NationStates Jolt Archive


Patriotism is...

Kryozerkia
12-12-2006, 00:50
We've had plenty of instances here with people throwing around words like "unpatriotic", and claiming that they were patriotic for one reason or another.

A basic dictionary definition would be...

–noun
devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty.

With that aside, I challenge all posters here to tell me what being a patriot means.

To me, being a patriot means loving your nation, whether you were born there or not and not being afraid to criticise the government when they muck up the country you love so much. Being a patriot means questioning the government when they're wrong in your eyes and challenging them to justify what they have done to your country. It is also standing by those who have fought and won your freedoms.
Vetalia
12-12-2006, 00:51
Being a patriot is doing what is right for your country regardless of whether or not it is supported by the government in power.
Laerod
12-12-2006, 00:51
"Patriotism is the love of your country. Nationalism is the hatred of all others."
- Johannes Rau, late former President of Germany
Jack of Diamondz
12-12-2006, 00:54
Being a patriot is doing what is right for your country regardless of whether or not it is supported by the government in power.

This is my opinion as well. The problem only comes when everyone is under the impression that they are doing the best thing. Life would be so much easier if those who disagreed with me thought they were doing it for bad reasons ;) .
JuNii
12-12-2006, 00:55
We've had plenty of instances here with people throwing around words like "unpatriotic", and claiming that they were patriotic for one reason or another.

A basic dictionary definition would be...



With that aside, I challenge all posters here to tell me what being a patriot means.

To me, being a patriot means loving your nation, whether you were born there or not and not being afraid to criticise the government when they muck up the country you love so much. Being a patriot means questioning the government when they're wrong in your eyes and challenging them to justify what they have done to your country. It is also standing by those who have fought and won your freedoms.

Patriotism is Loving your country, but like anything, It can be taken to the extreme.
Fassigen
12-12-2006, 01:05
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
DHomme
12-12-2006, 01:05
Being a patriot is meaningless.

Nations are meaningless.
What do they group people by?

A shared culture? Nope.
A shared set of economic interests? Nope.
A shared set of values? Nope.
A shared group of beliefs? Nope

So what are nations? Little more than arbitrary lines on a map drawn up by some bureaucrat/politician/regent and based on a struggle for resources and labour. They don't unite people, they divide us.

A sense of patriotism is appealed to whenever the ruling class wants to divert your attention. When Thatcher was having strife at home she rallied the country around the falklands war.

Borders kill.
Andaras Prime
12-12-2006, 01:07
I have to express that I am a patriotic for my country (Australia) in the way explained above. I love my country because of the absolute distrust in government and every government institution our populace has, I would put foward that we have a very democratic system. For one, in a comparison to the US, we have no 'Commander-in-Chief' or 'Imperial President' or whatever he's called these days, which is a totally undemocratic ideal.

Therefore our populace has very little loyalty to a leader, even the PM is subject to the most intense indisgression in Parliament on a daily basis to have checked what he's doing by the Opposition. The US President can veto (honestly I can't actually believe it, it's so undemocratic) legislation while in the houses, and he only has to be speak for his actions once a year (State of the Union, although it's more of a rhetorical speech than any accountability).

I love my country because governments only last as long as a shoelace, and more importantly because we have no loyalty to that shoelace whatsoever, but moreover we are loyal to Australia and never an individual government. None of this 'pledge of allegience' or 'flag waving' or 'loyalty to the Commander-in-Chief' which is akin to despotism. Mostly, it is that our government are always temporary administrators, and are never wrapped in our flag, so we can always throw crap at them without dirtying the flag, unlike the US President.
Neu Leonstein
12-12-2006, 01:11
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Seconded.
H N Fiddlebottoms VIII
12-12-2006, 01:11
Being a patriot is meaningless.

...

Borders kill.
I . . . I agree with . . . DHomme.
If anyone needs me, I shall be spending the next couple days sitting in a running shower and crying.
JuNii
12-12-2006, 01:13
I . . . I agree with . . . DHomme.
If anyone needs me, I shall be spending the next couple days sitting in a running shower and crying.

*plays the theme to "The Crying Game"*
Rhaomi
12-12-2006, 01:16
"To criticize one's country is to do it a service... Criticism, in short, is more than a right; it is an act of patriotism -- a higher form of patriotism, I believe, than the familiar rituals and national adulation."
– Senator James W. Fulbright

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government."
– Edward Abbey
Swilatia
12-12-2006, 01:16
Being a patriot is meaningless.

Nations are meaningless. How do they group people by?

A shared culture? Nope.
A shared set of economic interests? Nope.
A shared set of values? Nope.
A shared group of beliefs?

So what are nations? Little more than arbitrary lines on a map drawn up by some bureaucrat/politician/regent and based on a struggle for resources and labour. They don't unite people, they divide us.

A sense of patriotism is appealed to whenever the ruling class wants to divert your attention. When Thatcher was having strife at home she rallied the country around the falklands war.

Borders kill.
well, at leat they keep scumbag governments like north korea from imposing their stupid laws on everyone in the world.
DHomme
12-12-2006, 01:20
well, at leat they keep scumbag governments like north korea from imposing their stupid laws on everyone in the world.

no it keeps scumbags like north korea in power. By seperating them off from the rest off the world they are free to function as they wish, to go on torturing, starving and gradually killing off their population. Meanwhile the rest of the world sits back, and everyone in america waves their little tiny flags and worry about mexicans, while the BNP gains ever more votes on a thinly hidden racist platform.

You want borders, these are the consequences.
Fleckenstein
12-12-2006, 01:21
It leads to things like the Committee on UnAmerican Activities *shudders*
Potarius
12-12-2006, 01:21
Seconded.

Also agreed.
JuNii
12-12-2006, 01:23
no it keeps scumbags like north korea in power. By seperating them off from the rest off the world they are free to function as they wish, to go on torturing, starving and gradually killing off their population. Meanwhile the rest of the world sits back, and everyone in america waves their little tiny flags and worry about mexicans, while the BNP gains ever more votes on a thinly hidden racist platform.

You want borders, these are the consequences.

of course the alternative is that the strongest nation influences everyone. with no borders to contain as well as seperate, you could have Canada and Mexico with American values as more and more countries are infiltrated with American Core Values.

Meanwhile, China and Russia would be spread across Asia and Europe.
DHomme
12-12-2006, 01:28
of course the alternative is that the strongest nation influences everyone. with no borders to contain as well as seperate, you could have Canada and Mexico with American values as more and more countries are infiltrated with American Core Values.

Meanwhile, China and Russia would be spread across Asia and Europe.

Because America's not already culturally infiltrating the rest of the world after it's period of economically dominating the rest of the world? I don't get how a lack of borders would cause what has already happened to happen.

The idea of nationality gives people an excuse to dominate, to exert their power further, to exploit other nations. If these are done "for the good of the nation" and the people are stupid enough to swallow it then brutalities can, do and always will go unchecked.
JuNii
12-12-2006, 01:31
Because America's not already culturally infiltrating the rest of the world after it's period of economically dominating the rest of the world? I don't get how a lack of borders would cause what has already happened to happen.

The idea of nationality gives people an excuse to dominate, to exert their power further, to exploit other nations. If these are done "for the good of the nation" and the people are stupid enough to swallow it then brutalities can, do and always will go unchecked.

It would happen faster and those nations would be "absorbed into the collective"

and No, the Idea of Nationality does not give people an excuse to do all that, they would do that even without the Idea of nationality. they will find another ideal to gather around, Religion, Financial Status, Intelligence, even skin color.
Swilatia
12-12-2006, 01:33
no it keeps scumbags like north korea in power. By seperating them off from the rest off the world they are free to function as they wish, to go on torturing, starving and gradually killing off their population. Meanwhile the rest of the world sits back, and everyone in america waves their little tiny flags and worry about mexicans, while the BNP gains ever more votes on a thinly hidden racist platform.

You want borders, these are the consequences.i believe you mis-understood my post. so if we did not have borders, then the whole world would be one country. then if a government like north korea's were in charge, the world would be doomed.
DHomme
12-12-2006, 01:36
It would happen faster and those nations would be "absorbed into the collective"

I don't see where the logic for that comes, without borders people wouldn't feel the pressure of adopting a national culture, while national governments wouldnt be able to allow the importion/exportion of cultural and economic imperialism.


and No, the Idea of Nationality does not give people an excuse to do all that, they would do that even without the Idea of nationality. they will find another ideal to gather around, Religion, Financial Status, Intelligence, even skin color.

But that's the point. Not everyone considers their nation their first concern, a lot of people hold more loyalty to a religious doctrine or skin colour or class. But often when the crunch comes and a national government takes a country to war, it will be their patriotism which is most appealed to, the idea of protecting your home nation.
DHomme
12-12-2006, 01:39
i believe you mis-understood my post. so if we did not have borders, then the whole world would be one country. then if a government like north korea's were in charge, the world would be doomed.

No im just saying that when you have a situation where millions of people are mistreated by the international community because of the shitness of the government is fucked. The government commits human rights abuses against the people, and refuses to accept domination by others so the rest of the world decides embargo, blockade, sanction against and even bomb. All these things inevitably hurt the people of the country being attacked and all because htey were seperated off through nationality.
JuNii
12-12-2006, 01:44
I don't see where the logic for that comes, without borders people wouldn't feel the pressure of adopting a national culture, while national governments wouldnt be able to allow the importion/exportion of cultural and economic imperialism.Because without borders and the laws that keep them up, the country with the most influence will be dominant. think about the top name brands known all over the world. How many of them are American vs other individual countries. Values of one country will spill over and overrun others.

Unless you're also thinking ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT also.

But that's the point. Not everyone considers their nation their first concern, a lot of people hold more loyalty to a religious doctrine or skin colour or class. But often when the crunch comes and a national government takes a country to war, it will be their patriotism which is most appealed to, the idea of protecting your home nation.because when a COUNTRY goes to war, it counts on the Patriotism of it's people. the one thing that will make a Homophobe fight along side a Homosexual is a common enemy. the same with a black man and a white man.
Socialist Pyrates
12-12-2006, 01:48
We've had plenty of instances here with people throwing around words like "unpatriotic", and claiming that they were patriotic for one reason or another.

A basic dictionary definition would be...



With that aside, I challenge all posters here to tell me what being a patriot means.

To me, being a patriot means loving your nation, whether you were born there or not and not being afraid to criticise the government when they muck up the country you love so much. Being a patriot means questioning the government when they're wrong in your eyes and challenging them to justify what they have done to your country. It is also standing by those who have fought and won your freedoms.

patriotism is an mental disorder-it's an outdated concept that should have been done away with 100yr ago, next to religion it's probably the biggest killer in the world(ok, it may be worse than religion)

I like the country I live , I sometimes like my city......I love my family, I don't love my country, it's a good place to live but there are others that are as good
Andaluciae
12-12-2006, 01:52
It leads to things like the Committee on UnAmerican Activities *shudders*

Actually, HUAC was borne of a desire to put pressure on the Klan, that it turned into McCarthy's personal masturbationfest was the result of a power-hungry personality.
The Kaza-Matadorians
12-12-2006, 01:52
Apparently you don't know too much about the American system, so let me help you out a little...

I have to express that I am a patriotic for my country (Australia) in the way explained above. I love my country because of the absolute distrust in government and every government institution our populace has, I would put foward that we have a very democratic system.

Congrats, and I agree.

For one, in a comparison to the US, we have no 'Commander-in-Chief' or 'Imperial President' or whatever he's called these days, which is a totally undemocratic ideal.

Try "President." Or, if you're feeling especially formal, "Mr. President." And not really. See, he's elected every 4 years, and if you don't like him, hey, there's always next election.

Therefore our populace has very little loyalty to a leader, even the PM is subject to the most intense indisgression in Parliament on a daily basis to have checked what he's doing by the Opposition. The US President can veto (honestly I can't actually believe it, it's so undemocratic) legislation while in the houses, and he only has to be speak for his actions once a year (State of the Union, although it's more of a rhetorical speech than any accountability).

OK, since you're Australian, I'll let this pass. But, listen to lots of so-called experts, and they'll criticize Bush for almost everything he does, and he doesn't even have to publicly speak for them to do it.

As for the veto, Congress has the power to over-ride his veto (granted, that's only happened once in our history, but that's beside the point), so he can't just veto anything he wants and have it stay so

I love my country because governments only last as long as a shoelace,

Our government changes every two years. Yours?

