TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- What's Wrong With Patriotism?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

What's Wrong With Patriotism?

What's Wrong With Patriotism?
by R. Lee Wrights


"In time of war, patriots throw their politics aside and stand behind their leaders, because there can be only allegiance to their country, or giving aid and comfort to the enemy - there is no middle ground while our soldiers are in harm's way."
- Guy Shepard, Kirtland, New Mexico,
from a letter to the editor in the Farmington Daily Times

For too many people the answer to the question, "What is wrong with patriotism," is simple and easy. They will merely say, "Nothing is wrong with patriotism" and then dare anyone to disagree. To them the question is the same as asking, "What is wrong with loyalty," or, "What is wrong with baseball and Mom's apple pie?" They falsely see the question as a decision to be made between standing up for America in all her glory or supporting her enemies du jour. Well beloved readers, it just is not that simple. There are some serious flaws in the kind of patriotism expressed by Mr. Shepard in his letter to the editor.

By way of clarification let me say that I think patriotism is not only acceptable, but also noble in its proper constraints. Being an honorably discharged veteran of the United States Air Force, I consider myself to be a patriot of the highest measure. I do not only talk the talk but I have walked the walk. Love for one's country is the driving force behind any progressive society not to be taken lightly by any means. However, just like anything else in life when carried too far, patriotism becomes detrimental to individual freedom and has caused more atrocities to be justified than any other emotion known to mankind.

For example, Mr. Shepard says, "In time of war, patriots throw their politics aside and stand behind their leaders, because there can be only allegiance to their country...." With this one simple statement he gives carte blanche to whoever owns the government to act with impunity. It is this very attitude that has allowed dictators to rise throughout history and massacre untold millions whether it be in the name of the Fatherland, or the Motherland, or the Homeland. It says that in times of war it is the citizen's duty to support their leaders regardless of how evil or pure their intentions may be. I am sorry, but I just cannot accept that as a proper definition of patriotism. Blind allegiance is the mother of tyranny, not patriotism.

In my opinion there is just too much intellectual dishonesty in Mr. Shepard's statement to ignore. The gentleman from New Mexico says we have only two choices when he proclaims, "In time of war, patriots throw their politics aside and stand behind their leaders, because there can be only allegiance to their country, or giving aid and comfort to the enemy...." It's not bad enough that he tells me once the shooting starts I must follow a leader blindly even if he is insane; he also tries to transform me into an enemy sympathizer if I dare disagree with the anointed one leading the charge. I could fertilize the whole north forty with this many droppings of the bull.

Is it not this kind of thinking that is the foundation of every militaristic dictatorship ever established throughout the annals of recorded history? Is this not the philosophy that caused hundreds of thousands to march in goose-step behind an insane elected official who was killing millions behind the "patriot's" backs? Do we really want hundreds of thousands of highly-trained and armed government employees that will follow the orders, without question, of every crackpot that manages to achieve high military or civilian rank? One of my favorite people in the world (Barbara you know who you are;-) taught me long ago that a good patriot always reserves the right to question authority.

Mr. Shepard closes his fairy tale description of patriotism by righteously proclaiming, "...there is no middle ground while our soldiers are in harm's way." He becomes redundant all too quickly and chooses to remind us, in his subtle way, that once the bombs begin to burst there is no turning back. He obviously agrees with President Bush's foreign policy, which is simply,

"You are either with us or you are against us.
And God help you if you are against us!"

I have never cared much for that my-way-or-the-highway kind of thinking, with the exception of situations where there are truly ONLY two choices. It is representative of the vilest of all false principles because too many freedoms are relinquished as a result of it and too many people fall in battle to defend it.

The "middle ground" Mr. Shepard is, bring the troops home where they belong. That should ALWAYS remain a viable option when engaging in an aggressive military action especially when such action escalates to the level of full-blown war. Better yet, never send young men and women, who pledged only to defend their country and constitution, to their deaths on far-away battlefields serving in the capacity of global nation builders. And certainly do not attempt to create the false doctrine that it is some how unpatriotic to oppose such despicable actions just because they are perpetrated by the government of one's own homeland. And don't you dare tell me that I must follow any president blindly in order to prove my patriotism. I am a free-thinking, independent patriot BECAUSE I stand in opposition to a government corrupted thoroughly by a flawed foreign policy.

So Mr. Shepard, and all Americans that agree with their friend from Kirtland, I will return to answer my own query which is, "What's wrong with patriotism?" The short answer is nothing. I can find no fault in any individual simply because he/she has a genuine affection for the nation of their birth. I share this sentiment explicitly; so much so, I volunteered five years of my precious youth serving in my country's military establishment as an United States Air Force MST (medical services technician). One honorably-discharged veteran non-commissioned officer says there is nothing wrong with "pure" patriotism, which is simply love of one's homeland. But just as with anything else that is precious, it will require vigilance to preserve patriotism in its purist form; and, not allow it to become perverted with political propaganda produced by the marriage of blind allegiance and ridiculous rhetoric.

