[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

[Krsqk]

I think you should revise your statement to something like, "It's impossible to determine anyone's loyalty to their country until it's tested." Especially since you just acknowledged that poor people are not necessarily any more patriotic than rich people. One might even argue that most poor people (at least in the US) are unpatriotic, since they demand that the government (meaning all the other taxpayers) care for them, when most are able-bodied and capable of contributing to the country. Ergo,
[*]Poor people who take government assistance are unpatriotic unless proven to be otherwise.

It's the same logic.

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
I think you should revise your statement to something like, "It's impossible to determine anyone's loyalty to their country until it's tested." Especially since you just acknowledged that poor people are not necessarily any more patriotic than rich people.

Well, then we end up with the conclusion that the Middle class is the one the have to stick with the nation.
Poor people in the west would be non-professionals making minimum wage or/and living on welfare.
So, since these people doesn't have a good job to lose , or a house, or any of those "hard to sell in an emergency" kind of properties that the middle class have, then these poor people don't feel as attached to a country like the middle class do, and thus are less loyal to their country.

In conclusion:
1- Rich people transfer their money, undersale their propertires or in any case can affort to lose some property, but they will make it out.

2- Poor people don't have nothing to lose, nor property to sell. So they make it out probably as refugee crossing the borders.

3- Middle class, depend of a job, have small properties like houses to sell, which they can't afford to undersale, depend on employment that is avaliable if the national economy is doing well, have invested in mutal funds that will not cross the borders, and on 401k, national bonds, have checking and saving accounts in national banks that in case of recession will declare bankruptcy, etc.

So basicly, the middle class is the only one that by nature is patriotic.

Of course, there are exceptions in all cases.

[Ruatha]

So if we eradicate the middle class there will be no more wars?
Are those who serve in the attacking force also doing that out of patriotism?

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by Ruatha:
So if we eradicate the middle class there will be no more wars?

Patriotism is a double edged sword, that can and have been manipulated by skilled politicians unnumerable times, and my point was more along the line of loyalty to a country, economic loyalty if you will.

No, eradicating the middle class will not end wars because the middle class doesn't start the wars.

Now, do the rich class start the wars?

Are those who serve in the attacking force also doing that out of patriotism?

It depends of the attacking forces, I guess, and of the motive for war.

.

[Krsqk]

Well, now we're putting loyalty and/or patriotism into the same Category as greed--it's all self-serving. If there is an option (the rich can relocate their assets; the poor have nothing to lose by fleeing), people ditch their "loyalty." If there is not an option (middle class has too much to leave behind and not enough to reinvest), people may as well support their country. I'm not saying that I believe this (it's all too cynical for me); I'm just trying to feel out the implications of your philosophy.

[Aloofi]

Too cynical or too radical?
I just want to know how things work.
And the truth might not be pretty.

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by Erax:
For my part, I have no loyalty towards a piece of land, I am loyal to people and values. If the society I live in loses its values I will seriously consider moving elsewhere (I consider myself to be middle class, if it helps any).

Ok, what you are doing is giving up your country instead of making it better. Countries are not a piece of land, but a group of people with a national identity living on a piece of land.

Now, if you feel that your country is losing its values, then you have the moral debt to yourself of fighting to making it better.
Find out what's going wrong, and try to make it right. There are many ways in the west to oppouse a giving policy.
Keep in my mind that by fighting i don't mean war, cause nothing is more despicable than a civil war in which brother fights brother, and I truly belive that you should consider your fellow citizens to be your brothers, especially if they are not rich.

.

[dogscoff]

I truly belive that you should consider your fellow citizens to be your brothers

The world would be a much happier place if people considered their fellow humans to be their brothers instead of just their countrymen. IMHO love of one's nation is a very dangerous thing. It's too easy to use it to generate hatred, and it's ridiculous when you consider the arbitrary nature of nationality anyway (I love my country and hate yours because I happened to be born here.)

What I'm abut to say may sound like a contradiction but it's not: I love my country.

I love my country because it contains my lifestyle, my family, my friends and a great many wonderful places. I don't think any other country could ever be home to me in quite the same way.
I would go to war if I thought my country were genuinely threatened, and I do what I can day by day to make it better. Not for patriotism though, but for the sake of the human beings who live here and the continuation of my way of life.

Nonetheless, I would give my country up in an instant if it turned foul or if peace/ humanity as a whole was better served that way. For this reason I remain open-minded about greater European integration and things like that whereas others oppose it simply because they think it means "the end of great britain".

The line I'm trying to draw is very hard to define, and I'm struggling, but it's basically the difference between loving a country as a place (which I do) and loving it as an entity (which I don't).

When you think about it, a nation is an abstract anyway. The borders on the map are just lines on paper, it's only in our heads and in our books that nations actually exist. I think that to cling to one nation for the sake of "patriotism" is absurd. To kill and die for it is terrible.

Mind you, as an atheist I think it's just as absurd killing and dying for "God", but we'd better not get into that.

[Aloofi]

The world would be a much happier place if people considered their fellow humans to be their brothers instead of just their countrymen. IMHO love of one's nation is a very dangerous thing. It's too easy to use it to generate hatred, and it's ridiculous when you consider the arbitrary nature of nationality anyway (I love my country and hate yours because I happened to be born here.)

Oh, come on Dogscoff, you know that loving your country doesn't mean hating somebody elses countries.
And you also know that universal brotherly love is an utopia at the moment, because you can't love who hate you. At best you may not hate them back, but you can't love somebody that wants to kill your family and destroy your way of life.
Besides, I don't see an unbridgable gap between national love and international love.
People that profit from our divisions promote the idea of international brothehood as opouse to national brotherhood because they know that international brotherhood is impossible, and at the same time they take away from us our national brotherhood.

[Ruatha]

Originally posted by Aloofi:

quote:

---

The world would be a much happier place if people considered their fellow humans to be their brothers instead of just their countrymen. IMHO love of one's nation is a very dangerous thing. It's too easy to use it to generate hatred, and it's ridiculous when you consider the arbitrary nature of nationality anyway (I love my country and hate yours because I happened to be born here.)

Oh, come on Dogscoff, you know that loving your country doesn't mean hating somebody elses countries.
And you also know that universal brotherly love is an utopia at the moment, because you can't love who hate you. At best you may not hate them back, but you can't love somebody that wants to kill your family and destroy your way of life.
Besides, I don't see an unbridgable gap between national love and international love.
People that profit from our divisions promote the idea of international brothehood as opouse to national brotherhood because they know that international brotherhood is impossible, and at the same time they take away from us our national brotherhood.

---

So, are there not one on the other side who doesn't want to kill you and your family?
I don't think it's all that black and white, but then I'm not in the middle of it.
Why hate an entire people (Nation or psudonation) when there are some there who want's to kill you but some who don't, why not try to differentiate?