Perhaps you’re thinking of the woman shoping for a flag pin. Not seeing what she wanted, she finally asked the jeweler if the pins came in any other colors. 
I’d agree with you to a point, but only to a point.
There are plenty of people who do take their symbolism seriously and use it with that self-same seriousness. There are also plenty of people who think that tying a flag to their car antenna demonstrates patriotism rather than ignorance of the protocols for displaying the flag respectfully.
To someone who goes to the effort to display their flag in accordance with the Federal guidelines, who pays it some portion of mind, who is, in other words, attentive to the significance and symbolism of the flag, I will grant the consideration of respecting that effort and display of care. Someone who, on the other hand, hangs up a flag and leaves it out in the dark because it’s the hanging up that matters to them, not the taking care, I will quite likely dismiss as playing with fashion and sentimentalism.
There’s something there about patriotism being a responsibility, like its displays; a thing requiring thought and effort and attention. And it’s probably worth remembering that the conclusion of “My country, right or wrong” is “When right, to keep right; when wrong, to put right.”
DTC:
Thanks for the clarification.
From my standpoint, I’m williing to give flag-waivers the benefit of the doubt. If they’re not wearing a white sheet while waiving the flag, or using a flag pole to spear an anti-war protestor, I’ll assume they have genuine patriotic feelings. In the same way I’ll assume that an anti-war protestor is not necessarily anti-American, provided they don’t waive a sign that says “Down with the USA” or burn an effigy of Bush while wearing an Iraqi flag as a headband.
Well, I’d kinda like one of those flags printed in colors so that, after staring at it for a while, when you look at a white piece of paper the image is red, white and blue.
BTW, the best way to stop what december calls “anti-americanism” and I would call “disagreement with what the government is doing” (and we all agree it would be a good thing if it stopped), would be for the government to implement policies which are more to the liking of the majority of the American people and of the rest of the countries in the world. That would go a long way towards that goal. But as long as the government is doing unpopular things I guess the people will continue to protest.
I don’t know where you’re getting this idea. The current war has been supported in polls by a majority of American citizens. Considering that the citizenry of most of the rest of the world is against the war, while U.S. citizens support it, it would tend to indicate that “faith in America” by Americans is indeed high today. What “historical standard” are you using? WWII? I don’t think I need to remind you that that was a completely different situation. In WWII, there was a direct threat to our nation, manifested in an unprovoked attack on our military, with no question as to who was responsible. That was a much easier war for people to get behind. So I wouldn’t chalk up the higher levels of opposition to Vietnam and Iraq to some sort of wave of “anti-Americanism”. To put it simply, Presidents tend to get criticized when they do stupid things.
Yes, they do, once their actions turn out to be stupid. More precisely, Presidents tend to get criticized once their actions turn out to be unsuccessful. Unhappiness with the Korean War helped Eisenhower get elected in 1952. He said, “I will go to Korea.” This was interpreted to mean he would end the war, and he did so. But it took several years to reach that level of discontent.
There was enormous opposition to the Vietnam War, but again, this discontent only appeared after years of military failure.
Take another look a the Newsweek cite in the OP. They dinged Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld for mismanagement and over-optimism when the war was less than 3 weeks old. And, of course, they were already proved entirely wrong when the magazine hit the news stand.
That article shows an eagerness to criticize US policy, which did not exist at the start of those two earlier wars.
>> Take another look a the Newsweek cite in the OP. They dinged Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld for mismanagement and over-optimism when the war was less than 3 weeks old. And, of course, they were already proved entirely wrong when the magazine hit the news stand.
Nope. Again you just do not understand. people are not against the war because it would fail, they are against the war because it is wrong. You can successfully mug an old lady and it is still wrong. And the fact that you mugged her successfully does not mean the long term consequences might not be negative. The fact that the USA has managed to inavade Iraq successfully does not make it right and does not mean the negative consequences for the USA are not there. One obvious consequence already is the increase in international tensions which will probably only get worse. Already Russia and China have said they will increase military spending to counter what they see as the American threat. I cannot see this as a good thing.
Because this bears directly on events currently unfolding in Iraq. No, it’s not “old news” … because of these decisions many Iraqis carry suspicions about us into the present, which may impede our efforts to win them over.
Somehow threads on US support for Lech Walesa don’t seem quite as timely.
