America ranked as "most patriotic"

[The Persnickety Platypus]

When it comes to national pride, Americans are No. 1, according to a survey of 34 countries’ patriotism.

In a related story, The senate is closer than ever to passing a flag burning ban, which would join America with the ranks of Saudi Arabia, Afganistan, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and former Communist Cambodia as the only countries to ban flag desecration.

Now, I have never personally burned the American flag. But I'll tell you what, the day Congress bans it is the day I do.

Patriotism: how much is too much?

To gauge America's patriotism, I will compare our current administration/society to fascist Italy:

A large percentage of citizens with the physical inability to see any flaws in their nation's policy- Check

Centralization of authority under a dictator- We're getting there. I keep waiting for George to vye for an illicit third term.

Suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship- Flag burning ban

A policy of belligerent nationalism- Do you know what some people would do to me if I came out of the closet as being anti-American?

Corporate control over ecomony- Wal-Mart wages, Oil Companies supressing alternative energy industries and raking in record profits while the consumer suffers, single-source campaign contributer's deciding elections, tax breaks for the rich, overhaul of estate tax, ect.

Self-centered economic policies indifferent of other nation's needs- Definetly.

International attitude of arrogance and assertivness- No sh*t.

Invading foriegn countries simply power, influence, and economic assets- Iraq, Afganistan, soon to be Iran (in addition to the many secret wars and invasions that us normal folk may never know about)





Americans today are completely disconnected. I wish to delve deeper into this, but first, I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Is America too partriotic?
How much is too patriotic?

[Easyrider]

As for the claims of 'Empire building' your history speaks for itself.

Kiwimac

Hey - if it wasn't for the U.S. you'd probably be speaking Japanese now, so count your blessings.

[kiwimac]

Son,

My father fought in WW2, he was fighting Japanese long before any of you mob came on the scene. So perhaps you might want to rethink your comment.

Kiwimac

[Easyrider]

Son,

My father fought in WW2, he was fighting Japanese long before any of you mob came on the scene. So perhaps you might want to rethink your comment.

Kiwimac

Nice of the old chap for hitting a lick. He wasn't thinking of making an empire out of Japan now, was he?

[Wyvern]

As for the claims of 'Empire building' your history speaks for itself.

Kiwimac

Hey - if it wasn't for the U.S. you'd probably be speaking Japanese now, so count your blessings.

Thank you Easyrider for giving a nearly textbook example of the stereotypical ugly american. Why don't you look into WW2 history a bit and see the contributions commonwealth troops gave in the asia/pacific theatre. At least watch the movie,"The Bridge Over the River Kwai", sure it's a movie but at least it will give you the understanding that it wasn't all just americans there, especially on the mainland and New Guinea.

[Easyrider]

Thank you Easyrider for giving a nearly textbook example of the stereotypical ugly american. Why don't you look into WW2 history a bit and see the contributions commonwealth troops gave in the asia/pacific theatre. At least watch the movie,"The Bridge Over the River Kwai", sure it's a movie but at least it will give you the understanding that it wasn't all just americans there, especially on the mainland and New Guinea.

As opposed to an ugly non-American?

I saw the movie Bridge Over the River Kwai when it first came out, thank you. Probably before you did.

And while there's no denial that commonwealth troops were engaged in many asia / pacific engagements, they weren't doing very well in stemming the tide of Japanese aggression until we stepped in and started kicking Japanese butts. Like at the Battle of the Coral Sea (Oh, what a relief for Australia and New Zealand) and the Battle of Midway, followed by any number of other Pacific island battles. And certainly, "the Bomb" was the quietus, or the commonwealth forces might still be having a "bloody" good time of it.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Easyrider, funny how we wern't too keen on "saving the world" until being attacked ourselves. Before that, the fact that Europe and Asia Minor were on the brink of extinction didn't seem to matter. Prior to Pearl Harbor, some of our closest diplomatic allies were thrust under Nazi control. Where was good ole' America then? When a ship of Jewish refugees landed at Ellis Island in late 1939, was it not the US government who turned them right back around, back into German hands?

American leaders should have been amoung the first executed at Nuremburgh.

Independent nations generally act exclusively in their own self-interest. Members of the America fan club (a group of waning membership now-a-days) like to point out how "selfless" America's foriegn policy has always been. What they like to ignore are the often inconspicuous economic perks we glean from our so called philanthropy. If ending world poverty was ever deemed particularly advantageous for our political leaders, we would have the world's impoverished fed and clothed overnight. Mind, it would only take about half our current military budget to accomplish it, which is instead being spent "freeing" Iraq (who oh so conveniently harbors a good 12% of the world's oil reserves).