Again, and it cannot be reiterated enough, Mr. Shepard's declaration does not resemble anything close to patriotism. In fact, what he tries to pass off as patriotism is really a formula for totalitarian tyranny. He has articulated nothing more than unadulterated blind allegiance auspiciously adorned in patriotic garb. It is a lie! I don't care if most of the American people do agree with Mr. Shepard. As the French author and critic Anatole France wrote before his death in 1924:

"If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

And if 200 million people believe a lie, it is still a lie.


"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
- Teddy Roosevelt

..............


R. Lee Wrights is a freelance writer, editor and political activist living in North Carolina. He is the co-founder and Editor-in-chief of the free speech online magazine Liberty For All; an Editor for Rational Review News Digest; and, a Contributing Editor for Rational Review. Mr. Wrights also serves as an At-Large Representative to the Libertarian National Committee; Vice Chairman of the Libertarian Party of North Carolina; as well as Chairman of The Libertarian Party of Forsyth County. You can contact Mr. Wrights at [email protected].


http://www.libertyforall.net/2003/a...patriotism.html

lovin' it...

People, all too often, mistake nationalism for patriotism.
I'm sure there've been previous posts, which have distinguished between the two.

Re: What's Wrong With Patriotism?

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Blind allegiance is the mother of tyranny, not patriotism.

That needs to be printed out in massive letters and posted on the walls of every classroom on the planet. Mr. Wrights could not be more aptly named.

Re: Re: What's Wrong With Patriotism?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade That needs to be printed out in massive letters and posted on the walls of every classroom on the planet. Mr. Wrights could not be more aptly named.

It's one of the most resounding quotes which applies to our current hate inducing, fear-mongering administration.

quote:

Originally posted by DEV1ANT best thread on this board

Well, I wouldn't exactly call it the "best" per se - but thanks, dude!

Re: What's Wrong With Patriotism?

quote:

a good patriot always reserves the right to question authority.

wow nice thread man... enoyed reading it..

quote:

Originally posted by YonatanArbel wow nice thread man... enoyed reading it..

*wishing that every American would read it*

either he's paraphrasing, misleading BTW, or he misquoted. at no time did Bush say "You are either with us or you are against us.
And God help you if you are against us!"

he has to be refering to the Sep 21, 2001 address to the nation when he said...

quote:

George W. BushAnd we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.

anyhow the article appears to cater to anti-Bush sensibilities and thats fine. Mr. Shepard is wrong if you believe that everything we, as Americans, do aid and give comfort to terrorist.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo either he's paraphrasing, misleading BTW, or he misquoted. at no time did Bush say "You are either with us or you are against us. And God help you if you are against us!" he has to be refering to the Sep 21, 2001 address to the nation when he said... anyhow the article appears to cater to anti-Bush sensibilities and thats fine. Mr. Shepard is wrong if you believe that everything we, as Americans, do aid and give comfort to terrorist.

reading comprehension stifling you... again?

quote:

He obviously agrees with President Bush's foreign policy, which is simply, "You are either with us or you are against us. And God help you if you are against us!"

if there is something wrong with what i said then address it, okay.

lets not start flaming just because someone is supportive of Bush and his efforts against terrorism.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo if there is something wrong with what i said then address it, okay. lets not start flaming just because someone is supportive of Bush and his efforts against terrorism.

LMAO. Dude, I honestly just find it hard to believe that you are really that ignorant.

quote:

either he's paraphrasing, misleading BTW, or he misquoted. at no time did Bush say "You are either with us or you are against us. And God help you if you are against us!"

I did address it, read my post AGAIN. Where in the article was it "quoting" Bush as saying that?

It wasn't.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X It wasn't.

what do quotations mean to you?

thanks for calling me ignorant.

i'm trying to take the high road here. your welcome to join me.

this is exactly why i haven't posted here lately.

Bush and his efforts against terrorism?

Come on now.

is that too cliche' for you?

does it strike a chord of embarassment for you?

is it inaccurate?

am i the blind faithful?

by all means, lets discuss it

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo is that too cliche' for you? does it strike a chord of embarassment for you? is it inaccurate? am i the blind faithful? by all means, lets discuss it

It's dangerous thinking to put it all on one man. Of course, he is the head of the country but he has people around him every step of the way. The efforts by Bush are signing a couple of papers here and there to protect the country, visiting his soldiers secretly to give them support, little things like that. Nothing more.

I give more credit to a soldier because s/he is willing to die for the country. There we find the real effort. Only there.

