American Patriotism?

In my hometown there’s an American flag affixed to every downtown parking meter. The recent 4rth of July celebration was an embarassing, ostentatious, orgy of patriotic symbolism. The people acted as if in an ergot frenzy, one trying to out-do another with their patriotic displays. What were we celebrating?

The land that I built my house on originally belonged to the British Crown. I have held the original 18th century deed to my land in my hands. My land was paid for in pounds and shillings and the appropriate taxes were paid to the Crown. I live in New England. I speak English. The towns around me have British names: Middlesex, Cornwall, Manchester, etc. The land that I live on was rightfully or unrightfully (please save the Indian topic for another thread) claimed by the original founding fathers for the British Crown. This makes me a Colonial Englishman.

In the late 18th century an uprising occurred, followed by an armed rebellion. A group of men revolted against their own country, and in some cases, against the land of their birth. These men were traitors to their country in the purest sense of the word.

Not everyone joined in this rebellion. The border with Quebec lies roughly 60 miles to my north. Quebec is predominantly a French speaking province of Canada. But just across the border are a great many towns with conspicuously British names. Loyalists who had fled the rebellion to the south built these towns. My brother lives in one of these towns; the town of Sutton. The loyal patriots were faced with the choice of fighting against the rebellion, fleeing to Canada, returning to England, or living under this new rebellious government.

Imagine if there had been no revolutionary war here in America. Imagine that this country were still part of the British Commonwealth. Now imagine that at this past year’s Commonwealth Day celebration I stood up in the midst of the assembled crowds and began to speak-out for a new nation, one independent of England that I just so happen to call, The United States of America. Do you think the crowd would cheer me as the original American patriot or do you think they would call me a traitor?

I was thinking about these events at this year’s rabidly patriotic Independence Day Celebration. I wondered how many of these frantic flag-wavers realized that the Stars and Stripes is the flag that was eventually adopted by a group of traitors, while the real “patriots” continue (to this day) to fly the Union Jack just across the border. The United States of America was founded in an act of treason. I find it ironic that the descendents of traitors make such a display about patriotism and speak so freely about loyalty to one’s country (But then I remember that some of people that settled in New England to escape religious persecution went on to hang members of their own community for a variety of supposed religious transgressions).

When I think of patriotism I don’t think of colorful flags and banners. I don’t think of boot and salutes. I think instead of helping a neighbor whose car has slid off a snowy road. I think of picking up the trash that uncaring people have thrown on the streets. And I think of paying my fair share of the tax burden without complaining. I will always prefer this sort of quiet and steadfast patriot to that vulgar man I saw at this year’s 4rth of July celebration, dressed head-to-toe in red, white and blue, and screaming, “God Bless America” at the top of his lungs.

What is this thing called patriotism? Is it a good thing? Is it a virtue?

Michael

I have to say; that the amount of zeal shown by some Americans over the 4th of July is almost frightening. It’s like a form of pure hatred, and reminds me especially this time of year of what happens in Northern Ireland and there Orange marches. Orange marches are basically the Protestants version of the 4th of July celebrations, which is also largely done to antagonise the Catholics. It’s where they all go around celebrating how great it is, to be them. Yet if they were marching because they believed it’s great to be white, the marches would be stop instantly by the government! So why is it okay to celebrate your nation and not your race? Where we are born, and what race we are is a lottery, neither having that much more probability then the other.

But the question your post raises in my mind is, ‘Where does patriotism end and superiority obsession takeover?’ I’ve said previously in another post that the American attitude of being the greatest reminds me of German Aryanism. With the re-emergence of the old cult of the body beautiful, taking on new forms with the introduction of cosmetics, cosmetic surgery and the new middle class temple of worship the gym. While it would be foolish to say this is a new phenomenon the Greek & Romans where at it, and more recently the Renaissance & the Elizabethan era. But it’s the German experiments to create ‘the Blonde hair blue eyes’ child that now strikes up the strongest parallel. If Hitler had done stem cell research what would they have said back in the 1930-40’s? I’m sure it would be see as barbaric, but now we have found a new way to approach the subject to make it acceptable, or even cloning. But this isn’t my main point:

America is portraying a very intense image of their superiority to the rest of the world. Both in terms of its political ideas of Freedom, Democracy and Capitalism, and also through its military and economical might. But the part that annoys me the most is they believe they invented it, the French pioneered Liberty, the English capitalism with the Industrial revolution. Personally I don’t believe America would be the superpower it is today, other for the fact of the two world wars, which weakened Europe, but mostly Britain. I can still remember when Britain was once Great Britain, now how long till America becomes Great America? As the Americans have the arrogance of British and the self-obsession of world war Germans. It’s this blind American patriotism that frightens me, as Bush has used it once to win new oil fields. But I think I’ll be long buried before the invisible boarders of Nationalism are removed. We’re no better then a pack of wolfs trying to protect and gain new hunting territory.

i’m not sure to call you micheal or Polemarchus, so i’ll put both down and hope you won’t mind. you wrote:

macintyre’s essays was a good critique of this, it’s called ‘is patriotism a virtue’. and with him being a natural law theorist, you can imagine his reply.
here’s mine. i think that patriotism as a virtue that made a big splash with rousseau and then marx, and is now adopted by the conservative ruling powers for political ends. it reminds me of how nationalism was hijacked in nineteenth century germany to progress unification – a conservative idea.
patriotism to the human race is a virtue; to be dedicated to a sort of cosmopolitan democracy and its advancement is definitely a good trait. that is, to embrace the idea as the world as one ‘global village’ in which we are all members and our actions must reflect this. i think that this is definitely a virtue.
one point that i would like to address specifically was when you said that:

the colonists were, by the time of the revolution, born and raised in amercia for many generations. they rebelled against their colonial rulers, not their country. forced rule does not justify ‘a country’ and if this were true, then technically most modern countries are taitors.
pax vitae’s point about the difference between race and nationality is not so clear. i think my race is separate from my nationality. and in toronto, there are cultural celebrations going on continuously to support races and nationality. the two can coexist.
patriotism is a dedication to country. i think globalization will make it such that in a few decades, the boundaries of ‘country’ will expand to include the world. in such cases, dedication to the human race is a virtue.

A while ago i always wondered why the Americans seem to take the 4th of July so seriously. Its almost like America seems to be saying that it is a real country and not the new world.
Polemarchus

Well, sometimes I think its a lack of history but im not really sure. Like you said yourself, America was simply a colony that Europeans fleeing Europe made there home; Britain at its height of power simply ran and kept it in order. Canada in many ways was simply the English people who didn’t wont to be ran by the traitors who turned against there monarchy; the rebellion was likely to of been started by voices from Europe as the French revolution was going on (turning against the monarchy figure). Britain isn’t were most of the immigrants from Europe come from though it is Germany, and many other nations had just slightly less then the amount of British that emigrated. America been the multi-cultural nation it is was more than likely just rebelling against rule from a imperialist Britain, as most Americans then were becoming rich and there rich wonted to run there own land (which to me is your patriotism). Once the uprising bet of the small military presence the British had there, the British sent 30,000 troops back this did after do with the uprising but also the French; at the same time there were over 100,000 troops in India. On the 4th of July though a sense of togetherness and a pride in America and its achievements is always a reason to be proud, like all countries are of there history.

Pax Vitae hit the nail on the head when he mentioned that Europe because of its “nationalism” destroyed its self in two world wars. Now “Patriotism” is to me why America didn’t join the war with Britian and France, and there was definite a far right look in America. And it is frightening how America seems to jump at the chance at to go to war when ever it is ran by a Republican leadership that shouts out its version of nationalism disguised under “patriotism”. Europe now has realised it cant be as neo-right as America is and is slowly integrating poorer nations (like Spain and Greece) into a richer whole, even Russia could be in Europe in the long run. America is doing this in Latin America but again in a nationalist way, by simply not giving them what they have (look at Argentina and how the world bank[American] wouldnt help). Under Clinton American polices weren’t perfect but no-way near as nationalistic as the southern and countryside’s neo right view is; this though is the same everywhere its just America has the power to carry out wars in other lands. Instead of anger in Latin America and the Che Guervara fuelled need to rise against the symbol of capitalism, perhaps that is where America needs to reshape things.

