True, we're a country born in war, although at the beginning of our existence, we eschewed foreign entanglements and permanent alliances. Our Founders initially favored neutrality, rejecting the idea of playing favorites among nations. Americans didn't fear war (as we fought many during the 19th century), but the World Wars were the major turning point. That's when America's mindset and perceptions about itself and about the rest of the world changed into what it is now.
That's when America stopped being an actual physical country and started to become more of an abstract idea. Patriotism was no longer about defending the actual land, but more about defending ideas, such as "democracy" and "freedom," regardless of what territory we were fighting in.
Most Americans don't even know where a lot of these countries are, so how can they possibly believe that we can build nations if we can't even find them on the map? Don't the voters even bother to look at maps?
I would submit that a different standard must be followed when making accusations against government. By definition, government is required to prove their actions are/were justifiable to the people. We're not following the typical "rules of evidence." This is because We The People are the bosses of the government, and an employee has every legal and moral responsibility to report thoroughly and honestly to his employer.
It's not the same thing as proving something in science, nor is it a matter of a court case where someone is being accused of a crime. It's a boss calling his employee on the carpet to explain himself and justify his actions. If he's weaselly and doesn't give straight answers (or says he's "not at liberty to say" to HIS OWN BOSS), then I find that suspicious. That's grounds for termination, at least in an employer-employee relationship.
And that's all the conspiracy theorist has to prove in this case.
