Patriotism strikes me as being on an equal footing with God in terms of irrational thinking. And, of course, they are tightly intertwined in the American Right. 


An on-line friend sent me this (for strong stomaches only). How should I reply? She's a nice lady.

Views: 642

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Patriotism and rational thought are needed for security. Being the world police force is not rational.


Unless of course being "the world police force" is the only way to secure our existence.

Well yes that, existence.
To preserve freedom, advance science and the human species. This is why we [Humans] should use the tools and weapons at our disposal to fight the war against ignorance.

One of those tools/weapons is the United States. Looking at this from a world view, the US is a promoter of freedom, a fighter for equality, and an advancer of scientific study and knowledge. Knowledge begets freedom, so in my opinion the US is a tool to be used to advance the human agenda.
That's my point. Human rights don't have borders.

Sounds good, I have some questions. The school systems in the US is not producing students that can do math and science, we are falling behind, so we are advancing how?

I also would like you to show me where the US is promoting freedom, one of closest friends in the near east is Saudi Arabia, a country that is ruled by one family, protest is not permitted and was the incubator of al Qaeda along with the help of the CIA. 

Nam was about freedom fighting? Iraq is about freedom fighting? Afghanistan is about freedom fighting? In all three cases natural resources and control of the area of the world was or is the aim. While we were or are there, in the case of Nam 3,000,000 Vietnamese were killed, the numbers of Muslims killed is under dispute but lets just say it is in the interest of the US government to report low numbers cause it helps keep the war going with little to no protest here in the states.

If the human agenda is control of the oil resources then I will agree with you but it sounds much more like a corporate agenda than human.

Spreading freedom with bullets is disenguesoius at best, lets be truthful and just say were here for your oil and stop lying to ourselves, unless it makes you feel better to perpetuate the story.

You said: "...Spreading freedom with bullets is disenguesoius at best..." Hmmm... Ok, if people who're against freedom are shooting at you, what do you do? Peaceful protest doesn't work. I'll use Afghanistan as an example since you brought it up. Should we just let the Taliban rape pillage, burn and oppress their own people? Should we have just let Milosevic continue his genocidal campaign in Yugoslavia? What about Somalia, Rwanda, and other places where the US has intervened.


We as humans should fight crimes against humanity where we can.

"Ok, if people who're against freedom are shooting at you, what do you do?"

You protect yourself, in all three cases I brought up which of these nations were attacking us?

Saddam got his gas weapons that he used on his people from the US, we wanted him to use them against Iran but when that didn't workout using them against  Kurds didn't seem to bother us too much while the gassing went on.

The Taliban was raping, pillaging, burning and oppressing their people? You understand that the Taliban was not a foreign force and while in power the other choice in Afghanistan was tribal warlords whom we sided with. During the time the Taliban was in control growing poppies for opium was almost nil. Now that the US is in control Afghanistan is the worlds number 1 producer.

Remember the drug money for weapons deal with Iran during the Regan presidency? Laos during the Nam the CIA was producing heron and using Air America to import it into the US. There are also a number of cases where the CIA was involved with drugs out of So America.

The idea that the US policies around the world are idealistic good goes against history.

I do agree that we as humans should fight crimes against humanity where we can, but as a nation to fight unprovoked wars for corporate gain is not noble.

You said: "...I do agree that we as humans should fight crimes against humanity where we can, but as a nation to fight unprovoked wars for corporate gain is not noble...'


I agree we should not fight "corporate wars" based on greed. That is wrong.


When we fight crimes against humanity the operative then becomes the question "what is provoking?".


If you saw a woman being beaten in the street, at a mall, or a child being raped, or a homosexual being stoned to death would you stand by and let it happen? If I had the power to stop those from causing harm I would use it without hesitation or support those who do in the name of humanity.

I agree completely. I believe in the right to protect yourself, family and as you stated crimes against people who need protection.

After 9/11 we used it as the reason to into Afghanistan and Iraq, but the terrorists were in the largest apart Saudis. We didn't go to war with Saudi Arabia cause we already have the oil deal with them.  

If you are going to be rational then you have to question the reasons behind the actions of the government when they are going to war in your name. In most cases follow the money and you will find the real reasons behind armed conflicts.

Here is a site estimates the deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq and the methods used to compile the numbers,

I'm not saying the numbers are totally correct but it will give some indication just how humane the actions in these two countries are.

I think one should properly define patriotism before deciding to fight against it.  I don't consider propaganda and unquestioning fealty to be very patriotic.
I don't think this is actually an example of "patriotism." I think that the idea of "patriotism" is being confused with the idea of "nationalism." The difference may not seem immediately clear but I consider patriotism to be a more rational position that centers more on feeling strongly about the ideals of a country, whereas nationalism is more akin to a sense of religious fervor in the absolute "rightness" of your country. For example, a patriot could easily be a critic of the war in iraq, but a nationalist never could.


© 2022   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service