Patriotism

[dr_mabeuse]

I don't understand patriotism. Just what is it you're supposed to love? The people of your country? The principles your country's founded on? (Like Habeus Corpus and freedom and justice for all in the US.) What your leader commands? Are you just supposed to think you're always better than everyone else? Is it just a form of nationalistic jingoism? How does it work exactly?

In semantics, they have what's called a "prototype" for abstract words. It's the general image one thinks of when presented with an abstract concept, like "motherhood" makes one picture a woman holding a newborn or "courage" makes one think of a soldier charging through a hail of bullets. What's the prototype for "country"? The flag? Is patriotism loving that piece of cloth? That seems kind of dumb.

When I think of "country" I think of a diner on a highway in the Midwest. I like diners and highways in America, but that doesn't help me understand "patriotism".

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Patriotism is easy to understand. It's simply devotion to your home-land.

During our Revolution patriots did all kinds of deeds. Some provided American troops with food, two of my ancestors donated their medical skills, others smuggled food and arms into America.

 

[emap]

What James said, I'll even add on a bit. Patriotism to me is more or less a religion.

Think about it this way, a patriotic american thinks we are always right, does no wrong so on so forth, a religious person believes in a higher authority that does no wrong, so on so forth. Both consider their views to be the only right one, and many times will resort to fisticuffs or shooting to back up their view being the right one. Wars have been started because of both, both World Wars are a prime example of patriotism causing a war, the Crusades for the other side.

Both sides will turn a blind eye to any proof that their chosen belief is wrong or questionable. Heck generally both will pick a scapegoat to prove that they have a good belief with just a bad apple.

I'm not saying that either is a bad thing, can be definitely but it also can be an incredibly good thing.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The True Meaning of Patriotism
By Lawrence W. Reed

Patriotism these days is like Christmas — lots of people caught up in a festive atmosphere replete with lights and spectacles. We hear reminders about “the true meaning” of the occasion — and we may even mutter a few guilt-ridden words to that effect ourselves — but like most people, each of us spends more time and thought in parties, gift-giving, and the other paraphernalia of a secularized holiday than we do deepening our devotion to the “true meaning.” The attention we pay the fictional Santa Claus rivals that which we pay the One whose name the holiday is meant to hallow.

So it is with patriotism. Walk down Main Street America and ask one citizen after another what it means and with few exceptions, you’ll get a passel of the most self-righteous but superficial and often dead-wrong answers. America’s Founders, the men and women who gave us reason to be patriotic in the first place, would think we’ve lost our way if they could see us now.

Especially since the attacks of 9/11, Americans are feeling “patriotic.” For most, that mere feeling suffices to make one a solid patriot. But if I’m right, it’s time for Americans to take a refresher course to appreciate what being a patriot should really mean.

Patriotism is not love of country, if by “country” you mean scenery — amber waves of grain, purple mountains’ majesty and the like. Almost every country has pretty collections of rocks, water, and stuff that people grow and eat. If that’s what patriotism is all about, then Americans have precious little for which we can claim any special or unique love. And surely, patriotism cannot mean giving one’s life for a river or a mountain range.

Emma Goldman, in a 1911 essay, rightly disparaged this parochial, location-based concept. That kind of patriotism, she said, “assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who have had the fortune of being born on some particular spot, consider themselves better, nobler, grander, more intelligent than the living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all the others.” Like Emma Goldman, I’d like to think there’s something about being a patriotic American that’s far removed from the young Nazi soldier who marched into battle for “the Fatherland.” After all, he thought he was patriotic too.

Patriotism is not blind trust in anything our leaders tell us or do. That’s just stupidity, and it replaces some very lofty concepts about the true meaning of the word with the mindless goose-stepping of cowardly sycophants.

Patriotism is not picnics, fireworks, or a day off work. At best, those are outward manifestations of something which could be patriotism, but it might also for some be nothing more than a desire to have a little fun.

Patriotism is not simply showing up to vote. You need to know a lot more about what motivates a voter before you judge his patriotism. He might be casting a ballot because he just wants something at someone else’s expense. Maybe he doesn’t much care where the politician he’s hiring gets it. Remember Dr. Johnson’s wisdom: “Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.” Others have wisely counseled that an ill-informed people can easily vote a democratic republic into bankruptcy and oblivion.

Waving the flag can be an outward sign of patriotism, but let’s not cheapen the term by ever suggesting that it’s anything more than a sign. And while it’s always fitting to mourn those who lost their lives in its defense, that too does not fully define patriotism.

People in every country and in all times have expressed feelings of something we flippantly call “patriotism” but that just begs the question. What is this thing, anyway? Can it be so cheap and meaningless that a few gestures make you patriotic?

