Achtung Bubba
Refugee
Way too much patriotism...?
- Thread starter U2@NYC
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
StarsnStripes
The Fly
Sanctions on Iraq are NOT the cause of starvation in that country. They were starving long before the Gulf War due to the neglect of Saddam. Even with sanctions, he is more than able to feed his starving masses, he just doesn't give a fuck. Then, he uses the US sanctions as an excuse, and you bleeding heart, anti Americans actually believe it? Give me a break.
------------------
Sometimes the most powerful thing you can do for someone is to just tell them to fuck off. I am told to fuck off rather a lot by these three gentlemen.
------------------
Sometimes the most powerful thing you can do for someone is to just tell them to fuck off. I am told to fuck off rather a lot by these three gentlemen.
TylerDurden
War Child
Actually, never mind.
[This message has been edited by TylerDurden (edited 10-09-2001).]
foray
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Listen to Tyler.
I believe U2@NYC is saying that the media is portraying America as having the latter attitude.
foray
I believe U2@NYC is saying that the media is portraying America as having the latter attitude.
foray
U2Byrd
The Fly
US showing too much patriotism. Give me a Freaken break. The people who died no matter where they were from died on the US soil and Americans take that very personally. And yes America is the leader of the free world so when they attack America they are attacking all of humanity and democracy. Truly I am tired of the US being bashed. To much patriotism, too arrogant, to this, not enough that. Back the F*** off. Why is it always kick the US when they are down. If the citizens of the US want to show patriotism by waiving flags or if the want to say Fuck Bin Laden then darnit let them. Next you all will say their are to many Americans goint to church on Sundays.
[This message has been edited by U2Byrd (edited 10-09-2001).]
[This message has been edited by U2Byrd (edited 10-09-2001).]
80sU2isBest
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2000
- Messages
- 4,970
Amen, Byrd!
ladywithspinninghead
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
All this flag-waving does sometimes make me nauseous (states are arbitrary inventions...invented with the stroke of a pen at the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, it's not a natural phenomenon..and I find nationalism to be a most dangerous idea)...I'm with you Deathbear (and I don't think we grew up that far apart so chalk it up to similar values, perhaps? coming from a nice, peace-loving country...and a-hem, one which doesn't judge its fortunes or greatness on military might and political influence but rather one that finds greatness in its access to education, access to health care, longevity, income and living standards - the 5 factors by which the U.N. determines the "best country in the world in which to live"..by the way, the same country won for 6 consecutive years...It's irrelevant who did win but I'll tell you this: it wasn't the U.S.
Not to say the U.S. isn't a great country, it is...sure it is...but so are most European, Asian, Latin American, African countries..they just have different standards by which to measure it.
Oh, and the natural resources you mention Bubba? Whose? You mean the oil refineries in the Middle East? the Panama Canal? the diamonds in Africa?
Would someone please enlighten me....WHY was the U.S. attacked??? Why was it the U.S. and not Israel??
Why the U.S. and not the U.K.??
France still has blood on its hands after Algeria...they weren't attacked.
A lot of the American media aren't getting something - by explaining WHY it occurred there, it doesn't necessarily justify what happened.
You can explain the actions in simple terms "they were crazy, insane", etc, etc but you're dismissing the real possibility that these terrorists actually rationalized their behaviour. For them, it was a rational act...America had to be punished/taught a lesson for the policies they had implemented over the years (according to the terrorist, that is).
Now don't get me wrong - once again, I'm not justifying it...but that's exactly my point, by trying to explain WHY it occurred, you're not necessarily justifying their behaviour..just trying to shed some light..and perhaps learning from it?????
[This message has been edited by ladywithspinninghead (edited 10-10-2001).]
[This message has been edited by ladywithspinninghead (edited 10-10-2001).]
[This message has been edited by ladywithspinninghead (edited 10-10-2001).]
Not to say the U.S. isn't a great country, it is...sure it is...but so are most European, Asian, Latin American, African countries..they just have different standards by which to measure it.
Oh, and the natural resources you mention Bubba? Whose? You mean the oil refineries in the Middle East? the Panama Canal? the diamonds in Africa?
Would someone please enlighten me....WHY was the U.S. attacked??? Why was it the U.S. and not Israel??
Why the U.S. and not the U.K.??
France still has blood on its hands after Algeria...they weren't attacked.
A lot of the American media aren't getting something - by explaining WHY it occurred there, it doesn't necessarily justify what happened.
You can explain the actions in simple terms "they were crazy, insane", etc, etc but you're dismissing the real possibility that these terrorists actually rationalized their behaviour. For them, it was a rational act...America had to be punished/taught a lesson for the policies they had implemented over the years (according to the terrorist, that is).
Now don't get me wrong - once again, I'm not justifying it...but that's exactly my point, by trying to explain WHY it occurred, you're not necessarily justifying their behaviour..just trying to shed some light..and perhaps learning from it?????
[This message has been edited by ladywithspinninghead (edited 10-10-2001).]
[This message has been edited by ladywithspinninghead (edited 10-10-2001).]
[This message has been edited by ladywithspinninghead (edited 10-10-2001).]
tackleberry
War Child
THANK YOU THANK YOU U2Byrd!!!
Oh and one more thing: THANK U
------------------
"You gotta put the women and children first, but you've got an unquenchable thirst for New York..."
Oh and one more thing: THANK U
------------------
"You gotta put the women and children first, but you've got an unquenchable thirst for New York..."
sharky
New Yorker
I understand where you're coming from Byrd but I find it amazing that most of this country thought of NYC as a place they would visit and then otherwise think of as a dirty, snotty, self-obsessed, grimy city full of people-- especially smell cab drivers-- who haven't taken the time to learn our language. All the sudden we've become the crown jewel of the country because people feel bad for us now.
I was at work across the street from the Trade Center that morning. It looked bad on TV. It was worse in person. I don't care what you say about it being an attack on America. What happened there was way beyond anything you could imagine and can't be included within any kind of national boundaries you can draw on a map.
