Patriotism. Second try.

[hasselbrad]

As long as the patriotism doesn’t blind the people for the problems in their own country it is a good thing I suppose.

The bigger problem over here is the blindness that ideological hatred causes. Be it liberals who hate George Bush or conservatives that hate Hilary Clinton. They get so wound up in this blind rage, that they miss the really important things that go on.

On topic...I was really proud of my fellow Americans recently when the issue of eminent domain was decided by the Supreme Court. I really expected it to get swept under the rug in favor of who got booted off the island, but my fellow Americans were paying attention after all.

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by hasselbrad

Churchill pleaded with Roosevelt to get involved, but until we were attacked, public sentiment was against it.

I think PLEADED is stretching it a bit, Churchill wasn't a man to plead, but he wanted it, and I'm sure behind closed doors he was desperate. Why else would he knowingly NOT inform the Americans about the imminent Japanese attack that he knew about through an intercepted German message (via the infamously stolen Enigma machine) and risk the loss of many American soldiers lives? He knew it was the only way Roosevelt would get involved, and a few casualties still would hardly dent the US forces.

I don’t think I fail to recognize that. I know that. But the USA is a supremacy with a lot of power in institutions as the UN

Fair point but if they're really that dominant, why couldn't they get a resolution passed for this war? The truth is noone has dominance in the UN, true, the major nations like the US, France, Britain, China, Russia etc all exert great influence but no one nation is powerful enough to claim "dominance" and at the end of the day, the UN is an independent body. A lot of people raise the "fact" that the HQ is on US soil in Manhattan but actually that little stretch of NYC isn't American soil at all, but is under the sole jurisdiction of the UN. They can basically do what the hell they like on that property and no laws other than their own govern them.

And I agree with Hassel. Far too many blinded right wingers and blinded left wingers entirely oblivious to the path of moderacy and progressive conservativism (which is the path I follow)

[Keira lover]

my country, may she always be in the right. But my country, right or wrong.

[Mandy]

Thanks for that horribly uneccessary bump. Please don't do that again.

[Keira lover]

Originally Posted by Liam

Whatever the argument, I find it more than a little ridiculous every time I'm told that the USA won the war in Europe. Flightfreak isnt wrong when he suggests that the USSR freed Belgium, but he isnt correct either. Soviet troops placed incredible pressure upon the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe due to their incredible rate of advance in 1944, forcing infantry, tanks, and fighter squadrons to be shifted to the Eastern Front. This amounts to a vast decrease in available defensive forces to counter the Allied invasion forces. The incredibly hard fought invasion would have been a whole lot more bloody, and would more than likely have been a failure in places, had the Russians not caused such a wide scale diversion of German military resources. The majority of Panzer V, VI, and VIb tanks, to which the western allies had no counter (aside from almost suidical flanking attacks by infantry - and contrary to popular belief, the much lauded bazooka rocket was nigh on useless against heavy tanks), went to fight the Russians, who had a counter in their upgunned T-34/85 and IS-1 or IS-2 heavy tanks. Imagine the destruction these tanks could have caused had they been in the west.

However, it was the American, British and Canadian (and dont forget the smaller groups - Australians, Free French/Dutch/Poles/Norwegians etc) who shed the blood in the west. As a citizen of one of these nations its easy for me to jump the gun and proclaim that the western allies won the battles in France, Belgium and Holland, but realistically, and rationally - we didnt do it on our own. Whether we like to admit it or not, the Soviet contribution and sacrifice of the Russian people played a very important role in the allied victory. Without them, I estimate the war would have dragged on for 2-3 more years, at a minimum. The invasion just would not have been possible with full German military resources pointed at England. The fate of the daylight B-17 raids would have been much different with the full force of the Fw-190 staffeln hacking away at them. The fate of the P-38, P-47, and P-51 pilots escorting the bombers would have been much different with the full force of the Bf-109 (and later, Me-262) staffeln bearing down on them. The 109 was shit? Tell that to the countless pilots who were shot down by it. Right up until wars end, the Bf-109 was faster, could climb quicker, and had heavier firepower than contemporary allied fighters - the only fighter to see wide service and outclass the 109 in every respect was the Spitfire F.MkXIV. And the Fw-190 was even more of a nightmare. As victors, we tend to forget just how deadly our former enemy's weapons of war were.