Not in my book.

I subscribe to a patriotism rooted in ideas that in turn gave birth to a country, but it’s those ideas that I think of when I’m feeling patriotic. I think a patriotic American is one who reveres the ideas that motivated the Founders and compelled them, in many instances, to put their lives, fortunes and sacred honor on the line.

What ideas? Read the Declaration of Independence again. Or, if you’re like most Americans these days, read it for the very first time. It’s all there. All men are created equal. They are endowed not by government but by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Premier among those rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Government must be limited to protecting the peace and preserving our liberties, and doing so through the consent of the governed. It’s the right of a free people to rid themselves of a government that becomes destructive of those ends, as our Founders did in a supreme act of courage and defiance more than two hundred years ago.

Call it freedom. Call it liberty. Call it whatever you want, but it’s the bedrock on which this nation was founded and from which we stray at our peril. It’s what has defined us as Americans. It’s what almost everyone who has ever lived on this planet has yearned for, though only a few have ever risen above selfishness, ignorance, or barbarism to attain it. It makes life worth living, which means it’s worth fighting and dying for.

I know that this concept of patriotism puts an “American” spin on the term. But I don’t know how to be patriotic for Uganda or Paraguay. I hope the Ugandans and Paraguayans have lofty ideals they celebrate when they feel patriotic, but whether or not they do is a question you’ll have to ask them. I can only tell you what patriotism means to me as an American.

I understand that America has often fallen short of the superlative ideas expressed in the Declaration. That hasn’t diminished my reverence for them, nor has it dimmed my hope that future generations of Americans will be re-inspired by them. Whatever our shortcomings, the fact remains that our Founders bequeathed us a marvelous mechanism whereby we can fix those flaws and perhaps someday shepherd our form of government to as close to perfection as may be humanly possible. This brand of patriotism, in fact, gets me through the roughest and most cynical of times.

My patriotism did not flag when one president debased the Oval Office with a young intern, or when another one covered up an illegal break-in. My patriotism is never affected by any politician’s failures, or any shortcoming of some government policy, or any slump in the economy or stock market. I’ve never felt my patriotism to be for sale or up for a vote. I never cease to get that “rush” that comes from watching Old Glory flapping in the breeze, no matter how far today’s generations have departed from the original meaning of those stars and stripes. No outcome of any election, no matter how adverse, makes me feel any less devoted to the ideals our Founders put to pen in 1776.

Indeed, as life’s experiences mount, the wisdom of what giants like Jefferson and Madison bestowed upon us becomes ever more apparent to me. I get more fired up than ever to help others come to appreciate the same things.

During a recent visit to the land of my ancestors, Scotland, I came across a few very old words that gave me pause. Though they preceded our Declaration of Independence by 456 years, and come from three thousand miles away, I can hardly think of anything ever written here that more powerfully stirs in me the patriotism I’ve defined above. In 1320, in an effort to explain why they had spent the previous thirty years in bloody battle to expel the invading English, Scottish leaders ended their Declaration of Arbroath with this line: “It is not for honor or glory or wealth that we fight, but for freedom alone, which no good man gives up except with his life.”

Freedom — understanding it, living it, and teaching it to posterity. That, my fellow Americans, is what patriotism should mean to each of us today.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

EMAP

One of my ancestors was violently opposed to secession. He was a delegate to the Florida Secession Convention and voted against disunion. After secession Florida appointed him to command its rebel troops in Virginia.

I didnt understand how a rabid anti-secessionist went from cursing the pro-secessionists to leading rebel troops. Then I happened upon comments James Madison made.

Madison said that before an issue is decided every citizen needs to actively champion or oppose their position. People should use every lawful means to influence the issue. But once the vote is taken, and the outcome is known, it's time to shut up and enforce the decision that prevailed.

 

[rgraham666]

Patriotism, for me, is about sacrifice. You regard your nation and the ideals it stands for as more important than yourself and your comfort.

Patriotism also demands dissent. When your nation begins to diverge from its ideal you have a duty to speak up. This will inevitably involve sacrifice on your part as many people can't separate dissent from betrayal.

The problem with patriotism is that it too easily becomes an ideology, that is an Absolute Truth. At that point it becomes an excuse for unethical actions rather than a support for ethical ones.

 

[NoJo]

I don't understand patriotism. Just what is it you're supposed to love? The people of your country? The principles your country's founded on? (Like Habeus Corpus and freedom and justice for all in the US.) What your leader commands? Are you just supposed to think you're always better than everyone else? Is it just a form of nationalistic jingoism? How does it work exactly?