------------------
"Things will not be the same in this city for us." -Bono, Dublin, February 1980
I was at work across the street from the Trade Center that morning. It looked bad on TV. It was worse in person. I don't care what you say about it being an attack on America. What happened there was way beyond anything you could imagine and can't be included within any kind of national boundaries you can draw on a map.
------------------
"Things will not be the same in this city for us." -Bono, Dublin, February 1980
Foxxern
Refugee
I love BBC World News, but I only can watch it at home where my parents have a dish. The American media is all about America, as if other countries don't exist. Out of a 30 minute broadcast, there are 10 mins of commercials, leaving 20 mins of news time. Out of that, there might be between 3-6 minutes about things going on outside the US.
This really is a world problem, not just a US thing. It's new to us because it's never happened on US soil before, but to prevent it from happenening here, we have to prevent it everywhere, from England to Israel to India. Only then can we say we are "fighting terrorism".
------------------
Change is the only constant
odonnela
Babyface
Maybe you some people have missed examples such as these:
-A woman who defied Taliban orders by running a home school for girls was killed in front of her family and friends.
-A woman caught trying to flee Afghanistan with a man not related to her was stoned to death for adultery.
-An elderly woman was brutally beaten with a metal cable until her leg was broken because her ankle was accidentally showing from underneath her burqa.
-Women have died of curable ailments because male doctors were not allowed to treat them.
Two women accused of prostitution were publicly hung.
On top of that, Bin Laden has recently committed the greatest atrocity on human life EVER. Far greater than Pearl Harbor or other staggering events throughout history. The attack was completely unprovoked and committed against people who had NO SAY in the supposed poor policies that Bin Laden is trying to cite as a scapegoat for his acts of genocide.
I can't believe what I'm hearing in this forum -- give peace a chance? That would be an invitation for more attacks against the US. As Tony Blair said, "The world understands that whilst, of course, there are dangers in acting, the dangers of inaction are far, far greater--the threat of further such outrages, the threat to our economies, the threat to the stability of the world."
The US is retaliating against and preventing future acts of terror. Bin Laden is simply trying to destroy America. And this isn't the first time he has tried. Remember his first attempt to bring down the towers with a truck bomb in 1993? Strike one against Bin Laden. What about the subsequent bombing of US military personnel in 1995 & 1996? I guess we should have let him go -- to "give peace a chance." Maybe the simultaneous (four minutes apart) bombings of TWO US Embassies in Africa (Kenya & Tanzania) -- 212 killed, 4,650 wounded -- wasnt convincing enough. Yeah, this peace thing seems to be working -- lets let him go -- I'm sure he learned his lesson. Oops -- looks like he's back at again in Yemen -- that silly Bin Laden killed another 17 people and wounded 39 as the Big Bad America was visciously refueling in a Port in Yemen. Bin Laden was justified, right? Dastardly America sure deserved that. Let's sit back and do nothign -- give peace a chance -- that's working better than we ever imagined!
Flash forward -- September 11th. Bin Laden attacks America -- tens of thousands of innocent people. 5,000+ are murdered (they didn't just "die" -- they were mudered -- killed inhumanely and unlawfully, with premeditated malice). The accident could have been a LOT worse -- a lot more people could have died is the planes had hit the buildings at a lower point, trapping more people inside.
Please note the trend of events prior to this. Now, some may say, "don't get caught up in the heat of the moment -- don't overreact." Well, we waited a month to deal with this logically, strategically, and methodically. We didn't just "kill 'em all." We have openly stated taht we are NOT at wor with the Afghan people. We have dropped them food & aid. Islam is not a target, either -- I live in Los Angeles, where officials of all faiths have been meeting together regularly to work together. People of the Muslim faith have benefitted from added security at their places of worship. Understanding has even increased, as Amazon.com reported a 10x increase in the number of sales of the Koran. That all seems very logical to me, a logical person. I do not acto on emotion, and I suggest you do not either. That is why I question the idea of "giving peace a chance." Consider it more objectively -- part for a moment with your ideallistic views. Cnosider the issue rationally. Look at what has happend in the past. Notice the escalation in the occurrence and destruction of the events. Now consider the future. Do you honestly believe that, if we were to "give peace a chance," this would not happen again? Think about it.
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
-George Santayana
-A woman who defied Taliban orders by running a home school for girls was killed in front of her family and friends.
-A woman caught trying to flee Afghanistan with a man not related to her was stoned to death for adultery.
-An elderly woman was brutally beaten with a metal cable until her leg was broken because her ankle was accidentally showing from underneath her burqa.
-Women have died of curable ailments because male doctors were not allowed to treat them.
Two women accused of prostitution were publicly hung.
On top of that, Bin Laden has recently committed the greatest atrocity on human life EVER. Far greater than Pearl Harbor or other staggering events throughout history. The attack was completely unprovoked and committed against people who had NO SAY in the supposed poor policies that Bin Laden is trying to cite as a scapegoat for his acts of genocide.
I can't believe what I'm hearing in this forum -- give peace a chance? That would be an invitation for more attacks against the US. As Tony Blair said, "The world understands that whilst, of course, there are dangers in acting, the dangers of inaction are far, far greater--the threat of further such outrages, the threat to our economies, the threat to the stability of the world."
The US is retaliating against and preventing future acts of terror. Bin Laden is simply trying to destroy America. And this isn't the first time he has tried. Remember his first attempt to bring down the towers with a truck bomb in 1993? Strike one against Bin Laden. What about the subsequent bombing of US military personnel in 1995 & 1996? I guess we should have let him go -- to "give peace a chance." Maybe the simultaneous (four minutes apart) bombings of TWO US Embassies in Africa (Kenya & Tanzania) -- 212 killed, 4,650 wounded -- wasnt convincing enough. Yeah, this peace thing seems to be working -- lets let him go -- I'm sure he learned his lesson. Oops -- looks like he's back at again in Yemen -- that silly Bin Laden killed another 17 people and wounded 39 as the Big Bad America was visciously refueling in a Port in Yemen. Bin Laden was justified, right? Dastardly America sure deserved that. Let's sit back and do nothign -- give peace a chance -- that's working better than we ever imagined!
