mine. I think I've made it abundantly clear that I am a critical thinking fellow with sufficiant education to make up my own mind based on the evidence at hand. All you manage to do is make a series of trite unsupported inditements of the sort I would expect propaganda mouthpieces to make. You are the one that has no complex understanding of the issues. You are the one looking at the world in black and white, though for the life of me I can't imagine how you could mistake the US for unmitigated evil except perhaps that you've led a rather sheltered life. Join the Peace Corp or something, but get your head out of your nether regions and gain some experience before spouting that crap. "Because they market is open for selling things!" If this is bad, please give me the better alternative? Would you not have the nations trading with one another? Would you have each nation close its doors to the other? "Let me give you a statistic, the US spends more money on the military than the next 8 biggest powers put together." Tell me something I don't know. How we came to be in that situation is a very interesting story you'd do well to discover. "How can anyone be of threat to the US?" Remember, 9/11? That was a picnic compared to the potential threat involved right now. "You are like the average American citizen who buys all the lies the government gives you." Excuse me, but who is this faceless 'government' you keep talking about? In the US, the people are the government and the people in government are believe it are not - people. Talking about 'government' in vague Orwellian terms, tends to blissfully ignore that fact and allows you to demonize institutions the way racists demonize ethnic groups. And another thing - no American can buy all the lies the government feeds it. That's because we have a two party system, and at worst the ignorant American chooses which lies he wants to believe. You've evidently chosen yours. A little more literate American realizes that both sides are alot more complex than that, and that there are alot of political positions not encomposed by either side. He then reads some history, reads the lies of either side, and tries his best to come up with the trust - which tends to lie somewhere in the middle.

Just a quick follow up. My reply is nothing like a typical American. If you think I'm a typical American, you don't know me or Americans. Nor I do know what you think is typical about my reply. "Did you ever spare a thought for all the countries the US has invaded in the last 50 years? Did most of them ask for your help?" Well, actually, yes. "FYI, that war and most wars the US is involved in are motivated by profit." For the life of me, I'm not seeing the economic profit. "It is not enough for you to say China but you have to write communist China but you leave out the communist when referring to Vietnam." Here again you show your ignorance. I wrote communist China to specifically distinguish the patriots fighting for Chang Ki-Shek from those fighting for Mao Zedong. Since the sentence was with regard to the defeat of US forces or thier allies, I thought that would have been obvious. I was not refering to modern China, or even trying to distinguish it from Taiwan, nor was I trying to make Mao's government seem more evil - because not even my Chinese friends make any effort to defend Mao and making it seem more evil would be completely unnecessary. "Just spare a moment and ask yourself, does America do anything wrong?" Of course it does. Now spare a moment and ask yourself how that is any different from anyone else? Also spare a few moments and ask yourself whether or not we do everything wrong. Also spare a few moments from your study of the US to cast your eyes on the other nations of this world and tell me what thier sins are. Also spare a few moments and ask yourself who do you think would be doing it better? Also ask yourself which other nation would you bestow the power of America upon.

US foreign policy since 1945 was about opening markets up. These countries like UK, Australia and a list of countries which you or someone listed as "friendly" countries are the ones with share the same goals as the US. In essense, any contry the US deems to be closed to American products and/or do not fall under the US camp are deemed "unfriendly." There really is no democracy in the world if you think about it. You either follow the US or you will be bombed into submission. Being motivated by profit is not bad at all, that is normal of a human being. But the US has pushed it too far because the wants are simply insatiable. Ofcourse there are many potential threats out there but this is not the reason why the US went after Saddam. It was only a conquest to control oil. The only way to eliminate all threats is to blow up the whole world. Creating an illusion that there are many "threats" on the horizon is just how congressmen want to sell the war to the Americans. 9/11 is a result of too much bullying by the US. But you seem to think that 9/11 was a breach of your so-called liberty. When infact, it was just part and parcel of the search for profit. The American people think their country is the best on earth. Indeed, it is the richest nation. Many Americans also believe their country is somehow the model democracy. These notions make American people proud and proud people shut themselves off to outside opinions. It is far easier for Americans to believe the American viewpoint. Think about it, this is only an endless cycle. I told you, America can never get rid of all the threats unless every country outside the US is blown to pieces. The military need to make money, industry needs oil, congressmen need to stay in power, businesses need markets to sell things. Thus, the many adventures America undertakes worldwide. But when you upset people, they will attack like 911. Look around the world, some countries like Laos or say Norway never come under attack from terrorists. Why? Because they don't go attacking other countries. Don't you think it is far easier to launch any kind of attack on them? Your threads show clearly that you are another paranoid American who thinks the war is trying to get you. Last thing, it is not important how the US came to be in this position, that is not part of the debate. I suggest you let this argument go.