Whether the war was right or wrong, Newsweek was wrong when it criticized Bush’s “Pyrric victory”, Rumsfeld’s “flawed war plan” and Cheney’s prediction that we would be “greeted as liberators.”
Is there an increase or a decrease? Note that
(1) A high-profile Iranian conservative calls for a reexamination of Iran’s relationship with Israel.
(2) North Korea may enter multilateral talks – the kind that the Bush administration has demanded – about its nuclear program.
(3) Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas has picked a reformist cabinet. (Arafat… has rejected it.)
(4) Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, ally and champion of settlement builders, may uproot his West Bank base “faster than people think.”
“the government to implement policies which are more to the liking of the majority of the American people”
Sailor: Assuming you mean the Iraq war, every poll I’ve seen said that the majority of Americans support it. That was before and during the invasion. Support overseas was very weak, but we’re talking about American anti-Americanism here, so I’m not sure that’s relavent.
Here is what’s wrong with America, and I am saying this as an American:
I think the whole mindless patriotism situation can be descibed by this photo I saw once:
It was a picture of a pudgy guy wearing a white t-shirt that had a waving american flag that had “Proud and Brave” printed under it. To complete the image, you have to picture the same guy comping quarter-pounders and watching the season finale of Joe Millionare with utter delight.
The way these things work is that people see these images of 911 and all of the truely brave FDNY and NYPD and they realize that we have some real heroes in this country. He is proud of our heroes, as he should be. Then he sees this T-shirt in the island store in the middle of the mall. He thinks, "you know, I’m proud to be an American, because in a way, I am associated with these brave soldiers and firefighters by my nationality. I think I’ll buy this shirt because in some way, I am assiciated with this bravery by showing that I am supportive. Of course they don’t think that way, but they sure do feel it. I mean I feel it too, but then I realize that my being born here doesn’t in any way automatically attribute some sort of bravery or goodness to me automatically.
What nobody seems to realize is that 911 and our Flag have been hijacked by businesses to make a cheap buck. I mean the guy who used to produce the “If you can read this, the bitch fell off” t-shirts and the “my other car is a porche” bumper sticker is now producing crap with the American flag. Remember how the “Washington Mint” (BTW the only two US mints are in Denver and philly) used to produce the burning twin towers/ eagle coin and sell them for 20$ apiece on TV? Except that nobody says that Liberian dollars aren’t worth crap. “These colors don’t run!” Yeah, American don’t take shit from nobody! I’m a badass because my military is good. I don’t take shit from nobody, and neither does the good ole US of A!
I’m sick of symbols being mandatory for being patriotic! Why do the stupid politicians sing “God Bless America?” They want votes, and they now that nowaday, the more patriotic you appear the more likely you are to get votes or money.
Meanwhile these folks have their money stolen from them in a tax-cut for the rich and a reduction of social progams by a flag-waving, God Bless America-singing GOP.
Its the same thing with the FDNY parephenalia. If you really want to show support for the FDNY, donate directly to a charity instead of buying a hat that may or may not benefit anyone other than a greedy oportunistic businessman. Anything something is designed for mass consumption for profit the only possible meaning it can have is to make money. If you buy a flag bumper sticker that says “these colors don’t run” the only thing you say to me is that you are willing to have someone else express your feelings for you in the cheapest possible manner. Yeah, I guess I feel like the other 100,000 people do who bought this sticker.
Another thing we Americans have to get around is this idea that “this is the greatest country in the world” let me ask you this, how many of these people have ventured outside of their own state much less than their own country? If you’ve never spent some time in another developed country, then you aren’t in a position to judge. I think that a large portion of Americans secretly belive that anyone given the chance to live the American Dream would probably think the same that this is the greatest country. I like other countries a lot too, but in my opinion, we americans don’t think enough for our own good. We tend to believe too much that what we are told is true. How can you say that America is the greatest country in the world after the US involvement in the Pinochet government in Chile? That is to say how the US helped Pinochet come to power and kept the screws on Allende. I believe it was kissinger who said something along the lines of “I don’t see why we should sit around and let a contry go communist due to the irresponsibility of its voters” Yeah, who ever heard of that? Let a country elect its chosen government? I know plenty about the bad things America has done. Granted we were in the Cold War, but that doesn’t make it right. I think that fighting the cold war may have been right in the end, but we did some bad things to win it, and we shouldn’t take the overall goodness of the victory to meant that everything that pretended to help was a good thing.