I'm available by PM if anyone wants to discuss the war further

--------

On topic:

There is a very fine line between patriotism and nationalism. One is great, one is overbearing. Often, patriotism is used by unscrupulous people as a veil for nationalism. Everyone knows this. Yes, some Americans are guilty of it. And yes, most of them arent. Its a bit rude and presumptuous to draw a stereotype based upon the actions of a minority.

Its just that its the borderline nationalistic Americans that tend to get the most airplay. I personally have no problem with what the Americans are doing, militarily, around the world. Its a noble goal that they are fighting for, and they deserve to be supported for it. Why should the people of the world wait sitting on their hands for something to get blown up in their homeland before they pull their heads out of the sand and realise that this is a global problem that needs global resources to combat?

the russians played a huge role in Europe, but without the US, we couldn't have won it, and neither could Stalin without us.

and i believe that so many world citizens are doing what there doing becaause they don't think it is their problem, or the US will handle it for them.

[Leonie]

Liam is Australian.

When D-Day came around, we needed all the help we could get. The US didn't win the war for us. The allied forces did. Canadians, Americans, Aussies and Britons alike. Russia pitched in too.

I don't think anyone believes or even hopes that the US will handle things for them. You have not shown yourself to be very capable in recent history. As far as it not being our problem - Iraq? Wasn't our problem, or yours. If we are going to overthrow brutal governments, why not start with Zimbabwe? At least a lot of the people there are of Anglo-Saxon heritage. But Zimbabwe does not have huge oil supplies, and that is why the US took no interest. You took no interest in the weapons of mass destruction either. They were pointed out to your leaders, and they brushed it aside. The war in Iraq did not start from the kindness of Bush's heart.

In short, I don't think there is an ounce of embarrassment in not thinking Iraq was our business. Dutch troups are in Afghanistan. Sadly they are also in Iraq. If I remember correctly, your president asked us to help.

Don't pretend you've won the war, or are winning this one, because as far as I can see, it's clear you can't do it on your own.

[AureaMediocritas]

Thanks for that post, Leonie. I´m with you 100%.

In addition - sorry for going off topic - always keep in mind the precarious difference between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter". As someone interested in history, the massive use of the word "terrorist" by western governments and media painfully remind me of my good old Nazi friends : WW II being won by the Allies, we are now able to speak of Résistance or Partizans as of heroic defenders of national freedom, while Nazi propaganda presented them as "terrorists".
The same goes for insurgents in Iraq. If I imagine that some islamic superpower would occupy my country, impose strange values incompatible with mine, install a puppet regime, install an entirely artificial form of state, steal my national resources, terrorize the civilians by frequent house searches, favour foreign companies... in short dominate me, I would choose to fight it. No question. As I am no traitor to my country.
Especially if the invasion is based on lies, on causes that are hypocrite to the extreme, causes developed from the 11 September "new Pearl Harbour" to make the American citizen feel "threatened", and all that despite the fact that the perpetrators come from different countries, that my dictator had no direct link to these actions...
I am not a fervent supporter of cowardly bomb attacks on civilians, yet I support, in substance, the action of every Iraqi classified as an "insurgent", since I would do exactly the same thing. Against a country that is to be ruled by two parties only... parties not so different in essence... a system not far away from the totalitarian one party system.
This sounds like a defense for the islamist fascism of organizations like our much-feared Al-Qaida, but it isn´t meant as such. All I know is that the unrighteous U.S. intervention in Iraq has pissed off a good deal of moderate and more or less rational islamic tendencies. It has becaome one big counterproductive mess.

[DragonRat]

Catch-22. It's a good book. I think Bush should have read it before he decided to go to Iraq. (Really, the United States--of which I am a citizen--can really go nowhere in Iraq. If we leave, then the fledgling (?) government (?) will have the hardest time of all trying to protect itself from the demands of theocracy and warlordship, as well as anarchy and unrest, not to mention the possibility of military juntas.

