PatriotismFollow

/smack! Not that kind of patriot... ;)

And Kelv. Yeah. I'm aware that ethnic means more then "race" (kinda like nationalism means more then "White Powah! Sig Heil!"). But Nobby apparently does not. Which is, of course, the whole point.

Just cause you say a thing doesnt make it so.

For Example - "Elderon is a good poster"

I just said it, its not true but I said it.

No. Because firefighters "fight fires". Get it? Soldiers don't "prevent wars". They fight *in* wars. Why do you think they run around with guns and stuff?

Maybe the confusion is over the word "support"? To me, it's impossible to support someone and not also support what they are doing. If you support an artist, are you not also supporting his/her art? If the person is a painter, presumably your support is helping them paint. If he's a sculptor, it's helping him sculpt.

If you support a soldier, you are supporting what he is doing. Which right now, is fighting in Iraq. Get it? I can't think of any way in which you can support a person or group, specifically supporting that person or group by occupation and not also support what the person or group does in that occupation.

Now. If the term "support" to you means "meaningless statement in order to make myself look more patriotic", then I suppose it's possible to say that you support the troops but not the war they are fighting. But then that's based on a misunderstanding of what exactly "supporting the troops" means, which brings us right back to what I was talking about with Nobby, and incidentally exactly why I brought up this analogy.

No, I can support an artist as an artist without buying his art. I can support what firefighters DO without providing more work for them by setting fires. Similarly, I can support the men and women in the military without finding or starting spurious wars for them to fight in.

The dancer is not the dance. It's okay if you don't get that.

Hold on there. Is "buying art" the only way one can support an artist? You could provide a studio for him to work in. Pose for him. Or simply provide moral support and encouragement. But in all cases, the result of your support *also* supports the creation of art. You can't really separate the two.



Yes. But, somewhat by definition, all dancers dance, right? That's what they do. That's what makes them dancers. If you choose to support a group of people by their profession, say "dancers", then you are also supporting what they do. Dancing. In exactly the way supporting firefighters supports the act of fighting fires, and supporting the troops during a military action is also supporting the military action itself.

I'll ask again. What exact kind of "support" do you think you could give to our troops that wont aid them in what they are currently doing? I really think this confusion is over some mangled concept of "support". Maybe in todays wimpified social "rules", it's somehow wrong to be honest about things. But from where I stand there is nothing at all wrong with telling a soldier: "Hey. I like you. I have nothing against you. But I don't agree with the reasons we're at war, so I can't support you". Doesn't have to be nasty. Don't have to call them names. But don't claim to support the troops but say that you don't think they should be there, don't agree with what they're doing, and don't want them to succeed. Because when you make a statement like that you are either lying to yourself, or lying to everyone else.

gbaji said


The rest of this thread is a bit of a tangle of definitions and personal interpretations, but I find myself agreeing with him on this. I also fail to see how you can be against the war in Iraq, or anywhere else for that matter, but profess to supporting the troops who are getting paid (as volunteers) to to fight it.

If the troops were drafted unwillingly....then that would be a different matter. but they wern't.

Perhaps they joined up in the 'patriotic' fervour that followed the 9/11 attacks.....

Personally I think that 'patriotism' and 'Nationalism' are two terms that i would rather dissasociate myself from entirely.
They both encourage a feeling of superiority in an individual, that is probably undeserved, and stems from some perception that 'we' are better than 'them'. And as has been evident of late, governments (and other manipulative individuals) have used these terms to set people, who are to all intents and purposes, after the same things in life ie. live, work, marry, breed, play, against each other, as tho the baker/shoemaker or whatever in the next town/country/continent is a serious threat to their existence and must be annihilated before those same bakers/shoemakers come charging over the hill to annihilate 'us'. when the fact of the matter is, they are busy marrying, shopping, breeding, working and playing football.

As long as 'we' allow ourselves to be boxed in by nebulous terms such as nationalism, or patriotism, we are always gonna be in danger of believing that somehow 'we' are better than 'them'.

I dont think that there is something wrong with feeling proud that your footy team won against someone else. I do think its wrong to believe that your team won because the other team were black/white/moslem/christian/french....

PS. Gbaji's still a **** cranium

Wait, I thought sardines fueled the 3rd Reich?

I think, instead of "today's wimpified social rules", you meant "today's jingoistic 'for us or against us' climate" where not agreeing with the war in Iraq means you want our soldiers to fail and all be killed and eaten by terrorists to prove we're right.

"Hey, I like you. I have nothing against you. And I don't agree with this war and may well go to my grave convinced that Bush is a criminal who should be hung from the highest tree for putting you in this hellish circumstance. But I don't blame you for Bush's actions and would rather not see you die, so here's a tin of kippers and a pack of nude playing cards to make life more bearable until I've successfully petitioned, protested and voted to remove ourselves from this horrible, asinine conflict."

I'm sure that, to you, that statement just supported the war. Which is why no one takes you seriously.

Our military know what they sign up for and can only object to an order they feel is unlawful. Sadly very few are willing to risk their careers by questioning the policy that has sent them to fight in Iraq.

Combat is ugly and not something any sane person wants to rush into. So most career military I've known would prefer that we can find peaceful means to end conflicts instead of sending them off to face combat with someone who has orders to kill them.

Even rabid liberals can see the need of a strong military for defense. We are thankful that so many men and women are willing to serve in the military. What we object to is Bush and company's policy of invading a country that wasn't a real threat to our national security.

You can stop reading here as rest is just a story of what could have been a major conflict if it wasn't for diplomacy


Years ago My parents and I went to visit my ex-father-in-law who then was an active duty officer in the navy. Now my parents are rabid liberals, who were active in the anti-war movement of the 60's. Add a few drinks and you can imagine the evening as they argue politics.

The only thing that saved my ex-father-in-law from having my mom go into Harpy mode on him, was his statement that the last thing a member of the military wants is to go to war.


spelling checked by goggle. no grammar check as my proofreader is ingame.

Friggin' hippy. You just hope that the fire consumes all of our firefighters so you can gloat about how the fire was wrong.

My old Grand-daddy used to say "Fight Fire with Fire"

I guess that's why he was thrown out of the Fire Brigade.

Oh and Gbaji

"Connotation"
"Denotation"

Look 'em up, there's a good chap.

All the definitions I read acknowledge an implied sense of superiority in Nationalism that is not implicit in Patriotism.

Q.E.D.

You are an cnut

Whereas Chomsky's a concise thinker, right?

[:toothless british grin:]