While most militaries in the world are there for the purpose of defending a country, the US military on the other hand is used for other purposes. Since it is so expensive to maintain it and because new weapons are designed all the time, they have to go to war now and again whether or not there are enemies. If there are no enemies, just create one is usually how they do it. Saddam was the last one. When the old equipment is used up, only then can new ones be introduced. Therefore, it would be a fallacy to associate US wars with defending liberty and freedom. In many cases, these wars harm people so the US sometimes gets hit back. We can therefore state that if the US is under attack like in 911 it was self induced.

Okay, so why do nations like Colombia and Peru get nailed with terrorism? Is it their insatiable appetites for resources? "You either follow the US or you are bombed into submission." C'mon, have we bombed France for opposing us? There are a lot of nations that we have disagreements with but can respect, like Israel. We are a proud people. We have a right to be proud. Don't confuse our ignoring irrelevant outside opinions with ignoring all outside opinions. A valid point is a valid point. If you don't have one, don't blame the US of A!

In both of your examples, they are internal problems. Terrorism in the US comes from external sources. France differs from the US and they have arguments but France is open for business. There is no need to bomb it. If you do a survey across the world, maybe the US followed by UK then Australia are scared of terrorism from an outside source the most. At some point, you have to question yourself why the US is the target. The NK nuclear weapon issue worries US the most, and it is the most powerful country, how bizarre? Well you will be glad toknow I have raised enough valid points here.

Shall we? Let's. Just for fun. MYS Lied: "While most militaries in the world are there for the purpose of defending a country, the US military on the other hand is used for other purposes." Fact: The US Military has not gained an inch of land by conquest since the 19th century. The US military has returned more territory to its prior posessors, post war, than any other power in history. So, MTS, when is Russia going to hand back the Kuriles? MTS Gurgled: "Since it is so expensive to maintain it and because new weapons are designed all the time, they have to go to war now and again whether or not there are enemies." Absurd! One does not logically follow from the other! Many advanced weapons have been designed, built, fielded, retired and replaced without EVER having seen action. I refute MTS Thusly: POLARIS. The PRESENCE of a threat is enough to justify military development, to suggest that the PRESENCE is not enough, and we need actual Conflict, is without basis in fact. BTW, the last round of actual territorial conquest by the US military was done by a military that was, for its time, poorly equipped with obsolete weapons. MTS lied: "If there are no enemies, just create one is usually how they do it." Name one enemy of the US who was considered hostile prior to that enemy's adoption of policies of hostility to the US or allies. MYS Lied :"When the old equipment is used up, only then can new ones be introduced." Already shown to be a statement worthy of induction to a clueless hall of shame. Polaris, Chapparal, Dragon, Redeye, all retired in vast numbers, not "used up". What an idiotic idea! Where does MTS get this stuff? MYS makes false conclusion: "Therefore, it would be a fallacy to associate US wars with defending liberty and freedom." Please understand the ideas behind logical argument, MTS. Since NONE of your statements had any bearing on the political nature of ANY conflict, how do you arrive at this? MTS rants: "In many cases, these wars harm people..." Duh. Isn't that what usually goes on in wars? "so the US sometimes gets hit back." Yes, we ahve taken casualties in every war we fought. Is your point that a state of war already existed between the Islamic world and the US, and so the WTC attack was somehow justified? DOes this not that we are ALSO entitled to hit back, and the nuclear demolition of Islam is equally justified? MTS makes final blow to common sense: "We can therefore state that if the US is under attack like in 911 it was self induced." How does this follwo from anythign you've said, at all? Let me see if I can sum up your reasoning. 1. USA has launched wars. 2. US civilians get hit by nations with which we are not at war. OK, then what about the Arab world? Since it exists only to launch wars, should it not be hit back, hard, and permanently, by your own logic (Or lack thereof)?

