American Patriotism

Great Debates
81

Except no one has asked you for cites to anything in this thread. Indeed, what cites could be demanded for your completely speculative claims as to what unnamed ‘liberals’ might do in the case of a future Republican administration? Your argument has no real content.

The point, of course, would be to demonstrate that you have some actual knowledge or insight into the motives and behavior of what you define as liberals. Don’t worry, though; if you really want to come off as not knowing much of anything about the subject you claim to be expert on, that’s entirely up to you.

I said clearly why I think you are a rather ineffective debater: you claim, without any clear justification, to speak for the motives of a group you are not part of, and I simply pointed out that if I really want to know what someone from that group thinks, I can just ask them. Your tedious ‘explanations’ of that group’s motives and beahvior, and your speculations on what some undidentifed people they might do in some undetermined future, I find not very insightful nor accurate.

But then, you already know that, don’t you?

82

Funny. I’d say the apparent reasons for the harsh criticism of the government is patriotism.

It occurs to me that the oath taken by military personnel is to support and defend the Constitution. Not the President. Not the government.

Patriotic support in America is, in my opinion, to the idealized idea of what America should be… and not necessarily so much to whatever it happens to actually be that election cycle.

83

Oh, and I apologize to all for the hijack. Any further comments I may make will stick strictly to subject of the OP.

84

I wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth. My apologies if that was the impression. I meant that a lot of people give Bush I/Cheney a pass on defense spending while chastising Carter for the same thing. Similarly, it’s often said that the military was depressed over the Vietnam war, which Carter had squat to do about it.

85

Ok, I agree on both.

It still does not get us around the fact, that Carter approve a very small scale invasion of Iran to attempt to retrieve the hostages and it only failed to happen as the equipment was not up to the job.

BTW: This failure did wonders for the Army’s morale from what vets of the time told me.

Jim

86

I have no reason to doubt this but I don’t get it. Carter ordered a mission that could have succeeded. Had he done so, it would have been hailed as a stroke of genius. But too many helicopters broke down to make a go of it. Bad luck? Maybe. Could it be the helicopters weren’t up to it? Maybe. But it seems that the army should have used the best available equipment for the job. If they didn’t, that’s where the blame should lie. Some military types wanted to dislike Carter, so they made an excuse to do so. Whether it was deserved or not, is up to interpretation. They used to say that if Reagan walked in the rain, Carter would catch a cold. Reagan the fair haired could do no wrong, Carter the redheaded half brother could do no right.

87

It is all true and even more so for the Navy then the other services. Reagan arguably reversed 35 years of the Air Force marginalizing the importance of the Navy. So, you will probably find Navy & Marine vets like Reagan even more than Army and Air Force.

It is hard to describe the morale in the late 70s and the change under Reagan. Carter despite a brilliant military career was seen as a dove and a liberal who was not pro-military. There was a common fear that we had lost our edge to the USSR. The army was devastated by the Vietnam adventure.

Then Reagan road in and said he would make our military great again. He would have a 600 ship Navy. He would build a missile shield to protect us from Nuclear War. He basically told the military they were appreciated and vital. He also pushed hard to clean up the military. It was during the Reagan years that drug use in the military dropped as they drummed out or busted any personnel that failed the urine test. By the time I left the military in 1989, the Soviet Union was falling apart quick, our Navy was recognized as more powerful than the rest of the world and people were crediting Reagan with winning the cold war even if you do not accept this as truth. (another and oft repeated debate).

So, yes, Carter could do no right and Reagan looked like the best friend the military had since Teddy.

Jim

88

Can’t argue with that. Perception is everything. Military types love Reagan and loathe Carter, probably beyond what each deserve.

89

Apologies if I upset you. It’s just that Der Trihs so irritates me with his irrational hatered of all things American. Yes, I’ll go to the pit if I need to be more vehement towards him.
Hopefully it won’t come to that as it would serve no purpose, he’s been pitted so many times I doubt I’ve anything to add.

90

Now this is rich.

Followed instantly with this-

I got it - the whole left-right distinction is too simplistic to be usefully applied to you, but not to anyone who isn’t on the Left.

