holy cow...I'm your crush...ahhh, sweet success.haha...Loved your entry...It is a a sad time for your U.S.A, I think you should all defect to Canada...We just do peacekeeping mostly and keep our noses outta other Countries affairs...we also have hot chix, good beer and lovely weed. You don't smoke or drink though...so only the hot chix applys to you...
Okay, I've had time to read and diges your entry. So are you presenting an allegory, equating the current political climate in the US with the mindset of Germany at the outset of WW2? It is well known that the "mob mentality" can be easily controlled by an eloquent demagogue, which is what Hitler was. No matter how you slice it, Bush cannot be called either "eloquent" or a "demagogue."
Still, don't you think that it is a wee heavy-handed to compare the two situations. Yes, the Iraq thing has been an inextricable quagmire and some of the reasons, ostensibly for WMD, etc, have been poorly justified, but this is not a total war scenario as WW2 was. The fate of the free world does not hang in the balance per se, though, the elimination of terrorism as a viable outlet for political discourse would be a bonus.
Goerring's quote about the investment that the average person places in his participation predicated on simply surviving is spot on. Patton said something to the effect that he did not wish for his soldiers to die for their country but to make some sorry sonuvabitch on the other side die for theirs. This also is the difference between the compulsory service and an all-volunteer force. The person signing the papers is aware that he has a choice and this is the one he made. If you want to serve your country but combat isn't your thing, join the Navy, not much front-line duty there. Trust me on that one.
Of course the reasons for fighting can be murky. That is of course where the notion of democracy works. Though, to paraphrase HL Mencken, when speaking of the electorate of his time, democracy doesn't work. This has been seen since time immemorial. The English used to reign in their king by pulling the purse strings closed on any little adventure. Of course, the English are the ones who gave us the sense on Nationalism, but that is a different story.
Oops, hit the wrong button and submitted it before I was ready.
No, there is nothing wrong with protesting the war; it isn't unpatriotic. It is a bit specious for people to say otherwise. All that being said, I have little patience for those who deign to protest the policies and with a great hue and cry wish for our soldiers to be brought home. I find their altruism to be at best simply liking the sound of their own voices too much. These folk, by and large, are the ones who who don't wish to join the military and more than likely don't run in the circles of the people that would. I hate to stereotype (who am I kidding, I love to) but these are the Birkenstock-wearin', NPR-listenin', Volvo-drivin', suburban-livin' white-guilters. I do not begrude them their views, the are as necessary as can be, I just don't subscribe to them. Of course, I am as cynical as they come.
Sorry, one last thing and I'll stop my polemics: Stalin was much, MUCH worse than Hitler. But he was a "useful idiot" (note the irony) at the time and so recieved a free pass. The only difference is that Stalin, for the most part, kept his barbarism within his own borders, till the Russians overran eastern Germany in late '44, early '45. Hitler was a clever monster, Stalin was Hobbes' Leviathan gone beyond the pale.
Not in the least. If some one wishes to be a pacifist or protest, more power to them. I do not begrudge them that whatsoever; it is their right and priviledge and should not be denied nor infringed upon nor spoken of as unpatriotic. My gripe is with the ones who say "bring our boys home, blah, blah, blah" who probably haven't ever known anyone in the military and otherwise regard the service in general with contempt, and they are more prevelant than is imagined. They can think and feel whatever they want, they just come of as disengenuous to me. That is what that comment meant, I think you misconstrued it.
I don't quite understand what you mean by "nationalist." As for justifying it, I can't either. I won't defend the decision nor will I denigrate it. I was in the Navy for 5 years, active duty, during the first Persian Gulf war. I didn't have to do front line duty but I have many, many friends who did. I don't like politics of any stripe. I can honestly say that I truly support the troops and wish them well. Sorry 'bout your grandpops, that had to be hard on your family.
Isolationism generally means that you wish to keep America within its own sphere and not become entangled in much of the world's troubles, sort of keep your own house in order and let the neighbors just bugger off. Well, that's a little colloquial, but you understand. There is a neat test in the Current Events thread under "Are you a Neocon." Apparently, I am a "Realist."
Okay then. I understand that Isolationism is more concerned with protecting one's own country, disregarding that which occurrs outside it. Nationalism I believe contains elements of that but more or less asserts the idea that one's nation is more valid than another's. Not necessarily engaging in aggressive behavior, but establishing that notion anyway.
