Fundystopia (Fundy + Dystopia)

[DeletedUser]

Virginia, you dodge the question again.
Patriotism is all well and fine, but where does it end, and where does nationalism start Miss Proud NOT to be Canadian?

I said I find killing ethically wrong.
I never uttered a word about moraly wrong.

There's more to being a soldier than killing and waging war.

If I was to go into furhter detail, then I'd have to start spoonfeeding you, and that I will not do.

 

[DeletedUser]

Patriotism does not having total bearing on Nationalism. Yes, Nationalists are patriotic, but so am I (and I'm a step away from being a libertarian). It's has to do the person's mind set and where their morals lie in other aspects.

 

[DeletedUser]

That is not a satisfactory answer.

 

[DeletedUser]

I fail to see any difference between nationalism and patriotism because both represent allegiances to something non-existent. They both define their borders with imaginary lines and presuppose an homogenous citizenry which does not exist.

Please clarify what you mean when you use the word patriotism. It is not something I understand, except as a "nice" way of promoting the myth of community in a populace to large for community, and through that loyalty, and through that blind allegiance.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'd guess I'd be considered to be a "bad American" by most people here. I think it's ironic that the same people who complain about the government here, a high percent of the people, the economy, etc. are the same people who say we're so great and get upset if someone from another country says exactly the same things. I'm not saying that anyone here does that, but that many of the most patriotic people say that being able to complain about what a lousy place it is makes it a great place.

 

[DeletedUser8950]

I'm not patriotic at all. How does being from one country make you better then someone from another? How does if your country is "better" effect you?

 

[DeletedUser]

Not too long ago if you questioned much of what the US Government was doing in the name of "Security" you ran the risk of being labeled Un-Patriotic. This Orwellian Groupthink (ok yes that was redundant) led us into situations that have actually DECREASED our security and the fruits of which have yet to come home to roost (to mix a metaphor or three). The kneejerk patriots who appeared post 9-11 don't even take the effort to maintain the respect for the symbols and what they actually are supposed to represent. Dissent is Patriotic (at least in a Representative Republic). But what passed for Patriotism in the recent past was dangerously close to Fascist Nationalism.

 

[DeletedUser]

It comes from the offensive Canadian song, "American Idiot," which we in turn made "Canadian Idiot."

I was just wondering if there are two songs called "American Idiot", because the only one that I m aware of is by Green Day, an American band.

 

[DeletedUser]

Dropping the bomb on Japan saved lives. If you can’t figure that out, I’ll explain it.

This should be good....

 

[DeletedUser]

Actually she's right. The decision to drop the Bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima was made to prevent the Huge cost (both monetary and in human life [American Service members lives]) of an actual physical invasion and occupation of the Japanese islands. However, Bombing non-combatant civilians is contradictory to the "rules of war" BUT both sides of the conflict in WWII did this so it gets swept under the rug. The Winners hardly ever prosecute their own members for war crimes however. Now I challenge anyone who thinks that the use of the Atom Bombs in Japan was a good thing to visit Hiroshima and the memorials and the museum that documents what happened before they solidify that opinion. (personally I think every human being on the planet should be required to go there but that's obviously an idealistic pipe dream.)

 

[DeletedUser]

Have you heard the song “American Idiot”? However, on a more serious note, my comment was typed light heartedly.

1. Green Day are an American band.
2. American Idiot is only offensive to American Idiots. My brother-in-law, my nieces, and most of the American population are not idiots.
3. Considering you were offended by the song, I might conclude that you were an American Idiot. But that would undoubtedly be "twisting your words" somehow.
4. How do you expect me to distinguish jokes from seriousness while it's typed? I'm only human!

It is not racist to say that your country is the greatest in the world. It’s called pride and loyalty. It’s equivalent to a child telling his mother she’s the greatest mom in the world.

Wow. That's gotta be the worst comparison ever.
Pride and loyalty? It's Xenophobia!
I'm proud of Ireland. I'm loyal to Ireland. I love Ireland. But that doesn't mean I'll become a raging xenophobe who thinks that every other country is worse than mine.

However, America is truly the greatest country in the world. According the CIA World Fact Book, the United States is the most powerful nation. No other country gives their citizens the type of freedom our country gives theirs.

1. Power does not equal greatness. I personally regard a country as "great" when it has relinquished its military power.
2. As for freedom: perhaps you should actually investigate countries such as the UK, Canada, Australia (actually, the entire commonwealth) and Ireland. We don't live in fear of corporal punishment. We know that local people cannot get (easy) access to guns with which to rob us or kill us.

You slammed me for misspelling your name. I tried to show you your hypocrisy by bringing up what you called David and me. But I repeat, I was not offended that you were calling me Maryland.

I didn't misspell your names. I told you several times how to spell my name, and was constantly ignored.

Therefore, I thought it only fair that you were given the same treatment.