Pax Vitae

I cant see it been anywhere near 1930’s German, it simply wont go through a economic collapse the size that Germany did through sanctions imposed on it from WW1. Those sanctions imposed by France and Britain fuelled the anti-Semitic views as the Jewish managed to survive it. But it is going to be interesting what happens in the near future with this “patriotism”. Like Polemarchus, there does seem to be a lot of people that do question the whole “patriot” stance; when i was in London watching to see if any riots would kick of on may-day once, there were loads of Americans questioning there superpowers views on foreign affairs. Im not a communist in any sense, but i so the best prospective on “patriotism” and that’s Americas; “boiling for Colombian” is a liberal view but still interesting at least, how it goes on about how America is a nation ran on fear.

Pax Vitae

My Grandfather moved from Northern Ireland ages ago when the violence was bad, and the Protestants Orange marches were in effect what he so that fuelled the bombings carried out by the Catholics. Now things though seem to of settled down, by the simply stopping orange marches go through Catholic areas. Hopefully something this simply could curb Patriotisms war like needs. It depend on the person after Sep 11, some will think “kill em all”, some “god bless America” but hopefully most will just take it as a shared interest.

trix

You posted just before i could post. Yes, this is true but in what way?
Africa. Well it looks like we will have to wait and see but like always unlikely. If Clinton didnt Bush wont.
Latin America. America brought in a trade agreement with Latin American countrys(more like slavery); all are getting a unfair deals and there are protests all the time now, as the gap between the rich and poor is larger than ever.
Democracy? im not sure, America and Israel wont talk to the elected palestine leader(but he is a terrorist) and Iraq well thats a whole different story. The first point “patriotism to the human race is a virtue” but it isnt to the human race is it, more to the American people to be even richer. Is it democratic in America? i dont think so: but i am taking a hard line hear, i feel most things “patriotism” stands for is the antithesus of what America is. I think since Sept 11th America has taken a much more unsympathetic look at the world. “patriotism” as a means for your conservative view of getting more; but “patriotism” as a love for the country and proud of your heritage and the people you share your life with
thats the better way to look at it.

You may be interested in this
essay by Emma Goldman.

— As i am writing this, in some forgotten part of Iraq a 4 year old child stumbles upon a cluster bomb…

— I live here, and the “patriotism” seems closer to nationalism, at least in the average attitude of the man in the street. People over here think that if you wave the Stars and Stripes and repeat the magical incantation “God Bless America” The boogiemen Islamic fundamentalists will go away, and absolutely noone is trying to embrace international diplomacy, asking the really APPLICABLE questions. Like: Why do we train people like Osama Bin Laden? why do we send $10,000,000 to Israel a day? Why do we set up oil dictators to drain other countrie’s natural resources? Why are we so greedy? Someone alluded to this earlier, Europe has been punished for this and knows better, the US hasn’t; Is this the pride before our fall?
— I like Pax Vitae and Kesh’s comments. I don’t intend to celebrate an accident of birth. I am a citizen of the World. If i could get a flag of the United Nations i would have that attached to my car.
— I think there should be more women in politics. If you spend 9 monthes with something in your body, you will probably be less apt to send it out to die, and nationalism always ends up by giving birth to DEATH.

My thanks to all of you for your sentiments. It does my heart a world of good to hear from those who’ve not been sucked into the “big lie.” Before the Iraq invasion my wife and I marched in three protests and I still have melted wax on my shoe from a silent candlelight vigil. But once the murdering commenced I went into a funk, of sorts. Bush sold this war to the American people like a sleazy door-to-door vacuum cleaner salesman. It’s beyond me how any minimally cognizant person couldn’t see straight through him, and it sickens me to think how easily we gave this man a cart blanche to kill.

And there’s the question of Tony Blair. Has he taken a nasty bump on the head? Has something been placed in his food? As politicians go, I used to think rather well of him. I don’t quite know what to think of him now. I do, however, know exactly what to think of Bush. Bush is a mass murderer and a war criminal. In a just world he’d be sharing a prison cell with Slobodan Milosevic. It’s ironic to muse over the number of murderers Bush sent to their deaths as governor of Texas. In many, if not most cases, these felons were responsible for the taking of one human life. Yet Bush, the man directly responsible for killing some 4,000 human beings is cheered instead as a hero. If, by my clever speech I should whip a lynch-mob into a murderous frenzy, in a wider sphere I would be held accountable for my actions. Herein lies the rub. We are the lynch mob. To condemn Bush is to condemn ourselves. In the wider sphere, what country will be crazy enough to indict the present Commander-In-Chief of the American military Juggernaut for crimes against humanity? It’s not going to happen. So Bush literally got away with murder.