(A)nd more importantly because we have no loyalty to that shoelace whatsoever, but moreover we are loyal to Australia and never an individual government. None of this 'pledge of allegience' or 'flag waving' or 'loyalty to the Commander-in-Chief' which is akin to despotism. Mostly, it is that our government are always temporary administrators, and are never wrapped in our flag, so we can always throw crap at them without dirtying the flag, unlike the US President.

Well, seeing as how our government IS America, I don't see how it's so bad to say you're loyal to the country and government. You show your patriotism your way, and I will mine.

And I get the symbolism (it is symbolism, right?), but seriously, again, I forgive you because you're in Australia, but there are massive, unbased (and many times, untrue) accusations flung at the president almost on a daily basis (like I mentioned above). Many people find this repulsive because most of it is based, not on rhetoric or truth, but the basic fact that he's a conservative Republican, and many people find this repulsive (regardless of who's doing the mud-slinging).
Andaluciae
12-12-2006, 01:55
No im just saying that when you have a situation where millions of people are mistreated by the international community because of the shitness of the government is fucked. The government commits human rights abuses against the people, and refuses to accept domination by others so the rest of the world decides embargo, blockade, sanction against and even bomb. All these things inevitably hurt the people of the country being attacked and all because htey were seperated off through nationality.

Of course, if there were a single, central government, if it got shitty, short hope would exist for humanity.

As a firm believer in the Kantian Triangle, small states with Democratic Governments, Open Trade and International Institutions are the key to making humanity free, happy, peaceful and prosperous.
Socialist Pyrates
12-12-2006, 02:04
of course the alternative is that the strongest nation influences everyone. with no borders to contain as well as seperate, you could have Canada and Mexico with American values as more and more countries are infiltrated with American Core Values.

Meanwhile, China and Russia would be spread across Asia and Europe.

Canada and Mexico with American values? American Core values?.....no offense on behalf of most Canadians I would say that if we had american core values it would be a step backward.....
JuNii
12-12-2006, 02:06
Canada and Mexico with American values? American Core values?.....no offense on behalf of most Canadians I would say that if we had american core values it would be a step backward.....That may be true, but you're also not denying the possiblity that it's possible if the world had no political borders.
Natiopia
12-12-2006, 02:06
I've felt that in America, patriotism is slightly different than the rest of the world (I determined this in talking to a teacher at my school who is from Brazil). I feel that it is more and more becoming a unquestioning allegiance to the government and that people who appose the president are looked down upon, though this is changing. (Please note that this is my personal experience.) I am a mennonite and as such believe that my allegiance belongs to the world.
Dunlaoire
12-12-2006, 02:07
Patriotism is loving your country enough to see where its going wrong
and wanting it to live up to its potential building on its good qualities
and aspirations.

Hating yourself leads to hating your own country which leads you to hate
other peoples countries and so attack them to take your mind off how much
you think your own country sucks. When you have these haters in charge
you find they usually attack countries with the leadership they most admire
and support those which are worse than their own.
Dunlaoire
12-12-2006, 02:09
Canada and Mexico with American values? American Core values?.....no offense on behalf of most Canadians I would say that if we had american core values it would be a step backward.....

Sheesh
only one?
The Kaza-Matadorians
12-12-2006, 02:13
Sheesh
only one?

I'd call it a few steps in the right direction
Dunlaoire
12-12-2006, 02:14
I'd call it a few steps forward

The you need to turn around so you're facing the same way as the horse you is ridin'.
Socialist Pyrates
12-12-2006, 02:14
That may be true, but you're also not denying the possiblity that it's possible if the world had no political borders.hmmm......tricky question......no political borders are far off concept, endless speculation how that would turn out, certainly a blending of cultures....values I'm not so sure about......
Dobbsworld
12-12-2006, 02:15
Patriotism is:


A ten-letter word, best consigned to crossword puzzles.
Socialist Pyrates
12-12-2006, 02:19
Patriotism is loving your country enough to see where its going wrong
and wanting it to live up to its potential building on its good qualities
and aspirations.

Hating yourself leads to hating your own country which leads you to hate
other peoples countries and so attack them to take your mind off how much
you think your own country sucks. When you have these haters in charge
you find they usually attack countries with the leadership they most admire
and support those which are worse than their own.

ok....that's really twisted thinking......So GWB attacked Saddam because he admired him?...I'm no fan of GWB but that's a bit much....
The Kaza-Matadorians
12-12-2006, 02:19
Then you need to turn around so you're facing the same way as the horse you is ridin'.

Oh, I am.

Thing is, what is forward to me isn't to you. So, to me, you're backwards.
Andaluciae
12-12-2006, 02:21
Aye, but while I'm here...

...a healthy, well developed sense of confident Patriotism is good for the mental health of an individual. Why is this, you might ask? It's fairly, simple. As we all know, individual identity is derived from two sources. The first source is internal factors regarding the individual, the second source is from external factors, things such as groups an individual perceives himself as being a member of. One of these groups is national identity. If an individual has a confident, happy national identity, this lends aid to the development of a strong, healthy individual identity, and as we all know, individuals with strong personal identities are more likely to be more functional in society, less aggressive and less violent. If a nation is able to develop a strong, stable national identity (one of the classic examples is Italy, see Herrmanns work on nationalism for more on this instance) that nation is more likely to be content with itself, and rely more on internal factors, rather than external actions to define itself.

Think of the middle school bully, an individual who is entirely uncomfortable with himself, and who is seeking to define his identity by juxtaposing it against others, often times by attempting to assert a sort of physical superiority over another person. Only when he is able to successfully define himself by who he is, not by what he does, is he able to relinquish his desire to dominate others. Much as with the nation, becoming happy and confident with who you are leads to a desire to sit back and enjoy the knowledge that you know who you are.

When people are trying to develop a sense of patriotism, of pride in their selves, not their actions toward other states, it is ill advised to try to damage their attempts, as doing so will only lead to increased uncertainty, and therefore more conflict. If they are allowed to take a simple path of self discovery and pride in theirselves and their national identity, they will become happier far quicker, and less likely to lash out at others.

You can deride it as backward all you want, but the truth of the matter is, it's best left alone for it to develop properly.
New Xero Seven
12-12-2006, 02:24
I think to be patriotic is to love an aspect or two of one's country, be it big or small. I believe a healthy dose of patriotism won't kill anyone.
The Kaza-Matadorians
12-12-2006, 02:24
Patriotism is loving your country enough to see where its going wrong
and wanting it to live up to its potential building on its good qualities
and aspirations.

Hating yourself leads to hating your own country which leads you to hate
other peoples countries and so attack them to take your mind off how much
you think your own country sucks. When you have these haters in charge
you find they usually attack countries with the leadership they most admire
and support those which are worse than their own.

Ya ya ya! It all makes sense now! FDR attacked Nazi Germany because he wanted to reduce the US to Fascism! Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because they oh-so wanted to be just like us! The Confederacy attacked the Union because, even though they had just seceeded from the Union and made their own government, they wanted to be just like us! Of course! It all makes sense now!!!

:rolleyes:
Dunlaoire
12-12-2006, 02:34
Ya ya ya! It all makes sense now! FDR attacked Nazi Germany because he wanted to reduce the US to Fascism! Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because they oh-so wanted to be just like us! The Confederacy attacked the Union because, even though they had just seceeded from the Union and made their own government, they wanted to be just like us! Of course! It all makes sense now!!!

:rolleyes:

Well the US didnt willingly enter into WW2 now did it
IT was attacked by JAPAN and when they declared war in response
GERMANY declared war on the US

so perhaps the US wasnt run by self hating demagogues back then
Trotskylvania
12-12-2006, 02:38
Zinn has a great quote relating to Patriotism.

"If patriotism were defined, not as blind obedience to government, nor as submissive worship to flags and anthems, but rather as love of one's country, one's fellow citizens (all over the world), as loyalty to the principles of justice and democracy, then patriotism would require us to disobey our government, when it violated those principles."
Declarations of Independence: Cross-Examining American Ideology (1991): "Obligation to the State"
The Kaza-Matadorians
12-12-2006, 02:40
Well the US didnt willingly enter into WW2 now did it
IT was attacked by JAPAN and when they declared war in response
GERMANY declared war on the US

so perhaps the US wasnt run by self hating demagogues back then

Ya, but let's not pretend that the US was overly favoring the Allies during the war (understandably) trade-wise. This got the Axis ticked off. Japan attakced in retaliation of the lack of oil in their new empire.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. But who's saying we are now?
Socialist Pyrates
12-12-2006, 02:50
Zinn has a great quote relating to Patriotism.

"If patriotism were defined, not as blind obedience to government, nor as submissive worship to flags and anthems, but rather as love of one's country, one's fellow citizens (all over the world), as loyalty to the principles of justice and democracy, then patriotism would require us to disobey our government, when it violated those principles."
Declarations of Independence: Cross-Examining American Ideology (1991): "Obligation to the State"
I like that but it's still called patriotism which creates images of flag worshipers....I prefer the the term Humanist....
JuNii
12-12-2006, 02:51
Ya, but let's not pretend that the US was overly favoring the Allies during the war (understandably) trade-wise. This got the Axis ticked off. Japan attakced in retaliation of the lack of oil in their new empire.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. But who's saying we are now?

The AXIS ticked off? I know that Japan was blockaded due to their attacks on China (an ally of the US back then) and their attack was to cripple the Pacific fleet (which they were close to doing.)
Chrintium
12-12-2006, 02:51
On patriotism:

I agree with the quote I saw a while back. While I was reading my way up, I wanted to post it, but somebody beat me to it. "A patriot must be ready to defend his country against his government." I believe that healthy patriotism is a decision to devote oneself to the beliefs of the general will of a society and support its values. As an American citizen, I have little to no respect for what Bush has done for our image in the world, and I have little respect for the government's actions altogether, but I do consider myself a patriot.

I consider myself a fan of the liberterian views of Jefferson (except for the slave thing...). In my mind, an American patriot believes in the complete mixing of races, opinions, and religions in a respectful way. There are people on this forum who I agree and disagree with, but I honestly wish to treat everybody with the respect that I owe them. After all, we all come here willingly.

Which is exactly what I believe a true patriot does. They come willingly to support values. If siding with the government is the way of doing it, they do that. If rebelling is the way to be a patriot, they take that action. But patriotism is a necessary bond that can actually generate some degree of goodwill.

Soccrates said that man is by nature a political animal. Others said that men bonded together to prevent a massive anarchist war. Either way, we join together, and different nations are formed, sometimes by governments, other times by people. And I for one am a fan of societal patriotism. Which means that I not just have "American values," I have a degree of Canadian values, Australian values, and hell, I might have Chinese values. My patriotism comes not from a kinship with national borders, but a kinship for fellow man. This is why patriots within the US question the War in Iraq. Because their patriotism calls them to defend others.

Patriotism looks not just inward, but outward, and that's why the U.S. should have aided in WWII much earlier. A true patriot would feel obligation to help anybody in danger. We do so by supporting our societies when they are in trouble.

So maybe the US is screwed up, maybe it's not. I am a fan of our state's systems. In WA where I live, we can recall any politician or law by democratic vote. That's why I support state rights over federal ones. Because that's my idea of how I can be a patriot.

There is no such thing as blind patriotism. That's nationalism.
Trotskylvania
12-12-2006, 02:52
I like that but it's still called patriotism which creates images of flag worshipers....I prefer the the term Humanist....

We have to win the war of words and take back patriotism from the right wing.
The Kaza-Matadorians
12-12-2006, 03:09
The AXIS ticked off? I know that Japan was blockaded due to their attacks on China (an ally of the US back then) and their attack was to cripple the Pacific fleet (which they were close to doing.)

Their attack was multi-fold
Tech-gnosis
12-12-2006, 03:11
Patriotism is a form of collectivism. Whether or not that's a problem is up to you.
The Kaza-Matadorians
12-12-2006, 03:13
We have to win the war of words and take back patriotism from the right wing.

Oh, pleeeaase...
Trotskylvania
12-12-2006, 03:14
Patriotism is a form of collectivism. Whether or not that's a problem is up to you.