(And if the U.S. decides to stay, then we're just going to have to commit more lives to the conflict. And so is Iraq. And so is every Arab nation in support of Iraq.

(It's really a big mess over there in the Middle East, because we're acting like the peacemakers, when really the Arabs don't want our kind of peace. Really, they want to be left alone to do their own thing; after which, it may or may not be possible to negotiate with them later. I really don't know why we still keep troops there: if we remove all the troops, we may get a little hit upon our pride, but still, pride over blood? Oil over blood? Be reasonable. Hey, we the U.S. have to know when to hold 'em, and when to fold 'em.

(And to top things off, we're still the major supporter of Israel in the Middle East--the only non-Muslim nation in the entire Middle East. And because both Israel and the U.S. are symbols of Western influence upon a region that despises Western influence, yet requires Western influence in most of its dealings, the use of force in integrating democracy into a region that demands theocracy--or at least a combination of both--seems rather ludicrous to me. You would think that it would be slightly more profitable to deal with Arab nations after they have solidified a government that may not be democratic, but still supports Western interests [like Saudi Arabia]. I always thought people should have the right to political determination, not having political determination forced down their throat. There's a difference between giving people democracy, and force-feeding them democracy.)

[Keira lover]

Originally Posted by Leonie

Liam is Australian.

When D-Day came around, we needed all the help we could get. The US didn't win the war for us. The allied forces did. Canadians, Americans, Aussies and Britons alike. Russia pitched in too.

I don't think anyone believes or even hopes that the US will handle things for them. You have not shown yourself to be very capable in recent history. As far as it not being our problem - Iraq? Wasn't our problem, or yours. If we are going to overthrow brutal governments, why not start with Zimbabwe? At least a lot of the people there are of Anglo-Saxon heritage. But Zimbabwe does not have huge oil supplies, and that is why the US took no interest. You took no interest in the weapons of mass destruction either. They were pointed out to your leaders, and they brushed it aside. The war in Iraq did not start from the kindness of Bush's heart.

In short, I don't think there is an ounce of embarrassment in not thinking Iraq was our business. Dutch troups are in Afghanistan. Sadly they are also in Iraq. If I remember correctly, your president asked us to help.

Don't pretend you've won the war, or are winning this one, because as far as I can see, it's clear you can't do it on your own.

Originally Posted by AureaMediocritas

Thanks for that post, Leonie. I´m with you 100%.

In addition - sorry for going off topic - always keep in mind the precarious difference between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter". As someone interested in history, the massive use of the word "terrorist" by western governments and media painfully remind me of my good old Nazi friends : WW II being won by the Allies, we are now able to speak of Résistance or Partizans as of heroic defenders of national freedom, while Nazi propaganda presented them as "terrorists".
The same goes for insurgents in Iraq. If I imagine that some islamic superpower would occupy my country, impose strange values incompatible with mine, install a puppet regime, install an entirely artificial form of state, steal my national resources, terrorize the civilians by frequent house searches, favour foreign companies... in short dominate me, I would choose to fight it. No question. As I am no traitor to my country.
Especially if the invasion is based on lies, on causes that are hypocrite to the extreme, causes developed from the 11 September "new Pearl Harbour" to make the American citizen feel "threatened", and all that despite the fact that the perpetrators come from different countries, that my dictator had no direct link to these actions...
I am not a fervent supporter of cowardly bomb attacks on civilians, yet I support, in substance, the action of every Iraqi classified as an "insurgent", since I would do exactly the same thing. Against a country that is to be ruled by two parties only... parties not so different in essence... a system not far away from the totalitarian one party system.
This sounds like a defense for the islamist fascism of organizations like our much-feared Al-Qaida, but it isn´t meant as such. All I know is that the unrighteous U.S. intervention in Iraq has pissed off a good deal of moderate and more or less rational islamic tendencies. It has becaome one big counterproductive mess.

Originally Posted by DragonRat

Catch-22. It's a good book. I think Bush should have read it before he decided to go to Iraq. (Really, the United States--of which I am a citizen--can really go nowhere in Iraq. If we leave, then the fledgling (?) government (?) will have the hardest time of all trying to protect itself from the demands of theocracy and warlordship, as well as anarchy and unrest, not to mention the possibility of military juntas.