Flash forward -- September 11th. Bin Laden attacks America -- tens of thousands of innocent people. 5,000+ are murdered (they didn't just "die" -- they were mudered -- killed inhumanely and unlawfully, with premeditated malice). The accident could have been a LOT worse -- a lot more people could have died is the planes had hit the buildings at a lower point, trapping more people inside.
Please note the trend of events prior to this. Now, some may say, "don't get caught up in the heat of the moment -- don't overreact." Well, we waited a month to deal with this logically, strategically, and methodically. We didn't just "kill 'em all." We have openly stated taht we are NOT at wor with the Afghan people. We have dropped them food & aid. Islam is not a target, either -- I live in Los Angeles, where officials of all faiths have been meeting together regularly to work together. People of the Muslim faith have benefitted from added security at their places of worship. Understanding has even increased, as Amazon.com reported a 10x increase in the number of sales of the Koran. That all seems very logical to me, a logical person. I do not acto on emotion, and I suggest you do not either. That is why I question the idea of "giving peace a chance." Consider it more objectively -- part for a moment with your ideallistic views. Cnosider the issue rationally. Look at what has happend in the past. Notice the escalation in the occurrence and destruction of the events. Now consider the future. Do you honestly believe that, if we were to "give peace a chance," this would not happen again? Think about it.
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
-George Santayana
OP
OP
U2@NYC
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
You know what, U2Byrd? You just reacted in the exact opposite way we need to react to these tragic events... with rage and unfocused anger.
I was actually three blocks away of the WTC when it happened. So you don't have to tell me how bad it was. Because I have seen it with my own eyes. And you completely missed my point. I am not bashing the US at all. Thanks to the US, I have a job. Thanks to the US, I am able to bring nice gifts to my family when I go back to Argentina. And thanks to the US, I have been able to grow up professionally and personally.
Did I say anything against waving flags? No. Did I say anything about being arrogant?. No.
I was just talking about the press and the press alone.
But, of course, you were too blind to actually read my words in detail.
I was actually three blocks away of the WTC when it happened. So you don't have to tell me how bad it was. Because I have seen it with my own eyes. And you completely missed my point. I am not bashing the US at all. Thanks to the US, I have a job. Thanks to the US, I am able to bring nice gifts to my family when I go back to Argentina. And thanks to the US, I have been able to grow up professionally and personally.
Did I say anything against waving flags? No. Did I say anything about being arrogant?. No.
I was just talking about the press and the press alone.
But, of course, you were too blind to actually read my words in detail.
Skeksis
The Fly
Expression of patriotism and the social enforcement of it have been fervent since the attacks. Anyone who is 'uneasy' with America's flag-waiving or who do or say anything against this tide risks suffering a backlash and being ostracized.
So what's making people uneasy about excessive patriotism?
Well to begin with, the very definition of patriotism itself means different things to different people. What does it mean to be patriotic? To some, patriotism is "unquestioning loyalty of the my-country-right-or-wrong variety." - John Bodnar. To others, patriotism "celebrates the rights guaranteed by American democracy, including the right to dissent." Clearly people do not agree on their definitions of patriotism which is completely valid, however what is being seen by and far, though not in every case, is the social enforcement of people's individual definition of patriotism on others. And, unfortunately, patriotism is often being used as a psychological tool to advance political, relgious, and personal agendas.
One of the key tactics being used in this social pressure is the idea that one has to agree with certain ideas in order to be patriotic. This is however, a logical fallacy. But the pressure's on - there is tremendous social pressure to be patriotic, because somehow, if you are not, or not like they approve, then you are an unamerican and "bad" personal morally - which is yet another logical fallacy of slippery slope. So, of course people are uneasy with overly fervent patriotism, it's an irrational attack on their characters.
For example, peace activists in Buffalo, N.Y. were labeled "un-American" and "crazy communists" by hecklers. Is this kind of activity repsentative of everybody? Of course not, but the mindset and frame of thinking is rampant right now.
Another clear example is the overwhelming movement to associate religion with patriotism and the idea that if you are not religious (Christian here in America), then you are not a patriot. This is one of the most dangerous and pervasive social ideas rampant right now and is of course, completely untrue and illogical. In fact, it is insulting and ignorant to think that someone can't uphold and express humanistic, intellectual and moral values without the need of a god. This mindset is summed up quite nicely by one of the worst presidents ever to "serve" our country:
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they
be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."-- George Bush Sr.
So is one unpatriotic because he/she disagrees with a particular issue the President supports - even though s/he might support several other presidential issues?
Is one unpatriotic because s/he doesn't sit through a full rendition of "god bless america?" because it in no way expresses patriotism for them?
A lot of what is being seen is patriotism on the cheap - a lot of talk, but no walk. It is clear to see that for as many americans who genuinely show their patriotism in meaningful, even simple ways, there are just as many others who think not singing "god bless america" at every single public outing is an outrage.
Some people in their ferver, are bashing anything that appears to be un-patriotic in their view. Well, some people see through the B.S. and good for them. Genuine patriotism is a way to show and celebrate love, loyalty and support for a country and its citizens. It should be openly and freely expressed by whomever wants to express it and in whatever form they wish. Unfortunately, however, social pressure has taken a different attitude and in the process has made a lot of people deservedly uneasy.
So what's making people uneasy about excessive patriotism?
Well to begin with, the very definition of patriotism itself means different things to different people. What does it mean to be patriotic? To some, patriotism is "unquestioning loyalty of the my-country-right-or-wrong variety." - John Bodnar. To others, patriotism "celebrates the rights guaranteed by American democracy, including the right to dissent." Clearly people do not agree on their definitions of patriotism which is completely valid, however what is being seen by and far, though not in every case, is the social enforcement of people's individual definition of patriotism on others. And, unfortunately, patriotism is often being used as a psychological tool to advance political, relgious, and personal agendas.