I also ask your semi-rhetorical questions. In my case they arise from my slightly ill-tempered "Diaspora Jew" alienation. And very healthy it is too, IMO.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Patriotism is easy to understand. It's simply devotion to your home-land.

During our Revolution patriots did all kinds of deeds. Some provided American troops with food, two of my ancestors donated their medical skills, others smuggled food and arms into America.

What's my "Homeland"? What's my patriotic duty in this Iraq war? Is my patriotic duty to oppose it as wrong-headed American adventurism and oil-colonialism or support it because the administration does?

If my homeland believes in anti-Semitism, am I supposed to be devoted to that? If my homeland goes to war with Canada am I supposed to be devoted to the destruction of my Canadian friends? If my homeland believes in a lifetsyle that consumes resources at a rate that the planet can simply not sustain, am I supposed to be devoted to that?

If I'm not devoted to these things does that make me unpatriotic?

Edited to add: Roxanne, I'm, not interested in reading anyone's essay.

 

[JagFarlane]

What's my "Homeland"? What's my patriotic duty in this Iraq war? Is my patriotic duty to oppose it as wrong-headed American adventurism and oil-colonialism or support it because the administration does?

If my homeland believes in anti-Semitism, am I supposed to be devoted to that? If my homeland goes to war with Canada am I supposed to be devoted to the destruction of my Canadian friends? If my homeland believes in a lifetsyle that consumes resources at a rate that the planet can simply not sustain, am I supposed to be devoted to that?

If I'm not devoted to these things does that make me unpatriotic?

See that is the advantage of being American, we encourage you to state your views. If you oppose the war, then oppose the war. The interesting thing, if you note, about the current Iraq war...is that while many people oppose the war, they fully support the troops.

Patriotism itself is hard to define. Particularly in this day and age...I always remember a commercial that showed a street before 9/11 that was barren, and the day after 9/11 where it was almost all red, white, and blue. However, sadly, it seems to me to be more, these depends, dependant upon what the in style is. Even now, thats slowly fading. A lot of people don't particularly care for the country or treasure it. Many would never dream of serving thier country, and hate the idea of paying taxes.

 

[3113]

See that is the advantage of being American, we encourage you to state your views. If you oppose the war, then oppose the war. The interesting thing, if you note, about the current Iraq war...is that while many people oppose the war, they fully support the troops.

Actually, I don't find this interesting...I find it disturbing. Why? Because I feel that almost no one who says it is being honest. And that includes those in favor as well as those against the war. It was established early on that "I support the troops" was the ultimate flag pin. Code words for: "Don't hurt me, I'm a patriotic American!" And it still is.

It's the ultimate example of "Name Calling." A group of kids yells at some other kid, "If you don't support our football team, you're gay!" And so, to avoid being called gay and getting beaten up for it, everyone jumps on the bandwagon and says, "Go our team! Don't we have the best football players?" This becomes a way of showing you're part of the tribe. Don't say it, and you're not part of the tribe and can be beaten up.

The insidious part of this is that in getting kids to fear for their lives if they don't support the football team, the jocks undermine any criticism of the football team. After all, if you say you're supporting the troops, it makes it harder to argue against the war. I'll explain why: Anti-war movement of WWI had a song, "I didn't raise my boy to be a soldier." If society disapproves of the business of soldiers, than young people will feel pressured to avoid joining the army. But if society approves of soldiers, that it's an honorable profession to make war, then young people enlist and you get to make war. Allow me to add, whether it is or is not an honorable profession is immaterial. My point is, so long as everyone is agreed that it is an honorable profession, the anti-war folk are in a weaker position. There is money and troops, what do protests matter? But if an anti-war protest is making all your potential troops stay away from the recruitment centers, then it matters.

Here is what's interesting: so long as a person says they support the troops, that's enough to assure people of their patriotism. But no one bothers to check to see if their ACTIONS agree with their words. Hence, a politician completely in favor of the war and who always says at the end of his speeches "God bless our troops!" can still cut the wages of said troops, refuse them health benefits or aid to their families, and not be criticized for being unsupportive of the troops.

I have a real problem with "I support the troops." I have a problem with it because I think it's just a magic phrase that doesn't mean shit. You say it and it magically makes you a patriot. But you don't have to DO anything to prove that you are in support of the troops. During past wars, people made real sacrifices to support the troops. They gave up luxuries from sugar to steel, they rolled bandages, drummed up money, rationed themselves, grew victory gardens, gave help to the loved ones of soldiers at home. They gave up their sons and daughter to those troops. THAT is supporting the troops.

Waving a flag, saying "I support the troops"--not criticizing soldiers or spitting on them--is NOT the same as supporting them. If you think people really support the troops, ask them what they've given up for those troops. If they haven't given up anything, they're lying to you and to themselves.

