Patriotism Activists and Non-American Christians

[questioner4]

For Patriotism Activists:

1. Do you believe that Americans have to be patriotic to the US? If so, why?

2. Do you feel that it's okay for an American to prefer another country over the US? If not, why?

3. Do you feel that it's okay for an American to prefer the culture (music, movies, etc.) of another country over the US's culture? If not, why?

For Non-American Christians:

1. Do you feel that Christianity in the US is too Americanised?

2. Do you support the war in Iraq?

3. How high are abortion and same-sex marriages on you priority, when it comes to politics?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

...help people suffering worldwide.

There I side with the conservatives time and time again.

Help people suffering worldwide, or just in the places that grant economic benefit?

I am not seeing this compassionate American forign policy people keep insisting upon. Can anyone provide me with an instance in which we have "helped" someone without the intention of getting something in return? This war is obviously about oil. All the oppressed peoples of the world, and we decide to help the one that owns half of the earth's oil reserves. Of course, I still leave room for the theory that we really were under the impression that Iraq had WMDs, and the "free Iraq" gig was just a coverup of our pre-emptive folly. But all the same, the war was a mistake any way you look at it.

Is there any particular reason our "compassionate" government does not have troops in, oh say, Africa? What, the rebel armies ravaging villiages and raping women is not a big enough issue to bother ourselves with? The half million starving children are none of our concern, while oil-wielding countries posing imaginary weapons of mass destruction are? Send some troops to Africa. God knows, I would love to find something about my country that I can be proud about. Hey, I might even turn patriotic.

The U.S. put Saddam in power in the first place. Now we are supposed to be heros for taking him out?

So, do you guys agree, or disagree? Do you think it's okay for an American to like The Tragically Hip - or do you think that makes him or her a bad American?

*GASP*

NO NO NO NO NO!!! CANADIAN bands?!?! What are you, a communist?!?! You have a problem with American bands? Huh? Huh? If you like Canada so much, why don't you go LIVE there? Thats right! If you have a problem with our music, you can just LEAVE!!!

We are over in Iraq trying to save the world, and you are listening to Canadian crap. How can you call yourself an American?

Behold, our holy emblem:


You must kiss the hem of this flag, and bow down and worship it's greatness. Then you must put on a red, white, and blue T-shirt, place a blindfold around your eyes, and follow our government into oblivion.[/img]

[AlAyeti]

I am not seeing this compassionate American forign policy people keep insisting upon. Can anyone provide me with an instance in which we have "helped" someone without the intention of getting something in return?

How many Muslim's were saved in Bosnia/Croatia? And now all you hear about are A-10 bullets laying around.

But all the same, the war was a mistake any way you look at it.

Every way Bush haters look at it.

Is there any particular reason our "compassionate" government does not have troops in, oh say, Africa?

Because un-armed Christian Missionaries are shot in Muslim dominated countries and troops get to shoot back.

Most starving Africans know who and what feeds them . . . Christians.

What, the rebel armies ravaging villiages and raping women is not a big enough issue to bother ourselves with?

Now wait a minute. I thought you didn't want America fighting in Muslim countries?

The half million starving children are none of our concern, while oil-wielding countries posing imaginary weapons of mass destruction are? Send some troops to Africa. God knows, I would love to find something about my country that I can be proud about. Hey, I might even turn patriotic.

Forget about governement. Just stop by a Evangelical Church and give them a couple of bucks. God knows what will happen with the money and you will love it. Go to Compassion International and see.

The U.S. put Saddam in power in the first place.

Which of course proves "how" we knew he had weapons of mass destruction.

You must kiss the hem of this flag, and bow down and worship it's greatness. Then you must put on a red, white, and blue T-shirt, place a blindfold around your eyes, and follow our government into oblivion.

Or, follow the stream of immigarnts flooding our borders trying to get to the country flying that Red White and Blue flag. And of course compare that to the cowards that run to Canada.

[bernee51]

I am not seeing this compassionate American forign policy people keep insisting upon. Can anyone provide me with an instance in which we have "helped" someone without the intention of getting something in return?

How many Muslim's were saved in Bosnia/Croatia?

That is very true Al. It was perhpas the mosy altruistic international action undertaken by the US in the 20th century.

I don't believe wanting to be seen to doing something 'pro-muslim' had anything to do with it.

And now all you hear about are A-10 bullets laying around.

left over munitions can be a problem - I don't see your point.

But all the same, the war was a mistake any way you look at it.

Every way Bush haters look at it.

Judging by the latest polls - even the pro-Bush are doubting the value and benefits of the 'campaign'.

Democracy at the point of a gun is somewhat of an oxymoron.

Because un-armed Christian Missionaries are shot in Muslim dominated countries and troops get to shoot back.

So that's why the troops are there to kill Muslims. Now I get it. Silly me to think it had something to do with 'liberation'. I'm glad you have cleared that up.

The U.S. put Saddam in power in the first place.

Which of course proves "how" we knew he had weapons of mass destruction.

