Lotharr Posted March 1, 2003 Report Share Posted March 1, 2003 I thought the following was outstanding: quote: I wore my flag tonight. First time. Until now I haven't thought it necessary to display a little metallic icon of patriotism for everyone to see. It was enough to vote, pay my taxes, perform my civic duties, speak my mind, and do my best to raise our kids to be good Americans. Sometimes I would offer a small prayer of gratitude that I had been born in a country whose institutions sustained me, whose armed forces protected me, and whose ideals inspired me; I offered my heart's affections in return. It no more occurred to me to flaunt the flag on my chest than it did to pin my mother's picture on my lapel to prove her son's love. Mother knew where I stood; so does my country. I even tuck a valentine in my tax returns on April 15. So what's this doing here? Well, I put it on to take it back. The flag's been hijacked and turned into a logo ÔÇö the trademark of a monopoly on patriotism. On those Sunday morning talk shows, official chests appear adorned with the flag as if it is the good housekeeping seal of approval. During the State of the Union, did you notice Bush and Cheney wearing the flag? How come? No administration's patriotism is ever in doubt, only its policies. And the flag bestows no immunity from error. When I see flags sprouting on official lapels, I think of the time in China when I saw Mao's little red book on every official's desk, omnipresent and unread. But more galling than anything are all those moralistic ideologues in Washington sporting the flag in their lapels while writing books and running Web sites and publishing magazines attacking dissenters as un-American. They are people whose ardor for war grows disproportionately to their distance from the fighting. They're in the same league as those swarms of corporate lobbyists wearing flags and prowling Capitol Hill for tax breaks even as they call for more spending on war. So I put this on as a modest riposte to men with flags in their lapels who shoot missiles from the safety of Washington think tanks, or argue that sacrifice is good as long as they don't have to make it, or approve of bribing governments to join the coalition of the willing (after they first stash the cash.) I put it on to remind myself that not every patriot thinks we should do to the people of Baghdad what Bin Laden did to us. The flag belongs to the country, not to the government. And it reminds me that it's not un-American to think that war ÔÇö except in self-defense ÔÇö is a failure of moral imagination, political nerve, and diplomacy. Come to think of it, standing up to your government can mean standing up for your country. What do you think? Bill Moyers http://www.pbs.org/now/commentary/moyers19.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest $iLk Posted March 3, 2003 Report Share Posted March 3, 2003 I agree that standing up to the government can be patriotic sometimes. In fact, many of the anti-war protesters in America really are patriotic in spirit, though I believe that they are misguided by their ideals. Not that the idea of world peace isn't appealing, but the Ostrich head in the sand approach taken by many of the anti-war demonstrators is in the end naive and suicidal. I am thankful for those who volunteer to serve in the armed forces, to make those sacrifices out of choice. There are also those whose place is not on the front lines. Do you think that the Civil War would have been concluded as such had the U.S. government been required to fight on the front lines? Do you think that the nations of the world would have stood up to Germany in World War 2 had the leaders had to sit on the front lines? Someone has to make the decision to stand up to petty dictators and despots around the world. That decision is not made lightly, and although I disapprove of this fairweather patriotism, it is a climate in which public opinion is more supportive of what needs to be done, not through government persuasion, but tempered by the events of September 11, 2001. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fractux Posted March 4, 2003 Report Share Posted March 4, 2003 Talking about War and Patriotism, check out this news story. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 4, 2003 Report Share Posted March 4, 2003 So, what are you saying Fractux, that once we have made a decision to back someone that that should be our only option forever? I don't think so, things change, and so should our options and our alliances. France is now going to be on our list of unreliables as well as Germany and Belgium. THey made their bed and they are going to lie in it, I am afraid that Turkey will join that club as well before this is all over. The UN will be irrelavant, France, Germany, and mmost likely NATO will become irrelavant, and the EU will become so as well. Alliances change, those who were our friends at one time become our enemies and our enemies become our friends. That is how the world works, no matter how much peaceniks and antiwar people would like it to be otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fractux Posted March 4, 2003 Report Share Posted March 4, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: So, what are you saying Fractux, that once we have made a decision to back someone that that should be our only option forever? Nope, I`m not saying that at all. And I didn`t say that. In fact, I didn`t want to say anything more or get into a discussion about international politics. I just wanted to point out a story that reminds people about exactly what you are talking about. And I agree that NATO and the UN is becoming irrelevant for the US government. But that sure as heck doesn`t mean that either has no value. Also this article caught my attention because of a discussion I had last week with several people. One big question that came