(And if the U.S. decides to stay, then we're just going to have to commit more lives to the conflict. And so is Iraq. And so is every Arab nation in support of Iraq.

(It's really a big mess over there in the Middle East, because we're acting like the peacemakers, when really the Arabs don't want our kind of peace. Really, they want to be left alone to do their own thing; after which, it may or may not be possible to negotiate with them later. I really don't know why we still keep troops there: if we remove all the troops, we may get a little hit upon our pride, but still, pride over blood? Oil over blood? Be reasonable. Hey, we the U.S. have to know when to hold 'em, and when to fold 'em.

(And to top things off, we're still the major supporter of Israel in the Middle East--the only non-Muslim nation in the entire Middle East. And because both Israel and the U.S. are symbols of Western influence upon a region that despises Western influence, yet requires Western influence in most of its dealings, the use of force in integrating democracy into a region that demands theocracy--or at least a combination of both--seems rather ludicrous to me. You would think that it would be slightly more profitable to deal with Arab nations after they have solidified a government that may not be democratic, but still supports Western interests [like Saudi Arabia]. I always thought people should have the right to political determination, not having political determination forced down their throat. There's a difference between giving people democracy, and force-feeding them democracy.)

Did i say that the US was the only country in WWII. but D-Day was an american plan, and the bulk of the casualties in the operation were Americans.

The invasion of iraq was never a humanitarian thing. All reputable intelligence agencies believed Saddam had WMDs, and there was a risk he was cooperating with Al qaeda. It is a mess, but it can be won. if only politicians would stop playing politics and do what must be done.

We have troops in Iraq. We can not give up. AureaMediocritas, what you r saying, is that Al Qaeda is a benevolent, moral organization. People who kill 3,000 inocent americans are terrorists. These insurgents are al qaeda, the same as those on 9/11. They are TERRORISTS, not freedom fighters. to call them as such, you are saying you hate America. And, as i will say till I die, the 2003 Invasion of Iraq was justified based on the intelligence available at the time.

9/11 WAS a second Pearl Hearbor. 19 Muslim extremists hijacked 4 aircraft filled with innocent men, women, and childred. 2 planes were flown into the World Trade Center. The buildings, filled with workers, later collapsed, killing all inside, some on the ground. 1 into the Pentagon. 1 crashed in a field, but was likely heading to the White House. This attack was unprovoked, no warning was given. There was no overt act by us that would justify this act. It was pure mass murder of innocent American Citizens. In one day, more than 3,000 died. These people did nothing wrong.

We can not give up. We can not pull out. To do so is to surrender. If we surrender, we will have another 9/11. We are fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here.

[DragonRat]

Originally Posted by Keira lover

We can not give up. We can not pull out. To do so is to surrender. If we surrender, we will have another 9/11. We are fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here.

What do you mean by "give up" or "pull out" or "surrender"? Must we fight fire with fire? Then the entire world will burn. Must we pay eye for an eye? Then the entire world will go blind (as I paraphrase the Mahatma). It cannot be as Beethoven alludes, that "Muss es sein?" (Must it be?) "Es muss sein!" (It must be!)

No, the history of the world has gone too far into this petty mode of vengeance. They attacked us first. Oh, that certainly then gives us the right to invade a country that may or may not have had anything to do with al-Qaeda. They killed innocent lives. Oh, then that certainly gives us the right to shoot innocent civilians in the wake of civil war, simply because they seem to dislike us. We never wanted them to attack us, but somehow, we feel it's right that we're over on their turf, attacking them.

Tell me, Keira lover, if war sounds like a GOOD thing to you. Would it be right for you to die for your country? Would it be right to send another person--even someone you know and respect--to die? Would it be right and proper, as the Latin poet Horace once wrote, "Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori." (It is sweet and proper, to die for one's country.) I dare you to read Wilfred Owen's poem of the same name, for HE was a soldier during World War I, and he certainly had some things to say about war (before he died in the trenches, mind you, a brilliant poet cut down by the tragedies of hate, misunderstanding, and revenge).

