America/its We/our

The sentences below were spoken/written by US Americans. Can anyone please explain the use of "America" with "our" here? I thought it should be "America" with "its" or "we" with "our". What is the grammar explanation behind this use?

-America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling.
-The United States of America will not militarize our border.
-America will not let our consumers or our economy be held hostage to run-away global oil prices.”

Out of context, I can only guess what "our" refers to:

I suppose "our" refers to the group of people the writer is representing or belongs to (the Senate, for example, if the writer is a Senator), or more likely the American people as a whole.

Divvy,

Or how about, from the Simpsons movie:

"The government finally found somebody we're looking for!"

It's pretty obvious once you think about it the right way.

<"The government finally found somebody we're looking for!"

It's pretty obvious once you think about it the right way. >

The "we're" and the "our" has to be in concord with something. Do you think there is an ellipsis of "We" in such sentences?

"(We) the government finally found somebody we're looking for!"

Would anyone here say this is grammatical when spoken by David himself?

"David will not let my name be used in vain."

No, it isn't. 'Dave' would use 'I' if 'Dave' was speaking it himself. If he used the 3rd person he would come off looking foolish/pompous.

<No, it isn't. 'Dave' would use 'I' if 'Dave' was speaking it himself. >

I agree. So why is this grammatical?

"America will not abandon our friends."

It's the same type of construction as the one below.

"David will not let my name be used in vain."

Because that use of 'America' is spoken by someone representing all of America (or at least the governement). 'Dave' doesn't have to clarify that he is speaking for himself, its understood. A politician/representative does. Is [politician/representative X] saying he won't abandon his friends (his personal friends?), or is he talking of the greater whole (the greater whole's friends)?

<Is [politician/representative X] saying he won't abandon his friends (his personal friends?), or is he talking of the greater whole (the greater whole's friends)? >

Who knows? That's why it's a crap construction.

I think you've missed the point.

<I think you've missed the point. >

Do explain, please.

You're asking 'who knows?' But that is exactly why the speaker is clarifying they are speaking for their organization. It isn't a bad construction it's a clarification. The speaker, whoever said your quote, is clarifying that they are not speaking for themselves but for the organization. Going back to your Dave example, Dave doesn't have to clarify, his opinions are his own. Saying 'Dave,' when he is Dave, is uneccessary, and makes him look foolish/full of himself/over the top.

<The speaker, whoever said your quote, is clarifying that they are not speaking for themselves but for the organization.>

When spoken by an American, "America will not abandon its/her friends." does the same, and with more elegant grammar.