It's like fish in a barrel. Way too easy. Let's see, MTS drooled: "If you do a survey across the world, maybe the US followed by UK then Australia are scared of terrorism from an outside source the most." Duh. France has been attacked in Yemen and Pakistan, and Germany, and Spain and Italy, and of yes, ISRAEL, and INDIA. Norway has been specifically threatened by Al Queda. A Belgian interest in Morrocco was bombed. Kenya has suffered terribly. Foreign terrorists have been caught in Russia. Terror is largely "internal" now because the heavy western response has reduced the power of the terrorists, to the point where they can fight best only in "friendly" areas. " At some point, you have to question yourself why the US is the target." There are many alternate theories of "why the US?", and you have considered NONE of them. The best is this: We are rich and powerful and not Islamic. To an Islamic Fundamentalist, the only way this can happen is if we are in league with Satan. TO the Islamic Fundamentalist, our support for Israel, which defends against the blood-monkeys, and the dress codes of our women, and our consumption of alchohol, prove our allegiance to Satan. Geopolitically, as any American who has played "Risk" knows, you always try to bring down the guy on top. Psychologically, if one is a worthless ignorant arab, it is very humiliating. Declaring yourself opposed to the greatest power on Earth earns some self-compensation, as it shows a degree of bravery not exhibited, for example, in a declaration of hate aimed at Lichtenstein. Strategically, we are the center of the Western World, and Muslim opposition to the west will naturally be focussed here. Economically and Culturally, we are the most conspicuous nation, to the point where even non-American brand names in third world nations are commonly misidentified as American. (Nestle had this problem, among others. Nestle is Swiss. I could give many more examples.) This misidentification of the Entire West with just one part of it is common and historical. By example, the word for "european" in parts of Asia (Iran and Malaysia, maybe others) is Ferengi, taken from "France" who were the Europeans they encountered. Attacks on Ferengis might be percieved as attacks on French, even though the target was all of the West. In Korea, "Yongo", taken from "English", means any Westerner. Today, because of our prominence, America is a proxy for the entire west in the same manner. The NK nuclear weapon issue worries US the most, and it is the most powerful country, how bizarre? "Well you will be glad toknow I have raised enough valid points here." I am not glad at all- a fact which further demonstrates that you don't really know anything, and you have failed to connect any of your points in any logical fashion to your conclusions. While a few may have some validity, they are adrift and meaningless.

I haven't read all the posts, but enough to make me answer a few of the more serious misconceptions. 1. USA uses their military power to gain economic advantages. It's a very popular notion in Europe an elsewhere - but it is dead wrong. Economically the USA DOES NOT need the rest of the world. If there is a profit, there is trade - if not, then nothing. from the very beginning of the USA the aim has been: The nation secures peace - at all cost - the economic life will take care of itself. This fact is one of the more important reason, why Marxism has never cut any ice in the US - the notion of economic wealth and security being linked is utterly foreign to yanks. There are indeed lots of examples to the contrary: When Mexico was embargoed by the oilindustry in 1938, they were told to pay up, because Mexico was selling oil to Hitler. Norway is a bad example of a country not exposed to terrorism - Denmark is much better. It has something to do with the fact, that this country has been used as a "vacation" spot for the terrorists. To some extend it has been advantageous to let them - and keep an eye on them. Why do you think the danish intelligence officers ever since the Berlin wall fell have been studying arabic??? The scum is closely monitored. The USA bringing terrorism on themselves??? Oh no. The USA would dearly love to be left alone - they are so uninterested in the rest of the world, that its approaching dementia! a professor from Georgetown University was in Copenhagen for a public discussion on NATO issues (arranged by a daily newspaper, free entry). A large lecture hall had standing room only - he said, that in the US that kind of attendance was out of the question. If you judge others by your own standards - you will fail. This goes for the US as well. I don't think there will be great democracy in Iraq - Saddam is far from the only creep in that population, but we might keep the cell-block from rioting.