One of the key tactics being used in this social pressure is the idea that one has to agree with certain ideas in order to be patriotic. This is however, a logical fallacy. But the pressure's on - there is tremendous social pressure to be patriotic, because somehow, if you are not, or not like they approve, then you are an unamerican and "bad" personal morally - which is yet another logical fallacy of slippery slope. So, of course people are uneasy with overly fervent patriotism, it's an irrational attack on their characters.
For example, peace activists in Buffalo, N.Y. were labeled "un-American" and "crazy communists" by hecklers. Is this kind of activity repsentative of everybody? Of course not, but the mindset and frame of thinking is rampant right now.
Another clear example is the overwhelming movement to associate religion with patriotism and the idea that if you are not religious (Christian here in America), then you are not a patriot. This is one of the most dangerous and pervasive social ideas rampant right now and is of course, completely untrue and illogical. In fact, it is insulting and ignorant to think that someone can't uphold and express humanistic, intellectual and moral values without the need of a god. This mindset is summed up quite nicely by one of the worst presidents ever to "serve" our country:
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they
be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."-- George Bush Sr.
So is one unpatriotic because he/she disagrees with a particular issue the President supports - even though s/he might support several other presidential issues?
Is one unpatriotic because s/he doesn't sit through a full rendition of "god bless america?" because it in no way expresses patriotism for them?
A lot of what is being seen is patriotism on the cheap - a lot of talk, but no walk. It is clear to see that for as many americans who genuinely show their patriotism in meaningful, even simple ways, there are just as many others who think not singing "god bless america" at every single public outing is an outrage.
Some people in their ferver, are bashing anything that appears to be un-patriotic in their view. Well, some people see through the B.S. and good for them. Genuine patriotism is a way to show and celebrate love, loyalty and support for a country and its citizens. It should be openly and freely expressed by whomever wants to express it and in whatever form they wish. Unfortunately, however, social pressure has taken a different attitude and in the process has made a lot of people deservedly uneasy.
The Wanderer
Kid A
ladywithspinninghead, I strongly agree with you regarding your comments on having access to education, healthcare, etc
and your point is well taken about needing to realize that the terrorists do indeed RATIONALIZE what they are doing, and some of them are in fact highly intelligent (albeit manipulative), and i think that is an idea that has been lost on many...
and yes, I agree with what others have said about nationalism being a dangerous idea, though loving one's country is not bad itself, but from an adversarial point of view it's ominous
but I think you would find that if not for the presence of the United States in the region, Canada would not prosper as it does
and your point is well taken about needing to realize that the terrorists do indeed RATIONALIZE what they are doing, and some of them are in fact highly intelligent (albeit manipulative), and i think that is an idea that has been lost on many...
and yes, I agree with what others have said about nationalism being a dangerous idea, though loving one's country is not bad itself, but from an adversarial point of view it's ominous
but I think you would find that if not for the presence of the United States in the region, Canada would not prosper as it does
stagman
War Child
OK then, I believe Australia is the Greatest place to live on Earth. We are a country of only about 18 Million poeple. I bet you America lovers know jack all about us.
We are the most Peaceful Nation on Earth, have no Earthquakes and have the greatest sporting teams in many worldwide sports.
But Patriotism or something similar is almost non-existent, except when we play Cricket, Tennis or go Swimming up against the USA.
I'm not taking a cheap shot at America here, I feel very deeply about the current crisis and I support you guys all the way, I just think you need to stop looking in the mirror so much, that's all.
I hope you don't mind this slant on the discussion.
We are the most Peaceful Nation on Earth, have no Earthquakes and have the greatest sporting teams in many worldwide sports.
But Patriotism or something similar is almost non-existent, except when we play Cricket, Tennis or go Swimming up against the USA.
I'm not taking a cheap shot at America here, I feel very deeply about the current crisis and I support you guys all the way, I just think you need to stop looking in the mirror so much, that's all.
I hope you don't mind this slant on the discussion.
TylerDurden
War Child
Fuck. Here we go.
Of course every body could jump on here and say why they think their countries the best on earth and then everyone else can jump on and say why they think thats bullshit.
Don't send the thread in that direction.
The Republic Of Cuervo is the best on earth and we'll leave it at that.
(and stagman, if you really fucking had to go do that, that is a really poor argument for Australia and your going to need alot better then that)
[This message has been edited by TylerDurden (edited 10-10-2001).]
Of course every body could jump on here and say why they think their countries the best on earth and then everyone else can jump on and say why they think thats bullshit.
Don't send the thread in that direction.
The Republic Of Cuervo is the best on earth and we'll leave it at that.
(and stagman, if you really fucking had to go do that, that is a really poor argument for Australia and your going to need alot better then that)
[This message has been edited by TylerDurden (edited 10-10-2001).]
Achtung Bubba
Refugee
Alright, *one* more post for the next few days...
ladywiththespinninghead:
coming from a nice, peace-loving country...and a-hem, one which doesn't judge its fortunes or greatness on military might and political influence but rather one that finds greatness in its access to education, access to health care, longevity, income and living standards - the 5 factors by which the U.N. determines the "best country in the world in which to live"..by the way, the same country won for 6 consecutive years...It's irrelevant who did win but I'll tell you this: it wasn't the U.S.
Not to say the U.S. isn't a great country, it is...sure it is...but so are most European, Asian, Latin American, African countries..they just have different standards by which to measure it.
Glad to see Canada can afford to be "peace-loving", but we can't and we don't. We're not "peace-loving", we're freedom-loving. If we can have both, we'll take both. But history has shown that we're willing to go to war when freedom is at stake -- unlike many of those great European nations that didn't raise a hand against the Nazis and will probably do little more now than verbally condemn the murderous thugs of Al Qeada and the Taliban.
Granted, we don't have the best access to education and health care, but keep in mind that the countries who've gone down the path of socialized medicine and socailized health care have paid a great price in doing so. They've lost a LOT of freedom in that their people are taxed EXORBITANTLY in order to prop up their socialized systems. And they've lost the freedom that has allowed our health care and education to become unequaled in the world.
