http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/07/berkeley.protests/ 

Code Pink is a liberal organization who has been involved in numerous protests against the Iraq War.  Berkeley, California, is a city in the San Francisco Bay Area that has gained fame as one of the most liberal cities in America.  What do they have in common?  A complete lack of gratitude, maybe even contempt, for the men and women of the US Marines who have fought and died for the very free speech that these people take such joy in exercising.  

These people have the right to say what they want about the Marines, who have taken abuse after abuse from them on the chin.  But having the right to say something doesn't make it the right thing to say.   The Marines, as well as the other members of our armed forces have sacrificed themselves and their families for the greater good of our country, even the people who show them such hate.  Does the city or Code Pink realize that without the sacrifices of our military they would not have the right to show their hatred.  While they certainly are under no obligation to agree with the government that is authorizing a war that they disagree with, they owe an incomprehensible debt to the members of the military who have shipped off across the world in defense of our nation regardless of their personal feelings about the war.

Code Pink has stated that "If it weren't for people like us standing up and exercising our rights to free speech, we'd be living under Hitler."  Excuse me if I forget my history, but I believe it was the Marines, along with the rest of the Allied militaries, that grabbed their guns and came to the defense of freedom and democracy against Hitler's war machine.  Yes, they have their rights to free speech; isn't nice that there is a group of brave men and women who have sworn to protect that right. 

But, these are not what make me the most proud of my country. I find my pride in the willingness of the millions of young Americans who have been willing to leave our country and fight for the freedom of others around the world. Say what you will about the intentions of the leaders that involve out troops in conflicts across the globe, but the men and women in uniform who grab their boots and rifles and ship off across the world do it because they believe that they are doing it to help people.

The United States has not chosen to sit back in isolated prosperity, but it has tried to use what resources it has to help oppressed people. Yes, sometimes these attempts have been poorly executed, but their aims were good. Yes, there are cynics out there who believe that every war America has ever entered was fought by greedy leaders in Washington, DC. Maybe some were. But the average Joe American who fought and died so that others could be free makes me proud of my country.

In regards to American currency losing value, this is both a factor of a slowing US economy and growing economies elsewhere.  The EU is an economic powerhouse, so their currency should be valuable.  The Canadian dollar has also fallen to almost exactly 1 US dollar over the last month or so, so that exchange rate is nothing to get too terribly excited about.  The NAFTA superhighway that you mentioned is much more an idea than reality.  If you honestly believe that the breadbasket of the country is going to allow our government to build a highway through it that will cripple its economy by allowing cheaper Mexican food imports, then you don't know much about the midwest.  

Remember, this is still a government for the people and by the people.  Yes, the current administration has taken some liberties with the constitution and done things that a majority does not agree with.  But, the beauty of the system is that the American people can put leaders in place that they believe will point the country in the right direction.  The Bush administration has not done irreparable damage, we can only pray that whoever inherits the reigns will be able to keep America in the successful direction its been headed in for the better part of the last century.

The war has commonly been explained as a result of the complex system of alliances in which Europe was entangled.  But, it was deeper than that.  Germany saw itself as the protector of all central Europe against the encroaching ideologies of both Western Europe and Russia.  It was the strongest power of all the Germanic peoples and its power required it to come to the defense of nations with large German populations such as Austria-Hungary.  The war also took another interesting dimension.  It pitted democratic states (or, at least, constitutional monarchies) such as France, Russia, Britain, and the United States, against monarchical empires like Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire.  In fact, the United States joined the war after the Russian revolution transformed that country into a democratic state, making it easier for President Wilson to justify the war as an ideological struggle of freedom against oppression.  The war escalated from a regional to continental, then global, conflict when Germany declared war on Russia to protect Austria-Hungary.  Why did Germany do this?  Russia did not actually attack Austria-Hungary, but its very aggressive posturing spooked Germany into declaring war.  

Does this sound familiar?  Could Serbia once again be the spark that ignites the powder keg?  The looming conflict in the Balkans should be a regional one, but which outside nations will join in defense of whom?  We know that the West supports Kosovo, and Russia and China along with much of the East supports Serbia. Once again, it is a conflict of democratic states against more oppressive regimes.  Russia is once again throwing its weight around.  In 1914, it was an empire in decline, but today it is gaining power back.  It is hard to say what the United States should be doing in regards to Kosovo at this time, as there are very valid arguments on both sides of the table.  But, regardless of the path that NATO takes, it should keep the lessons of history in mind and be careful not to let it repeat itself.