Oscar Wilde, seemingly a quote writing machine, once called patriotism "the virtue of the violent." I'm sure that he forgot to tell us that it is also the mask of the greedy.Where do you stand on the "virtue of the violent" thing? Putting foot to ass now and again seems necessary and reasonable, but does it seem like even an untouchable platform like patriotism should have limits? Can we go too far with this ish?
yeah, I've said before that nationalism has an inverse correlation with civil liberties and that some of the most nationalistic nations ever have been Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, and Mao's DPRK. It makes me uneasy how much nationalism is growing in this country (as the civil liberties shrink) as much of what nationalism is is a government device to get the people to give them a free pass at times. How many times have you heard these guys in office say stuff about legislation like "Either you're with us, or you're against us" or even stuff on par with "either you're with us or you're with al queda". It's a propaganda machine that distracts many people from the real problems at hand. Nationalism was the #1 cause of world war 1 and a peripheral cause of world war 2, and has been the cause of much bloodshed as it's simply another meaningless difference for people to shed blood over.
In terms of nationalism, it isnt quite the same as patriotism. They are both loyalty to your country in sense of the words, but nationalism is more of "my country is better than yours". As for patriotism is when you are proud of your country and what it stands for.I dont believe the US goes to war outve pride, or integrity, but outve purpose. We didnt get into WW1 or WW2 because we felt that we werent being patriotic, we entered because we had to. So I disagree with his qoute, because I do not believe patriotism is the sole reason of violence, I believe America only goes to war(which im sure what he meant by violence)when it is needed. We never entered WW1 until the Germans were killing hundreds of Americans, we never went into WW2 until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.Sorry if this was meant for any and every country, I was really speaking from Americas point of view.
While it is true that Nationalism and Patroitism are mostly similiar, like Bluffcity said they are differnt. Patriotism is the more low key to approch to Nationalism, Patriots tend to be seen as furthuring the cause which their nation as a whole stands for, while Nationalism tends to be more violent and futher an agenda made by the elite.Being Patriot is serving your country, defending your country and doing what is best for your country. Being Nationalistic is doing the same things, but you attack and oppress those who don't believe what you believe in.Both are very important tools for the government to control its subjects by. like someone mentioned dictatorships use Nationalism to a great success in maintaining control over their people. I believe it was Napoleon who once said "Nationalism is the greatest tool which a leader can use. with it you can have man upon man charge to his death without question, without it those very same men look at you like you're crazy when you give the order" I think that quote really stands out, because of how true it is. Nationalism is a great tool for all nations when at war, making your soldiers believe that their deaths will be for the greater good is about the only way you're going to acomplish something like the invasion of Normandy, Iwo Jima, or San Juan hill. of corse it has it's down sides, just look at Marine Heights, Pickets charge, or little Big Horn to see how you can basically throw soldiers into a meat grinder.
" So I disagree with his qoute, because I do not believe patriotism is the sole reason of violence..."BCB, I believe that Wilde meant that people who possess a predisposition to violence will choose patriotism as their virtue over say, chastity.Question for everybody: Is Bush a nationalist, patriot, or neither in regards to the Iraq War.
Its however you want to define nationalist or patriot. Bush(and the rest of the government) went to war with Iraq because of information they possessed that said that they had powerful weapons and we possibly supporting terrorists groups. If you want to get technical, Iraq never did anything <u>directly</u> to the US, but that doesn't mean they werent affecting us in means of how they could be supporting certain groups. But its hard to put a label on Bush or any president for that matter. Again, we didnt go to war with Iraq because the US felt obligated to take it over for keeps, but we werent directly attacked by Iraq so neither word by definiton can be applied to Bush on the matter of Iraq.
Nationalism - The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.I think this pretty much says it all.
If you judge by the consistency of Bush's foreign and domestic policy over the last 6 years, I think it's hard to argue otherwise.
Besides stopping terrorism, how has the war on terror benefited america? And dont see oil...cause thats only gone up, and if we wanted oil we have reserves in Alaska the we havent even started using.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BluffCityBlue @ Jun 6 2007, 06:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Besides stopping terrorism, how has the war on terror benefited america? And dont see oil...cause thats only gone up, and if we wanted oil we have reserves in Alaska the we havent even started using.</div>we haven't started using them because they're limited and there are environmentalists protecting them.And the war on terror has benefited nobody. I don't know if there is a single country in the world you could say it's benefited except maybe the DPRK because it makes the US military unable to intervene.
There is no such thing as a war on an abstract concept like "drugs" or "terror." It's a completely meaningless catchphrase paradox with the goal of frightening you until you cower under the cloak of the people selling it.
When people label the war "War on Terror", it is basicly saying we arent going to let terrorists or people who support terrorists affect our nation again. If we have information that is basicly telling us a nation is supporting the same type of group that attacked us, we should go on the offensive and stop waiting to retaliate on the defensive side of war.And what makes people think this war isnt progressing is the media. I saw a story last night on my local news station about a computer operator in Iraq(he was in the army), but hes volunteered for over 200 missions, and he came back to Memphis because his leg was severely damaged. They asked him why did he volunteer so much, and he said he knows the US military is doing so much good for Iraq, and he also said it is frightening how he comes back to the US and sees the media portray OUR military as terrorists who arent helping the Iraqi people at all. You will NEVER see a story like that on CNN, MSNBC or even FoxNews.
The way the media portrays it, the War in Iraq looks like it has the same goals behind it as Vietnam and Korea's war, with the same outcome. But, that could be wrong, because the media is always trying to twist things. I have a half brother, and we aren't really close, but I still love him, and we hangout from time to time, and he's in Iraq. So, I am a little biased towards Bush bringing the troops back, especially with my brother recently being called to serve one more year overseas.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BluffCityBlue @ Jun 6 2007, 06:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No, actually its liberals who wont let us get into the oil we have.</div>and environmentalists are liberals. Hence my statement is correct.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kobebryant_24OWNEDME @ Jun 6 2007, 11:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>and environmentalists are liberals. Hence my statement is correct.</div>Not all liberals are enviromentalists.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BluffCityBlue @ Jun 7 2007, 09:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Not all liberals are enviromentalists.</div>and not all liberals are preventing us from getting our oil, care to continue with the semantic syllogism or do you just want to agree that it's liberal environmentalists?
Haha, I think its funny that you try to sound smart...Point is, it is mainly the liberal(democratic) party that is against this. And I can garuntee you half of the democrats dont give a damn about the enviroment. They might look like they do, but its just for good publicity.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BluffCityBlue @ Jun 7 2007, 09:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Haha, I think its funny that you try to sound smart...</div>That's just how I talk in real life, I just don't see a purpose to dumbing down what I say...would you rather I did? <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Point is, it is mainly the liberal(democratic) party that is against this. And I can garuntee you half of the democrats dont give a damn about the enviroment. They might look like they do, but its just for good publicity.</div>I agree that it's the liberals who are against it, but I dislike these blanket statements that "the liberals are responsible for this" the one sees so often, as, by the same vein one could say "the conservatives are responsible for racism" because the vast majority of racists are conservatives, whereas the vast majority of conservatives are not racists. You see what I'm getting at?
