The torture debate after Bush

Remove all ads!

My mom also gets Medicare, and she has seen no changes, but she has no serious health problems like your mom is experiencing. I'm very sorry to hear that your mom is ill, Old One. It always seems that when people need the care the most, is when they start seeing problems in their insurance.

 

coin: Nationalism has always been high in the US. Our politicians have referred to the US as "the greatest nation on earth" for as long as I can remember. Our children recite a pledge of allegance in our classrooms every day. "Unpatriotic" is nearly Orwellian in its current use -- anything that someone doesn't consider 'patriotic' is therefore 'unpatriotic.' It's a ridiculous use of the term. IMO, unpatriotic is borderline treason (and should be reserved for those cases).

Actually, nationalism had a huge sruge on 9/11 -- but it dropped considerably during Bush's second term. I think nationalism (as it is in the US) is a good thing.

 

Old One - There's a very good chance that 2009 Medicare budget cuts were done by GWB, not Obama. I guess the budgets are done the year before (which makes sense). GWB did some fairly large cuts to the Medicare budget in 2008 (which went into effect this year). Here's the scoop:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/washington/31budget.html

 

I'd agree with you had you said patriotism.

 

I think both are negative phenomena that invariable leads to heartache. The idea that this group of people who live in this geographical area are very great will lead to thoughts that people who do not are not very great.

Nationalism was one of the major reasons both of the World wars got started and patriotism was the tool used to get the people to don uniforms and rifles and go out killing people with a different uniform. The only use for patriotism is to convince someone to kill or be killed and if you need to appeal to patriotism for that then your cause might not be all that just.

 

Joa,
I disagree. There's nothing wrong in standing and fighting for your country. It's something else when you start exalting your country, and inevitably, yourself.

 

@Chandos
Ouch, sent pm.

 

Ragusa, ultimately nationalism and patriotism go hand in hand -- it depends on your particular perspective. I was using coins terminology and kept it as nationalism.

 

While I'm not too up on the numbers here, you may have to defend that one. Especially considering that Saddam's death-squads had a tendency to just randomly line men up in cities and shoot them, y'know, just for fun. I mean, I know innocents die in wars, and that these have been especially bloody, but I'd think a decade or two of Saddam's continued regime would put things on similar footing.

Actually, from what I've heard, they're basically there to protect their interests and that's it. They've stood by while 'politicians' hacked the hands off of anyone who voted against them, after all. I wouldn't say that's 'preventing violence' so much as not getting involved in other nations' affairs.

Yes, and it was nationalism and patriotism that drove the Germans out of France, Polland, and freed the Jews from concentration camps.

Patriotism (which I consider the same as nationalism) is a tool for rapid social/governmental re-inforcement. It can be useful and good if the society/government is worth reinforcing (even if that reinforcement can't be sustained in the long-term), or it can be dangerous and evil if that society/government is evil.

 

Your right Old One, Dems are making cutbacks, possibly making required healthcare harder to get, especially for the sickly and elderly, but only because of the disaster Bush put us in financially... think on that... with no action, everything collapses, then they won't be checking on your mother yearly. Who knows, once were out of the crisis, maybe the the healthcare can start to improve again???

 

How can you say that? This thread demonstrates that the deeds nationalism drives people to, never help anyone. Things have only gotten worse, since the Bush patriotism upsurge.
If I'm not mistaken, this form of nationalism has remained unchanged since the days of frontier colonialism. It's no different from Ghengis Khan keeping the mongol hordes united, by constantly fighting an enemy. Do you honestly believe that the United States will disintegrate from infighting, if it doesn't keep on going to war? What about the innocent countries that are harassed? By your own words, you just identified your own country as the greatest threat to peace in the world.
If I were to suggest that this 'War on Terror' is largely made up, to serve these neo-conservative purposes, why would you deny it? because you actually don't believe it, or because your patriotism prevents you from saying otherwise?

Ehh, yeah. Much like a barrel of toxic waste can be used to poison polluters, so too can nationalism be a tool for either good or evil. Gimme a break.