The politics of terrorism are indeed personalized. So in such a way, we feel that the attack of 9/11 is our personal, intimate matter as well. However, in making international politics a PERSONAL affair--as I think Pres. Bush and several other higher-ups do--it only leads the rest of Americans into THEIR own personal crusade (and I use that word with the heaviest of connotations), not ours. We may feel it is wrong for terrorists to have attacked and killed innocent lives, but is it right on our part to do the same? How do we manage this sense of right and wrong, if everything that the U.S. does is right, and what everyone else does is wrong? (And indeed, imagine that the terrorists, or many Arabs, think the exact opposite view.) If you believe that what we are doing is right--sending troops over to the country to secure OUR form of democracy--then so be it. But you do not know half the story (and really, neither do the rest of the American people).

In short, I do not think there is anything to WIN. You want to win a game, Keira lover, win at Scrabble or Jeopardy. Don't EVER say that war is something that people win at. War is NOT a game. Tag is a game. Blind Man's Bluff is a game. Shooting innocent people, and skirmishing over gunshots and artillery fire--NOT a game. Fighting blood for blood over each cheaply bought barrel of oil--NOT a game. (And yes, I am presuming that you think that this war can be won. If so, then it is a game. It's a game that the Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and several major generals play. It's not yours to win. Let them play their game, but they will lose eventually, too.

And if you think that I am being too harsh, or too connotative, then you miss the point completely.)

Ever heard of a Pyrrhic victory? In fighting the Romans, King Pyrrhus suffered heavy losses for a single major victory. It is said that Pyrrhus mentioned that one more such victory would be his (and his kingdom's) undoing. So, if you want to win, go right ahead. But we'll lose so much more in the process. All in the name of winning a stupid game. A stupid game that risks life, limb, and a generation of disillusioned souls that may once again ring in the modernist despair post-World War I.

Remember: who demonizes whom in this parlay? Do we demonize the terrorists for their actions, or do they demonize us for ours? And who was the first to demonize? I think that's the better question to ask, before we can even consider asking who threw the first stone.

[AureaMediocritas]

Originally Posted by Keira lover

We have troops in Iraq. We can not give up. AureaMediocritas, what you r saying, is that Al Qaeda is a benevolent, moral organization. People who kill 3,000 inocent americans are terrorists. These insurgents are al qaeda, the same as those on 9/11. They are TERRORISTS, not freedom fighters. to call them as such, you are saying you hate America. And, as i will say till I die, the 2003 Invasion of Iraq was justified based on the intelligence available at the time.

Hmmmm.
In short, you didn´t get it.
What you so fervently call "terrorists" can be heroes in other people´s opinion. Insurgents are not "Al-Qaida". "Al-Qaida" is a lovely mediatic word to shock Westerners as it is associated with a sophisticated monster operating on the whole planet. For example, you might know that Al-Qaida is a Sunni organization, opposed to the other confessional minority, the Shia : for example in Pakistan almost 80% of the population is Sunni, with 15-20% being Shia. In Iraq, insurgent militias, both Sunni and Shia, fight each other as much as the occupation forces. So don´t repeat your president´s error to see everything in black and white (like telling the world that "from now on you´re either with us or the terrorists", what a horrible fascistic phrase!).
Just because someone decides to oppose your country doesn´t mean he´s objectively wrong. Subjectively, this someone is the incarnation of evil for most Americans as they´re "enemies". An "enemy"´s cause is automatically a wrong cause, isn´t it ?
In my opinion, ordinary people trying to kick out the western troops in Iraq have a more valuable cause than the cowards of 11 th September. For the reasons I - in vain as it appears - tried to explain.
As you seem to like manichean WWII talk, I´d simplify saying that in my opinion, Western troops in Iraq are the Germans, insurgence being "Partizans".
I hope that helps. Although for someone so deeply convinced of the good cause of the invasion, I fear it won´t have much impact .

[Ranman]

I heard Godzilla is a member of Al-Qaida, so they are monsters

[AureaMediocritas]

Originally Posted by Ranman

I heard Godzilla is a member of Al-Qaida, so they are monsters

Exactly my point. Just funnier. Thanks Ran !