I might like other nations, but I am loyal to no other than my own. Furthermore, you were trying to support Stalin. That revolting man deserves no loyalty.

Aren't you the one who threw a tantrum about twisting people's words?

I was giving Stalin credit for a job well done. Without him, the Nazis would have won in Europe. Perhaps they would have been stalled in Britain for a while, and eventually they may have been beaten, but Stalin saved countless lives - possibly even more than he killed.

Nukes were out of the question in an area where so many allies would have been killed by them.

I said abortion should never be allowed.

Because it is murder.

Dropping the bomb on Japan saved lives. If you can’t figure that out, I’ll explain it.

It saved Allied military lives.
It killed Japanese civilians.
It caused generations of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to have cancer and radiation poisoning.

 

[DeletedUser]

However, America is truly the greatest country in the world. According the CIA World Fact Book, the United States is the most powerful nation. No other country gives their citizens the type of freedom our country gives theirs.

You'll definitely need to be more specific about exactly what statistical measurement you are using here, because this sounds pretty dubious to me.

Dropping the bomb on Japan saved lives. If you can’t figure that out, I’ll explain it.

Actually she's right. The decision to drop the Bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima was made to prevent the Huge cost (both monetary and in human life [American Service members lives]) of an actual physical invasion and occupation of the Japanese islands. However, Bombing non-combatant civilians is contradictory to the "rules of war" BUT both sides of the conflict in WWII did this so it gets swept under the rug. The Winners hardly ever prosecute their own members for war crimes however. Now I challenge anyone who thinks that the use of the Atom Bombs in Japan was a good thing to visit Hiroshima and the memorials and the museum that documents what happened before they solidify that opinion. (personally I think every human being on the planet should be required to go there but that's obviously an idealistic pipe dream.)

There is a fine distinction between the statement that it "did" save lives and the one that it was done to save lives and there are definitely historical arguments to be made for to support both statements. But both statements (as history) can also be contested.

As ethics, however... As Oisin pointed out, the theoretically "saved" lives were American ones. Also, the level of civilian deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in no way unique. There were air raid campaigns which killed just as many in very short spans of time. (And, as David points out, both sides were playing that game.)

So what exactly is the ethical question? If it is about lives saved, we have to criticise the ethics based on who people chose to saveat the expense of others. If it is about civilian deaths, we have to ignore the actual method and look at all types of attacks. I think people fixate on the A-bombs because they were shocking. Because of the ease of such wholesale destruction.

Yet not too long before that, there was Guernica. That event, too, was a shocking, wholesale destruction previously unimaginable.

In my opinion, there is no such thing as the "rules" of war. To my knowledge, there is no war during which either side have adhered to them. And even when the intent to adhere to them is there, the very nature of war makes it impossible. The weapons used are irrelevant.

War, even necessary war, is never just. It is just ugly.

 

[DeletedUser8950]

Violette, your last point is exactly my views on this whole matter! The bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima was and never will be justified. Intentionally hurting, even killing someone is wrong and always will be. Just because it "saves lives" doesn't make you innocent. And as oinsinallen said, it only saved the "glorious allies" lives. Because those people lived in a country that bombed America they deserved death? Or at least, it was ok to slaughter all those people, as long as they live in an enemy country of us they're our enemies.

And Virginia, sorry, but America is far from the best country in the world, especially when it comes to rights...in England you don't have to swear allegiance every morning.

I honestly think if you're against abortion you should be against any form of violence, including the death penalty. The one thing I cannot stand is a hypocrite.

Sorry if I sound crabby and some of my posts don't make entire sense, tired.

-Darknoodle

 

[DeletedUser]

There are rules to war. The most current set is outlined in the Geneva Conventions. And, of course they are violated. That's why the International Court in the Hague exists. I do agree that any war, even a "just" war fought for "humanitarian" reasons is ugly and should be avoided at all costs. Unfortunately, I've lost some of my idealism as I have grown older. I realize that until humans gain some sort of collective sanity wars will be with us. On the bright side they do temporarily keep the population growth in check.

 

[DeletedUser]

There are rules to war. The most current set is outlined in the Geneva Conventions. And, of course they are violated. That's why the International Court in the Hague exists. I do agree that any war, even a "just" war fought for "humanitarian" reasons is ugly and should be avoided at all costs. Unfortunately, I've lost some of my idealism as I have grown older. I realize that until humans gain some sort of collective sanity wars will be with us. On the bright side they do temporarily keep the population growth in check.

Lol.

And yes, I know they exist. And I would even say that they probably provide some small amount of constraint. I was just pointing out (in a rhetorical way, I guess) that, as you say, they get violated. In my estimation, although the purpose of the Geneva conventions is good, the actual function they have is to ease the concerns of populaces which have little stomach for war and to support the, er, consciences of those who love "righteous" fights.

As you can see, I am somewhat cynical myself.