The proper motivation for driving out the germans, would've been self-preservation, and a desire to prevent future injustice. So the Allies used a bit of the same to combat the extreme nationalism in Germany, does that suddenly make it a neutral tool? Europe has learned the hard way that nationalism is never a good thing.
Patriotism breeds hatred, bigotry, discrimination, separatism and violence. Citizens behave as their government tells them to, and this will only create a dog-eat-dog culture that makes any progress impossible.

And before you start saying that nationalism is warranted in the War on Terror, perhaps you should consider if it isn't time to declare a War on Peanut Allergies: they kill more people.

 

And it was nationalism and patriotism that put the Germans there in the first place. If they hadnt been caught by an extreme nationalistic and patriotic fervor we wouldnt have had a war in the first place.

 

If the original colonists werent' caught up in the patriotic movement, there would be no USA as we know it today... it's not the term but the intentions that can lead to wrong doing...

 

Nationalism and patriotism are motivators. Period. They can be used to motivate people into doing good things (such as the cleanup following 9/11 and Katrina) or they can motivators for doing bad things (such as invading France). They will always exist.

I disagree with this:

Patriotism can be used to promote such feelings (and was quite effectively in WWII against the Nazi's), but in most instances patriotism is used to bring a community together for a common cause. Patriotism can be the cry to rally people to do things, but biasing is done by leaders. Patriotism is a tool used by leaders for good or ill.

However, patriotism and nationalism are the bane of anarchy. If you are an anarchist (or revolutionist), then patriotism is a bad thing to you, but not to those of us who oppose anarchy.

I have already stated the people who were involved in torture were not patriots. There is nothing patriotic about violating your country's own laws or the laws of the international community. This thread does not demonstrate the deeds nationalism and patriotism drives people to do; rather it demonstrates the lack of true patriotism and is a demonstration of people giving in to a lower standard.

Blades: A revolution is decidedly unpatriotic -- to the ruling faction.

 

In the end, it's the Victor's opinion that holds sway, not the ruling faction's... if we would of lost that war, the history books would of been written by the English, which i'm sure would of NOT depicted the colonists as patriotic, but since we won...

 

Somehow I had the notion that patriotism is simply respect, love and devotion to one's home country, while nationalism is a stronger form of that that states that all other countries are inferior to one's own. The definitions that I have seen on the net do not support this reading, however.

Patriotism, in general, is okay. However, when it goes far enough to mean that all others are somehow less worthy - which sometimes is the vibe I am getting from certain demagogues, both here and abroad - then it becomes troublesome. It is similar to self-worth - it is a positive thing, but when it causes you to think everyone else does not matter it has gone too far.

 

Regardless of the term you use for it, I think it's pretty common sense. I think most people like the country they live in. I think most Americans think America is the best place to live, the French think France is the best place to live, the Germans think Germany is the best place to live, etc. Good or bad, I think that's just a natural part of the human psyche.

 

I disagree. Patriotism has been used regularly to further anarcho-capitalist agendas in the States. War is big business, and without nationalism to motivate soldiers, very little profit could be reaped by the corporations involved.

Anarchy is a very broad term, with a negative connotation in popular use (just like communism). Anarchy can mean other things than simply the lack of an ordered state, it isn't necessarily chaos. But that's a whole separate issue worthy of a thread of its own.
When you make the argument that nationalism results in a strong, stable and safe state, I'd urge you to remember Benjamin Franklin's well-known quote: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
It's relevant, because nationalism encourages people to give up their civil rights, 'for safety and security'. Nationalism is designed by, and benefits only, the uppermost ruling class. Everyone else loses something. If you're lucky, it won't be your life.

There's a big difference between pride moderated by one's own reasoning, and patriotism encouraged by everyone around you. Ask any psychologist about the effects of group behaviour.

 

I'm of course not claiming that the French mission is altruistic in its nature by any means. I'm not sure to which country the "hands hacked off" notion refers to, but in the places where the French are present they tend to try and prevent escalation of violence since it usually hurts their interests as well. Of course they are smart enough to choose their battles and not get involved in hopeless civil wars that end up with high casualty numbers.