Do I think that America is bad? Do I hate America? No. I have lived a considerable amount of time in other countries and I realize that there are many good things about America. Here’s what I like about America: Our simple willingness to do good. The generosity of people, and the can-do attitude. But, I think these things are being put to the wrong ends.
I, personally would like to see the US working with the rest of the world with our economic and political might and the generosity of our people for good things. For instance, how about GWB’s global aids fund? 15 billion dollars! under 2 billion went to international agencies and the rest went to programs in America that promote abstinence!
We are fighting this war in Iraq because the majority of Americans want to do good, and they feel that a war in Iraq to help the poor Iraqi people is a good thing. I agree that some good things may come out. At least that is the reasoning now without WMD evidence. That’s why I don’ t think we’ll attack Syria, btw, because unless the admin starts spouting about the opressive syrian govt, then it will not work.
I mean doesn’t every American heart melt with every happy Iraqi after the war? Yep, Americans like to help people and think they can make a difference in the world.
BUT!! and this is a big but! I think it is necessary to realize that there are wrong and right ways of going about this. We should never act in a way that shows disrespect for anyone, ever! This war with Iraq is extemely shameful to the Arab world. Also it shows disrespect for the entire world. We have to have respect for the opinion of the rest of the world, not because we need them, but because its the right thing to do.
Oh yeah, but first we have to get the money out of the hands of the greedy capitalist plutocracy and give it to the regular Americans who aren’t so greedy to part with it for altrusitic ends!
Of course this post will probably be labeled as “anti-american” too.
>> Newsweek was wrong when it criticized Bush’s “Pyrric victory”, Rumsfeld’s “flawed war plan” and Cheney’s prediction that we would be "greeted as liberators
These things are not wrong, they are a matter of opinion and with little relevance to why people are opposed to the policies of this government (“antiamerican”) but, anyway, here goes:
>> Newsweek was wrong when it criticized Bush’s “Pyrric victory”,
I cannot see why failing to make accurate predictions of the future is a point against you unless you are a psychic reader. And many people may agree that the victory was pyrric when they consider the damage done to the reputation of the USA abroad, the thousands of iraqis killed and maimed, the destruction of Iraq’s treasures and infrastructure… The balance sheet is not closed yet and we shall see if the bottom line is positive or negative.
>> Rumsfeld’s “flawed war plan”
I am not a general and I am not qualified to judge but there were serious criticisms and even Rumsfeld denied it was his plan. I don’t care, it makes no difference.
>> Cheney’s prediction that we would be "greeted as liberators
Funny you should mention this. There is still sporadic fighting in Baghdag and already today there was a demonstration there. An anti-American demonstration expressing their desire that the Americans would leave ASAP. It was peaceful and done right in the face of American forces who observed it. Some of the demonstrators were victims of Saddam’s regime but they still want the Americans out. A man wept while telling how he had lost his family to Saddam but he said that now that Saddam was out the Americans should leave. I also saw a few days ago people in Basra taking food being distributed and then saying “America go home”. Don’t fool yourself into thinking they have any desire to be occupied by the USA for any length of time. The defacing of the statues of Saddam make for good propaganda in the USA but they are just a footnote in the chaos and looting. Look closely and you see only a few dozen Iraqi young men. Interpreting that as a welcome to US forces by the entire population is like China interpreting the LA riots like a sign of hoe ready the exploited classes in the USA are ready to revolt against their exploiters. Lets be realistic. I very much doubt that the occupation of Iraq is going to be easy. What I can be sure is that those like you will discount any and all problems. The national museum was looted? Too bad, that’s war. The national Library went up in flames? well, we can’t take care of everything. Thousands of kids lost their limbs and their families? that’s a small price to pay for freedom. . and so on. You can call anything a victory if you discount the price.
We are talking about those Americans who are against current policy. Yes, a majority may support it but a minority reject it. it is not only a matter of numbers but of how strongly those numbers feel about their positions. If the president had opted for a gentler approach i do not think thos who support him now would be clamoring for war, they would support him anyway, while many of those who oppose him would not feel so strongly about their opposition.
A leader cannot use raw numbers to justify his policy. A leader who uses the majority against the minority and causes strong internal confrontation is dividing the country and, in my book, has lost whatever right he had. I have said this about Chavez in Venezuela. I do not care if you think he is right or wrong. I do not care if the numbers are on his side. When a leader creates that level of confrontation which makes governing difficult or impossible, he is automatically in the wrong.