Depends on whether you mean protest the government patriotism, or the more often defined blind obedience patriotism.
Chrintium
12-12-2006, 03:17
Patriotism isn't either/or. Sometimes it compells one to rebel, other times to obey. It's based on shared values, which is a form of collectivism. How much collectivism is up to the patriot. But I believe that a patriot makes the conscious decision to be a patriot, regardless of what he or she is told to do. A nationalist waves a flag because it's pretty.
Socialist Pyrates
12-12-2006, 03:19
Oh, pleeeaase...

he's right....politcal spin drs..love to get these catch phrases to get everyone's attention......the Patriot Act(do I have that right) how many people were afraid to object to it because they would then be labed as unpatriotic.........it's silly stuff but there enough simple minds to be swayed by that during an election....
Chrintium
12-12-2006, 03:23
I consider myself an Anti-Patriot Act Patriot...
The Kaza-Matadorians
12-12-2006, 03:25
he's right....politcal spin drs..love to get these catch phrases to get everyone's attention......the Patriot Act(do I have that right) how many people were afraid to object to it because they would then be labed as unpatriotic.........it's silly stuff but there enough simple minds to be swayed by that during an election....

Maybe some of those senators passed the bill because, oh, I don't know, the security of the nation was at stake? Maybe? Nah, that's crazy talk. :rolleyes:
Curious Inquiry
12-12-2006, 03:28
A nineteenth-century phenomenon which peaked in the mid-twentieth-century. Although outmoded and undesirable in today's world of global ecomonies, "patriotism" is still used to distract people from what's really going on.
Dunlaoire
12-12-2006, 03:29
How many of those senators passed the bill because, oh, I don't know, the security of the nation was at stake? Maybe? Nah, that's crazy talk. :rolleyes:

A lot of people would say the security of that nation was at stake
and the people who opposed the patriot act did not succeed in protecting it.
Chrintium
12-12-2006, 03:30
Maybe some of those senators passed the bill because, oh, I don't know, the security of the nation was at stake? Maybe? Nah, that's crazy talk. :rolleyes:

"Those who are willing to sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither." -Benjamin Franklin, patriot
Chrintium
12-12-2006, 03:31
Maybe some of those senators passed the bill because, oh, I don't know, the security of the nation was at stake? Maybe? Nah, that's crazy talk. :rolleyes:

"Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither."
-Benjamin Franklin, patriot
The Kaza-Matadorians
12-12-2006, 03:31
I consider myself an Anti-Patriot Act Patriot...

lol

Really, if you aren't doing anything wrong, what is there to fear?
Socialist Pyrates
12-12-2006, 03:31
Maybe some of those senators passed the bill because, oh, I don't know, the security of the nation was at stake? Maybe? Nah, that's crazy talk. :rolleyes:

how many were afraid to object to the Act or even the Iraq war for fear of being labeled unpatriotic, many I'll wager, I've noticed they seem to be coming out of hiding now....
Curious Inquiry
12-12-2006, 03:32
lol

Really, if you aren't doing anything wrong, what is there to fear?

Someone else deciding that what you're doing is wrong.
The Kaza-Matadorians
12-12-2006, 03:33
"Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither."
-Benjamin Franklin, patriot

But what good do our liberties do us when we're dead?
Chrintium
12-12-2006, 03:34
lol

Really, if you aren't doing anything wrong, what is there to fear?

Simple: I don't like the fact that the American government is violating its own constitution. I think that Bush is stupid and moronic, but not evil. I'm not worried about him oppressing me. What I AM worried about is Bush and Congress giving the president too much power, so that one day when we do get a machiavellian president, he's got all the power set up for him.

The fact is, that as a normal average white guy, Protestant, Anglo-Saxon, tax-paying citizen, I'll never have to worry about being tortured. I'll never have to plea the fifth, or resist warrants in my home.

But those rights aren't just for me. They're for everybody in our country, including arabs, muslims, gays, and yes, democrats. And I want them to have rights too (part of what being a patriot is). You see, this isn't me trading MY rights for my security, this is me trading THEIR rights for my security.

And as a patriot, sir, I will not stand by and allow that to happen. I would rather die in a terrorist attack on a free country than live in one that restricts the liberties of others so that I may live "freely"
The Kaza-Matadorians
12-12-2006, 03:36
Someone else deciding that what you're doing is wrong.

So... planning attacks that can kill thousands (or any number, for that matter) isn't wrong? Is that what you're saying? I mean, how can you construe something to be wrong if you're living a decent, American life?
The Kaza-Matadorians
12-12-2006, 03:39
how many were afraid to object to the Act or even the Iraq war for fear of being labeled unpatriotic, many I'll wager, I've noticed they seem to be coming out of hiding now....

Yes, now that the media is fawning over anyone who's against the Patriot Act or the Iraq war (which I support, by the way, in case you couldn't tell).
Curious Inquiry
12-12-2006, 03:41
So... planning attacks that can kill thousands (or any number, for that matter) isn't wrong? Is that what you're saying? I mean, how can you construe something to be wrong if you're living a decent, American life?

Is pr0n part of a "decent American life"?
Dunlaoire
12-12-2006, 03:43
So... planning attacks that can kill thousands (or any number, for that matter) isn't wrong? Is that what you're saying? I mean, how can you construe something to be wrong if you're living a decent, American life?

Which attacks?
The ones on Iraq or the ones on Afghanistan?

You saying the people who planned those should be brought to justice?
Chrintium
12-12-2006, 03:43
Okay, Kazas, I replied to your earlier question but i need moderator approval to post, apparently...so you may have to wait.

How long does that usually take?
Trotskylvania
12-12-2006, 03:43
lol

Really, if you aren't doing anything wrong, what is there to fear?

Reactionary quasi fascist governments led by evangelical demonic messianists. Yes I mean Bush.
The Kaza-Matadorians
12-12-2006, 03:44
Is pr0n part of a "decent American life"?

Is "pr0n" a threat to American lives (ignoring STD's)? No, I think not.
Nefundland
12-12-2006, 03:45
But what good do our liberties do us when we're dead?

what good do our lives do when we are not free?
Curious Inquiry
12-12-2006, 03:46
Is "pr0n" a threat to American lives (ignoring STD's)? No, I think not.

Some would. What about gay marriage? Protect other's freedoms, because They may come for yours, next ;)
The Kaza-Matadorians
12-12-2006, 03:46
Reactionary quasi fascist governments led by evangelical demonic messianists. Yes I mean Bush.

So... Bush, SOLELY because he's Christian, is a fascist demon?

This doesn't even warrant a response...
Qinzhao
12-12-2006, 03:47
Being a patriot is meaningless.

Nations are meaningless.
What do they group people by?

A shared culture? Nope.
A shared set of economic interests? Nope.
A shared set of values? Nope.
A shared group of beliefs? Nope

So what are nations? Little more than arbitrary lines on a map drawn up by some bureaucrat/politician/regent and based on a struggle for resources and labour. They don't unite people, they divide us.

A sense of patriotism is appealed to whenever the ruling class wants to divert your attention. When Thatcher was having strife at home she rallied the country around the falklands war.

Borders kill.

I couldn't agree more. :)

Maybe we can still remember how the world powers divided Eastern Europe into many countries, each with their own system and borderlines. The Lithuanians, the Latvians, the Polish, the Romanians, the Bulgarians, the Ukrainians, are they differ from the other in terms of race, culture, and history? :rolleyes:
They just differ in terms of political views and systems.

The same as those Koreans (North and South), Indochinese (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia), Indians (India and Pakistan), Malays (Indonesia and Malaysia), Africans (a lot of states in Southern, Western, and Central Africa), etc.

Humans like to divide themselves in order to gain power to rule their own community. These rulers use the term "nationalism and patriotism" in order to make them feel popular. Those two words are power-centric, subjective.
Trotskylvania
12-12-2006, 03:49
So... Bush, SOLELY because he's Christian, is a fascist demon?

This doesn't even warrant a response...

No, it is the manner in which he uses faith. He thinks he is on a divine mission to bring his own particular interpretation of religious belief to the rest of the world, come hell or high water. The ends always justify the means by his logic, which is the definition of evil.
The Kaza-Matadorians
12-12-2006, 03:50
what good do our lives do when we are not free?

Look, unless plotting/doing terrorism and/or plotting WITH terrorists is part of your daily routine, your daily life isn't affected. I'd understand if the government got rid of, say, the freedom of speech, but come on...
Dunlaoire
12-12-2006, 03:51
So... Bush, SOLELY because he's Christian, is a fascist demon?

This doesn't even warrant a response...

Seeing as it isn't what was said

Im learning all kinds of debating terms here

Isn't what you just did there called creating a straw man.


Actually Bush is a moron, made more inclined to be gullible as well due to having religion. That it happens to be a version of christianity is by the by .

Now the people who run Bush they are the truly evil men.
But while Bush may not have the intellectual capacity of a backward
ten year old we still expect even backwards ten year olds to know the difference
between right and wrong.
So the day will come when he does get tried and hopefully convicted for his part in war crimes.
The Kaza-Matadorians
12-12-2006, 03:53
Some would. What about gay marriage? Protect other's freedoms, because They may come for yours, next ;)

Nobody in the US has the right to marriage.

This is an argument for another thread.
The Kaza-Matadorians
12-12-2006, 03:57
Seeing as it isn't what was said

Im learning all kinds of debating terms here

Isn't what you just did there called creating a straw man.

Um, sure

Actually Bush is a moron, made more inclined to be gullible as well due to having religion. That it happens to be a version of christianity is by the by .

Now the people who run Bush they are the truly evil men.
But while Bush may not have the intellectual capacity of a backward
ten year old we still expect even backwards ten year olds to know the difference
between right and wrong.
So the day will come when he does get tried and hopefully convicted for his part in war crimes.

*sigh* I'm getting tired of the "Bush is an idiot/moron/slow 10-year-old kid" argument.

What men behind him? You mean Cheney? Oh, yes, he's very evil! Satan incarnate! :rolleyes:

War crimes, my foot.
Trotskylvania
12-12-2006, 03:58
No, it is the manner in which he uses faith. He thinks he is on a divine mission to bring his own particular interpretation of religious belief to the rest of the world, come hell or high water. The ends always justify the means by his logic, which is the definition of evil.

Read my post from before.
Dunlaoire
12-12-2006, 03:59
Look, unless plotting/doing terrorism and/or plotting WITH terrorists is part of your daily routine, your daily life isn't affected. I'd understand if the government got rid of, say, the freedom of speech, but come on...

I wonder how many acts of plotting with terrorists or actual doing terrorism
we might find you are guilty of if the CIA could just get hold of you in some
out of the way place for a month or two.

The people who oppose the PATRIOT act are probably not terrorists as they
would not want to draw attention to themselves.
The ones to really watch are those who pretend to support the war and support the PATRIOT act.
Are you really supporting them or just trying to disguise your contempt and
hatred for the American way of life while you plot your
dastardly deeds? hmmm?
Dunlaoire
12-12-2006, 04:01
Um, sure
*sigh* I'm getting tired of the "Bush is an idiot/moron/slow 10-year-old kid" argument.


Really? I haven't actually heard any argument about it, anywhere.


War crimes, my foot.

Hard to believe only your foot was involved.
Chrintium
12-12-2006, 04:02
Anybody know why my posts have to be mod approved? My reply to Kaza over two pages ago, which took me ten minutes to type, has yet to get "approval"
The Kaza-Matadorians
12-12-2006, 04:04
I wonder how many acts of plotting with terrorists or actual doing terrorism
we might find you are guilty of if the CIA could just get hold of you in some
out of the way place for a month or two.

The people who oppose the PATRIOT act are probably not terrorists as they
would not want to draw attention to themselves.
The ones to really watch are those who pretend to support the war and support the PATRIOT act.
Are you really supporting them or just trying to disguise your contempt and
hatred for the American way of life while you plot your
dastardly deeds? hmmm?

Ya, doubtful
Trotskylvania
12-12-2006, 04:06
Ya, doubtful

You still haven't responded to my reply.
The Kaza-Matadorians
12-12-2006, 04:06
Really? I haven't actually heard any argument about it, anywhere.

Maybe you aren't looking?


Hard to believe only your foot was involved.[/QUOTE]

:rolleyes:
Chrintium
12-12-2006, 04:07
Nobody in the US has the right to marriage.

This is an argument for another thread.

The very first political union of man was the family. The state came afterward (look up social contract, particularly Rousseau).

The right to mate for life predates the state, and thus is a natural right. Any state which restricts marriage is an unjust state, therefore, all people have the right to marriage.

Divorce is a socially relativistic right. In the US, you have the right. That's how people are able to get one.

Since we have to recognize foreign marriages, the right to marriage is inherent in the US. And you made this a debate here. And damn, I wish my reply to your old question would get approval...
The Kaza-Matadorians
12-12-2006, 04:09
You still haven't responded to my reply.

Sorry, but I'm having trouble keeping up with everything as it is.
Trotskylvania
12-12-2006, 04:10
Divorce is a socially relativistic right. In the US, you have the right. That's how people are able to get one.