up which no one could answer was that while the US government would like to force a regime change on Iraq, who exactly are they going to replace Sadam with? I`m sure if they go that far they sure do not want another Noriega on their hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotharr Posted March 5, 2003 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2003 quote: But that sure as heck doesn`t mean that either has no value. When every evaluation is made in terms of military power it does....but ultimately it never works out....basic rule of Empire.it never sinks in... quote: Do you think that the Civil War would have been concluded as such had the U.S. government been required to fight on the front lines? We saw the North get its *** chewed in the beginning...by political appointments to general that looked for the best *** kisser rather than the best soldier..... Nowwhen we have professional generals they are muzzled by the insidious chicken hawks and their brave business partners. quote: Someone has to make the decision to stand up to petty dictators and despots around the world. And people need to stand up to power so insulated from normal life that their decisions have lost all perspective on the consequences of war. quote: The UN will be irrelavant, France, Germany, and mmost likely NATO will become irrelavant, and the EU will become so as well. Delegating the industrialized world to the state of irrelevance will not work.hubris and greed might work for people who go to Yale with crappy grades and skip out on war.that might get you elected and help to lead a normal trust fund lifebut it doesnt lead to intelligent decision making or inspiring leadership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest $iLk Posted March 6, 2003 Report Share Posted March 6, 2003 Lotharr, if you'll remember my original position on the Iraq situation, you'll remember that for the longest time I didn't support one bit invading Iraq's national sovereignty. I'm not a "let's rush off to war" kind of guy. Eventually I saw that was where we were headed, so my position changed to one of resignation. i.e. "if we're going to go, let's do it right this time." Eventually I came to realize... why aren't any of the anti-war protesters focusing on Sadaam Hussein's responsibilities to the 'Free World'? Do you see a single "Please disarm Sadaam" or "throw away your missiles and make love not war sadaam" sign at any of these rallies? I mean, this whole mess is about Hussein not keeping treaty stipulations he made 12 YEARS AGO. Granted, everyone involved dropped the ball on this until now. And now that Bush has chosen to correct that mistake, everyone is jumping all over him as if he's the one to blame. No it wasn't Sadaam's lying and Clinton's 8 years of appeasement to Sadaam to blame, it was the signs that people carry such as "Bomb Bush!" that show their real motives. Every self-serving argument I've heard against the Iraq crisis, relates to "selected not elected", or "installed president Bush", etc. People aren't worried about what's best fot the country, it's nothing more than political posturing. Where were the screams of protest when Clinton dropped bombs in Iraq? I was the among the first to protest against Bush's policies, even if I am a "conservative". No political leader is immune to my scorn, but the sacrilege that ensues should a Democrat ever harm another Democrat's reputation is a sight to see. It's patriotic to question your leaders, I think it's stupidity to blindly support an ideal regardless of contrary evidence. My current opinion now is forcing compliance to disarm, by whatever means necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotharr Posted March 7, 2003 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2003 quote: Lotharr, if you'll remember my original position on the Iraq situation, you'll remember that for the longest time I didn't support one bit invading Iraq's national sovereignty I remember that's why I give your points substantial consideration. quote: so my position changed to one of resignation. i.e. "if we're going to go, let's do it right this time." Here we all agree. However if you are against it from that start than I believe you have to continue the dissent. Just my opinion. quote: but the sacrilege that ensues should a Democrat ever harm another Democrat's reputation is a sight to see. I don't really know about that....but I don't doubt it. I can't stomach the sell out democrats. quote: My current opinion now is forcing compliance to disarm, by whatever means necessary. As to the rest.... The people were content to let democracy to be subverted until Bush started threatening to start a war with one liner arguments that leave even strong supporters embarrassed. These days people are content to let things slide as long as a standard of living can be maintained...now with Bush talking about killing thousands of innocent people for a resolution that can be worked out in other ways some are moving out of their comfort zone.....others see the real possibility for blow back as something that can't be justified. This is the age of sound byte arguments fostered by the corporate media. So they protest the same way. The issues are complex but there are real arguments behind the slogans. People are concerned with what's best for America...that's why they are pointing out the serious implications of allowing a non elected person to take high office. They are showing what overt imperialism is all about and why they don't want that for this country. Many in that camp believe that what is good for the free world is not Pax Americana. As far as Clinton....well....the media chewed him up....but he wasn't going to kill thousands of civilians when other methods could eventually achieve the same results. quote: My current opinion now is forcing compliance to disarm, by whatever means necessary I can't