Yes, our systems of education and health care have problems of access, but world leaders still come to US when they're sick, and the vast majority of the great minds of most industries have AMERICAN degrees.
And the natural resources that you're too blind (or biased) to see? Well, I could mention the steel miles, the mines, the untapped petroleum, but there is one KEY natural resource: agriculture. WE FEED THE WORLD. We produce so much food that we don't know what to do with it all.
Skeksis:
Patriotism is not only "celebrating the rights guaranteed by American democracy, including the right to dissent", but is also a willingness to defend those rights. That is the problem that I and many like me have with the peace protestors, why we do suggest that they are not being patriotic; they do not understand what it takes to defend our freedoms from terrorist thugs and they are unwilling to take those measures.
One of the key tactics being used in this social pressure is the idea that one has to agree with certain ideas in order to be patriotic. This is however, a logical fallacy.
Calling something a logical fallacy doesn't make it so, and I frankly don't see it. Patriotic Americans can genuinely disagree on the details of our current actions, but I honestly believe that true, uncorrupted American patriotism MUST embrace the ideals of America and its Constitution: political, economic, and religious freedom (including the freedom to believe in no god) and show some willingness to defend this freedom. Those who physically attack certain groups for their beliefs may think their loyal to this country, but their actions show their misguided. And those (like Michael Moore) who continously attack this nation's values may be exercising his freedom, but he's certainly not defending freedom or the instutions that are required to ensure it.
In fact, if what you say is true -- that patriotism doesn't entail certain beliefs -- then people can believe ANYTHING and be patriotic. A person could theoretically believe the massacre of September 11th was justified, and he could believe that the American government should fall, and somehow still qualify as a "patriotic American".
THAT is the logical fallacy.
It is clear to see that for as many americans who genuinely show their patriotism in meaningful, even simple ways, there are just as many others who think not singing "god bless america" at every single public outing is an outrage.
That's clear? 90% of Americans support Bush and there are "just as many others who think" patriotism is an outrage? That's as delusional and unsupported as your belief that President George H. W. Bush was "one of the worst presidents ever to 'serve' our country".
There may be quite a few people in this international forum who, quite frankly, hate America -- at least resent America enough to suggest that we're getting what we deserve. But the United States itself has overwhelmingly supported President Bush and his actions.
And, stagman...
I'm happy that you guys don't have earthquakes and have pretty good sports teams (though who keeps winning more Olympic medals?) But the reasons you're country is the "most peaceful" are nothing to be proud of: Australia happens to be geographically isolated, and it has never been a legitimate threat to tolatarianism; it has never stood tall enough to be a target of the Japanese (Pearl Harbor), the Soviets (the Cuban Missle Crisis), and now the terrorists thugs of Osama bin Laden -- therefore, it never had to respond.
I am reminded of the comment (I believe made by Ben Franklin) that our system is the worst government on Earth -- EXCEPT for every other government.
Likewise, our nation is nowhere near perfect. But there are very few countries that have EVER come close -- Ancient Greece, early Rome, England and its colonies-turned-countries. And of the all the great free nations on earth, we're the economic and political leader.
Hence the title, LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD.
------------------
- Achtung Bubba
I believe in truth, beauty, freedom, and -- above all things -- love.
[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 10-10-2001).]
ladywiththespinninghead:
coming from a nice, peace-loving country...and a-hem, one which doesn't judge its fortunes or greatness on military might and political influence but rather one that finds greatness in its access to education, access to health care, longevity, income and living standards - the 5 factors by which the U.N. determines the "best country in the world in which to live"..by the way, the same country won for 6 consecutive years...It's irrelevant who did win but I'll tell you this: it wasn't the U.S.
Not to say the U.S. isn't a great country, it is...sure it is...but so are most European, Asian, Latin American, African countries..they just have different standards by which to measure it.
Glad to see Canada can afford to be "peace-loving", but we can't and we don't. We're not "peace-loving", we're freedom-loving. If we can have both, we'll take both. But history has shown that we're willing to go to war when freedom is at stake -- unlike many of those great European nations that didn't raise a hand against the Nazis and will probably do little more now than verbally condemn the murderous thugs of Al Qeada and the Taliban.
Granted, we don't have the best access to education and health care, but keep in mind that the countries who've gone down the path of socialized medicine and socailized health care have paid a great price in doing so. They've lost a LOT of freedom in that their people are taxed EXORBITANTLY in order to prop up their socialized systems. And they've lost the freedom that has allowed our health care and education to become unequaled in the world.
Yes, our systems of education and health care have problems of access, but world leaders still come to US when they're sick, and the vast majority of the great minds of most industries have AMERICAN degrees.
And the natural resources that you're too blind (or biased) to see? Well, I could mention the steel miles, the mines, the untapped petroleum, but there is one KEY natural resource: agriculture. WE FEED THE WORLD. We produce so much food that we don't know what to do with it all.
Skeksis:
Patriotism is not only "celebrating the rights guaranteed by American democracy, including the right to dissent", but is also a willingness to defend those rights. That is the problem that I and many like me have with the peace protestors, why we do suggest that they are not being patriotic; they do not understand what it takes to defend our freedoms from terrorist thugs and they are unwilling to take those measures.
One of the key tactics being used in this social pressure is the idea that one has to agree with certain ideas in order to be patriotic. This is however, a logical fallacy.
Calling something a logical fallacy doesn't make it so, and I frankly don't see it. Patriotic Americans can genuinely disagree on the details of our current actions, but I honestly believe that true, uncorrupted American patriotism MUST embrace the ideals of America and its Constitution: political, economic, and religious freedom (including the freedom to believe in no god) and show some willingness to defend this freedom. Those who physically attack certain groups for their beliefs may think their loyal to this country, but their actions show their misguided. And those (like Michael Moore) who continously attack this nation's values may be exercising his freedom, but he's certainly not defending freedom or the instutions that are required to ensure it.
In fact, if what you say is true -- that patriotism doesn't entail certain beliefs -- then people can believe ANYTHING and be patriotic. A person could theoretically believe the massacre of September 11th was justified, and he could believe that the American government should fall, and somehow still qualify as a "patriotic American".