Bush (“I am a uniter, not a divider”) has divided and polarised the country like it had not been since Vietnam. In my book that makes him wrong. That is not good for America.
Unless you consider detonating a bomb strapped to your chest as a greeting, I wouldn’t say Cheney’s prediction was entirely correct.:rolleyes: Our forces in fact encountered pretty heavy resistance, and Saddam’s forces did not immediately capitulate. And yes, Rumsfeld’s plan was flawed, and the criticism still stands. You seem to think that because we “won”, it negates all criticism. Let’s say this one more time:
NOBODY SAID WE WEREN’T GOING TO WIN.
Wow - some excellent posts in this - sailor, blowero, futureman.
I have a question which may or may not be relevant: is it normal for US officials to wear little US flag badge pins? I noticed Colin Powell wearing one in a BBC interview the other day. I haven’t noticed UK officials wearing one, but maybe I missed them.
Is this something generally done in America, or is it being done now as a “support our troops” thing - or is it an example of what futureman was talking about above? About symbols being “mandatory” for being patriotic, etc? It was clear who Colin Powell was - he was name strapped several times, and also there was a big US flag behind him. Here is what I believe is a screenshot.
The little flag thing just rather jarred on my eye, I didn’t think officials/politicians generally wore them.
Sailor:
You are driving me crazy, man. I just can’t get my arms around your arguments. First you say the president should impliment policies that the majority want, then you say he has to listen to the minority if they’re vocal enough.
I’ll agree with you that a leader (a true leader) doesn’t go by the polls. Give me a cite or an example of how Bush has made governing difficult. From all I can see, he’d be re-elected if we had elections today. I’m not sure if you were alive during the Vietnam era, but I was. The divisions we saw then were NOTHING like what we have today. Johnson had to slink away from the presidency w/o running for re-election because of that war. Somehow I don’t see that being an issue for Bush.
These things were matters of opinion a week ago, when Newsweek wrote the article. It was remarkable for Newsweek to blame these three top officials based on mere opinion. It’s all the more remarkable that it took less than a week for the facts to overtake Newsweek’s opinions.
It’s no longer an opinion that our soldiers were greeted as liberators; we saw it on TV. It’s no opinion that the war plan was superb; the results have proved it. As to whether the victory was Pyrrhic, ask the Iraqis whose children have now been released from Saddam’s prison. Take a look at the graphic tales of the regime’s torture chambers from today’s USA Today
The point is, Newsweek purported to be psychic, when they assigned down arrows before the facts were in. Note their description of Cheney’s prediction: “An arrogant blunder for the ages.” Well, someone made an arrogant blunder, and it wasn’t the Vice President.
I know december wants to stay on the topic of his OP, so all I will say about it is that the three questions he asks are false questions. They are only valid questions to ask if you agree that disagreeing with the Administration/war effort necessarily equals being “anti-American.” Criticizing policies of the government does not equal being against America and what it stands for.
I love my country. I love what it stands for. Most especially, I love the fact that I can speak out against policies or decisions that I feel are wrong, and I will exercise that right when and where I choose to do so. Doing so is as patriotic as waving a flag, and anyone who says otherwise simply doesn’t know what America stands for.
I’m personally getting very tired of people like december trying to cast patriotic exercise of dissenting opinions as “anti-American,” and in this case trying to do it in a decidedly underhanded fashion. Your Secretary of Education topic OP was admirably fair, december, and I had hoped it was a sign you were turning over a new leaf. With the OP of this topic, though, I guess I can throw that idea out the window. Silly me.
To conclude: I call bullshit on the OP. It’s claims have not been proven by the scant evidence (a couple articles) provided, and it’s an underhanded way of trying to get people on both sides of the argument to equate disagreeing with the Bush Administration with an “anti-American” sentiment. Truly shameful.
“It was a picture of a pudgy guy wearing a white t-shirt that had a waving american flag that had “Proud and Brave” printed under it. To complete the image, you have to picture the same guy comping quarter-pounders and watching the season finale of Joe Millionare with utter delight.”
Future: What’s your point? A person can’t be patriotic if he’s pudgy? Nor if he eats a hamburger? Nor if he watched Joe Millionaire? Or does he have to do all 3 things simultateously? You go about telling us what’s wrong with this country by describing some picture you’ve conjured up? You have to do more than just look down on people to prove a point. I say, where’s the beef in your argument?