Don't buy that "freedom is not free" bull. At this particular point in time, freedom is rather cheap- it's oil that costs a lot.

This is what patriotism does to the world. Anything that your country does is inherently noble... and don't you dare dissagree.

[Easyrider]

Easyrider, funny how we wern't too keen on "saving the world" until being attacked ourselves. Before that, the fact that Europe and Asia Minor were on the brink of extinction didn't seem to matter. Prior to Pearl Harbor, some of our closest diplomatic allies were thrust under Nazi control. Where was good ole' America then?

As you know, there was quite a debate back then on that. Yet quite a few noble Americans volunteered for service and combat in England, such as the Eagle Squadron of American and Canadian fighter pilots who flew combat missions with the British.

I'll also remind you that the sort of appeasement and indecisiveness in dealing with evil that you addressed didn't work then, and it doesn't work now in dealing with people like Saddam Hussein and Iran building nukes. You can't condemn what the appeasers did at the start of World War II and now say the U.S. was wrong for going after Saddam & Company. Otherwise you haven't learned a thing from history.

Don't buy that "freedom is not free" bull. At this particular point in time, freedom is rather cheap- it's oil that costs a lot.

A serious review of American history (and world history) shows that freedom is seldom cheap or easy. To the contrary, it is extremely costly.

[MagusYanam]

As you know, there was quite a debate back then on that.

As I recall from my history courses, the conservatives were on the isolationist side of that debate.

I'll also remind you that the sort of appeasement and indecisiveness in dealing with evil that you addressed didn't work then, and it doesn't work now in dealing with people like Saddam Hussein and Iran building nukes. You can't condemn what the appeasers did at the start of World War II and now say the U.S. was wrong for going after Saddam & Company. Otherwise you haven't learned a thing from history.

There's a big difference between appeasement and the anti-war stance in Iraq, just as there is a big difference between interventionism and chickenhawk neoconservatism. Hitler and Hirohito should have been dealt with by multilateral police action early in the 1930's, sparing us a very bloody war in the late 1930's, just as in Iraq we had the U.N. to carry out not only weapons inspections but also human-rights inspections and international law enforcement.

We even had the troops to back the U.N. inspectors. We had the upper hand in the negotiations with Iraq and we blew it by going to war. Now the American youth (as well as everyone in Iraq) are paying the price for our leaders' ineptitude (or belligerence).

A serious review of American history (and world history) shows that freedom is seldom cheap or easy. To the contrary, it is extremely costly.

The Model Parliament didn't cost any English blood (or Norman, for that matter). The Glorious Revolution of 1688 was met only with a few scattered uprisings of Jacobites in the Highlands and in Ireland - its success in Great Britain was so complete that it came to be called the Bloodless Revolution.

Granted, the revolutions of 1848 were another matter, but British-style parliamentary democracy (the freest kind there is) has been relatively secure since the Glorious Revolution (World War II aside, but that is the point we were discussing).

American leaders should have been amoung the first executed at Nuremburgh.

FDR underestimated the threat of the Nazis to them. But at least he didn't ignore it altogether, as the conservatives wanted to do.

Independent nations generally act exclusively in their own self-interest. Members of the America fan club (a group of waning membership now-a-days) like to point out how "selfless" America's foriegn policy has always been. What they like to ignore are the often inconspicuous economic perks we glean from our so called philanthropy. If ending world poverty was ever deemed particularly advantageous for our political leaders, we would have the world's impoverished fed and clothed overnight. Mind, it would only take about half our current military budget to accomplish it, which is instead being spent "freeing" Iraq (who oh so conveniently harbors a good 12% of the world's oil reserves).

I agree with you here. I'm against any sort of 'pre-emptive war' - the entire concept goes against not only the strong pacifist tradition in the Christian church but also against Augustinian just war theory. That aside, there doesn't seem to be any other reason to invade Iraq over say, North Korea or Syria or even Libya, except that there is oil there. And to prove that the United States is top dog - that seems to be what the chickenhawks want most.

We do tend to take a rather inefficient approach to our military, spending all that money on what really amounts to high-tech toys. I've held for a while now that the foreign aid budget of the United States should be tied to the military budget - even five cents on the dollar would make a world of difference (quite literally). If we really wanted to decimate the world's terrorists, we could shut down their recruitment facilities by providing that nickel to Middle Eastern nations' poor, instead of to the oil sheikhs.

[Easyrider]

just as in Iraq we had the U.N. to carry out not only weapons inspections but also human-rights inspections and international law enforcement. We even had the troops to back the U.N. inspectors. We had the upper hand in the negotiations with Iraq and we blew it by going to war.