The facility with which you folks contradict yourselves is part of the entertainment. Witness the thread’s almost instantaneous flip-flop from “those mean Republicans are questioning anyone’s patriotism who criticizes a President, which is actually an act of the highest virtue” to questioning my patriotism for criticizing a President he likes. Or your own rather pathetic attempts to define anyone who isn’t an actual, card-carrying member of the Socialist Worker’s Party as not a member of the left. It is to laugh.

You realize, perhaps, that Osama left Afghanistan when the Soviets did?

My understanding is that the military wanted to use more helicopters, but Carter approved the barest minimum. They had no backup therefore, and the mission failed, at least in part because Carter was a timid soul who generally erred on the side of caution. Maybe he was afraid the mission would be attacked by angry rabbits.

Regards,
Shodan

91

What would have more chance of entering stealthily- four helicopters or eight? If being undetected wasn’t an issue, I’d say the more the better. But if it is, then the number of helicopters isn’t as black and white as you might think.

92

While I don’t agree with much of what **Shodan ** posted, if you want to use 4 copters on a critical mission, have 6-8 ready to fly and ensure they are desert ready. Not that you need 8 to fly in, just that you need to have enough equipment to ensure that 4 can fly in.

Jim

93

Tell that to Zbigniew Brzezinski,

and Robert Gates,

but I’m sure you know more about this little bit of American history than Zbig and Gates, right?

CMC fnord!
Speaking of history if we’re gonna talk about Operation Eagle Claw maybe we should all read The Holloway Report(PDF) - the official DoD Investigation into the incident first?

94

I don’t think this is accurate…though I guess it has to do with your definition of ‘patriot’ and patriotic.

Its our national past time…bashing the government. I think its at the heart of a misunderstanding you have as well. You see, being an America is about being a citizen…and therefore being critical about our government. After all, we (well, those of us who take citizenship seriously) have a stake in things. These folks work for us after all (in theory at least)…so therefore we have both a right and a duty to bitch about them when they fuck up, or do stuff contrary to our wishes. Ironically, we like to bitch when they do what we want them to do at the time as well…we convinently forget this if things don’t go the way we wanted them too. :stuck_out_tongue:

Other countries have democracies as well…but the US has the oldest, and ours is a bit different than in other countries as well. Too, we have our own traditions and attitudes. But its not considered unpatriotic (by any but the most idiotic) to criticize the current government, or bash the president…far from it.

Of course, hating the country, as some do, goes a bit beyond the pale…but note that these folks are pretty much the lunitic fringe by and large. All countries have the like.

Two things here. I agree…gods help us, he IS our president. ALL our president, whether we voted for the man or not (I did not). That said, he certainly deserves a measure of our support.

On the other hand however, the man works for US…not the other way around. At least, thats how its supposed to be. So…like any employee, when he fucks up (as he seems to have a true talent to do), its our right, even our duty, to make our displeasure felt…to have our voices heard. True, we SHOULD have made this displeasure felt in the last election…but things were still sufficiently muddled at that time for GW to keep his job. However, note that in the latest Congressional elections, there was a distinct shift in public attitude.

Personally, I think the OFFICE of the Presidency deserves all our respect…while the MAN in that office has to earn the respect. Its not granted.

You are quite correct…as I said, its our number one favorite national past time. :stuck_out_tongue: You can pretty much take it to the bank that if a Dem is elected, there will be a large segment of the population that is unhappy (though perhaps not a large segment on this board :wink: ), while the same will be true if another Pub is served up.

As others have pointed out, you can’t gage the country by this board. That said though, I think many on this board over rate the degree that the country is in the grip of religious frenzy. We are only a religious nation when compared to the much more secular countries in Europe. Compared to most non-European nations, we are quite secular. Polls aside, I think that most people in the US have a veneer of religion on top, but under they are more secular in outlook than seems the case. IMHO, when people take religious polls in the US, they are saying what they THINK they should say…not necessarily what they actually think.

I believe that, by and large, America’s ARE proud of their country and quite patriotic…its just that this patriotism takes a different form than perhaps you believe to be the case. As I said above, not only is it right for us, as citizens, to criticize our government (they work for us after all), but its pretty much our duty to do so.
Wasn’t going to weigh in on this question, but decided to throw in my two cents after all…FWIW. Take what I say with a grain of salt…my opinions aren’t exactly mainstream either. But…I think the CORE of what I’m saying IS relevent, and its important to understand how American’s think…even if its at a subconsious level…about their country and their franchise.