Putting a US flag on your car window is not an effort. Yes, I did needed to use this stupid example.

quote:

Originally posted by ierxium It's dangerous thinking to put it all on one man. Of course, he is the head of the country but he has people around him every step of the way. The efforts by Bush are signing a couple of papers here and there to protect the country, visiting his soldiers secretly to give them support, little things like that. Nothing more.

of course it is not the efforts of one man, and i didn't mean it to come across that way. i think that we could argue the same points.

quote:

From the Transition, the President and his national security team understood the seriousness of the al-Qai�da threat. Since he took office President Bush has received a daily intelligence briefing directly from the CIA Director � including on terrorist threats to our Nation. In response to Dr. Rice�s request for new initiatives, NSC�s counterterrorism staff presented in the first week of the Administration a status report on actions being taken against al-Qai�da under existing policy and issues left unresolved by the prior Administration. The Bush Administration vigorously pursued the existing policy. But the President wasn�t satisfied. The President wanted to toughen the inherited ideas for �rolling back� al-Qai�da and to pursue instead a comprehensive strategy to eliminate al-Qai�da. Even as a more ambitious and comprehensive strategy was being developed, the Bush Administration vigorously pursued all existing actions against al-Qai�da and, separately from the strategy development, pursued discrete proposals that were unfinished or undecided from the Clinton Administration. The White House moved forward with additional aid for Uzbekistan; enhanced efforts to convince Pakistan to cooperate against al-Qai�da and its Taliban supporters in Afghanistan; pushed arming the Predator; supported the proposed anti-terrorist financing initiative; and decided to increased funding for covert action efforts against al-Qai�da. This comprehensive new strategy used all elements of American power � military, intelligence, diplomatic, financial � to dramatically escalate US anti-al-Qai�da efforts. This strategy called for military plans targeting al-Qai�da and Taliban, including their ground forces. It was the first major policy directive on national security presented to President Bush -- before Iraq, missile defense, and other important issues NSC Principals talked daily, the Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG) in the White House went on full alert, and although the threat reporting pointed to attacks overseas, the White House directed steps to protect the homeland. During the Summer of 2001, FAA and FBI issued numerous terrorist threat warnings, including a warning about �the potential for a terrorist operation, such as an airline hijacking to free terrorists incarcerated in the United States.� Security at federal buildings also were reviewed for vulnerabilities. Overseas, we disrupted terrorist cells worldwide, significantly increased security at embassies, directed US Naval vessels to leave high-risk ports in the Middle East, and heightened security at military facilities.

these are the efforts of an administration in the months after 911, not to mention the policies put forth regarding Iraq. that administration is clearly led by one man but by no means alone in his ideology.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo of course it is not the efforts of one man, and i didn't mean it to come across that way. i think that we could argue the same points. these are the efforts of an administration in the months after 911, not to mention the policies put forth regarding Iraq. that administration is clearly led by one man but by no means alone in his ideology.

It's just a shame that he either didn't examine or take his PDB's more seriously in the month or so preceding 9/11.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS...fing/index.html

Following is the text of the "President's Daily Brief" for Aug. 6, 2001, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," as provided by the White House. Omitted material is indicated by ellipses.

quote:

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the U.S. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America." After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a . . . service. An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (E.I.J.) operative told an . . . service at the same time that bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative's access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike. The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of bin Laden's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the U.S. Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the F.B.I. that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that bin Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own U.S. attack. Ressam says bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation. Although bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Laden associates surveilled our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997. Al Qaeda members � including some who are U.S. citizens � have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. Two Al Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior E.I.J. member lived in California in the mid-1990's. A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks. We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a . . . service in 1998 saying that bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheik" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists. Nevertheless, F.B.I. information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York. The F.B.I. is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. C.I.A. and the F.B.I. are investigating a call to our embassy in the U.A.E. in May saying that a group of bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo Following is the text of the "President's Daily Brief" for Aug. 6, 2001, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," as provided by the White House. Omitted material is indicated by ellipses.

ellipsis (...)

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X ellipsis (...)

typical, but if thats what you think then so be it.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo typical, but if thats what you think then so be it.

NPR Morning Edition - September 11th, 2001

try that one ^^^

okay, a radio show? sounds like it may have been the day of, or days following 911? thats really all i got from it. honestly, it doesn't mean anything. don't know who it was. or when. there is no context for it.

what are we to make of your contribution here Trancer-X?

after doing some research on David Welna's report that morning of 9/11 in D.C. i have come to the conclusion that you have (not suprisingly) fallen into the conspiracy hole on that one Trancer-X.

shame.

what have you expected to happen all this time that exerpt of Welna's report has been out there?




nothing! thats what you should have expected.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo after doing some research on David Welna's report that morning of 9/11 in D.C. i have come to the conclusion that you have (not suprisingly) fallen into the conspiracy hole on that one Trancer-X. shame. what have you expected to happen all this time that exerpt of Welna's report has been out there? nothing! thats what you should have expected.

Like usual, Q5echo, your lips are flapping but you're not really saying anything.

There were literally dozens of sources that came forward saying that they had been warning our government (repeatedly) of impending attacks. Do we really have to go through all of this again?

You say I fell into the conspiracy hole, but you fail to realize that when they block investigations and such it makes people nervous because they wonder why things are being covered up by the top levels of the government.

Don't you ever question anything at all, or are you simply content with your head buried in the sand?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.