As with jerky assholes and movements today, the question is how willing the other members of the movement are to condemn their jerky cousins.
As I recall, most mainstream “movement” people did condemn the outright violence offered by SDS, and the Panthers, and the Weathermen. I would have liked to see them condemn the word “pigs” as well, which most of them used with relish, but I guess you can’t have everything.
And the word has been such a tool for years.
Evidence of that?
Webster defined patriotism as the last resort of the scoundrel.
Ambrose Bierce referred to Webster’s sarcasm in The Devil’s Dictionary, saying that it wasn’t the last resort of the scoundrel. It was the first.
In many cases it is hard to distinguish patriotism from jingoism. Such as those who sport flags and slogans on bumper stickers. Many of them claim to be whole hog supporters of our troops, the war on terrism, Iraq and on and on. But for many, their support would evaporate if taxes were raised to pay for some of the expenses involved in those things instead of passing the expense along as debt on which only the interest, a few percent of the actual cost in any year, is paid.
chuckle
I loved the wildcard days especially. Wake up in the morning and decide how to fight the Great Satan and all, right after taking my opium pills.
I strongly disagree here, as one of the most important thing a citizen of a democracy should be aware of is civil disobedience. In fact, I’d say that there are times when, if someone strongly enough disagrees with the course the democracy has chosen, it is that person’s DUTY to interfere with that course, presumably with nonviolent resistance. However, this is an option that should only be used when morality and ethics demand it, in order to right injustice, not just because you voted for the other guy.
As to the main question of the thread, it’s an interesting one. Certainly, it seems trivially clear that someone who truly loves the USA wants what is best for the USA in the long term, which could potentially involve wishing for outcomes which many in the USA would view as defeats in the short term. For instance, if person A would view it as a defeat if the US were to pull out of Iraq right now, but person B thinks that we should pull out of Iraq right now, then, from person A’s perspective, person B is wishing for the US to be defeated.
There’s a very big step, though, when it comes to actually wishing for the defeat of US soldiers on a relatively small scale, as that almost inevitably leads to wishing for the deaths of US soldiers. That is something that I would find very hard (although not necessarily impossible) to reconcile with true patriotism.
To sum up, a patriot should, imho:
-ALWAYS wish for what is best for the their country, in the long term (reading “their country” to mainly mean “their country’s people”)
-OCCASIONALLY, HESITANTLY wish for things which seem like defeats or setbacks for their country in the short term
-ALMOST ALMOST ALMOST ALMOST ALMOST NEVER wish for the their country to suffer military defeats, at least those that involve loss of life
And, in general, a good person should wish for what is best for all people of the world, in the long term. If you find that this wish opposes the above, patriotic, wishes, that might be a sign that your country is in the wrong.
Excellent post Max. Now try to get elected on that platform.
Yeah, and we all know how minor and irrelevant the position of President of the United States is. You’d have to be certifiably nuts to even think that a self-proclaimed patriot should care about the POTUS. :rolleyes:
That is a sentiment often expressed by those in the majority.
At present, no. What I want is for the election to come off as scheduled, a new National Assembly to take power, and our troops to then bugger out as quickly as they can do so without leaving a civil war behind them.
A copy of this post has been forwarded to the Secret Service. Thank you for your cooperation! 
And a pony?
I wouldn’t mind seeing BushCo. suffer some sort of crushing defeat.
Thing is, when they fuck up, some poor bastard who volunteered on the GI bill or something gets his ass shot off.
Hence, I’m quite conflicted. I don’t wish to see the Iraqi invasion validated, because I don’t regard it as a legitimate action, but invalidation means more of our soldiers get killed.
Starting these wars can be a really effective way to keep political adversaries in a lose-lose situation. Bush may be a ass, but he’s not stupid.
Preach on, brutha.
Defeat? No. I don’t wish for defeat. I don’t think we have any legitimate business in Iraq; if Iraq was justified, then so is the invasion of every other dictatorship on the planet… which is ironic and immoral, considering how many dictatorships we’ve been chummy with in the past, and continue to be now.
Defeat in Iraq would involve the slaughter of American soldiers, and likely not a few Iraqis, and to be in favor of that is wrong.
There’s no easy way out, now, though. If we were to pack up and leave tomorrow, the Iraqis would butcher each other unmercifully.
…although why staying there and letting them butcher Americans is better than this, I don’t know.
What the fuck? A national culture is not a “geographical coincidence,” elucidator. And neither is it an “idea.” If you start thinking of America as an idea-state like the Soviet Union rather than a plain old nation-state like France, then you’re getting perilously close to internalizing “American exceptionalism,” which is even more dangerous than ordinary patriotism.
:rolleyes: I repeat: Our society is not the current administration, it is not even the 1789 Constitution nor the system established by it, and it definitely is not based on ideals. It is a nation like other nations – a distinct ethnocultural entity with a recognized historical territory. An America ruled by a king, a despot, an all-powerful church, a cabal of business executives, or a foreign army of occupation would still be America – just as China has gone through numerous dynasties, periods of disunion, periods of foreign rule, a Kuomintang republic and a Communist regime, yet still remains China.
Respectfully disagree. But not enough to argue the point.
Actually, it was Samuel Johnson. See http://www.samueljohnson.com/patrioti.html.
I’m still not comfortable that to call oneself a patriot requires passing some kind of test. And don’t forget, there are times and places when if you open your mouth for any reason and forgot to finish with, “Long live the Ruling party and it’s Leader!”, you are a done man. So mere frank private talk might take courage sometimes.
I knew that! :smack:
A quote for my buddy elucidator, since I believe he was anglin’ for this sentiment a few posts ago:
“I’m loyal to nothing, General – except The Dream.”
–Captain America (Frank Miller, Daredevil: Born Again)
Before WWII, Charles Lindberg was staunchly opposed to the war. He may have even been a German sympathizer, as he had extensive connections in Germany though aviation.
But when the war started, Lindberg stopped protesting immediately, volunteered for the army air corps, and made crucial contributions to the war effort.
Lindberg knew where to draw the line.
Just to keep the record straight,Lindberg tried to get back into the Army Reserve but was turned down so he went to the South Pacific as a civilian. While there there is not doubt he did valuable service to the US.
However, the case of Lindberg in WWII is not similar to Vietnam. In WWII the US was attacked and Germany declared war. In Vietnam there was no direct threat to the US and the Domino Theory was more speculation, or maybe hypothesis, than theory.
It should also be noted that Lindberg didn’t go to help in the war against Germany.