 

[cloudy]

I find it rather hard to be patriotic (whatever that means) to a country that wouldn't even make us legal citizens until 1924, especially since we were here long before those that had the right to make us "citizens."

 

[Liar]

Patriotism is easy to understand. It's simply devotion to your home-land.

The geographic area? The political unit? The domestic market? The collective of citizens? The myth of a unifying culture?

 

[S-Des]

Patriotism can't be defined on a group level because it's a completely personal thing. Emap is close in saying it's like a religion, although I disagree that it means you think your country can, "do no wrong." To me, it's about pride. I am proud that our country gives more than anyone else. I'm proud that our soldiers have time and again gone to other nations to help defend the weak. I'm proud that citizens have taken to the streets to protest things they thought were unfair. But most of all, I'm proud that they have a government that allows them that right.

I believe that patriotism is part love of country (people and the sacrifices they've made to give us a better life), and partially our actions. I consider myself "patriotic" because I love this country and would prefer it to anywhere else. I don't consider myself a "patriot" because I've yet to find a way to sacrifice to make things better for the next generation (maybe some small things, but nothing compared to the sacrifices others have made).

 

[gauchecritic]

It's back to back with jingoism, just depends on which way you're facing.

Here in my home-land (Not Britain, not England) we don't describe ourselves as people from, or of we just are: Yorkshire.

"Are you English?"

"No. I'm Yorkshire."

There's no patriotism there, there's no 'nationalistic' pride or holier than thou outlook we just are what we are.

I read somewhere where someone asked a revered and wise old monk: "How do I become a Buddhist?" his reply was "Just be Buddhist."

It's the same with us. We don't need to go waving flags (though some do) we don't need to go fighting Lancastrians (though some do) We don't need to promote those 'Dark satanic mills' at every opportunity (though I do). We just are... Yorkshire.

 

[rgraham666]

I try to make my nation humanity. Don't always succeed though.

But that's just me being human.

 

[Night_Jasmine]

I watched 1776 not too long ago. Awesome movie, even if it's older than I am. lol

However...there's something in it that might help. John Dickinson of Pennsylvania fought against the independence vote because he wanted reconciliation with England. Although Pennsylvania did vote for Independence, he refused to sign the Declaration.

Quote from movie (not direct but close) - "I cannot stop hoping for an eventual reconciliation with England. But I love my country no less than John Adams and so will take up arms in her defense."

That is patriotism. You may not agree with what their decision is but, when it comes down to defending her, you will.

Iraq war and so on..yeah..that was a mistake..but 9-11 ladies and gentleman, patriotism was shown by the volunteers and the Firefighters and police officers that did everything they could to help their fellow Americans.

 

[R. Richard]

What's my "Homeland"? What's my patriotic duty in this Iraq war? Is my patriotic duty to oppose it as wrong-headed American adventurism and oil-colonialism or support it because the administration does?

dr_mabeuse:
Let me give you some facts about Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Saddam Hussein's Iraqi GOVERNMENT attacked and killed an American citizen. Not some roguw\e military officer, the Iraqi GOVERNMENT!


Starting in 1801, the US Navy responded to acts of piracy by the Bey of Tripoli and the US began to fight a war against the Tripoli based pirates. [The source of ‘the shores of Tripoli’ in the Marine hymn.] In 1985, pirates, under the command of Muhammad Zaidan committed and act of piracy against the cruise ship Achille Lauro. Said pirates then murdered one Leon Klinghoffer, a US citizen. By the precedent set in 1801, the pirates committed an act of war against the US. Later, Muhammad Zaidan was captured, but was released by the government of Italy, because Muhammad Zaidan had an Iraqi Diplomatic Passport. That is, Muhammad Zaidan was the Iraqi government [not an over eager junior military officer, but the Iraqi government.] Muhammad Zaidan was then permitted to return to Iraq, where he was sheltered. Thus, Iraq attacked the United States. [A detailed description of the facts is appended below.]

Abu Abbas was the nom de guerre for Muhammad Zaidan, a secretary general of the Palestinian Liberation Front (PLF). According to Murdock's website, HusseinAndTerror.com, Abu Abbas masterminded the hijacking of the Achille Lauro in 1985.

The Achille Lauro was on a voyage across the Mediterranean when four Palestinian terrorists seized it on the high seas. They held some 400 passengers hostage for 44 hours.

At one point, they segregated the Jewish passengers on board. One of them was a 69-year-old New York retiree named Leon Klinghoffer. He happened to be confined to a wheelchair. Without mercy, Abu Abba’s men shot Klinghoffer, then rolled him, wheelchair and all, into the Mediterranean.