-XT

95

LA–is that Louisiana or Los Angeles?

You don’t usually get the “under God” in-your-face style of patriotism in the larger cities. I would expect that most of the biggest cities are like San Francisco in this regard.

I do think political leaders should refrain from including prayers in their speeches, and it makes my skin crawl when he ends every speech, “God Bless The USA”. And I’m sure he has a large contituency of supporters that he’s catering to by saying that, but you sure aren’t going to run into a great many of them in the big coastal cities.

Almost as much as his actions, I’m ashamed of Bush for his mediocrity. Look at Nixon. Love him or hate him, he was a very intelligent man, second in his class at Whittier and again second at Duke Law. Bush, on the other hand, just managed to squeak by at Yale, from what I’ve heard, and actually seems to trade on his doltishness.

96

It’s because I’m religious that I am not patriotic. I have to believe in a world, not in countries, since a country will inevitably come up with an “us and them” and expects its citizens to fall in line and support the attack of other human beings. I don’t swell with pride seeing soldiers from the United States assemble to hurt other countries. I am ashamed that anyone feels pride in learning to use a weapon and being willing to kill other humans.

97

Actually, if you read for comprehension you would note that I made no comment regarding Right wing posters or conservative posters; I made an observation regarding your posting. You post very little of substance in GD, typically interrupting other discussions to do little more than whine that “Liberals say (or do) thi-i-i-is” or to say little more than "the usual subjects are. . . " followed by some stereotypical tripe that could be picked up from any freeper’s page used as an ad hominem attack on some nebulous group of Dopers. I don’t look on you so much as actually “Right wing” as simply the rightist counterpart to a couple of the Bush-haters who post just as little substance.

There are several Conservative or Right wing posters on the SDMB, (rather fewer than Liberal or Left wing, but still here). I no more count you among them than I count the reflexive Bush bashers as representative of the Left or Liberal positions. Anyone can hurl invective and it is probably just an accident of birth as to what sort of invective gets hurled.

98

I was in the Army for the vast majority of the Carter administration, and don’t recall any morale issues relating to the President. In fact, I actually had to go verify that Carter was the President at the time I was in, as there were no memories of “Damn that Carter and his <insert thing he did that would affect the morale of us soldiers>”. I was still active when the failed rescue attempt took place, and don’t remember any of my fellow soldiers putting that one at Carter’s feet. To be honest, unless they’re getting a pay raise/pay cut, or are going to war/not going to war, I’d bet that your average soldier could give a damn who the president is. That was at least how things were back then. It just isn’t that important to the average 18 year old, who cares far more how big of an ass his CO or Top is than much of anything else.

99

Well of course YMdidV. My fellow sailors were overall pretty happy with Reagan as CIC. He did not just talk a good game, he did build the Navy up to unprecedented levels. We grumbled about not get pay raises but appreciated the ships and modern weapons we did get. Sailors re-enlisted to get duty on the Battle Ships. Maybe sailors were better educated then the “average soldier”. :wink:

Jim

100

Shodan, hasn’t it occurred to you yet that the Republican candidate next year, far more so than the Democrat, will be forced to run on the “I’m not Bush” platform you scorn?

To the OP, yes, your concept of patriotism is too shallow, indistinguishable from mere jingoism. ISTM, and to most of us, really, that a deep love of country means you want to make it better, you want to fix its mistakes, you first need to identify them and get people to agree that they’re mistakes that need to be fixed. That process does necessarily involve discussing problem areas far more extensively than thngs that are going well and don’t need much effort. That should be obvious, and it’s all you’re seeing from us. Recent problems and mistakes have been getting far more attention than most mainly because they’re far more serious and far more work is needed to fix them.

And, on the flip side, ISTM that a belief that your country is already the best it can be, no improvement is possible, any changes could only be for the worse, is simple, depressing, defeatism. It’s giving up on ever being able to make any progress. It isn’t love of country. It isn’t patriotism at all.