Metavoid,
Thanks for the link to Emma Goldman. I hadn’t seen that before, but couldn’t agree more. In the same spirit, I remember reading H. G. Wells contention:

“Our true nationality is mankind.”

And George Bernard Shaw is well known for this quip:

“Patriotism is a pernicious, psychopathic form of idiocy.”

Trix wrote:

Trix, if only every schoolchild would be asked to memorize these words, then I’ve little doubt the world would be better for it. A good friend from India recently commented that Indian children are taught that they are humans first and Indians second. We Americans seem to have gotten it backwards.

Pax wrote:

Exactly so, most Americans insist that America was the cradle of freedom and continues to carry the torch of liberty for which all the world aspires. But human bondage, for example, continued in America well beyond the time it was abolished in the rest of the civilized world. Likewise, the right to vote had been granted to women in Germany, the UK, Australia, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Canada, the former Soviet Union and a number of other countries years before American women gained the right. How is it that we Americans arrived at the notion that we stand as the shining beacon of liberty in this world, when in many cases we’re dragged, kicking and screaming, into protecting the rights of our own citizens?

There’s supposedly a saying among aircraft carrier aviators that a pilot is only as good as his last landing. This is how we ought to think of our worth as a nation. It’s true that we helped the Allies to defeat Fascism. It’s true that we extended a helping hand to our former enemies via the Marshall Plan. For these things America ought to be commended. But should we expect to have the right to bully the French into acting against their own self-interest by our pointing to the graves of the American war-dead in Normandy? Americans died in Normandy in-part so the French have the freedom to rule themselves and to formulate their own foreign policy. Bush’s callous attempt to force his will upon the French is a desecration to the memory of all those Americans lost in the liberation of Europe.

America under Bush is a madhouse where we feel our freedoms are best sustained by giving away our freedoms. All of us are now subject to arrest, detention, and a closed-door military tribunal at the whim of our government. What sickens me the most is how easily we gave away our much heralded freedoms out of simple fear. In truth, we get the government that we deserve.

Michael

— Well said! How do i find out about anti-war protests in my area? What can do as a concerned citizen?

Hi Marshall,

Well, it looks as if you and I want to protest the war these days, then we’re going to have to be prepared to go it alone. I’ve always counted on college kids to be our moral equivalent of the canary in a coal mine, but for some reason the schools around me have been rather silent on this issue. I’m not going to jump to the conclusion that the present generation doesn’t care, because I’ve seen lots of kids at the earlier protests. It’s just that I hoped there would be more in the way of campus protests. Gosh, if a guy can’t be radical at age 19 I shudder to think what he’ll be like by age 45!

What can we do? Well, I’ve got an “Impeach Bush” bumpersticker on my car, but only because my wife won’t let me have a “Buck Fush” sticker. I certainly don’t expect to see impeachment proceedings anytime soon. I suppose the best thing we can do is to organize and try to vote them out in 2004. On the other hand, other than Howard Dean, the mostly quasi-Republican Democratic candidates are a rather sorry looking bunch. I have a sour feeling in my stomach that Bush is going to win a landslide-victory in 2004. Fear is a powerful tool that this administration uses with particular deftness.

Regards,
Michael

I want a “Buck Fush” bumper sticker! Where can I get one?

I’ve found that many of the students at my college are pro-Bush Republicans, but that may be just because of the fact that I live in majority rich white business men suburb. In fact, I have really found it hard to find anyone that understands just how devastating this whole issue really is. Why is it that people can’t see it?!? Any theories on this? or is it just that people don’t care?

and seriously, what can we do as citizens, to put a stop to this madness? Voting doesn’t seem to work!