The hijackers surrendered to Egyptian authorities in exchange for safe passage to Tunisia. Abu Abbas then joined them on a flight to freedom aboard an Egypt Air jet. However, four U.S. fighter planes forced the airliner to land at a NATO base in Sicily. Italian officials took the hijackers into custody. But Abbas possessed the ultimate get-out-of-jail card: An Iraqi diplomatic passport. How do we know this?

The source for this information is not Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. It is none other than... Bettino Craxi. At that time, he was Italy’s prime minister. As Craxi explained in an October 14, 1985 UPI story:

Abu Abbas was the holder of an Iraqi diplomatic passport…The plane was on an official mission, considered covered by diplomatic immunity and extra-territorial status in the air and on the ground.

Seeing that this terrorist traveled as a credentialed Iraqi diplomat, the Italian authorities let Abbas flee to Yugoslavia....

U.S. Special Forces captured Abu Abbas near Baghdad in April 2003.

(CNN) Abbas, whose real first name is Muhammed, was apprehended Monday night in a compound of three buildings.

His capture was made possible by information from U.S. intelligence, officials said. Several others were also captured at the compound, the officials said. Various documents and passports were also seized.

 

[hmmnmm]

Say you squabble and bicker with a family member or a close friend, you are in total ideological oppostion to each other, but there's an indefinable bond between. Along comes an outside party who is technically in agreement with you, and they threaten the welfare of your family member or close friend. You come to the defense of the one you love against the one you theoretically agree with, because you know and love the close one you constantly bicker and squabble with.

translated: I'll call my sister a bitch, but don't let me hear you call her a bitch

kinda what it means to me.

: patriotism is rebellion against convention and conformity.
Or, patriotism is simply rebellion.
the patriot has much to rebel against these days.

 

[Belegon]

I believe that true patriotism is to ideals and concepts, never to an individual leader or administration. The geography can form the trappings of patriotism but not the substance of it. A uniform likewise.

I support the troops by advocating they be removed from harm's way, at least in the case of Iraq. I believe that we have a legitimate reason to be on the ground in Afghanistan.

R. Richard, we have not declared war on Iraq. Therefore, your entire post is sadly irrelevant. The fact that we have a precedent for a declaration of war is granted, but...

We have not declared war against ANYONE since WWII. A declaration of war requires an act of congress... and not simply a vote to expand the powers of the commander in chief in authorizing the use of force, but to actually declare war. We have not done that, so far as I am aware. If I am wrong, please point it out to me.

Also, I find that your post smacks of a sad confusion that has made it's way into our politics, the idea that if you do not support this president or these actions you are unpatriotic.

"It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its government" - Thomas Paine

 

[emap]

Seems alot of people are getting things mixed up. Protecting your neighbor isn't patriotic, it's guarding yourself.

No seriously think about it, if you have a neighbor to your right and left, you are three, if you let someone go and kill the neighbor to your right, there are now two of you, which is stronger, two or three?

Same principle applies to the examples given of the founding fathers and the dissenters to seccession. Yes they didn't want to do it, but then fought with the ones who did and got it passed. See they aren't fighting for it because they think it is right, they are fighting for it because int he case of the founding father, he's dead if they lose, he might be dead if he fights, but he is assuredly dead if he does not and the other colonies lose, probably if he does not and they win.

Those are self preservation acts, in the case of the sister, that is defending the family name, or if you prefer defending the bloodline. All of those are not patriotic, but they are seen as such.

Why I said patriotism is a religion. Also why Cloudy is not patriotic, not for the reason she gives, but because patriotism is something nomadic people cannot be. Patriotism is as has been said, a beleif that a particular region of land sea or air, usually all three anymore is the prime better than anywhere else region. To be defended with every ounce of being from all comers who wish to take it away.

In simpler terms, this is my home get the f*** away from it. Nomadic peoples cannot be patriotic because they are nomadic, no one section of land is their own. They will fight to protect where they are to protect themselves, they will fight to protect the wildlife in their own region, not because it is theirs, but because the wildlife is their sustenance.

Patriotism is not a beleif in what the founding fathers founded a nation to protect, it is not in saluting a flag, it is not reciting the pledge of alliegance every day in school. Patriotism is nothing, it is a catch phrase. It is a word thought up to help garner troops for a war. It is a word to seperate people into a group, you either are patriotic or you are not, if you are not patriotic you cannot shop here. It is the same as the if you don't support our football team your gay. Means nothing except to place people in a group of one kind or another.