Well, one could argue that the concept of divorce is as old as marriage.
The Kaza-Matadorians
12-12-2006, 04:11
The very first political union of man was the family. The state came afterward (look up social contract, particularly Rousseau).

Rousseau didn't write the Constitution.
Chrintium
12-12-2006, 04:13
Well, one could argue that the concept of divorce is as old as marriage.

Then argue it. I welcome a respectful debate. I would say that the concept of it is indeed as old, and I in no way am opposing divorce. I'm simply saying that some societies do not allow divorce. I'm not defending them but merely making a statement.

I did jump into that sentence without thought. I shall contemplate this issue before my next reply.
Chrintium
12-12-2006, 04:15
Rousseau didn't write the Constitution.

Neither did John Locke (the guy who started the idea of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness) but they were both major influences in its construction, and Rousseau was a philosopher whose statements I agree with.

Believe it or not, the United States is not as old as human society. It's important to know where society came from before we can understand the US.
The Kaza-Matadorians
12-12-2006, 04:16
No, it is the manner in which he uses faith. He thinks he is on a divine mission to bring his own particular interpretation of religious belief to the rest of the world, come hell or high water. The ends always justify the means by his logic, which is the definition of evil.

...No, I have this funny feeling that you're just saying that he's "on a divine mission" because he's a Christian fighting a war against people who follow Islam; it is not a war against Islam, whatever you may think.

And no, he acted on intelligence that he had, which, by the way, still hasn't been proven to be false.
Dunlaoire
12-12-2006, 04:16
*sigh* I'm getting tired of the "Bush is an idiot/moron/slow 10-year-old kid" argument.

Really? I haven't actually heard any argument about it, anywhere.
I haven't actually heard any argument about it, anywhere.

Maybe you aren't looking?


True, I wouldn't look as I take it as a given having heard him speaking.
Though all credit to him for almost sounding like he knows what some words mean.

But I don't go looking for people who argue evolution isn't real and creationism is and yet I keep finding americans arguing that.

I don't go looking for people who believe there is a god and yet keep seeing or hearing americans who do.

Yet I have come across nobody arguing Bush is intelligent.
The best I have seen is that other people are stupid too.
Trotskylvania
12-12-2006, 04:17
Then argue it. I welcome a respectful debate. I would say that the concept of it is indeed as old, and I in no way am opposing divorce. I'm simply saying that some societies do not allow divorce. I'm not defending them but merely making a statement.

I did jump into that sentence without thought. I shall contemplate this issue before my next reply.

Many nomadic societies, such as Native Americans, allowed men and women to divorce for any reason. Their societies hadn't changed significantly since before the rise of the State.
Dunlaoire
12-12-2006, 04:17
...

And no, he acted on intelligence that he had, which, by the way, still hasn't been proven to be false.

HAAAAA
Bush had intelligence
LOL

Prove it

OOOooops guess this is one of those belief things,
doesn't require proof as Bush's intelligence is outside logic and reason eh?
Trotskylvania
12-12-2006, 04:20
...No, I have this funny feeling that you're just saying that he's "on a divine mission" because he's a Christian fighting a war against people who follow Islam; it is not a war against Islam, whatever you may think.

And no, he acted on intelligence that he had, which, by the way, still hasn't been proven to be false.

No, his divine mission is to spread his particular view of democracy by force if nescesary (which is counter-intuitive) and he feels that he is divinely commanded by God to spread elitist neoconservative views. Islam has nothing to do with it.

The intelligence wasn't false: it was out of date. It came from the 1980s, back when the US government had the receipts for Iraqs WMDs.
The Kaza-Matadorians
12-12-2006, 04:20
Neither did John Locke (the guy who started the idea of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness) but they were both major influences in its construction, and Rousseau was a philosopher whose statements I agree with.

Believe it or not, the United States is not as old as human society. It's important to know where society came from before we can understand the US.

Ya, but just because Rousseau was an influence on the Constitution doesn't mean that everything he said is a go in the US.
Chrintium
12-12-2006, 04:23
Many nomadic societies, such as Native Americans, allowed men and women to divorce for any reason. Their societies hadn't changed significantly since before the rise of the State.

It does make sense, in hindsight, that if humans have the right to choose to mate for life, they may also choose to end that bond. I was thinking of the Catholics who do not acknowledge divorce, but of course, that is only one religious group. I concede. Good point.
Chrintium
12-12-2006, 04:25
Ya, but just because Rousseau was an influence on the Constitution doesn't mean that everything he said is a go in the US.

I'm arguing outside the US. The US is a society. Rousseau posted postulates about society.

The family WAS the first political system. People respected their parents before they wrote a constitution. The state has always been an issue of family.

That's why property trade and inheritence is such a key issue in every society.

I'm not saying that Rousseau should write the constitution. I'm saying that marriage is a natural right. Natural rights > Constitutional rights, although they're supposed to protect natural rights...
The Kaza-Matadorians
12-12-2006, 04:25
No, his divine mission is to spread his particular view of democracy by force if nescesary (which is counter-intuitive) and he feels that he is divinely commanded by God to spread elitist neoconservative views. Islam has nothing to do with it.

The intelligence wasn't false: it was out of date. It came from the 1980s, back when the US government had the receipts for Iraqs WMDs.

He believes that everyone is better off under a democracy than a dictatorship (he's on the mark, too).

It was included in the intelligence reports, and it showed that Hussein had and used WMD's in the past to kill political dissidents.

And, even though he had them 20 years ago, that doesn't mean that he didn't have them at the time of the invasion.
Dunlaoire
12-12-2006, 04:28
...

And, even though he had them 20 years ago, that doesn't mean that he didn't have them at the time of the invasion.

But he didn't
and there was no credible evidence that he did.

There were however weapons inspectors busily inspecting for them
just in case.

It seemed the risk that they might declare there were none was too much to take.
Trotskylvania
12-12-2006, 04:28
He believes that everyone is better off under a democracy than a dictatorship (he's on the mark, too).

It was included in the intelligence reports, and it showed that Hussein had and used WMD's in the past to kill political dissidents.

And, even though he had them 20 years ago, that doesn't mean that he didn't have them at the time of the invasion.

It is impossible to spread democracy on the end of a sword. But his divine mission precludes him from realizing that. It still boils down to the ends always justifying the means. He violates Kant's categorical imperative all of its forumulations by not following universality and by treating people as a means to an end rather than the end itself.
The Kaza-Matadorians
12-12-2006, 04:30
I'm arguing outside the US. The US is a society. Rousseau posted postulates about society.

The family WAS the first political system. People respected their parents before they wrote a constitution. The state has always been an issue of family.

That's why property trade and inheritence is such a key issue in every society.

I'm not saying that Rousseau should write the constitution. I'm saying that marriage is a natural right. Natural rights > Constitutional rights, although they're supposed to protect natural rights...

I understand that it was the first political system. But, they were formed to keep the human race alive (reproduction); homosexual couples can't do that, and heterosexual couples can. So, even though marriage has existed, only the heterosexual marriage has existed, for sheer practicality.
Chrintium
12-12-2006, 04:30
It is impossible to spread democracy on the end of a sword. But his divine mission precludes him from realizing that. It still boils down to the ends always justifying the means. He violates Kant's categorical imperative all of its forumulations by not following universality and by treating people as a means to an end rather than the end itself.

Heheheh, Kant.

I'll use this as an opportunity to explain to everybody else what the CI is...and then explain why it's not applicable in reality.

Since humans all began in complete freedom, “rights” come not entitled to us but as duties that others are required to give.

Rights are that which we possess in a situation of complete freedom, for the taking of these things is an infringement upon our circumstances, and alters the natural balance and equality of the world.

We possess life and liberty in all situations, but life we possess first.

Therefore we owe the duty of granting life and liberty to others. This applies to all people regardless of their own interests or circumstances.

There is a categorical imperative upon all human beings to first defend all others’ right to life, and next to liberty. Life comes first and foremost.

The problem, of course, is that when one person violates it, everything falls apart. Rights have the burden to fall upon the individual. According to Kant, responsibility predates right, but even true as that may be, in the real world it is necessary for right to predate responsibility to ensure the protection of victims from oppressors or abusers.
Dunlaoire
12-12-2006, 04:31
But he didn't
and there was no credible evidence that he did.

There were however weapons inspectors busily inspecting for them
just in case.

It seemed the risk that they might declare there were none was too much to take.

However Bush is no patriot
Even though he did serve in the armed forces during the vietnam war.
He protected texas skies, when he could be bothered.

People who opposed him dragging the US into criminality
ripping up treaties and doing away with civil rights
in opposition to the the values and core principles of the US were patriots.
Chrintium
12-12-2006, 04:32
I understand that it was the first political system. But, they were formed to keep the human race alive (reproduction); homosexual couples can't do that, and heterosexual couples can. So, even though marriage has existed, only the heterosexual marriage has existed, for sheer practicality.

Not true. A gay couple is still a family. People united by love. I'm a conservative Christian and you know that, so don't go there. This is on what is patriotism. I suggest we head back that way before this goes waaaay off topic. Or before I give you another rhetorical spanking.
The Kaza-Matadorians
12-12-2006, 04:34
But he didn't
and there was no credible evidence that he did.

There were however weapons inspectors busily inspecting for them
just in case.

It seemed the risk that they might declare there were none was too much to take.

Hussein was playing games with the UN. At first, yes, he'd let them in... then he'd kick them out. Then the UN would say "Hey now, let them in and we'll be nice..." (the UN doesn't speak harshly to anyone :headbang: ) So he lets them in to placate the UN for awhile. But, he doesn't let them actually inspect anything. Then he gets bored and kicks them out again. THAT'S what he's been doing for 20 years.
Chrintium
12-12-2006, 04:37
And, miraculously, France was right. No WMDs. w00t.

Look, I don't like France and you know that, but they got invaded by Adolf Hitler, and the Security council knows about the Holocaust. I can't stand the UN's lack of enforcability, but we don't help the issue by ignoring them. And turns out, if we'd listened to them, we'd have been better off.

A true patriot honors the bonds with other societies that his society makes.
The Kaza-Matadorians
12-12-2006, 04:38
However Bush is no patriot
Even though he did serve in the armed forces during the vietnam war.
He protected texas skies, when he could be bothered.

People who opposed him dragging the US into criminality
ripping up treaties and doing away with civil rights
in opposition to the the values and core principles of the US were patriots.

So... going against the values of the day, making your country a criminal and destroying treaties and civil rights are patriots?

um, ya, no.
Andaluciae
12-12-2006, 04:41
Pathetic flame fest, this thread has become.
The Kaza-Matadorians
12-12-2006, 04:42
And, miraculously, France was right. No WMDs. w00t.

Look, I don't like France and you know that, but they got invaded by Adolf Hitler, and the Security council knows about the Holocaust. I can't stand the UN's lack of enforcability, but we don't help the issue by ignoring them. And turns out, if we'd listened to them, we'd have been better off.

A true patriot honors the bonds with other societies that his society makes.

Too bad you have to leave... maybe someone else can pick up your argument?

So, when it comes down to it, why can't France help us? Not that I want French troops helping me (looking at their success rate in the last century), but still, SOMETHING to help us would be appreciated, even if Iraq was a mistake (it's not), it'd be nice if they decided to help us somehow... or are they exempt because they aren't America?
Dunlaoire
12-12-2006, 04:49
Hussein was playing games with the UN. At first, yes, he'd let them in... then he'd kick them out. Then the UN would say "Hey now, let them in and we'll be nice..." (the UN doesn't speak harshly to anyone :headbang: ) So he lets them in to placate the UN for awhile. But, he doesn't let them actually inspect anything. Then he gets bored and kicks them out again. THAT'S what he's been doing for 20 years.

Are you ignorant or just lying.
Hussein did kick out US inspectors charging them with spying activity
Which was true
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9407E7D81631F933A25752C0A96F958260
The UN withdrew the rest in protest
then there were negotiations about them going back in again

Clinton had them withdraw again in 98 so he could bomb baghdad for not complying.
Hussein refused to let them back in again afterwards
Possibly because as he was aware he hadn't had any for years and the
inspectors knew that.
He did let them in then under threat in 2002 and they got to inspect everything
and anything in fact all they needed was the info the US government
said it had when it said it had proof positive that not only did he have WMD
but that he was actively making WMD and they knew where they were being
made and where they were being stored.