I think you're forgetting a few things.

Iraq continued to fail to account for substantial chemical and biological stockpiles which UNMOVIC inspectors had confirmed as existing as late as 1998. Iraq claimed that it had disposed of its anthrax stockpiles at a specific site, but UNMOVIC found this impossible to confirm since Iraq had not allowed the destruction to be witnessed by inspectors as required by the pertinent Resolutions. Chemical testing done at the site was unable to show that any anthrax had been destroyed there.

Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei presented several reports to the UN detailing Iraq's level of compliance with Resolution 1441. On January 30, 2003 Blix said that Iraq had not fully accepted its obligation to disarm, and by mid-February the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles remained unresolved. Blix's March 7 report stated "Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. (but they didn't).

At this point, the US Administration asserted that Iraq remained in material breach of the UN Resolutions, and that, under 1441, this meant the Security Council had to convene immediately "in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security".

At the Azores conference of March 16, Tony Blair, George W. Bush, and Spanish prime minister José María Aznar announced the imminent deadline of March 17 for complete Iraqi compliance, with statements such as "Tomorrow is a moment of truth for the world". On the 17th, speeches by Bush and UK foreign secretary Jack Straw explicitly declared the period of diplomacy to be over, as declared by Resolution 1441's prohibition on giving Iraq new opportunities for compliance, and that no further authorization from the UN would be sought before an invasion of Iraq (see 2003 invasion of Iraq). The USA and Britain, while admitting that such a resolution was diplomatically desirable, insisted that Iraq had now been given enough time (noting also the time since the first disarmament resolutions of 1991) to disarm or provide evidence thereof, and that war was legitimized by 1441 and previous UN resolutions. Non-permanent Security Council member Spain declared itself with the USA and Britain.

Saddam had been given plenty of chances and after 9/11 we could not afford to pussyfoot around any longer. And don't forget, Saddam was firing at coalition aircraft in direct contravention of U.N. Resolutions.

Now the American youth (as well as everyone in Iraq) are paying the price for our leaders' ineptitude (or belligerence).

Nonsense. The ineptitude was in appeasing this lying mass murderer in the first place. Otherwise you would STILL be dealing with him and his evil regime. Conventional wisdom was to force him out before he could reconstitute his WMD's (of which we have now found some 500 WMD's laced with nerve agents.

A serious review of American history (and world history) shows that freedom is seldom cheap or easy. To the contrary, it is extremely costly.

The Model Parliament didn't cost any English blood (or Norman, for that matter). The Glorious Revolution of 1688 was met only with a few scattered uprisings of Jacobites in the Highlands and in Ireland - its success in Great Britain was so complete that it came to be called the Bloodless Revolution.

Well, we've lost hundreds of thousands of troops in our wars for peace over the years, so for someone to say peace is bloodless just frankly doesn't resonate with me very well, or with their families.

[MagusYanam]

I think you're forgetting a few things.

I think I've read this exact essay before, except you omitted everything that didn't agree with your conclusion. Admirable prooftext, by the way, but it still only reinforces my point.

Iraq was, of course, being recalcitrant with regard to the U.N. demands. But the fact still remains that we had the resources to twist their arm further without armed conflict. All U.N. reports coming out of Iraq indicated that headway was being made, however slowly. As your little article indicates all too clearly, the ultimatum was not made by either Iraq or the U.N., but by the United States - they swept the diplomatic option pretty much off the table (deliberately?). We know that the neoconservative platform well before the eleventh of September, 2001 was to go to war with Iraq. So you can understand the decision to do so on Bush's behalf seems only a little convenient.

It seems pretty clear from all available evidence that diplomacy was still a viable option. We had all the pieces on the board and Saddam, being a coward, would have complied when backed into a corner. But Bush couldn't play the game.

Nonsense. The ineptitude was in appeasing this lying mass murderer in the first place. Otherwise you would STILL be dealing with him and his evil regime. Conventional wisdom was to force him out before he could reconstitute his WMD's (of which we have now found some 500 WMD's laced with nerve agents.

Link? This is news to me, let's see if it comes from a reliable source.

Well, we've lost hundreds of thousands of troops in our wars for peace

'Wars for peace'. That would be a good one, if only it weren't so sad.

for someone to say peace is bloodless just frankly doesn't resonate with me very well, or with their families.

Well, I'm not so presumptuous as to speak for the families of the troops, but I'm of the opinion that where there is social justice and economic egalitarianism, there can be peace without bloodshed. And the goals during peacetime should be toward these ends. War represents failure to maintain the peace under the boundary conditions of social justice.