Suporting the troops is nothing more than a saying, the people saying it usually don't, and they usually have no idea what they are supporting the troops for. Some people, I beleive they have a bumper sticker, actually do support the troops, they donate items or money to care package groups who then make up boxes to send to the troops who are in combat areas. They support the troops, doesn't make them patriotic, makes them caring, or related to one of said troops.

Joining the military is not patriotic, usually it is a means to an end, veterans get funds to attend college, they have real life experience in the field they want, and they can usually find a good paying job after. There are other reasons said, though generally that is the underlying reason.

 

[R. Richard]

I believe that true patriotism is to ideals and concepts, never to an individual leader or administration. The geography can form the trappings of patriotism but not the substance of it. A uniform likewise.

I support the troops by advocating they be removed from harm's way, at least in the case of Iraq. I believe that we have a legitimate reason to be on the ground in Afghanistan.

R. Richard, we have not declared war on Iraq. Therefore, your entire post is sadly irrelevant. The fact that we have a precedent for a declaration of war is granted, but...

We have not declared war against ANYONE since WWII. A declaration of war requires an act of congress... and not simply a vote to expand the powers of the commander in chief in authorizing the use of force, but to actually declare war. We have not done that, so far as I am aware. If I am wrong, please point it out to me.

Also, I find that your post smacks of a sad confusion that has made it's way into our politics, the idea that if you do not support this president or these actions you are unpatriotic.

"It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its government" - Thomas Paine

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It is true that the US hasn't declared war against Iraq. Neither did we declare war in the precedent I cited. In fact, the actions of the US Congress and the President were substantially identical to the actions of the US Congress and the President in the matter of Iraq.

The precedent of the Barabary Wars is that the US military may be mobilized anytime, anywhere necessary to protect the lives and safety of US citizens. The result is what is know in law as 'a custom wih the force of law.'

Now, as to the current situation in Iraq. You seem to demand that the US Congress declare war. Declare war against whom? We are in Iraq with the permission of and at the request of the currently elected government of Iraq. The US Congress obviously can't declare war against Iraq. If the US Congress is to declare war, they must declare war against a government or at leas a defacto government. I repeat, declare war against whom?

From Wiki:
On Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, Yussif Karamanli, the Pasha (or Bashaw) of Tripoli, demanded $225,000 from the new administration. (In 1800, Federal revenues totaled a little over $10 million.) Putting his long-held beliefs into practice, Jefferson refused the demand. Consequently, in May of 1801, the Pasha declared war on the United States, not through any formal written documents but by cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate. Morocco, Algiers, and Tunis soon followed their ally in Tripoli.

In response, Jefferson sent a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."

The American navy went unchallenged on the sea, but still the question remained undecided. Jefferson pressed the issue the following year, with an increase in military force and deployment of many of the navy's best ships to the region throughout 1802. USS Argus, USS Chesapeake, USS Constellation, USS Constitution, USS Enterprise, USS Intrepid, USS Philadelphia and USS Syren all saw service during the war under the overall command of Commodore Edward Preble. Throughout 1803, Preble set up and maintained a blockade of the Barbary ports and executed a campaign of raids and attacks against the cities' fleets.

Philadelphia aground off Tripoli, in 1803.In October 1803, Tripoli's fleet was able to capture USS Philadelphia intact after the frigate ran aground while patrolling Tripoli harbor. Efforts by the Americans to float the ship while under fire from shore batteries and Tripolitan naval units were unsuccessful. The ship, its captain, William Bainbridge, and all officers and crew were taken ashore and held as hostages. The Philadelphia was turned against the Americans and anchored in the harbor as a gun battery.

On the night of February 16, 1804, a small contingent of U.S. sailors in a captured Tripolitan ketch rechristened USS Intrepid and led by Lieutenant Stephen Decatur, Jr. were able to deceive the guards on board the Philadelphia and float close enough to board the captured ship. Decatur's men stormed the vessel and decimated the Tripolitan sailors standing guard. To complete the daring raid, Decatur's party set fire to the Philadelphia, denying her use to the enemy. Decatur's bravery in action made him one of the first American military heroes since the Revolutionary War.

Preble attacked Tripoli outright on July 14, 1804 in a series of inconclusive battles, including a courageous but unsuccessful attack by the fire ship USS Intrepid under Captain Richard Somers. Intrepid, packed with explosives, was to enter Tripoli harbor and destroy itself and the enemy fleet; it was destroyed, perhaps by enemy guns, before achieving that goal, killing Somers and his crew.

The turning point in the war came with the Battle of Derna (April-May 1805). Ex-consul William Eaton, who went by the rank of general, and US Marine First Lieutenant Presley O'Bannon led a mixed force of 500 United States Marines, Greek, Arab and Berber mercenaries on a remarkable overland march across the desert from Alexandria, Egypt to assault the Tripolitan city of Derna.