At that point the US administration clammed up on exactly where these
places might be eventually leading to them being east north south and west a bit, once the invasion took place.
Socialist Pyrates
12-12-2006, 05:44
Are you ignorant or just lying.
Hussein did kick out US inspectors charging them with spying activity
Which was true
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9407E7D81631F933A25752C0A96F958260
The UN withdrew the rest in protest
then there were negotiations about them going back in again

Clinton had them withdraw again in 98 so he could bomb baghdad for not complying.
Hussein refused to let them back in again afterwards
Possibly because as he was aware he hadn't had any for years and the
inspectors knew that.
He did let them in then under threat in 2002 and they got to inspect everything
and anything in fact all they needed was the info the US government
said it had when it said it had proof positive that not only did he have WMD
but that he was actively making WMD and they knew where they were being
made and where they were being stored.

At that point the US administration clammed up on exactly where these
places might be eventually leading to them being east north south and west a bit, once the invasion took place.

I saw Hans Blix head of the UN inspection in an interview give a different view than what you claim....."We looked every they asked us to look, they told us to look in that truck we looked in the truck and found nothing, they told us to look in a building and we would look and find nothing. At some point it should have occured to them (the americans) that maybe we weren't finding anything because there was nothing to find.

It appears that the UN inspectors had done their job well after Gulf W1 and destroyed everything in '91.

The best evidence for WMD after 9/11 was a document for sale of Uranium From Niger? to Iraq, a lot was made of this to justify an invasion until someone noticed it was a forged document clearly intended to push to iinvasion.
IL Ruffino
12-12-2006, 05:46
Patriotism is something I don't care for.
The Brevious
12-12-2006, 07:46
Patriotism is something I don't care for.

No, no .. it's the unquestioning allegiance to corporate interests, if current administration is to be credited.
Cabra West
12-12-2006, 09:31
Patriotism is... kind of pointless, in my opinion.
Pointless at best, dangerous at worst.
Laerod
12-12-2006, 11:36
Too bad you have to leave... maybe someone else can pick up your argument?

So, when it comes down to it, why can't France help us? Not that I want French troops helping me (looking at their success rate in the last century), but still, SOMETHING to help us would be appreciated, even if Iraq was a mistake (it's not), it'd be nice if they decided to help us somehow... or are they exempt because they aren't America?Funny that you mention French success rates in the last century, considering that it was the US that chickened out of Lebanon while the French stayed, after being hit similarly hard.
Rambhutan
12-12-2006, 12:22
Patriotism is... kind of pointless, in my opinion.
Pointless at best, dangerous at worst.

Totally agree
Achillean
12-12-2006, 12:53
actually WMD were found in iraq, they weren't exactly a threat to the free world but their not quite the vaunted "NO WMD" that is often quoted.

http://www.house.gov/hasc/schedules/6-29-06GaffneyTestimony.pdf

"Mr. Chairman, let me conclude with the following thought. The revelation that hundreds of chemical weapons that “remain hazardous and potentially lethal” have been found in Iraq since Operation Iraqi Freedom"
Aragnor
12-12-2006, 13:03
i think being a patriot isn't so much rallying to your countrys defence, its rallying to the defence of common ideals and norms which are threatened. in the past it started out as being for your country but then it was for religion, the catholic leagues of 16th and 17th century europe, after the spread of lutheranism and other protestant beliefs which catholics saw as a threat to their ideals and norms. now we rally to democracy as it is what is most important now, the americans have done some pretty stupid things, vietnam for one, but they weren't being patriotic, they were fighting for their own values of democracy against what most of the western world felt was a threat, communism.

as for bush, we'll hes an idiot, not evil, just stupid. and blair has been just as stupid for being his lapdog.

i consider myself a patriot, true i love my country but not because its my country, i love britain because its free and accepting and democratic, these are my values and i would gladly fight to protect them.

p.s sorry if its longish, i read all the other pages before joining in. i aint got much to go on now but hey, im young i can learn, and i study sociology, knew it'd come in handy for something.
Cabra West
12-12-2006, 14:07
actually WMD were found in iraq, they weren't exactly a threat to the free world but their not quite the vaunted "NO WMD" that is often quoted.

http://www.house.gov/hasc/schedules/6-29-06GaffneyTestimony.pdf

"Mr. Chairman, let me conclude with the following thought. The revelation that hundreds of chemical weapons that “remain hazardous and potentially lethal” have been found in Iraq since Operation Iraqi Freedom"

Interesting how they didn't inform the press on that, then.
Rambhutan
12-12-2006, 14:15
actually WMD were found in iraq, they weren't exactly a threat to the free world but their not quite the vaunted "NO WMD" that is often quoted.

http://www.house.gov/hasc/schedules/6-29-06GaffneyTestimony.pdf

"Mr. Chairman, let me conclude with the following thought. The revelation that hundreds of chemical weapons that “remain hazardous and potentially lethal” have been found in Iraq since Operation Iraqi Freedom"

Rather short on actual details. You could go into any country and find chemicals that could possibly be used as weapons. Are they really doing anything more than saving face by claiming a bottle of bleach and some ammonia they found in Saddam's toilet as a weapon?
Achillean
12-12-2006, 14:28
the report says chemical munitions

news reports claim that they are artillery shells containing sarin or mustard gas.

pre 1991 so its not quite a smoking gun. but it does show that saddam wasn't co-operating with the UN and that the UN weapons inspectors hadn't done a thorough job in their inspections.
TetristanBloc
12-12-2006, 14:28
yayaYayaya

German? :confused:

So, when it comes down to it, why can't France help us? Not that I want French troops helping me (looking at their success rate in the last century), but still, SOMETHING to help us would be appreciated, even if Iraq was a mistake (it's not), it'd be nice if they decided to help us somehow... or are they exempt because they aren't America?


France did a pretty decent job maintaining order in their Middle Eastern mandates throughout the 20th century as far as i'm aware...

Why should France risk the lives of it's troops for a war that their government beleives was a mistake (it is). And yes they are exempt because they aren't America, because it was an American invasion condemned by the UN :fluffle:
Chrintium
12-12-2006, 15:29
Patriotism is kinship with one's fellow man.
Trotskylvania
12-12-2006, 20:53
Heheheh, Kant.

I'll use this as an opportunity to explain to everybody else what the CI is...and then explain why it's not applicable in reality.

Since humans all began in complete freedom, “rights” come not entitled to us but as duties that others are required to give.

Rights are that which we possess in a situation of complete freedom, for the taking of these things is an infringement upon our circumstances, and alters the natural balance and equality of the world.

We possess life and liberty in all situations, but life we possess first.

Therefore we owe the duty of granting life and liberty to others. This applies to all people regardless of their own interests or circumstances.

There is a categorical imperative upon all human beings to first defend all others’ right to life, and next to liberty. Life comes first and foremost.

The problem, of course, is that when one person violates it, everything falls apart. Rights have the burden to fall upon the individual. According to Kant, responsibility predates right, but even true as that may be, in the real world it is necessary for right to predate responsibility to ensure the protection of victims from oppressors or abusers.

Regardless, I think CI is a good rule of thumb to follow in ethical questions.
Nova Boozia
12-12-2006, 20:59
Being a patriot is doing what is right for your country regardless of whether or not it is supported by the government in power.

Yep. Waving the flag is just advertising. Joining a governmental organisation, including the military is just a way of expressing patriotism, and of course it can be other things. Patriotism is related to the feelings of love (non-physical "family type. Well, mostly. You guys know anyone with a homeland fetish?) and pride and to the human desire to belong. I conside myself a patriot.

I consider patriot/nationalist/somewhereia first parties stupid and aggressive beyond all common sense. Yes, BNP, I am talking to you.
The Kaza-Matadorians
12-12-2006, 22:19
German? :confused:

LOL, German for "yes" is "ja"
But yes, I'm half German.

[QUOTE=TetristanBloc;12072840]France did a pretty decent job maintaining order in their Middle Eastern mandates throughout the 20th century as far as i'm aware...

Then, no offense, you aren't paying too much attention. They got their @$$es whipped and handed back to them in BOTH world wars, and were totally shamed in Vietnam, just to name a few. (I guess Napoleon used all of France's military strength in his short *snicker* reign?)

Why should France risk the lives of it's troops for a war that their government beleives was a mistake (it is). And yes they are exempt because they aren't America, because it was an American invasion condemned by the UN :fluffle:

I didn't ask for their troops; I don't want them either. But, a bit of financial aid for a centuries-old ally would be appreciated.

And, by the way, America was, by far, not alone in the invasion. We were helped by... shoot, I don't remember exactly now, but it's more than 20 nations. I'd hardly call that "American invasion."
Trotskylvania
12-12-2006, 22:34
Then, no offense, you aren't paying too much attention. They got their @$$es whipped and handed back to them in BOTH world wars, and were totally shamed in Vietnam, just to name a few. (I guess Napoleon used all of France's military strength in his short *snicker* reign?)

I didn't ask for their troops; I don't want them either. But, a bit of financial aid for a centuries-old ally would be appreciated.

And, by the way, America was, by far, not alone in the invasion. We were helped by... shoot, I don't remember exactly now, but it's more than 20 nations. I'd hardly call that "American invasion."

Funny, so did the Germans. Don't see you attacking the Germans. The french had at one time the world's most brutal colonial empire. They murdered hundreds of thousands of innocents in their attempts to hold onto that empire.

20 nations. Only two of them had any military to speak of. Some coalition.
The Kaza-Matadorians
12-12-2006, 23:03
Funny, so did the Germans. Don't see you attacking the Germans. The french had at one time the world's most brutal colonial empire. They murdered hundreds of thousands of innocents in their attempts to hold onto that empire.

20 nations. Only two of them had any military to speak of. Some coalition.

The Germans held the world by the throat both times. Gotta respect them for that, at least.

And, what are you talking about? The very fact that they contributed despite their lack of a powerful military is a testament. Doesn't that alone speak volumes?
Cabra West
12-12-2006, 23:19
Funny, so did the Germans. Don't see you attacking the Germans. The french had at one time the world's most brutal colonial empire. They murdered hundreds of thousands of innocents in their attempts to hold onto that empire.

20 nations. Only two of them had any military to speak of. Some coalition.

Oh, don't underestimate the support you got from Morocco... what was it again? 70 monkeys to help clear mines, if I recall correctly.
And the 24 troops Molodvia provided.
Cabra West
12-12-2006, 23:21
The Germans held the world by the throat both times. Gotta respect them for that, at least.

And, what are you talking about? The very fact that they contributed despite their lack of a powerful military is a testament. Doesn't that alone speak volumes?

Germany did and still does openly and actively oppose the war on Iraq.
The Kaza-Matadorians
13-12-2006, 00:12
Germany did and still does openly and actively oppose the war on Iraq.

That's beside the point.

And besides, they can afford to help, too.
Cabra West
13-12-2006, 00:19
That's beside the point.

And besides, they can afford to help, too.

Considering that you were complaining that France didn't help you, I think it's pretty much the point.
The vast majority of countries in the world don't help you, yet you singled out France.

Germany doesn't help you.
Italy doesn't help you
Spain doesn't help you.
No Scandinavian country helps you.
No African country helps you.
The only Asian country that helps you is South Korea.
No South American country helps you.
The only Middle American country that's helping you is El Salvador.

You are fighting a war of aggression, and by rights the rest of the world ought to be fighting you.
The Kaza-Matadorians
13-12-2006, 00:35
Considering that you were complaining that France didn't help you, I think it's pretty much the point.
The vast majority of countries in the world don't help you, yet you singled out France.

I didn't single them out, just pointed them out.

Germany doesn't help you.
Italy doesn't help you

ok.

Spain doesn't help you.

They were helping us, until a political party played on their fears and immediately withdrew their troops, putting more lives in jeopardy because now terrorists have been shown that their violent acts work.

No Scandinavian country helps you.

Again, ok.

No African country helps you.

And I wouldn't ask them to. They have enough of their own problems.

The only Asian country that helps you is South Korea.

Again, many of them have their own problems. The fact that SK is helping, even with KJI breathing down their necks, speaks volumes.

No South American country helps you.
The only Middle American country that's helping you is El Salvador.

Again with the problems thing.

You are fighting a war of aggression, and by rights the rest of the world ought to be fighting you.

No, we're fighting a war to protect ourselves from those states that seek our harm/demise. And, even if the rest of the world was stupid enough to attack us, they'd either lose or pay a massive cost for their own aggressiveness. And besides, what would be their justification for this war you say they should be making? "How dare you attack a nation that wants to kill you? How dare you?!" :rolleyes:
Intangelon
13-12-2006, 00:37
To me, being a good patriot is like being a good friend. You're happy when your country succeeds and support it in any way you can. That means telling it when its addictions are causing problems (addictions such as oil, horsepower or corn syrup), or calling things like you see them when something's not right (preemptive invasions on pretenses that are either shaky or false, thuggish MPs, torture, etc.), and always telling it how you feel, even if the sentiment is unpopular (DISSENT).