Patriotism is love of country and pride in its history and accomplishments.
Patriotism is a virtue just as love of one’s family, and pride in its history and accomplishments, is a virtue.
Patriotism promotes social cohesion, and, to that extent, contributes to a good life for all.
A virtue is a characteristic which contributes to making a person who has it a good person. Insofar as social cohesion is a good thing for the society in which one lives, patriotism is a virtue.
But not without qualification: first of all, whether patriotism is a virtue depends on what sort of society (country) one is being patriotic about. A patriotic German during the time of the Nazi’s was not virtuous.
Second of all, “everything in moderation.” Enthusiasm is one thing: raving flag-waving is another.
Third of all, the show of patriotism by itself is not a virtue. That is why Samuel Johnson famously said, “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” Johnson, here, was not, as many seem to believe condemning patriotism. He was [/i]not saying that all patriots were scoundrels. He, himself, was very patriotic. Rather, he was saying that some who are raving patriots are really abusing patriotism because they are using the show[i] of patriotism to mask other, nefarious, activities.
Excessive flag-wavers may, often, be trying to divert the attention of others from what they are really trying to do. But, as I said, that is not to condemn patriotism which is, I think, a virtue, but to expose the tactics of scoundrels.

I happen to support Bush. But let me point out to you that whether you do support Bush or don’t, neither Bush nor any Administration is the United States. You can be unhappy with Bush and this Administration and still be a patriotic American.

Despite my respect for pilots on aircraft carriers, I think that bit about being only as good as your last landing is jazzy- and wrong. Just as a pilot’s worth as a pilot has to be judged taking his whole performance as a pilot into consideration, a person’s worth, or a country’s worth can be judged only by taking the person’s whole life into consideration, and the country’s whole history into consideration. That is why Aristotle said that just as one swallow does not a summer make, neither does one good or evil act (by itself) make a person’s life good or evil. A great pilot may have one bad day, and a great country may have acted badly for a certain period in a certain way.
The record of the United States (just to take the 20th century) is there for all to see. We have saved the world from two tyrannies, and revived it after a devastating war. There are a lot more free (or quasi-free) governments in the world because of the policies of the United States. The French would be now speaking German and heiling someone or other if not for us.
To deny that is to shut your eyes to history. And, even now, we are in the forefront of those who are defending the world against Islamo-fascism. 9/11 was no joke, and neither are the depredations of Saadam Hussein and those who want to spread Islamic tyranny.
At the end, I think that Bush was right when he said a choice has to be made.

This provides us with the most accurate assessment of your arguement.
Here’s a quote in similar vein to you’re post “I will never apologise for the United States. I don’t care what the facts are.”
George Bush Snr after a missile cruiser stationed in the Persian Gulf accidentally shot down an Iranian airliner and killed 290 civilian passengers.

I wrote this in July of 2002:

I came across the story of Jean Moulin recently in a book by John Ralston Saul, On Equilibrium.

Moulin was a civil servant, in fact, France’s youngest Prefect before the Germans invaded in 1940. On June 17th of that year two Gestapo officers arrived at his office demanding that he sign a false statement accusing a number of black African troops of murdering French civilians. When Moulin refused they began to beat him. After an extended period of abuse Moulin was thrown into a prison cell. The officers told him that he would sign the paper the following morning. Moulin determined that night that he would not sign the paper. He found a shard of broken glass and cut his own throat.

Saul explains that it is no easy task to commit suicide by cutting one’s wrists or throat. The arteries lie under layers of muscle. If the artery itself is not opened, the cut usually clots before death. This is what happened to Moulin. The Germans found him the next morning and decided that in order to avoid embarrassment (these were the early days of the war) they would revive and release him.

Moulin made his way to London to obtain resources and training. He then parachuted back into France where he went on to head the French Resistance. He was arrested in 1943 and tortured by none other than the infamous Klaus Barbie of the Gestapo. Moulin withheld the names of resistance fighters, and eventually died while under torture on the 8th of July, 1943.

Saul writes, “…most of us will likely drop dead on a subway platform, in the middle of an orgasm, or straining away on a toilet in the morning.” Moulin’s horrible death at the hands of the Gestapo could have been avoided by either collaboration, or merely turning a blind eye. Yet his courage was deliberate and unyielding. Goethe said, “A useless life is an early death.” Moulin died quite young at the age of 44, yet I can scarcely think of a better way to die. His life was anything but useless.