THAT is the logical fallacy.
It is clear to see that for as many americans who genuinely show their patriotism in meaningful, even simple ways, there are just as many others who think not singing "god bless america" at every single public outing is an outrage.
That's clear? 90% of Americans support Bush and there are "just as many others who think" patriotism is an outrage? That's as delusional and unsupported as your belief that President George H. W. Bush was "one of the worst presidents ever to 'serve' our country".
There may be quite a few people in this international forum who, quite frankly, hate America -- at least resent America enough to suggest that we're getting what we deserve. But the United States itself has overwhelmingly supported President Bush and his actions.
And, stagman...
I'm happy that you guys don't have earthquakes and have pretty good sports teams (though who keeps winning more Olympic medals?) But the reasons you're country is the "most peaceful" are nothing to be proud of: Australia happens to be geographically isolated, and it has never been a legitimate threat to tolatarianism; it has never stood tall enough to be a target of the Japanese (Pearl Harbor), the Soviets (the Cuban Missle Crisis), and now the terrorists thugs of Osama bin Laden -- therefore, it never had to respond.
I am reminded of the comment (I believe made by Ben Franklin) that our system is the worst government on Earth -- EXCEPT for every other government.
Likewise, our nation is nowhere near perfect. But there are very few countries that have EVER come close -- Ancient Greece, early Rome, England and its colonies-turned-countries. And of the all the great free nations on earth, we're the economic and political leader.
Hence the title, LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD.
------------------
- Achtung Bubba
I believe in truth, beauty, freedom, and -- above all things -- love.
[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 10-10-2001).]
sharky
New Yorker
Ok, now to divert this. From a press standpoint, its a weird thing. I work for the Wall Street Journal and we were able to put out a paper despite the fact that our offices were evacuated at 9am that morning, which is really quite remarkable. We didn't lose anyone on our staff but alot of reporters and editors worked with people in the Trade Center, knew people who died. I don't mean to sound egomaniacal but I think we're done a fair and honest job covering this story.
There are alot of US media though who have not. In the first day or so, broadcasters did a good job but then it just fell apart. I was watching local NYC news two days after and they had a man on who was looking for his brother. His brother was supposedly picking up some pictures at one of the stores in the Trade Center when the tower collapsed. The interview should have ended there. He was obviously lying because all the shores had been evacuated and shut down by the time the towers collapsed. but instead the interview kept going and the guy said "They found my brother I have to go." to which the woman in the studio said "That's wonderful! Can you take our producer with you so je can film the reunion?" No joke.
As a reporter, I feel there should be fair reporting, not just America is great. No reporter should be wearing a flag or a red, white and blue ribbon while working. One of the greatest things we have in this country is freedom of the press and yet there are some journalists who have forgotten that unlike most countries in the world, our news broadcasts are not written by the government, we're not a puppet of the US. And as Pablo stated way at the start of this, they aren't giving both sides of the story. and in the case of the local NYC station, they aren't even giving out true information.
If you want to know what's really going on, read the NY Times or the London Times. They're more in-depth, more international, and much less sensational than TV journalists.
There are alot of US media though who have not. In the first day or so, broadcasters did a good job but then it just fell apart. I was watching local NYC news two days after and they had a man on who was looking for his brother. His brother was supposedly picking up some pictures at one of the stores in the Trade Center when the tower collapsed. The interview should have ended there. He was obviously lying because all the shores had been evacuated and shut down by the time the towers collapsed. but instead the interview kept going and the guy said "They found my brother I have to go." to which the woman in the studio said "That's wonderful! Can you take our producer with you so je can film the reunion?" No joke.
As a reporter, I feel there should be fair reporting, not just America is great. No reporter should be wearing a flag or a red, white and blue ribbon while working. One of the greatest things we have in this country is freedom of the press and yet there are some journalists who have forgotten that unlike most countries in the world, our news broadcasts are not written by the government, we're not a puppet of the US. And as Pablo stated way at the start of this, they aren't giving both sides of the story. and in the case of the local NYC station, they aren't even giving out true information.
If you want to know what's really going on, read the NY Times or the London Times. They're more in-depth, more international, and much less sensational than TV journalists.
Crzy4Bono
Refugee
I am peace-loving, and I am an American. Please don't speak for all of us.
Actually, the US didn't do a thing to raise their hand against the Nazis for quite some time. In fact, this country had a policy of turning away boatloads of Jewish refugees, returning them to Europe and almost certain death. We were, in fact, dragged kicking and screaming into the war by Japan - when they attacked Pearl Harbor. I will agree that the US was instrumental in ending the war and stopping the advancement of several fascist regimes (including Hitler), but it was certainly not without the aid and sacrifice of a lot of our allies.
Also, to clarify - the most active participants (other than the US) in the current campaign are all European nations - Britain, Germany, France.
Again, I love this country - I am glad I live here. But I do recognize after doing a good bit of work in underprivileged areas of Tennessee that quality education and health care of generally only available to those people in this country who are of means. ("the rich stay healthy and the sick stay poor")
I am a peace activist. I also think I have a pretty good understanding of world politics and the policies of this government. I think it is unfair to characterize all peace activists as weed-smoking college student idiots just because their views are different from yours. One of the things that our country stands for is the right to express an opinion regardless of how unpopular it is. One of the tenets of a democracy is that everyone has a voice. You are expressing your opinion - I am expressing mine. No need to get pissed at me because my opinion differs.
I consider myself patriotic - I love America. I am proud I live in a country where I can freely express my opinions. And as I said in the other thread - I think it is difficult to deal with this situation rationally as the people we are dealing with are irrational. However, I heard a whole lot of "let's nuke the bastards", etc. right after this happened, and that would be mass murder of tens of thousands of citizens in the middle east, no better than what happened here. I am pleased our government took the time to think things through before responding. I am pleased we are working as a world-wide coalition against a clearly defined enemy. I pray this whole conflict ends quickly - not just for us, but for the whole world.
Have fun at the show, Bubba!