With support from American ships, the expeditionary force captured the city. This action, memorialized in the Marine Hymn — "to the shores of Tripoli" — gave the American forces a significant advantage.

Peace treaty and legacy
Wearied of the blockade and raids, and now under threat of a continued advance on Tripoli proper and a scheme to restore his deposed older brother Hamet Karamanli as ruler, Yussif Karamanli signed a treaty ending hostilities on June 10, 1805. Although the Senate did not approve the treaty until the following year, this effectively ended the First Barbary War.

The Bashaw of Tripoli shall deliver up to the American Squadron now off Tripoli, all the Americans in his possession; and all the Subjects of the Bashaw of Tripoli now in the power of the United States of America shall be delivered up to him; and as the number of Americans in possession of the Bashaw of Tripoli amounts to Three Hundred Persons, more or less; and the number of Tripolino Subjects in the power of the Americans to about, One Hundred more or less; The Bashaw of Tripoli shall receive from the United States of America, the sum of Sixty Thousand Dollars, as a payment for the difference between the Prisoners herein mentioned.

In agreeing to pay a ransom of sixty thousand dollars for the American prisoners, the Jefferson administration drew a distinction between paying tribute and paying ransom. At the time, some argued that buying sailors out of slavery was a fair exchange to end the war. William Eaton, however, remained bitter for the rest of his life about the treaty, feeling that his efforts had been squandered by the State Department diplomat Tobias Lear. Eaton and others felt that the capture of Derna should have been used as a bargaining chip to obtain the release of all American prisoners without having to pay ransom. Furthermore, Eaton believed the honour of the United States had been compromised when it abandoned Hamet Karamanli after promising to restore him as leader of Tripoli. Eaton's complaints generally fell on deaf ears, especially as attention turned to the strained international relations which would ultimately lead to the War of 1812.

The First Barbary War was beneficial to the military reputation of the United States. America's military command and war mechanism had been up to that time relatively untested. The First Barbary War showed that America could execute a war far from home, and that American forces had the cohesion to fight together as Americans rather than Georgians or New Yorkers. The United States Navy and Marines became a permanent part of the American government and the American mythos, and Decatur returned to the U.S. as its first post-Revolutionary war hero.

However, the more immediate problem of Barbary piracy was not fully settled. By 1807, Algiers had gone back to taking American ships and seamen hostage. Distracted by the preludes to the War of 1812, the U.S. was unable to respond to the provocation until 1815, with the Second Barbary War.

 

[Belegon]

Thank you. I was unaware of many of those details about Tropoli and the campaign against the Barbary Pirates. My military history knowledge seems to have whimsical gaps. I know much about the Revolutionary War, WWII and the Civil War, yet I know more about many Roman campaigns than I do about WWI...

However, they DID declare war against us. That is interesting when applied to the current situation.

I find the citing of the "current" Iraqi government's desire to have us stay as having little to do with the causes and or justification of the invasion and/or occupation. That government is reliant upon us in order to maintain power and has, with some cause, been viewed as a puppet government by much of the world, including many of our allies.

We would have declared war on Iraq, of course. Specifically, on the government of Saddam Hussein. Also, we could have declared war on Afghanistan, specifically the Taliban government.

I believe Congress wold have voted to go to war in Afghanistan. Iraq? That's debatable.

We have used the fact that we did not declare war to our advantage, especially as it regards the enforcement of the Geneva Convention.

Sadly, none of this really has much to do with the stated topic of this thread...

</threadjack>

 

[WRJames]

What James said, I'll even add on a bit. Patriotism to me is more or less a religion.

Think about it this way, a patriotic american thinks we are always right, does no wrong so on so forth, a religious person believes in a higher authority that does no wrong, so on so forth. Both consider their views to be the only right one, and many times will resort to fisticuffs or shooting to back up their view being the right one. Wars have been started because of both, both World Wars are a prime example of patriotism causing a war, the Crusades for the other side.

Both sides will turn a blind eye to any proof that their chosen belief is wrong or questionable. Heck generally both will pick a scapegoat to prove that they have a good belief with just a bad apple.

I'm not saying that either is a bad thing, can be definitely but it also can be an incredibly good thing.

What a demeaning description of religion! I consider myself religious, and I don't know whether to be amused or offended.

True, there are a lot of religious idiots, but there are just as many people who have a blind faith in "science" without any real understanding of what they are putting their faith in.