Dissent is patriotic.
Honesty is patriotic.
Pride is patriotic.
Moderation is patriotic.
Humility is patriotic.
Service is patriotic.
Consideration is patriotic.
Responsibility is patriotic.

These and many more.
Dunlaoire
13-12-2006, 03:16
...
No, we're fighting a war to protect ourselves from those states that seek our harm/demise. And, even if the rest of the world was stupid enough to attack us, they'd either lose or pay a massive cost for their own aggressiveness. And besides, what would be their justification for this war you say they should be making? "How dare you attack a nation that wants to kill you? How dare you?!" :rolleyes:

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan ever attacked you.
The government of Iraq never attacked you
The government of Afghanistan never attacked you.
There was a terrorist attack on american soil in 2001
for once, not by americans and you lashed at at the weakest target
you could find first, and you were given it by the UN, not because it was
right, not because it helped your security, just because no one liked the Taliban and no one had any interests in Afghanistan they cared about
and everyone considered it a bit of a mess anyway.

You weren't given Iraq because while no one much liked Iraq or Saddam Hussein,
he was no threat to either you nor anyone else in the world, including
his neighbours.
The claims you made were even more ridiculous than the ones about Afghanistan.
It was obvious that it was a grab for control of oil.
It was obvious it would be a disaster.

The justification for the war that the rest of the world SHOULD be fighting
against you is exactly the same justification that was used in the first
gulf war. You have initiated aggressive war against another country, without
have even the fig leaf of UN security council authority.

The same authority that made it okay for you along with others to drive
Saddam out of Kuwait should if anyone had the ability and moreso
the desire, be used to drive you out of the middle east.
Even signalling the intent to do so would probably
have prevented the criminal action undertaken and reduced the number
of deaths in Iraq by a few hundreds of thousands and probably
have saved a few thousand american lives too.

THAT is the failure of the UN.
The failure to stand AGAINST the US not a failure to support it.

Because of that failure the UN is effectively a dead duck.
It's a big organisation so it will take a while to wither and die but
US actions have ensured that that is what will happen.

What will emerge from the wreckage we will have to wait and see but
whatever it is will be unpleasant.
Dunlaoire
13-12-2006, 03:18
I saw Hans Blix head of the UN inspection in an interview give a different view than what you claim....."We looked every they asked us to look, they told us to look in that truck we looked in the truck and found nothing, they told us to look in a building and we would look and find nothing. At some point it should have occured to them (the americans) that maybe we weren't finding anything because there was nothing to find.

It appears that the UN inspectors had done their job well after Gulf W1 and destroyed everything in '91.

The best evidence for WMD after 9/11 was a document for sale of Uranium From Niger? to Iraq, a lot was made of this to justify an invasion until someone noticed it was a forged document clearly intended to push to iinvasion.


That was the view I was intending to convey
apologies if it did not come across, although the UN inspectors had not
destroyed everything in 91, the Iraqis did some of their own, unsupervised
which unfortunately is what allowed the US the chance to march their
lies out as "fact".
Dunlaoire
13-12-2006, 03:22
Too bad you have to leave... maybe someone else can pick up your argument?

So, when it comes down to it, why can't France help us? Not that I want French troops helping me (looking at their success rate in the last century), but still, SOMETHING to help us would be appreciated, even if Iraq was a mistake (it's not), it'd be nice if they decided to help us somehow... or are they exempt because they aren't America?

So a burglar tries to drag some other people into a burglary they wish to commit,
more like a house invasion even.
They refuse, telling him its wrong, both immoral and illegal.

He goes ahead anyway with some sidekicks.

Gets himself into trouble and then complains that the people who refused
to take part in the crime in the first place, don't want to help him ?

Hmmmm

Can't imagine why people are unwilling to help.
The Kaza-Matadorians
13-12-2006, 04:39
:rolleyes: Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan ever attacked you.
The government of Iraq never attacked you
The government of Afghanistan never attacked you.
There was a terrorist attack on american soil in 2001
for once, not by americans and you lashed at at the weakest target
you could find first, and you were given it by the UN, not because it was
right, not because it helped your security, just because no one liked the Taliban and no one had any interests in Afghanistan they cared about
and everyone considered it a bit of a mess anyway.

Interesting opinion. No, we struck at those who were harboring terrorists (the Taliban) not because they were weak, but because they were terrorists. Wait, that seems too simple... OMGZ0RZ THERE MUST BE A GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY!!!!!!ONE!! :rolleyes:

You weren't given Iraq because while no one much liked Iraq or Saddam Hussein,
he was no threat to either you nor anyone else in the world, including
his neighbours.
The claims you made were even more ridiculous than the ones about Afghanistan.
It was obvious that it was a grab for control of oil.
It was obvious it would be a disaster.

What? We were given Iraq? And since when was he no threat to his neighbors? Do you not remember the first Gulf War? You sound like you don't, but you mention it later on... selective memory, perhaps?

The justification for the war that the rest of the world SHOULD be fighting
against you is exactly the same justification that was used in the first
gulf war. You have initiated aggressive war against another country, without
have even the fig leaf of UN security council authority.

The US will do whatever it takes to defend herself from foreign/internal terrorists, whether or not the UN likes it. After all, the UN is diddly squat without the US.

And, the US didn't just go into Iraq to conquer it... if that's the case, why do we have a skeleton crew, if you will, holding the country together? No, if we were there to keep it, we'd have a much stronger presence there. Think before you speak, please.

The same authority that made it okay for you along with others to drive
Saddam out of Kuwait should if anyone had the ability and moreso
the desire, be used to drive you out of the middle east.
Even signalling the intent to do so would probably
have prevented the criminal action undertaken and reduced the number
of deaths in Iraq by a few hundreds of thousands and probably
have saved a few thousand american lives too.

THAT is the failure of the UN.
The failure to stand AGAINST the US not a failure to support it.

Because of that failure the UN is effectively a dead duck.
It's a big organisation so it will take a while to wither and die but
US actions have ensured that that is what will happen.

What will emerge from the wreckage we will have to wait and see but
whatever it is will be unpleasant.

Yes, the UN is a failure, but not because of what you say. It was meant to be an effective peace-maker and peace-keeper. But, it has failed utterly to make peace, and has some spotty success of keeping peace. But, what peace is there to be kept if no peace is to be made? That's the failure of the UN.
Curious Inquiry
13-12-2006, 04:45
sooo last century!
Dunlaoire
13-12-2006, 05:30
:rolleyes:

Interesting opinion. No, we struck at those who were harboring terrorists (the Taliban) not because they were weak, but because they were terrorists. Wait, that seems too simple... OMGZ0RZ THERE MUST BE A GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY!!!!!!ONE!! :rolleyes:


Must be something loose in your head, your eyes keep rolling.

US claimed OSB and Al Qa'eda were responsible for 9/11
OSB was living in Afghanistan at the time.
US demanded he be handed over, taliban said no , no extradition treaty
but even if there were you aren't even attempting to prove a case.

US demanded he be handed over or they would attack
Taliban said look even we can't just hand people over, but we're willing
to discuss it.

US attacked rather than discuss it.

If OSB had been living in Europe you'd never have had him
as you wouldn't have waived the death penalty and Europe can't extradite
if a person would face it.

Where law and diplomacy should have been used war was instead

UN should not have authorised the unjustified attack but it did
it was a gimme as I said.


What? We were given Iraq? And since when was he no threat to his neighbors? Do you not remember the first Gulf War? You sound like you don't, but you mention it later on... selective memory, perhaps?


I did not say you were given Iraq, I said you were given Afghanistan,
Iraq you were very clearly not given, you took it anyway.

Yes I remember the first gulf war, do you remember the 2nd world war.
Germany was a threat in the 30's and 40's but has not been since.

Iraq was a threat at the time of the first gulf war but
in the year 2002 was disarmed and crippled.
Are you simple that you cannot grasp that.


The US will do whatever it takes to defend herself from foreign/internal terrorists, whether or not the UN likes it. After all, the UN is diddly squat without the US.

The UN is unfortunately diddly squat because of the US
The US was not defending itself it was waging aggressive war.


And, the US didn't just go into Iraq to conquer it... if that's the case, why do we have a skeleton crew, if you will, holding the country together? No, if we were there to keep it, we'd have a much stronger presence there. Think before you speak, please.


Business intending to spend more money than absolutely necessary?
Are you mad?
The intention was and some are still hoping for it to control the oil supply,
have a compliant government, retain capacity to build forces to
maintain dominance and/or threaten neighbouring states when necessary
but otherwise keep costs down.


Yes, the UN is a failure, but not because of what you say. It was meant to be an effective peace-maker and peace-keeper. But, it has failed utterly to make peace, and has some spotty success of keeping peace. But, what peace is there to be kept if no peace is to be made? That's the failure of the UN.

Peace can always be made unless a big strong bully boy is not presented with a united front.

The US is the failure of the UN.
Cabra West
13-12-2006, 09:50
I didn't single them out, just pointed them out.

The rest of the world doesn't help you, but you complain about France not helping? That's not pointing out, that's singeling out.



They were helping us, until a political party played on their fears and immediately withdrew their troops, putting more lives in jeopardy because now terrorists have been shown that their violent acts work.

Wrong. Aznar was helping you, against the will of those who elected him. If a leader doesn't do what the majority of the population wants him to do, he doesn't get re-elected. It's called democracy, look it up sometime.
Aznar was facing massive protests right from the start of Spanish involvement in the war on Iraq, nobovdy was playing on anybody's fear. Just like the rest of the population of Europe, the Spanish saw the US excuses for the war for what they were, and unlike some of their leaders they weren't willing to suck up to the US by helping them pursue US interests by violence.


Again, many of them have their own problems. The fact that SK is helping, even with KJI breathing down their necks, speaks volumes.

The fact that neither Japan nor India are helping speaks a lot louder.


No, we're fighting a war to protect ourselves from those states that seek our harm/demise. And, even if the rest of the world was stupid enough to attack us, they'd either lose or pay a massive cost for their own aggressiveness. And besides, what would be their justification for this war you say they should be making? "How dare you attack a nation that wants to kill you? How dare you?!" :rolleyes:

Afghanistan never posed any threat to the US. The war in Afghanistan started because the USA wasn't willing to follow laws and diplomacy, but was looking for revenge, no matter if it was taken out on people who were guilty or not.
Iraq hasn't been a threat for more than a decade now, it just looked like a weak enough target for the Bush administration to continue their international aggression.

The justification for the rest of the world to attack the US would be pretty obvious. In the past 5 years, the US attacked 2 independent, sovereign countries that were not posing a threat to peace and stability in their region, or the world. Technically, it's a rogue nation.
Lacadaemon
13-12-2006, 09:54
The fact that neither Japan nor India are helping speaks a lot louder.


Eh? Japan is. It even sent troops and shit.
Cabra West
13-12-2006, 10:01
Eh? Japan is. It even sent troops and shit.

They withdrew all of them earlier this year.
Lacadaemon
13-12-2006, 10:05
They withdrew all of them earlier this year.

Not because they've dropped out of the coalition. Their airforce is still providing logistic support.

And denmark still has troops on the ground. So it's not all of scandinavia.

You can't honestly say that the whole world is against you. It's disingenous.
Cabra West
13-12-2006, 10:33
Not because they've dropped out of the coalition. Their airforce is still providing logistic support.

And denmark still has troops on the ground. So it's not all of scandinavia.

You can't honestly say that the whole world is against you. It's disingenous.

Japan has withdrawn all of its forces from Iraq.

Source (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm)

Denmark isn't Scandinavia, is it? It's not on the Scandinavian penisula.

Not the whole world, no, but almost all of it. It's a tiny minority that's still helping the US in their war.
Dharmalaya
13-12-2006, 10:41
Afghanistan never posed any threat to the US. The war in Afghanistan started because the USA wasn't willing to follow laws and diplomacy, but was looking for revenge, no matter if it was taken out on people who were guilty or not.

There is a deeper issue: installing Hamid Karzai as president so that Afghanistan would be open to a planned trans-regional natural gas pipeline constructed by the corporation for whom he used to work.

Iraq hasn't been a threat for more than a decade now, it just looked like a weak enough target for the Bush administration to continue their international aggression.

