Had you read my post carefully, you’d notice that not once did I use a phrase: “Americans are” or “Americans do”. Those words appear frequently in your comments and point to the root cause of your irritation with my essay. You accuse me of flat generalization. It is unavoidable to some degree when one sets out to describe a general mood of this country and its peculiar relation with war. America at its inception was a country grounded on conquest and dispossession. First of the Native Americans and later of Mexicans. The last war fought on the US soil was the Civil War in the 1860ies. Why, as you say, in 2009 “nearly everyone in the US has close family that has fought” - is very well worth examining in my opinion.

The fact that other countries may have no less bloody or colonial history is irrelevant to my point.

I said that “war” is used as a colloquial alternative to “struggle”, you added: ‘fight’, ‘battle’, etc. I see the language choice to be not accidental but indicative of the fact that for over 150 years civilians in the US have not seen the bloodshed, rape and mutilation that real war brings. The Burmese for example, do. I doubt that they’d come up with a ridiculous construct such as “war on waistlines”.

I can’t claim to have traveled everywhere, but I have been around and had the benefit of living and integrating into a few different cultures not restricted to English as their official language. I can assure you that nowhere is the word “war” used so lightheartedly and so thoughtlessly as it is here in the United States.

I won’t delve into the specifics of British, Kiwi, Canadian and American cultural comparisons. It is a huge topic in itself. I am afraid that you are being rather superficial in drawing your analogies.

I don’t think people are being unaware of the word war, I think they are using the ‘war on’ jingoism in the same fashion as people have always used ‘fight’, ‘battle’, etc. It was a catchy thing to say, and sounded a little bigger. And people far outside of the US all use these terms. I don’t see that language as a significant reflection on Americans.

I do not watch CNN, or MSNBC, unfortunately, so I’m not aware of what the talking heads are saying, though I do watch the Daily Show when I can.

Actually, I’ve found that the British tend to react more strongly when you suggest that we share the same culture then Kiwis. Kiwiland, apart from Canada, is the least different place I’ve ever been. It could almost be another state in the US. It reminds me a lot of Alaska. The differences don’t make for a significantly unique culture. That’s not a bad thing, I don’t mind English speaking Western Civ.

Much of the cultural bickering between countries is along the same lines as bickering between neighboring cities in a single country. You just have to live across a mountain range or on the other side of a valley and suddenly you are the stupid rednecks.

I’ve gotten into some good arguments here but I get along fine with Kiwis. This place is actually much lower key then the UK. Then again, I was in the UK when Bush got re-elected — that was an experience.

The point I am making having watched and listened to Meet the Press and CNN (to balance out the MSNBCs Rachel Maddow and Democracy Now) is that people do not stoop down deep enough to consider the meaning of the word “war” in their daily usage or the bloody history of this country. I am particularly shocked by the ignorance of the reporters, anchors, writers and editors in the media who are supposedly the better informed tier of our society. You can cry foul here too because I am making another gross generalization. Clearly, not ALL media persons are unaware, as well as not ALL Americans are out of touch with the spirit of my text. You’re right, more agree with me than what I may have implied in my text.

I am surprised at you for painting all English speaking countries in such broad brush strokes: sharing the same culture. I wonder how you are getting along with the Kiwis making such statements.

I agree calling ‘war’ on social issues or other vague issues dilutes and needlessly expands the term.

But I have no reason to believe this somehow confined to the USA, instead it is more likely confined to English speaking states - who very much share the same culture - or anyone who wants to express the obvious concept. If you are on a war against cliches, that is itself an endless and unwinnable task.

The article descends into simple criticism.

You must be speaking in willful ignorance if you say that Americans believe the drug situation in the US is not a failure regardless of it not being a success. How can you have lived in California and assumed Americans share a common complacency about the current drug situation?

Likewise, you are speaking in absurdly ironic ignorance when you say the public never critically rejects the concept of war, linguistically or platonically. It is ironic in part because the well-documented ‘great scholars’ you reference, are in fact American. It is likewise ironic in that criticism of war, drugs, health care, etc, has become so mainstream it supports a large section of pop culture’s entertainment. Perhaps this article itself was spawned as a result of being under the influence of purely American self-criticism?

The concept of the fluoride-drugged, thoughtless, germanic-minded American is a very satisfying one to those who want a simple and personal answer to why one nation has influence over other nations. The things you can do with a nation of zombies! How easy to feel superior in this case! I would argue this though more simplistically reactive then perceptive.

In the end, Americans and their government are much less unique from other countries then people like to think. It is not just that we are less uniquely evil, it is also that we are less uniquely perfect.

I speak not to go to the defense of America, but because I am surprised at how many nations put aside criticism of themselves in favor of the easy target, and it is very common that this outward pointing of American national failures leads to blinders when the nation looks at itself. On the other hand I’d suggest America, hardly aware of other countries, expends the majority of criticism on itself.

For example of the bias, it’s not abnormal that lists such as the ‘full list of american military operations’ are not mirrored by lists of other nation’s activities.

To sum, I think this leads towards a simplistic cultural outlook, and trite commentary.