Peace
------------------
She's gonna dream up a world she wants to live in / She's gonna dream out loud.
Visit my web page at www.u2page.com
DrTeeth
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
According to your own rules you should freeze your own account now because I can't think of another reason for posting a pic of the flag than to simply upset people (or piss people off). It made no contribution to the discussion whatsoever.
brettig
New Yorker
*shakes crzy by the hand*
Thanks for speaking so eloquently on the topic...
Thanks for speaking so eloquently on the topic...
OP
OP
U2@NYC
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
I would like to leave one thing clear... I was talking about the media and the media alone.
I have nothing against people waving flags. I actually think that it is a good thing to do if it is comforting for them. In fact, I think that they should do the same thing in every country that supports the free world.
Everyone has the right to say what they want, and I don't mind. But I am afraid that my original point was misread.
Just wanted to keep that clear in everyone's mind.
I have nothing against people waving flags. I actually think that it is a good thing to do if it is comforting for them. In fact, I think that they should do the same thing in every country that supports the free world.
Everyone has the right to say what they want, and I don't mind. But I am afraid that my original point was misread.
Just wanted to keep that clear in everyone's mind.
sharky
New Yorker
Pablo-- I think its partially my fault for pushing the topic off-topic in the first place. I think I misunderstood your question. sorry!
------------------
"Things will not be the same in this city for us." -Bono, Dublin, February 1980
[This message has been edited by sharky (edited 10-10-2001).]
------------------
"Things will not be the same in this city for us." -Bono, Dublin, February 1980
[This message has been edited by sharky (edited 10-10-2001).]
Achtung Bubba
Refugee
In brief...
Yes, we were late entering WWII, but I think we should have entered the war earlier and I think we were DAMN lucky that we didn't arrive in Europe and the Pacific too late to do anything.
I did not mean to disparage all of Europe -- it's just that there are a few European nations (Italy, in the current situation, and Switzerland historically) who are not taking up arms against the terrorists.
Again, we're not perfect -- problems go unsolved -- but there are many more problems we've that we have solved.
And I did not characterize pacifists as "weed-smoking college student idiots just because their views are different from yours". I merely expressed my belief that -- while exercising your right to free speech is great -- DEFENDING that right is more patriotic; and I honestly believe that military action is necessary in defending our freedoms and that many pacifists refuse to consider the possibility.
And I don't doubt your patriotism. But I am of the belief that the men who stormed Normandy were far more patriotic than the Amish who refused to fight in World War II. The Amish may have been more devout or morally right (though that too can be contended), but the soldiers were clearly more committed to their country.
Just as now, the people who have volunteered to join the U.S. Armed Forces -- especially those who have enlisted since 9/11 -- are more devoted than even myself. I will do what I can; they're doing more.
Finally, DrTeeth, regardless of the context or the reasons, I will NOT suspend the account of anyone who lifts high the banner of my country.
Quit try to rehash something that has already been resolved.
------------------
- Achtung Bubba
I believe in truth, beauty, freedom, and -- above all things -- love.
Yes, we were late entering WWII, but I think we should have entered the war earlier and I think we were DAMN lucky that we didn't arrive in Europe and the Pacific too late to do anything.
I did not mean to disparage all of Europe -- it's just that there are a few European nations (Italy, in the current situation, and Switzerland historically) who are not taking up arms against the terrorists.
Again, we're not perfect -- problems go unsolved -- but there are many more problems we've that we have solved.
And I did not characterize pacifists as "weed-smoking college student idiots just because their views are different from yours". I merely expressed my belief that -- while exercising your right to free speech is great -- DEFENDING that right is more patriotic; and I honestly believe that military action is necessary in defending our freedoms and that many pacifists refuse to consider the possibility.
And I don't doubt your patriotism. But I am of the belief that the men who stormed Normandy were far more patriotic than the Amish who refused to fight in World War II. The Amish may have been more devout or morally right (though that too can be contended), but the soldiers were clearly more committed to their country.
Just as now, the people who have volunteered to join the U.S. Armed Forces -- especially those who have enlisted since 9/11 -- are more devoted than even myself. I will do what I can; they're doing more.
Finally, DrTeeth, regardless of the context or the reasons, I will NOT suspend the account of anyone who lifts high the banner of my country.
Quit try to rehash something that has already been resolved.
------------------
- Achtung Bubba
I believe in truth, beauty, freedom, and -- above all things -- love.
Marko
War Child
First: PAtriotism is great. for me it's great when someone loves his country, AND DOESN'T bring some other nation down! It's realy great to see your's countrie's flag at every corner.
The only thing about US govrnment is that they tell other nations that they are nationalists when they say that they love their country so much. For instance Heider in Austria - I don't love the guy, but he won on elections democraticly (bad spelling I know), but you said that he deserves sanctions!
It's a thin line between patriotism and nationalism, the second is bad and the first is noble. That's the way I see it.
When it comes to media - yes US media are totaly subjective, adn it proves that you are not imune to shock and war time drama, no state press is objective in a war time...
and I just have to quote something realy stupid or ignorant:
I don't know how to coment this - it's either totaly ignorant or just plain stupid stupid stupid. Wit this you prove that you (odonela not the US in general) can't see past your neibourhood. It's incredible! What about 1,000,000 tutsis being killed 5 years ago in africa? What about 20000 croatians killed, what about the war in bosnia - where tens of thousands of civilians were killed in concentration camps in 1990's... AND WHAT ABOUT MILIONS of jews killed in ww2? The biggest war crime ever? Please go lear something and that say stupidity like this!
The only thing about US govrnment is that they tell other nations that they are nationalists when they say that they love their country so much. For instance Heider in Austria - I don't love the guy, but he won on elections democraticly (bad spelling I know), but you said that he deserves sanctions!
It's a thin line between patriotism and nationalism, the second is bad and the first is noble. That's the way I see it.
