While it's true that America hasn't been invaded too many times, it has happened. For example, there was the War of 1812 where America was invaded by British troops. They even burned the White House (and to think we never had the decency to thank them). As Mary Anne pointed out, during the American Civil War (1861-65), each side invaded the other's territory.

More recently, in 1941, Japanese troops invaded and occupied Wake Island, which was and is US territory. Japan also attacked the US at Pearl Harbor. Perhaps you've heard of that case.

In 1942, the Japanese invaded and occupied the Philippines, Guam, and two of Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Those were all US territory. They also attacked US territory at Midway island and shelled California from a submarine. Later in the war, they launched thousands of balloon bombs at the US which inflicted some deaths and did some damage.

More to the point, if you knew anything about military history, you'd know that weakness like that exhibited in Europe today is why so many countries suffered so badly during WWI and WWII. Here's a question for you - why wasn't Switzerland invaded? Hint: it wasn't because they declared themselves neutral. There are good reasons why the US proper has not been invaded and occuppied. Logistics are the biggest reason, but the fact that we are not weak and gutless can't be ignored.

The columnist Mark Steyn nails it in his column, Pacifist Europeans have short memories:

The EU has done a grand job of trumpeting its weakness as strength, but the fact remains that there's something hollow at the heart of European identity. You can't be a great power without great power: Slobodan Milosevic called the EU's bluff on that a decade ago.

When you say as much to Euro-grandees, they say, ah, but you wouldn't understand, here on the Continent we have seen the horrors of war close up, the slaughter of the Somme casts long shadows. I'll say. In the New Statesman last week, Philip Kerr managed to yoke All Quiet On The Western Front with Joan Baez and John Lennon, and unintentionally underlined just how obsolescent the Sixties folk-protest canon is. Where Have All The Flowers Gone? would have made a great song for the First World War, but not for Afghanistan or Iraq or anything we're likely to fight in the future.

In our time, mass slaughter occurs only in places where the West refuses to act - in the Sudan or North Korea - or acts only under the contemptible and corrupting rules of UN "peacekeeping", as at Srebrenica. In Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere, technological advantage changes the moral calculus: it makes war the least worst option, the moral choice. At the 11th hour of the 11th day, we should remember those who died in the Great War, but recognise that it could never be "the war to end all wars" and never should.

As a follow-on to the debacle in the Balkans, Bosnian massacre victims' families to sue U.N., Dutch for $600 million:

Relatives of victims of Europe's bloodiest post-war massacre will sue the United Nations and the Dutch government for $600 million.

Estimates suggest that more than 7,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were executed by Bosnian Serb troops during a three-day killing spree in July 1995. The victims had gathered at the eastern Bosnian village of Srebrenica, which had been designated a 'safe haven' during the Bosnian war by the United Nations.

But as Bosnian Serb troops under the command of Ratko Mladic descended upon Srebrenica, only a handful of lightly armed Dutch peacekeepers were in place to protect civilians. In fact, the peacekeepers left without a shot being fired, opening the way for the biggest act of organized butchery in Europe since World War II.

Here's another example of what happens when nations lack the means or the guts to take a stand against barbarism. It also shows the absurdity of depending on the UN for protection.

Drawn up by the Paris-based International Federation of Human Rights Leagues and the U.S.-based Human Rights Watch, the report criticizes France, Belgium, the United States and the United Nations for failing to intervene to stop the systematic killings in which mostly minority Tutsis and politically moderate Hutus perished.

All the parties mentioned "received dozens of warnings in the months before the genocide but failed to act effectively," the rights group said. "Even worse, foreign leaders reacted timidly and tardily once the killing began."

U.N. peacekeeping troops were pulled out of Rwanda rather than ordered into action to prevent the genocide.

While France's later armed intervention, dubbed Operation Turquoise, saved some lives, it also allowed the massacres to continue, the report found.

Although the French operation's 2,500 soldiers saved an estimated 15,000 to 17,000 lives, a poorly equipped U.N. force
was able to save twice as many lives before it was withdrawn, the report concluded.

That article is backed up by this one:

We now know that the United Nations, and, presumably, Security Council members, had a great deal more information than the early warning indicators provided by human rights groups. On January 11, 1994, Major General Romeo Dallaire, the Canadian commander of the United Nations peacekeeping force in Rwanda (UNAMIR), sent a fax to the United Nations providing details of the genocide to come. The information came from an informant to General Dallaire, and it stated that the informant had been ordered to register all Tutsi in Kigali for purposes, the informant believed, of their extermination. Dallaire requested U.N. authorization to confiscate arms caches within 36 hours, and to provide asylum to the informant and his family. Dallaire's fax also informed U.N. officials that the genocide plan included provoking the Belgium troops making up the bulk of the UNAMIR contingent, killing some of them, and thus ensure that Belgium would withdraw its troops from UNAMIR. This is precisely what occurred.

The United Nations official to whom Dallaire appealed, Major General Maurice Baril, refused to authorize the actions and, according to Belgian Senator Alain Destexhe, ordered Dallaire to inform the President Habyarimana and his political party of the informant's intelligence, along with the U.N.'s decision not to act on it. Secretary General Kofi Annan's spokesman stated that all senior officials at the U.N. Office of Peacekeeping were behind General Baril's decision.

This is the same UN that is running with its tail between its legs after suffering a single attack in Iraq. Oh, if the UN loses that lawsuit (and I hope it does), don't come whinning to the US for the money.