No, Iskander. I contend that even in terms of an “animal ties” definition of patriotism, it might be patriotic to wish defeat on your own country, because
As I explained in my OP, patriotism, like family loyalty, must have limits. Remember my example about your brother the bank robber – you can be loyal to him by getting him a good lawyer, without condoning his conduct and without wanting him to break out of jail or otherwise “win.” That does not mean you are failing in family loyalty, it means you are holding to it while properly subordinating it to higher concerns. Likewise, if your country is acting unjustly, then you might wish defeat on it, for justice’ sake, without thereby being any less loyal to your country.
You might wish defeat on your own nation if, in your opinion, that might be the best thing for it, in the sense that the Nazi regime’s defeat by the Allies was, in the long run, the best thing for Germany (that is, the German nation, not the German state), and the defeat of the Soviet Union by the West was the best thing for Russia (that is, the Russian nation, not any particular Russian state, pre- or post-Soviet).
So who says the defeat of Iraq isn’t the best thing to happen for its people? Sure theres violence, but the prospect of democracy and good government is alot closer than the previous regime ever was.
What “long crisis” are you talking about, exactly? How did U.S. oil companies start a “crisis” by doing business in the ME?
It would teach us Americans a valuable lesson – that we can’t try to be the world’s policeman, still less its imperial hegemon, and that the rational thing for us to do would be to either (1) build down our defense establishment and go isolationist, at least in military terms; or (2) give up some of our precious sovereignty and become a senior-but-not-dominant partner in a new international military alliance, e.g. a merger of NATO with the EU.
It would also teach us not to elect any more politicians that want to lead us into military adventures abroad.
Perhaps both propositions are true: The defeat of the Hussein regime is the best thing that could happen to the Iraqi people; and the subsequent defeat of the U.S. occupation of Iraq is the best thing that could happen to the American people.
Very well, let’s consider Iraqis who suffered for decades under Hussein and desperately wished his end. There are millions of them, quite likely a majority of Iraq population. Simple people, desiring to live normal everyday lives. Finally, their dreams come true. Hussein is taken down. Democratic elections scheduled. End of story? Not quite. Chaos, murder and fear all around. Obviously, US defeat will crash hopes of all those people. And for what purpose? So we can learn to try not to be the world policeman?
This is GD - prove that Democracy is the best thing to happen to the Iraqi people.
Seeing as how it’s a repressed majority about to take power over a hated minority, I would think violent reprisals and revenge legislation would be the first thing to occur due to years of repression. Oh, that and a popularly elected theocratic leadership.
Just like the Sunnis did to their Shi’te counterparts for years on end when they were in power?
Wait a minute there, if violent reprisals and revenge killings is what the Shi’tes wanted to carry out on a large scale, who says they would of held back for so long? You think elections would of been a precursor for any oppression they would carry out? I highly doubt that.
Look, the Shi’tes aren’t stupid, they know the key to any prosperous Shi’te majority run state is to ensure minority rights, I highly doubt they are that naive to think they can oppress the Sunnis and think they can get away with it without the prospect of increased killings and bombings.
Theocracy wouldn’t work in Iraq for the reason that the population is too diverse for it to be imposed, plus just because the Shi’tes are voting in pretty much one block doesn’t mean they all agree on religion mixing in with politics, they’ve learned from their neighbour, Iran where that can lead too.
I suggested defeat of the occupation might be the best thing that could happen to the American people, Iskander, not the best thing that could happen to the Iraqi people.
Yep, thanks for proving my point. Unless you’re saying that the Shi’ites deserve their change at revenge?
Regardless of whether you doubt it, prove it won’t happen. You’re assuming that the Shi’ites have been holding back because they know what’s good for 'em. I propose that the Shi’ites are holding back because they don’t actually have power yet and once they do, will use that power to further their own agenda at the cost of the Sunnis.
Securing minority rights has nothign to do with success in running a major state. You’re grasping at straws here.
Who’s going to stop them? They will be the legitimate government. Are you saying that the US would not allow them to do things against the Sunni minority that is composed of Ba’athist party members and foreign terrorists? Osama is Sunni, remember… You are being naive. One thing they have definitely learned from Saddam’s time in power is the value of revenge.
The population is diverse, but at the same time all Muslim, with a huge Shi’ite majority. If the powerful Shi’a clerics all take to the same banner, I would be willing to bet that the people will follow their directions. Which would lead to a theocratic Shi’a state in power in Iraq.