agree but I respect your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest $iLk Posted March 7, 2003 Report Share Posted March 7, 2003 The reason I hold this opinion, and the reason I can stomach some of the more embarrassing comments made by the administration that you point out, is because that for this entire frenzy to end, and for everything to go back to 100% peace in Iraq, all that Hussein has to do is keep the treaty promises he made 12 years ago without holding back. He should let the UN, along with some American observers peek through everything they wish, when they wish. If he would make that promise, Bush couldn't get any support for a war there. I'm not saying make a promise, wait a few days, back out of the promise, receive a deadline, threaten America 2 days before the deadline, then offer a few things the day before the deadline, the UN says "we see progress let's give them more time", then repeat. That's what we've seen up till now. If Hussein want's to steal Bush's fire, why shouldn't he be the man of peace who steps forward to give what he's legally been required to do in the first place? That's why I can't support Hussein, because he IS lying and because he IS hiding things. Then he's running the inspectors around in circles making the entire damn UN look like a bunch of fools, which makes me wonder what we have use of them for. Holding to support the UN positions is like blindly supporting Chamberlain's "Peace in our time" treaty before Hitler invaded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotharr Posted March 7, 2003 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2003 quote: That's why I can't support Hussein, because he IS lying and because he IS hiding things. Then he's running the inspectors around in circles making the entire damn UN look like a bunch of fools, which makes me wonder what we have use of them for I don't support Saddam and that is not the message of the anti-war people. Blix has said that the process is working but there are snags that start and end with Saddam. The only reason Saddam is compliant at all is threat of force. I believe that, and I think it is a good thing. It means that he is rational and can be manipulated into accomplishing the right thing without killing thousands of innocent people. It seems like a harder and more frustrating avenue but what good things ever just happen? I have always believed in muscular disarmament but Bush didn't even try that. You can match force and consequence with the behavior displayed (like with North Korea) and you see positive effect....and you don't use up all the political capitol, you don't damage the idea of international law, and you don't accrue all those negative things that come from a blind charge through an extremely complicated situation. The point is that Bush is not even considering these other options. The notion of international law is an extension of law in general. Rules make civilization possible. The UN has serious issues but the majority of people believe that it is much better than having nothing at all and I agree. This is where I think any administration should be focusing. I think America should be leading the way in building a fair and just organization to settle international disputes. We would have to let go of some power but that is only natural when trying to build a just community. If we were to continue building a strong and flexible international organization that serves to strengthen justice we ultimately are only serving and protecting ourselves. I believe human instinct is to rebel against unlawful authority. If we are viewed as unlawful any peace we try to force upon others will be fought against. That is why Bush needs to admit that Saddam is not an immediate threat and can be contained. We should not stop there and we don't have to. There are many options available to support regime change without digging up the ant colony and we should be working on those options rather than declaring empire for the sake of expedience. In the end even if Saddam were to fully cooperate inspectors would still stay in Iraq....that was part of the deal after Gulf I. So what Blix has said is that he is making good progress and should be allowed to continue his work and I agree. Other evidence suggests that behind all this happy happy humanitarian rhetoric is another agenda. This agenda is concerned with oil, power, and empire. Why is it so hard to believe that people who buy their way into office, and count themselves as one of Gods chosen, would have any other aspirations but to save the world and make a few bucks in the process? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dnoyeB! Posted March 8, 2003 Report Share Posted March 8, 2003 If we let known criminals roam the streets, we rarely blame them for the illegal acts they commit. We wan't to know why are they free? This is because we expect no less from criminals than to commit crimes. Why should we say Saddam had 12 years to disarm if no one was forcing him to do so? George W. would appear to be capable of disarming Saddam without war. He appears to be getting a lot of action out of him. I support his efforts and realize that if it was just a political game, it would fail. If he didnt genuinely intend to attack, I doubt Saddam would be disarming as much as he is. Bush needs to be careful not to push too hard, if war can be avoided he should do so. At the current rate, war can be avoided. Time is meaningless, we can wait another year if it means lives saved. Anti-war people are NOT misguided. (I have heard this regurgitation enough.) Their are different ways to solve this, and they see one of them. Saddam's reasons for war with kuwait may not be so wrong. But it still highlights that Saddam believes in war, not politics. I think that is all he will understand at this point. Shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now