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

[Erax]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
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.

I was thinking of an extreme case, that's why I said 'society' and not 'government'. Bad politicians come and go and you can always try to convince people not to vote for them again. But if the government starts to take on 'emergency powers', and most of the people genuinely support this move (think Palpatine in Ep II), I will definitely consider leaving the country as one of the options.

This is all hypothetical, BTW. I don't think any of that could happen here in the near future.

My views are quite similar to Dogscoff's. Scoff, tell your countrymen that Wales, England and Scotland have not ceased to exist after becoming Great Britain, so why should GB disappear after it integrates into Europe ?

[tesco samoa]

Dogscoff..

I believe that Nationism is the root of all evil. Even more than Women.

I think I feel that way due to my upbringing. Irish in Ontario.

I see how it works in Northern Ireland and I see how it works in Quebec vs Canada and I see how it works with Canada vs USA.

[Fyron]

Loving one's country does not mean you have to hate other countries. Love and hate are not opposites of each other. Apathy is the opposite to love, and apathy is the opposite to hatred. Love can exist without hatred, hatred can exist without love.

[Alpha Kodiak]

Originally posted by Aloofi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:

Note that they come from both sides of the aisle politically, and most, if not all, entered service voluntarily.

Can you also come up with the name sof the ones that didn't? Their names are not recorded, aren't they?

Some of them are loyal indeed.
But few of them fought for a losing cause.
My example is when the country seem to be lost, when there is little hope of winning, so the Founding Fathers do deserve our admiration.

Of course there are good people in the rich population group, but as I said before, they are few and far in between.

.

---

Actually, I could come up with a list, with a little looking. Again, I believe they would come from both sides of the aisle politically. My point was that level of wealth and level of patriotism do not really correlate. I have met strong patriots at all income levels.

As far as serving in a losing cause, remember that for at least until June of 1942 it looked like the U.S. would lose to the Japanese in WWII. The issue could even have been considered in doubt well into 1943. Further, men like John Kennedy and George Bush, Sr. nearly died in combat. Fast forwarding to Vietnam, John McCain's service and imprisonment can hardly be considered a cake walk.

Don't get me wrong, there have been some real bad apples in the upper income brackets lately. Those who are convicted of criminal activity should be severely punished, regardless of politics. However, catagorizing a person as unpatriotic based on income level is as invalid as categorizing them based on race or religion.

[Erax]

Originally posted by Aloofi:


So yes, there is an immoral quality to protect your assets if that protection means moving your assets to another country.

Do you consider it immoral to move to any other country ? Even if it's a country where the system and values are similar to your original country ? I believe you would consider it immoral if someone moved their investments, say, from the US to Pakistan. But would moving them to Canada or the UK be just as immoral, according to your theory ?

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).

[TerranC]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
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.

That made no sense at all. Clarify please.

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Loving one's country does not mean you have to hate other countries. Love and hate are not opposites of each other. Apathy is the opposite to love, and apathy is the opposite to hatred. Love can exist without hatred, hatred can exist without love.

Wow Fyron, at Last we agree on something. I knew there was some good left in you....

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by TerranC:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aloofi:
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.

That made no sense at all. Clarify please.

---

What I meant is that some people use humanism (love the whole human race) to disqualify nationalism.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm aware of how evil nationalism can be. But this evil nationalism is not truly nationalism, but usualy a racist-oportunist dictactorial ideology that takes cover behind nationalism.
Nationalism in its purest concept move people to work towards the commum goal of national prosperity, it eliminates crime, because nobody steals from his brother, it eliminates all kind of social problems, and it doesn't tolerates the exploitation of the poorest sector of the society.
Nationalism is not racist, because a nation involve all the etnic Groups that forms it, national identity is defined by all of its members.

Now, back to international humanism as opouse to Nationalism, you have to see that only a determined society can impouse on itself the values of brotherhood, no nation can impouse that to the world, but a nation can impouse that on itself.
Universal Brotherly love is doomed at this period in history because we are a divide planet, a divide race if you will, since the term race can only be aplied to the whole of human race and not to an individual etnic group. So we first need to create an Political/economic unity, cause is unrealistic to expect hungry man in afrika to feel love for you.
So Nationalism is the only viable option right now.
Besides, nationalistic love doesn't opouse universal love. You do love your parents, your brothers, your wife and your kids if you have them. All these are diferent kinds of love, but you don't have to chose between them, so why should I chose between nationalism and universalism?

In my opinion, those people that promote universalism as opouse to nationalism are promoting something that they know doesn't work and at the same time eliminating one that works. They are perpetuating crime, etnic hate, poverty.
They are dividing us, so they can exploit us better.

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by Ruatha:
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?

Oh come on, I was being hypotetical, I don't know everybody, and was not talking of an especific "other side".
Are you taking cheap shots on me?

[Loser]

What I meant is that some people use humanism (love the whole human race) to disqualify nationalism.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm aware of how evil nationalism can be. But this evil nationalism is not truly nationalism, but usualy a racist-oportunist dictactorial ideology that takes cover behind nationalism.
Nationalism in its purest concept move people to work towards the commum goal of national prosperity, it eliminates crime, because nobody steals from his brother, it eliminates all kind of social problems, and it doesn't tolerates the exploitation of the poorest sector of the society.
Nationalism is not racist, because a nation involve all the etnic Groups that forms it, national identity is defined by all of its members.[/QB]

I'd like you to cite an example of Nationalism that worked like that.

Because, in the end, Nationalism works off the human desire to belong to something larger, to conform. A very important, in fact essential, part of belonging is excluding others. Tragically, the bonds of a group are directly proportional to how strongly they exclude others from their group.

You can see this facet of human nature in the way a group, when it has no opposition, will turn on itself. This occurred when the Democratic Republican Party drove the Whigs out of the U.S. political system. If you want to make a group strong and coherent, you must give them something to oppose or they will fight among themselves.

This is also a problem with inter-departmental cooperation in large bureaucracies such as corporations or government. The separate departments will have more trouble working together when they do not have something to work against, to oppose, together. Make a friendly, loving, we don't need to compete with anyone environment and you will have a divisive, cliquish, and back-stabbing hoard. Give people something to hate and they will stick together like glue.

(Better still, give your people something to hate and put them through some common hardship. I have never felt so close to my coworkers as I did while we were working an innovative, insane, abusive, stressful, and ultimately doomed program called "Customer Conferencing" (one technician 'helped' four or five at-home end-Users with vaguely similar problems, at once, in a conference call, for ten hours a day).)

True 'nationalism' or even 'patriotism' cannot exist without something to oppose. And it cannot be strong, cannot be powerful without something very real to hate. This power comes at a price, as hate brings with it a whole host of darker things. While there is a time for this sort of thing it is at best a necessary evil, to be used with caution and certainly not to be glorified. Nationalism requires hate. Hate is never, ever just a tool, it is a weapon and must be handled carefully and with respect for the destruction is causes in both its user and its target.