 

[WRJames]

Patriotism can't be defined on a group level because it's a completely personal thing. Emap is close in saying it's like a religion, although I disagree that it means you think your country can, "do no wrong." To me, it's about pride. I am proud that our country gives more than anyone else. I'm proud that our soldiers have time and again gone to other nations to help defend the weak. I'm proud that citizens have taken to the streets to protest things they thought were unfair. But most of all, I'm proud that they have a government that allows them that right.

I believe that patriotism is part love of country (people and the sacrifices they've made to give us a better life), and partially our actions. I consider myself "patriotic" because I love this country and would prefer it to anywhere else. I don't consider myself a "patriot" because I've yet to find a way to sacrifice to make things better for the next generation (maybe some small things, but nothing compared to the sacrifices others have made).

Well, how about being ashamed of what the US did during Iran/Contra? If you don't remember or never knew, we sold arms to both sides in a war of extermination between Iran and Iraq, and used th profits to fund a counter inusrgency against a populist movement in Nicaragua. It's little wonder we are hated.

And what about our blind support for state terrorism by Israel? Are you proud of that?

Or the fact that the Is stands shoulder to shoulder with Iran and the Vatican in opposing women's rights in the UN? Does that make you burst with pride?

We are a nation of obese people driving gas guzzling SUVs to the Walmart to buy products that are the tribute sent to us by the rest of the world. Are you proud of that?

 

[cantdog]

At some point, a person has to decide what constitutes a nation. To define, in short, what it indicates when one says, "I am Turkish" or "I am American." Our own American persons whom we refer to for our nation's essence define us as participants in the Republic. Atatürk defined Turks as those born in Turkey. Hitler and Goebbels referred to blood, to a national race. But modern Germans place more emphasis on the cultural unity. France is la patrie, and the Frenchman goes to war for it, but his loyalty is not to so large an entity, but to son pays, which is a particular part of Bayonne, or a swath of Alsace, his own particular home.

One's loyalty to the national idea need not blind one to reality. Nationalism is actually a palpable evil.

When I was younger, I went to the line for abstractions like civil rights and liberty, but now I only go to the line for a few people, friends and some family, people I love.

In the end, I have the liberty I take: I can decide to be a free person, and live like one. Sheep don't even want liberty, however much they prate of it, and my death on behalf of it would not inspire them to want it or value it.

I think those things important, and spend many hours persuading people to respect and honor them. I write on behalf of Amnesty and correspond on behalf of ACLU; I address letters to politicians and op-ed pages, I comment here and in blogs, I speak at governmental meetings, demos, and informally to people I meet. Citizenship, human rights, and liberty are, to me, the meat of the egg. They frame and shape the right way to live life.

Our founding American persons, during the Enlightenment, held similar views, and so, insofar as an American civilization exists, I am espousing its essence as I speak and write. Some of the answers to Zoot's question, in this thread, would imply that I am thereby a patriot.

But I do not join the military forces of our nation. Their motivation in joining, at least, that of the servicemen I personally know, is generally a sacrifice on behalf of the national idea. Once they make that commitment, our venal governments send them forth for other causes, mostly aggrandizement. Precious little promotion of our national ideas or purposes is involved.

Their sacrifice is debased and they are put to base use. It's nearly inevitable, since the only thing weaponry can accomplish is to kill and to wreck things. How much citizenship and liberty can be created by ordnance? How much can a missile, a shell, or a spray of bullets promote civil rights? Only if weaponry were used to defend civil liberties and human rights from some force which would extinguish them can weaponry impact them. Securing oil from someone by wrecking their liberty and bringing them to ruin is not the same thing.

Sometimes, the largest threats to those American ideas are the commanders of our army and navy themselves. Rummy never lifted a finger to secure liberty for anyone, but he sent people to die all the same. Cheney promoted the deaths of hundreds of thousands but he clearly sets little store by citizenship. He made a lot of money, though, for certain people.

The sacrifice of those troops was on the wrong altar. But, again, going by the ones I know, it was a noble impulse in its origin and the venal uses to which it is put cannot sully it, only waste and mock it. I admire my military friends' sacrifice, but I think they made an error.

Nevertheless, I have taken actions designed to promote the welfare of injured veterans, even as their commanders campaign to undermine it.

But I don't much covet the label "patriot," it is too blown upon. It's the rights of man which concern me, not patriotism, so I don't think I really can ever be one.

A good example is the reply, here in the thread, that the actions of emergency services in New York (only in 2001, of course) was patriotism. Completely off the mark, as I see it, and I spent twenty years in the fire service. Nobody seems to have an idea in the world what that word means. You can't turn around without discovering some new, cockamamie claim about what a patriot might be. I forswear it, myself, until some sort of consensus arise as to its meaning.