When it comes to media - yes US media are totaly subjective, adn it proves that you are not imune to shock and war time drama, no state press is objective in a war time...
and I just have to quote something realy stupid or ignorant:
I don't know how to coment this - it's either totaly ignorant or just plain stupid stupid stupid. Wit this you prove that you (odonela not the US in general) can't see past your neibourhood. It's incredible! What about 1,000,000 tutsis being killed 5 years ago in africa? What about 20000 croatians killed, what about the war in bosnia - where tens of thousands of civilians were killed in concentration camps in 1990's... AND WHAT ABOUT MILIONS of jews killed in ww2? The biggest war crime ever? Please go lear something and that say stupidity like this!
Crzy4Bono
Refugee
You're absolutely right. I apologize to you. (Someone did but I can't remember who)
I agree with you here. The definition of patritiotism does include "defense". But to say that you are unpatriotic because you are not as patriotic as someone else is also untrue. And blind patriotism to the detriment of other innocent people is not a virtue, in my view.
Peace - I really do hope you have fun in South Bend.
Pablo - I think I read your original post in the vein it was intended - but I was just responding to some of the later comments. I'll stop now.
------------------
She's gonna dream up a world she wants to live in / She's gonna dream out loud.
Visit my web page at www.u2page.com
brettig
New Yorker
About the Olympics, if u won the amount of medals PER CAPITA that we did, youd win the lot!
Seriously though, Australia is not that isolated, mainland Australia was attacked on numerous occasions during ww2 (Darwin and Townsville Bombed, Sydney Harbour attacked by submarines) and of course one of the principle Japanese aims was to secure Australia, committing thousands of troops to take papua new guinea as a launchpad, an offensive that was almost single handedly held off by Australian forces, the 1st time the Japanese armies had been stopped on land in fact...In the Pacific theatre Australia bought valuable time for the usa, and then served as the perfect jumping off point for the island hopping campaigns of 1943-45...
As for the cold war, remember we were one of the very few nations who gave full support in Korea and Nam, against our better judgement in the second case, but thats just my opinion. We may not have been a priority one target, but we do house several important American satellite and military tracking installations such as Pine Gap in my state, places that do carry a serious risk of attracting the attention of America's enemies, so to say we have not 'stood tall' is rather inaccurate.
Dont forget we live next door to the simmering leviathan of Indonesia, so we are not totally isolated from potential flashpoint situations, it has taken inventive diplomacy on several occasions to ensure our relations with our neighbours to the north did not become downright dangerous. When East Timor was being hacked to pieces last year i recall the USA was less than enthusiastic about sending us immediate support, so we went in alone with our understrength military and did a good job, as we invariably do for our size.
Australia has kept its position as a nation of peace by much much more than isolation, and I find it rather disappointing that an American would have such poor grasp of what goes on down here, as there has never been a time when we have not offered help to the USA, right or wrong...
I know this was not the major point of this thread, but I felt i should defend Australia's standing as a nation that has had to battle to secure its position, it is due to our success in doing so that this is often overlooked.
follower
Refugee
*follower aplauds Crzy4Bono vigorously*
Skeksis
The Fly
Officially, patriotism is defined only as "a love for or devotion to one's country." Now, clearly someone who loves and is devoted to something is more likely to want to defend that thing. So, I understand your thinking that not having a willingness to defend that which you love would make you unpatriotic. However, where I think your line of reasoning falls apart is this idea that all peace-lovers do not love their country and are not willing to defend it. You know, some may and some may not; that's not the point. The point is that some think that they have an alternate or better solution to defending our country than fighting. Whether their solution is better or not is irrelevant - they still love their country and are demonstrating their views. Likewise, peace protests and peace talks have always played an important role in the resolution of any conflict even when fighting is deemed necessary. In fact, sometimes it works better. Now, I personally think that definitive military action is a necessary component in our defense. But, I also appreciate the role peace protests play in the bigger picture. After all, peace and freedom are the ultimate goals of what we're after.
Let me be frank and clear. The only "requirement" for being patriotic is a love and support or devotion to one's country. Nowhere, anywhere, especially as guaranteed by our constitution does it say an american citizen has to agree with everything a country agrees with including its own laws and its people. The addition of any extraneous requirements is unecessary and is what differentiates one's personal definition of patriotism from another. This is the point I'm trying to make. If someone disagrees with his family on personal issues, does he still not love them? More than likely, yes and also supports them in time of need. Why? Because the concept of love and devotion is a lot stronger than most of our personal differences. Now for anyone who believes the attacks were justified and that the american government should fall clearly does not love or support his country, and is therefore unpatriotic.
Yes it is perfectly clear. My comment had absolutely nothing to do with the percentage of americans who support Bush. Nor did I suggest that genuine patriotism is an outrage. I am not making the automatic association of "90% of americans who support Bush" with "those who genuinely show their patriotism", and I highly doubt one could research and provide the evidence to do so. This is a stark non-sequiter.
Part of my original post was the idea that there is excessive "patriotism on the cheap," and my statement was to show the difference of those who show their patriotism meaningfully vs. those who think they may, but aren't really - certaintly not that the idea that those who support bush are genuinely patriotic and those who don't are not.
Also, it was never my intention to support my statement that Bush was "one of the worst presidents ever to 'serve' our country" other than to provide the self-evident quote that I did, and what was just as unsupported was your rebuttal of my view on GWB Sr. But that is another argument for another time and I apologize for taking the opportunity to support my view on the subject outside the framework of the original topic.
Crzy4Bono:
I completely agree with what you've said here, with the exception that the definition of patriotism including 'defense' is only a natural outcome of loving and supporting one's country. Genuine patriotism has consistently produced highly desirable results and values for a country - and the united states has an abundant amount of genuine patriotism right now. What is also happening unfortunately to one degree or another is the devaluation of patriotism by cheap acts and the use of it to advance political, religious, or personal agendas. This is what I am trying to point out, in response to the fact that a lot of people are becoming cautious and uneasy about some of the patriotism being displayed right now.
I appreciate the time anyone takes to respond, and please understand that no attacks or agreements are meant as personal; instead they are directed toward the argument at hand.
Thanks,
~Skeksis
Salome
you are what you is
definately
------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it
Similar threads
- Locked