Most of us will never be called upon to stand shield to shield, as did the three hundred Spartans who defended to the death, the pass at Thermopylae against the mighty Persian army. I could easily see myself doing this. My thoughts would be of my wife and my sisters in the city at our backs. If we failed, then I assuredly would not want to live. To stand and fight next to my comrades when defeat is not a living option is more an act of necessity, rather than bravery.

How different was Jean Moulin’s heroism; alone in a prison cell, alone in torture, hopeless, yet certain in his resolve. His sacrifice was to a group of non-French Africans whom he would never meet, as well as to his own countrymen despite the fact that few of them chose the path of resistance. He chose to follow his own conscience. If he could give up so much for his fellow man, surely we who are asked to do so little, could at least treat each other with kindness and respect? I’ll likely never have to withstand torture. I’ll likely die in my garden, or shoveling snow. My death will not be glorious, but perhaps there is time yet in my life to take up a tiny portion of Moulin’s immense determination for good, and make my life into more than simply a finite number of heatbeats.

Jean Moulin was a beautiful man.
http://www.archives.premier-ministre.gouv.fr/juppe_version1/HIST/MOULIN.HTM

Michael

one mans saviour is another’s heratic.
One mans rebel is another mans traitor
and one mans religion is another mans joke.

Since Bush was saying that he did not care what the facts were, and I said that we should look at the facts of history, I think that my remark was entirely different and opposite to Bush’s. Don’t you?
In any case, that’s irrelevant. You really have to address my argument (no “e” in “argument”) and slogans will not do the job.

Hi Kennethamy,

Do you remember the “Ship of Theseus” puzzle? As the story goes, one by one, over the course of time, each plank in the Theseus is replaced by a new plank, each nail with a new nail and each line with a new line, until each component in the Theseus has eventually been replaced many times over. The puzzle continues, but let’s stop here and ask a question. Is the renovated Theseus the same Theseus that was launched on its maiden voyage?

Now, recast the “Ship of Theseus” puzzle in terms of the "Ship of State. The United States constitution was written over 200 years ago. The political organization of its citizenry is (roughly) the same, but like the planks of the Theseus, the individual citizens have changed many times over.

Kennethamy wrote:

The context of this discussion concerns the collective moral behavior of a group of people, in this case, Americans. Does it make sense at all to speak of a collective moral worth of nine generations of humans? Moral valuations apply to people; they do not apply to governmental constitutions, to flags, or to the ground they inhabit. We judge people by ethical standards, not countries.

In my earlier post, I wrote:

Please note that I used the word “nation” in my statement while you used the word “country.” A nation is a community or aggregation of people. A country is a political state or its territory. A nation of people is morally culpable for their actions but the history of a country is not.

My maternal grandfather was a two-bit gangster who was sent to prison for robbing a jewelry store back in the 1940’s. If a collective moral value could be applied to my family, then I share responsibility for my grandfather’s robbery. But to blame me for a crime committed before I was born is to misdirect the moral responsibility from the individual (where it belongs) to a family (which makes no sense).

You wrote:

The same critique apples here. People act badly, countries do not. The only moral agents are human beings, at least on this planet.

I’ll respond to you other comments in a post to follow.

Regards,
Michael

History is a very dangerous mistress.

But, honestly, I don’t think whether America is a good country or a bad country is the issue here. It may be in other threads and the seemingly endless trading of lists (“See what America has done?” seems to be the call on both sides) will no doubt continue:

1. But in the end most people would rather be ruled by America rather than Nazi Germany or Saddam Hussein.

2. And of course most people would rather rule themselves than by Americans.

Unfortunately, those who see the former ignore the latter and those who see the latter refuse to recognize the former.

But the point of this thread is the excessive display of patriotism in America. The overwhelming majority here seems to see this as a bad thing and Kennethamy wishes to change the subject. But why do people see it as a bad thing? Why does it matter to non-Americans and Americans as well whether someone overdoes it a bit? Why do you care what we do?

After all, we don’t care what you do as long as you don’t bother us.

I think that might be the common response from most celebrating Americans to this thread.

A few years ago, I walked through a massive Christian gathering in Seoul. It was a deeply disturbing experience watching these people chant endlessly, gather in circles praying with their heads rocking back and forth, holding Bibles as you would hold on to a rock in order to keep from falling off a cliff, and the claims of joy and grace from the stage, the smiles and glazed eyes, the promises of salvation, and freedom, always, always freedom.