True, and deeper still: it was a long-term goal of an agenda paper published by the think-tank "Project For a New American Century" [PNAC], constituting Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, et al, around 1997, espousing the long-term profitability of establishing an 'indefinite continuing' conflict in the middle-east.

The justification for the rest of the world to attack the US would be pretty obvious. In the past 5 years, the US attacked 2 independent, sovereign countries that were not posing a threat to peace and stability in their region, or the world. Technically, it's a rogue nation.

Funny; Isreal, too. When Isreal shot rockets at Syria, killing women and children, Syria protested to the UN; when Isreal invaded Lebanon, killing predominantly civilians, Lebanon sought protection from the UN. Who's the rogue state?

On a side note, in the first days of the attacks of Lebanon recently, a senior Isreali official was quoted--published in the Taipei Times--as saying that Isreal intended to "punish Lebanon" for allowing Hezbollah to operate within its borders. That slip-up got buried without surfacing again; the real motivation of the air strikes was not to hit the combatants firing rockets into Isreal, but Lebanese civilian targets. That's a war crime, as is the aforementioned war-profiteering in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Lacadaemon
13-12-2006, 10:46
Source (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm)

Denmark isn't Scandinavia, is it? It's not on the Scandinavian penisula.

Not the whole world, no, but almost all of it. It's a tiny minority that's still helping the US in their war.

Japan (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2006/06/iraq-060620-voa01.htm)


Mr. Koizumi says the government has decided to withdraw Ground Self Defense Forces troops from Samawah because the troops have achieved their humanitarian and reconstruction goals there.


Mr. Koizumi said the decision to withdraw the troops came after Iraq's new government announced on Monday that its forces would take over security in the area. British troops currently oversee a multinational contingent providing security in that region.


However, Japanese officials say an Air Self Defense Force operation in Iraq is likely to continue. The air operation ferries supplies and personnel into Iraq to help the government and the U.S.-led coalition.

It's not because they've dropped out in a fit of principle or anything. And as I said, their airforce is still there and working with the rest of the coalition.

Denmark's part of scandinavia. Wikipedia agrees with me.
The Kaza-Matadorians
13-12-2006, 22:48
Must be something loose in your head, your eyes keep rolling.

No, I'm just a sarcastic person

US claimed OSB and Al Qa'eda were responsible for 9/11
OSB was living in Afghanistan at the time.
US demanded he be handed over, taliban said no , no extradition treaty
but even if there were you aren't even attempting to prove a case.

I assume OSB is Osama Bin Laden (which is abbreviated OBL, by the way). It was high time that OBL be brought to justice for his crimes, and the Taliban was refusing. Seeing as how OBL was the mastermind behind 9/11 (which had just occured), I don't see it as unreasonable that we ask that he be handed over.

US demanded he be handed over or they would attack
Taliban said look even we can't just hand people over, but we're willing
to discuss it.

US attacked rather than discuss it.

No no, wait a minute. That's not what you just said. Earlier, you said that they said "no." But now, according to you, they said "let's talk about it;" that's an outright lie, by the way; they never planned on giving up OBL. That, and us Americans were PISSED OFF after 9/11 (many of us still are) and we weren't going to settle for an "oh, maybe we'll think about it."

If OSB had been living in Europe you'd never have had him
as you wouldn't have waived the death penalty and Europe can't extradite
if a person would face it.

False. Who was it that said, "Today we are all Americans"? I don't remember, but he was a prominent Frenchman. I seriously think that, in the days immediately after 9/11, if OBL was living in, oh, I don't know, let's say France, I highly doubt that the French government would, even for a second, have second thoughts about extraditing OBL.

Where law and diplomacy should have been used war was instead

UN should not have authorised the unjustified attack but it did
it was a gimme as I said.

Unjustified? All I have to say to that is, remember 9/11?

I did not say you were given Iraq,

Oh no you don't, you DID say that.

I said you were given Afghanistan,
Iraq you were very clearly not given, you took it anyway.

What is all this "took" nonsense? Afghanistan is its own country (albeit not a very strong one) that just needs a little help to get along in this rough time

Yes I remember the first gulf war, do you remember the 2nd world war.
Germany was a threat in the 30's and 40's but has not been since.

Iraq was a threat at the time of the first gulf war but
in the year 2002 was disarmed and crippled.
Are you simple that you cannot grasp that.

Yes, Germany was a threat, basically from its creation (late 1800's) until the late 1940's (and, if they really wanted to, they could give the world another shake, but that's another story). And do you know why it wasn't a threat after that? It's because we beat the crap out of them (militarily speaking). And now Iraq's not a problem. Guess why. That's right, we beat the crap out of them (militarily speaking).

And, are you saying that YOU have the correct data... and the CIA didn't? Are you listening to yourself?

The UN is unfortunately diddly squat because of the US
The US was not defending itself it was waging aggressive war.

Oh, pleeeaase. This is getting old.
So, what you're essentially saying is that the US used the immense tragedy of 9/11 to go conquer a country that has little more than sand (Afghanistan) and a country roughly the size of California, when we easily could have taken Kuwait (which has just as much oil as Iraq) without having to control nearly the amount of land? Ah, it makes perfect sense now. :rolleyes:

Business intending to spend more money than absolutely necessary?
Are you mad?
The intention was and some are still hoping for it to control the oil supply,
have a compliant government, retain capacity to build forces to
maintain dominance and/or threaten neighbouring states when necessary
but otherwise keep costs down.

Um, huh? Explain to me how low prices would benefit the big oil companies. In fact, oil companies only have larger profits when prices are high. Tell me why they want low prices.

Peace can always be made unless a big strong bully boy is not presented with a united front.

The US is the failure of the UN.

No, the US was a major player in the creation of the UN. How can the US, then, be "the failure of the UN"? It's not possible.
Dunlaoire
14-12-2006, 00:34
...
I assume OSB is Osama Bin Laden (which is abbreviated OBL, by the way). It was high time that OBL be brought to justice for his crimes, and the Taliban was refusing. Seeing as how OBL was the mastermind behind 9/11 (which had just occured), I don't see it as unreasonable that we ask that he be handed over.


As you don't even have him now most normal people would think perhaps the wrong approach was used.


No no, wait a minute. That's not what you just said. Earlier, you said that they said "no." But now, according to you, they said "let's talk about it;" that's an outright lie, by the way; they never planned on giving up OBL. That, and us Americans were PISSED OFF after 9/11 (many of us still are) and we weren't going to settle for an "oh, maybe we'll think about it."


Diplomacy and law is the way to approach problems like whether a suspected
criminal is handed over to another country or not.
I do tend to phrase things according to my recollection
but the Taleban had negotiated to some extent on this basically America
wasn't interested in presenting anyone with any evidence.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,573975,00.html

5 years , 2 wars and 2 looming disasters later, US does not have Osama
which again should demonstrate the wrong approach was taken, even
to those to dull to have understood it was the wrong approach before
it was taken.


False. Who was it that said, "Today we are all Americans"? I don't remember, but he was a prominent Frenchman. I seriously think that, in the days immediately after 9/11, if OBL was living in, oh, I don't know, let's say France, I highly doubt that the French government would, even for a second, have second thoughts about extraditing OBL.

You are right not one European nation would have had a second thought
about handing him over, without US taking the death penalty off the table
no European nation COULD hand him over. Its a question of law.


Unjustified? All I have to say to that is, remember 9/11?

A nation with whom you do not have an extradition treaty
Refusing to hand over a person you claim is responsible for a crime
although you equally refuse to offer any evidence has in no way
done anything to justify the sanctioning of force to be used against it.

Perhaps you should remember all the many thousands of people who have been killed by your lot since.
They are many multiples of your 9/11
Which if it could be used to justify your actions means you have an awful
lot of people who are now justified according to your reasoning in attacking
you.


Oh no you don't, you DID say that.


I said you were given Afghanistan, as above there was no justification
for UN sec council to authorise the invasion of that country,
US had been hit and it was realised they would lash out at someone
and thankfully it was a country no one in the security council considered important
led by people no one actually liked.

Iraq you were not given.
Ergo the going ahead without security council authority.

The actual quote of mine that relates to your straying into the deepest
recesses of accidental forgetfulness was
"You weren't given Iraq because while no one much liked Iraq or Saddam Hussein,
he was no threat to either you nor anyone else in the world, including
his neighbours. "


What is all this "took" nonsense? Afghanistan is its own country (albeit not a very strong one) that just needs a little help to get along in this rough time


Afghanistan is a town, with a President otherwise known as the mayor of Kabul as his authority doesn't reach beyond there in any real sense.
Admittedly he cannot even have Afghani bodyguards even within Kabul, but don't let that make you
think he is lacking in support.
It is of course also one enormous poppy field.
The only way the invasion of Afghanistan could be considered a success is
if its intention was to increase world heroin supplies.
After all no Osama and no stability, no freedom for women given that
the warlords control most of the country.

Afghanistan has been put back 30 yrs
and even though it was already a couple of hundred years
behind to start with that is not a good thing.


Yes, Germany was a threat, basically from its creation (late 1800's) until the late 1940's (and, if they really wanted to, they could give the world another shake, but that's another story). And do you know why it wasn't a threat after that? It's because we beat the crap out of them (militarily speaking). And now Iraq's not a problem. Guess why. That's right, we beat the crap out of them (militarily speaking).
As you had done in the first gulf war.
The job was done.
But there was oil to be controlled.


And, are you saying that YOU have the correct data... and the CIA didn't? Are you listening to yourself?

The CIA did have the correct data, but the correct data did not suit
the administration.
So they took out everything that said
no
unlikely
not really
and left in the maybes and could be's but
left out the fact they at best they were only maybe's and could be's so that idiots would support a completely absurd war.
They made them sound like certainties, which you still seem to think they were.

EVERYONE had the correct data
why don't you do some research on the anti war articles from before the war.
Not one piece of checkable "evidence" was presented that was not proven false within days, hours or in some cases minutes.


Oh, pleeeaase. This is getting old.
So, what you're essentially saying is that the US used the immense tragedy of 9/11 to go conquer a country that has little more than sand (Afghanistan) and a country roughly the size of California, when we easily could have taken Kuwait (which has just as much oil as Iraq) without having to control nearly the amount of land? Ah, it makes perfect sense now. :rolleyes:


You already have kuwait dingbat, it has a compliant and oh so grateful government. Saudi's you have and a number of others.
Iraq was the bug in the blanket, there was no way after the first gulf
war that Saddam would ever make those cosy deals with the US that
he had before. He was no longer fighting Iran and had no value to you.

He had no WMD
we did all know he had no WMD
again do some research.


Um, huh? Explain to me how low prices would benefit the big oil companies. In fact, oil companies only have larger profits when prices are high. Tell me why they want low prices.


I said nothing about low prices.
Higher the price the better really, control is what counts, only americans
think if american companies controlled the oil it should mean lower prices
for americans.

No one else thinks that at all.


No, the US was a major player in the creation of the UN. How can the US, then, be "the failure of the UN"? It's not possible.

A founder of the UN that the UN cannot get to stick by the rules it itself set up??

Hmmm
how could that be a failure?
Dunlaoire
14-12-2006, 01:12
No no, wait a minute. That's not what you just said. Earlier, you said that they said "no." But now, according to you, they said "let's talk about it;" that's an outright lie, by the way; they never planned on giving up OBL. That, and us Americans were PISSED OFF after 9/11 (many of us still are) and we weren't going to settle for an "oh, maybe we'll think about it."


You seem to have terrible trouble with events happening in any order.
If you think that over time you don't get different responses

US first demanded Afghanistan hand over Osama
Taleban government refused - as I said no extradition treaty
but even with that no effort to prove a case anyway
US again demanded Osama be handed over with threats of war
Taleban still said no
as in not just like that but were willing to at least negotiate.
as before
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,573975,00.html


You have the same trouble with events when it comes to Iraq
in the time of the first gulf war Iraq was a threat to its weaker neighbours,
demonstrated by invading Kuwait

By 2001 Iraq was not capable of being a threat to anyone including
their weaker neighbours. Having had their military strength destroyed
in the first gulf war, followed by having all its WMD destroyed along with
the capacity to produce WMD. Also US was no longer selling them
weapons, chemicals or biotoxins.

http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp0912.html
" The nations bordering Iraq, including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, even Kuwait, have argued strongly against an attack and say Iraq does not pose a threat to them at this point."

Because time had past and the situation had changed.
You understand that situations change over time don't you?
The Kaza-Matadorians
14-12-2006, 01:31
As you don't even have him now most normal people would think perhaps the wrong approach was used.