It seemed so inhuman.

A person in the grip of such an ecstacy is disturbing because they have abdicated their responsibility to other humans. It really did feel as if they could do anything, that they could kill me with a smile on their face.

The patriotic celebrations are the same thing.

I have often been curious how anyone could support Bush now, not because he’s evil or a war criminal or anything as silly as that, but how could anyone who sees what’s happening, the mistake after mistake after mistake, continue to support him. I get three answers to this question:

1. At least he’s not Clinton.

2. He’s honest and calls it like he sees it. He’s one of us.

3. The Holy Spirit is working within him.

I can argue the first two, I don’t know what to do with the third.

Honest to God, someone actually gave me that answer. I didn’t make it up.

Kennethamy wrote:

I take it that you’re speaking of WW1 and WW2. However, in speaking of WW1, I’m not certain what tyranny you’re referring to? The tyranny of war? The tyranny that results when two imperial powers collide? If you’re matter-of-factly referring to the tyranny of early 20th Century Germany under the Kaiser, I’d respectfully suggest that you brush-up on the history of that period. I’d suggest the classic , The Guns of August, by Barbara Tuchman, or John Keegan’s, The First World War. WW1 did not represent a clear-cut struggle of good vs. evil. It was more of a debacle than it was diabolical.

Also, please understand that when Americans make statements such as, “We saved the world…,” it drives the British and the Russians crazy; and rightfully so. It’s an open question if the two of them could have defeated the Axis powers without American men and materiel, but they did tremendous damage to the German military before the Americans arrived on the scene. In any case, it’s simply not accurate to say that we saved the world. It required the coordinated effort of all the Allies to defeat the Axis powers in WW2.

It’s funny you should mention that. I just read, The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power, by Max Boot, and I’ve come away thinking quite the opposite.

Following the French surrender to the Nazis, the Germans retained control of northern and western France and the entire Atlantic coast. A puppet French government administered the remaining two-fifths of the country with its capital located at Vichy. The only case I read of Frenchmen being made to speak German was in the Alsace region near the German border. When I heard on the news tonight that the handpicked Iraqi ruling council (i.e. puppet government of the Americans) is almost ready to assume a limited control, my first thought was of the Vichy puppet government.

I thought we were talking about Bush’s invasion of Iraq? Iraq had as much to do with Bin Laden’s attack as it had to do with Timothy McVeigh’s.

No, Bush only hyped the situation such that it appeared that a choice had to be quickly made. In fact, there had been no new threats from Saddam Hussein since the first Gulf War, some 12 years earlier. Bush insisted that Hussein’s possession of WMD represented a clear and present danger to the United States. This claim always bothered me. If Hussein was intent on killing Americans with his chemical or biological weapons, why didn’t he put them in the SCUD missiles that he fired at us during the First Gulf War? He certainly had these dangerous agents at that time, and he had the means to deliver them (we were within range of his SCUDs). Even though the Coalition Forces were rolling over his troops - all the way to Badgered for all he knew - why didn’t he use his WMD against us? And if he didn’t use them in 1991 while he was under a direct and overwhelming attack, what had changed so dramatically in the relatively quiet period of early 2003 that he was preparing to use them?

Bush used the fear generated by the attack on September 11th to push us into war. We were told that since he had possession of hard intelligence that couldn’t be made public, we had to simply trust him when he said the Hussein posed a clear and present danger to us. With the images of the falling WTC towers and anthrax attacks fresh in our minds, the people were in no state to demand more evidence. Bush could have beat the drums for invasion of a number of other countries (North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran,…), but for reasons we might never know, he chose Iraq.

The British are beginning to hold Tony Blair’s feet to the fire on the question of hyped evidence, but the feeling here still is that to ask such questions of our leader is unpatriotic. In fact, on December 6, 2001, Attorney General Ashcroft said such criticism gives “ammunition to America’s enemies and pause to America’s friends” and “erode our national unity and diminish our resolve.” This statement alone trips nearly all my warning alarms; I wonder if you can see why, Kennethamy?

Regards,
Michael