Or, oh, I don't know, maybe he's in hiding?

Diplomacy and law is the way to approach problems like whether a suspected
criminal is handed over to another country or not.
I do tend to phrase things according to my recollection
but the Taleban had negotiated to some extent on this basically America
wasn't interested in presenting anyone with any evidence.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,573975,00.html

The Taliban is and was considered by the US to be a terrorist organization, and the US doesn't negotiate with terrorists.

5 years , 2 wars and 2 looming disasters later, US does not have Osama
which again should demonstrate the wrong approach was taken, even
to those to dull to have understood it was the wrong approach before
it was taken.

Once again, maybe he's hiding in another country? *gasp* That's crazy talk :rolleyes:

You are right not one European nation would have had a second thought
about handing him over, without US taking the death penalty off the table
no European nation COULD hand him over. Its a question of law.

So they just give him to us and we lock him up for the rest of his pitiful existence. How's that sound?

A nation with whom you do not have an extradition treaty
Refusing to hand over a person you claim is responsible for a crime
although you equally refuse to offer any evidence has in no way
done anything to justify the sanctioning of force to be used against it.

Look, stop saying we have "no evidence." We have and had evidence, maybe some of it was used, but hey, every single Senator and Representative saw those intelligence reports and *gasp* guess what? Most of them then voted FOR the war. I know, this is some crazy stuff here... :rolleyes:

Perhaps you should remember all the many thousands of people who have been killed by your lot since.
They are many multiples of your 9/11
Which if it could be used to justify your actions means you have an awful
lot of people who are now justified according to your reasoning in attacking
you.

Oh really? OK, give me a link, exactly how many people have been killed by "American aggression?" Now compare that to the number of people dead on 9/11. I think you'll find that the numbers won't agree with your logic.

I said you were given Afghanistan, as above there was no justification
for UN sec council to authorise the invasion of that country,
US had been hit and it was realised they would lash out at someone
and thankfully it was a country no one in the security council considered important
led by people no one actually liked.

Of course there was! OBL was believed to be in Aghanistan, and the Taliban wouldn't give him up (not that the US deals with terrorists anyway)

Iraq you were not given.
Ergo the going ahead without security council authority.

They didn't say "you can't go." They said "we're not going." There's a big difference.

The actual quote of mine that relates to your straying into the deepest
recesses of accidental forgetfulness was
"You weren't given Iraq because while no one much liked Iraq or Saddam Hussein,
he was no threat to either you nor anyone else in the world, including
his neighbours. "

No, I addressed it. That was when I said, "Do you remember the first Gulf War?" I mean, he only conquered little Kuwait without warning or provocation or anything like that. This, of course, means that he is no threat at all to his neighbors (not to mention the Iran/Iraq war, in which he did almost the exact same thing).

Afghanistan is a town, with a President otherwise known as the mayor of Kabul as his authority doesn't reach beyond there in any real sense.
Admittedly he cannot even have Afghani bodyguards even within Kabul, but don't let that make you
think he is lacking in support.
It is of course also one enormous poppy field.
The only way the invasion of Afghanistan could be considered a success is
if its intention was to increase world heroin supplies.
After all no Osama and no stability, no freedom for women given that
the warlords control most of the country.

There's a lot of work to do, and we're doing it. But, time is on our side.

Afghanistan has been put back 30 yrs
and even though it was already a couple of hundred years
behind to start with that is not a good thing.

No. Once again, that's a lie. They haven't lost anything they had before and have gained ground on some things. Why not try looking at the good things going on over there instead of all the bad? Who knows, maybe even you'll become more optimistic about the world's state of affairs.

As you had done in the first gulf war.
The job was done.
But there was oil to be controlled.

No, once again. Iraq was "selling" their oil because of the UN's (extremely corrupt) oil-for-food program (it failed to bring food to Iraq, but oil was flowing out of Iraq).

The CIA did have the correct data, but the correct data did not suit
the administration.
So they took out everything that said
no
unlikely
not really
and left in the maybes and could be's but
left out the fact they at best they were only maybe's and could be's so that idiots would support a completely absurd war.
They made them sound like certainties, which you still seem to think they were.

Source? And do you really think that GWB or any government official would do all of that to risk their career and position to start a war that probably wouldn't unite the country?

EVERYONE had the correct data
why don't you do some research on the anti war articles from before the war.
Not one piece of checkable "evidence" was presented that was not proven false within days, hours or in some cases minutes.

Ok, show me some of this evidence that has been "proven false."

You already have kuwait dingbat, it has a compliant and oh so grateful government. Saudi's you have and a number of others.
Iraq was the bug in the blanket, there was no way after the first gulf
war that Saddam would ever make those cosy deals with the US that
he had before. He was no longer fighting Iran and had no value to you.

He had no WMD
we did all know he had no WMD
again do some research.

Let's not stoop to personal insults. Again, not true. He HAD WMD, HE USED THEM MULTIPLE TIMES AND KILLED THOUSANDS OF HIS OWN PEOPLE! What gives you the crazy idea that he would get rid of them?????

I said nothing about low prices.
Higher the price the better really, control is what counts, only americans
think if american companies controlled the oil it should mean lower prices
for americans.

No one else thinks that at all.

Um, ya. Anything made in the US is almost automatically cheaper because it was made using the most efficient means available. No, I'm not kidding. Check it out for yourself if you want.

A founder of the UN that the UN cannot get to stick by the rules it itself set up??

Hmmm
how could that be a failure?

We've stuck to the charter, which is why the UN ended up saying the war is justified not long after the invasion.
The Kaza-Matadorians
14-12-2006, 01:48
Because time had past and the situation had changed.
You understand that situations change over time don't you?

Yes, and I understand it well. But if you think, even for a minute, that SH had somehow learned humility in 2001, well, you're greatly mistaken. I don't care what those countries thought about their security with Iraq as a neighbor; I, personally, wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing we were on the same continent, let alone neighbors. The very fact that he started 2 (not one, TWO) wars without provocation or warning shows that this guy wasn't going to stop because some foreign nations said "please stop" (notice he didn't actually stop until we MADE him stop).

To make a long story short, had we not intervened, he wouldn't have stopped, and maybe his neighbors would have changed their opinions.
Chrintium
14-12-2006, 02:33
Don't we have another forum for the war on terror?

So...I propose a redirect...

How does patriotism (good and bad) play into the War on Terror?

I feel that patriotism is a large cause for the statement of opinions in the War on Terror. Although I have my beefs with our country, I am still glad I live in a country where I can openly accuse the government of wrongdoing (in the WoT) and not have my head chopped off or something...

Having said that, I feel that a patriot's duty is to be loyal to the ideals of a society, and the American ideal of freedom certainly involves standing up to tyrants, but only if doing so actually helps the people who are affected.

Do I think Saddam Hussein was a tyrant? Of course. Is OBL dangerous? Of course. But the way we did what we did only made matters worse. A good patriot would have used the political systems to protect the Iraqi people, and etc....

Also, I'm most upset that my replies never got mod approval...

What is a patriot's ethical responsibility?
Dunlaoire
14-12-2006, 02:52
Source? And do you really think that GWB or any government official would do all of that to risk their career and position to start a war that probably wouldn't unite the country?


Okay I've learned my lesson, I simply cannot be bothered wasting
anymore of my time with a numbskull like you.

I had thought that Americans like you were either stupid, just ignorant or lying to themselves as well as others.
That many like you must be all 3 is now clear to me.

btw rolling your eyes is not indicative of sarcasm just indicative of being juvenile.

What proofs do you want.
There were so many wild claims and again anything at all checkable was disproven before any war started.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=3541
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002384402
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/07/1629064.php
http://www.tni.org/archives/bidwai/say.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,807286,00.html

http://eatthestate.org/07-03/WeaponsMassDestruction.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2727471.stm http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-28-iraq-uranium-probe_x.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/yellowcake-forgery
http://mediamatters.org/items/200605220003?show=1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A15019-2003Jun4&notFound=true




Theres an awful lot out there, it was there to be read in 2001 when
Colin Powell was saying containment had worked.
It was there to be read in 2002 when ex-UN weapons inspectors were confirming
that Iraq did not have WMD
It was there when Powell gave his infamous UN presentation identifying
a supposed chemical weapons factory that unfortunately was in kurd controlled territory
so the media were able to go and see that it was not and report it.
It was there to be read in 2004 when US weapons inspectors said there had been none
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct6.html

But reality has to work much harder than it is possible for it to do to make any headway with your ilk.
Chrintium
14-12-2006, 04:46
I had thought that Americans like you were either stupid, just ignorant or lying to themselves as well as others.
That many like you must be all 3 is now clear to me.

Feel free to flame Kaza (I've had the same degree of headway myself when speaking to him) but please, all I ask is don't group all Americans together. There are 300 million of us, and we just voted for a Democratic Congress that goes against everything Kaza stands for. I'm a liberal, anti-Iraq War American. I'm sure I'm stupid (I'll be the first to Admit I couldn't point out all the countries on a European map and only know the Capitals of Western Europe) in my own way, just be careful what you say.

Anyways, that having been said, a patriot defends his nation in small ways (ie: I may in fact be doing a patriotic thing by defending Americans from being grouped.)

Also, a patriot has no problems flaming Kaza ;-)

But seriously here, it seems that this discussion about national loyalty somehow came to the Iraq War. And why not? It's a big issue that can't be ignored, no matter how much we want it to go away. Now Kaza says that Bush went in to be a patriot and defend his country. :headbang:

I say that a patriot's duty is to be sure to protect societal values (thus my stance against Iraq War, it's "un-American.")

I consider the key values of a society to be civil liberty (the right to do as you please so long as you harm no others) and equal opportunity (the right to not be restricted in what opportunities are presented to you, a consistency issue). These are achieved through security and compensation, however the values always trump the criterion. In other words, if you must choose between civil liberty and security, civil liberty ought to win, as it is security's intended purpose to protect civil liberty.

These are the values I respect. Were they conditioned into me by the American Education system? (Lame as it is). Most likely. But I've made the conscious choice to accept those values. So I fight for them. When Bush's war intervenes with them, and makes the world less secure, it's my duty as a patriot to express my dislike, and vote against his agenda. It is also my patriotic duty to speak outside our nation to the rest of the world, to represent.

Obviously, you come from a different nation. I'm guessing Australia or England. Either way, we're looking at each other across a big pond. And I want to get to know more about what you believe in. Thus, I join the forum.

So, feel free to argue the Iraq War/War on Terror. But if possible, I'm a big fan of topicality, so if we could tie this in SOMEHOW to patriotism, that's great. I think that I'll start a thread for the Iraq War so we can get this out of our systems, eh?
Cabra West
14-12-2006, 09:00
To make a long story short, had we not intervened, he wouldn't have stopped, and maybe his neighbors would have changed their opinions.

He HAD already stopped. But don't let the facts get in the way of your heroic daydreams...
Dunlaoire
14-12-2006, 14:34
Feel free to flame Kaza (I've had the same degree of headway myself when speaking to him) but please, all I ask is don't group all Americans together. There are 300 million of us, and we just voted for a Democratic Congress that goes against everything Kaza stands for. I'm a liberal, anti-Iraq War American. I'm sure I'm stupid (I'll be the first to Admit I couldn't point out all the countries on a European map and only know the Capitals of Western Europe) in my own way, just be careful what you say.


I did say to him "Americans like you" - which should have avoided the
idea of grouping all Americans together.

Having said that however, you personally maybe strongly anti-war
but voting democrat simply isn't a strong anti
war stance. They were in the presidency when Clinton had
the weapons inspectors withdrawn in 98 so he could bomb Baghdad.
Supposedly for non compliance but as we are now aware and as the
weapons inspectors themselves were aware, their job had been done
by that time. Lifting of sanctions was what was due at that time, but regime
change, to have a US friendly leader in power was the US aim then too.
They voted for the war and although they claimed they had been misled
by the president, they had at least the same evidence we all had and
the rest of us knew there wasn't enough/any evidence to justify said war.
In fact the only major difference between the Reps and the Dems in
terms of int policy in general and Iraq in particular is a desire by the
Dems while doing more or less what the Reps would do to keep other
countries friendly while doing it.

There really isnt anything more indicative of misused and misplaced patriotism
than support of your country in illegal and immoral activities. Which
is why it came up.
The Kaza-Matadorians
15-12-2006, 00:57
Yes, let's not group; I'd rather not be associated with those who voted Democrat.

And the war has nothing to do with patriotism, so let's move on.

I'll ask again; can we keep this civil?