Al - I'm not sure if you have heard - it is pretty well deternined that Saddam didn't have WMD's.

[juliod]

That is very true Al. It was perhpas the mosy altruistic international action undertaken by the US in the 20th century.

Ah, yes, the Kosovo campaign.

In all ways it is the exact opposite of the Iraq war.

1) It was a response to an actual ongoing crisis that was defined by the facts on the ground.

2) The US developed a broad international consesus on action, sufficient to even pull Germany out of their official pacifism.

3) The poltical goal was clearly stated out the outset and guided action at all times.

4) The stated goal was realistic and feasible (The goal was to force Serbia to "request" international peacekeepers).

5) Because of the stated goal it was at all times possible to tell if we were winning or loosing, and also possible to tell when the campaign was over.

6) Actual effort was taken to reduce indiscriminate damage, including the use of novel (and very clever) new weapons to disrupt the power grid without causing significant damage.

7) The military strategy was well-developed and managed by the military. Political influence on the purely military operations was not apparent.

8 ) The military tactics were choosen to suit the situation and the terrain. This was, after all, the first successful operation in the Balkans in modern history (probably ancient history too).

9) Our international opponents (France, Russia, China) were outmaneuvered and roped into supporting the opperation. Russia was in such desperation to be relevant that they rushed a force into Serbia at the last minute and ended up in a face-off with the British at the main airport. China reportedly allowed the Serbs to use their embassy building as a communication center. After we "accidently" bombed it they decided it wasn't a good idea.

10) In spite of there being an existing insurgency (The KLA) on the ground, the aftermath has been largely peaceful. This in spite of the fact that the KLA was forced to give up essentially all their demands in exchange for peace. Kosovo ceased making daily headlines shortly after the campaign.

11) Due to the strict political nature of the campaign, the enemy underwent a popular revolt against their leaders, and became much more closely aligned with Europe. Milosovic is in The Hague on trial for crimes against humanity by an international court. His lawyers, BTW, are not being assassinated.

A lot more could be written about the military aspects of the campaign, which I followed closely at the time. It was the first use of German troops in actual conflict since WWII. It also witnessed the first heavy bomber raid in Europe since WWII.

Kosovo easily represents the high-point of our military affair since Vietnam. It is a shame to see how far we have descended since then.

DanZ

[AlAyeti]

Democracy at the point of a gun is somewhat of an oxymoron.

Correct. But keeping a democracy a democracy takes the second amendment every much as the first.

Now oxymoron is found in totality in the phrase "Islam religion of peace," as only a gun, or curved swords, bombs and psycho Imam's keeps countries under its heel.

Not many Buddhists and Christian women covered from head to toe, and Buddhists don't gun down missionaries.

[AlAyeti]

Ah, yes, the Kosovo campaign.

In all ways it is the exact opposite of the Iraq war.

So killing people IS OK as long as we get other countries to approve it?

Interesting view point. I wonder if it would have been posted if a Republican President allowed the killing in Kosovo?

And it must have been wonderful since it seems no innocent people died.

[bernee51]

Democracy at the point of a gun is somewhat of an oxymoron.

Correct. But keeping a democracy a democracy takes the second amendment every much as the first.

Yeah right - I notice that the worlds most successful democracies are awash with weaponary - not.

Now oxymoron is found in totality in the phrase "Islam religion of peace," as only a gun, or curved swords, bombs and psycho Imam's keeps countries under its heel.

And this is apropos of...

Not many Buddhists and Christian women covered from head to toe, and Buddhists don't gun down missionaries.

I get it - an anti Islam rant.

Couldn't you find a homophobic oxymoron to use?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

How many Muslim's were saved in Bosnia/Croatia? And now all you hear about are A-10 bullets laying around.

Okay, ONE good deed. Now need I list all the "good deeds" done entirely in self interest?

Most starving Africans know who and what feeds them . . . Christians.

Exactly, NOT the government. Instead, our tax dollars get to go to foriegn occupations killing innocent civilians for access to their oil.

Now wait a minute. I thought you didn't want America fighting in Muslim countries?

America can fight wherever their aid is most needed. The top twenty poorest countries in the world would be a good place to start. Notice Iraq is not mentioned.

Forget about governement. Just stop by a Evangelical Church and give them a couple of bucks. God knows what will happen with the money and you will love it. Go to Compassion International and see.

Well, that offers some comfort. At least our church contributions go to something good.

Now, if only we could get our TAX DOLLARS to go to something good. That 100 billion dollars or so could end poverty overnight.

Which of course proves "how" we knew he had weapons of mass destruction.

Of course. Because we GAVE him the techonogy to make them as well.

Then we caught some gossip about him actually constructing the weapons (well, he sure wasn't going to use the plans to light a fire). Of course, we wern't bothered to confirm that suspicion before rushing off to war. When it became apparent that there WERE no weapons, our reason for invasion switched pretty quick. Save the Iraqi's! Freedom for all!

Give me a break.

Anyone willing to bet it was an oil company that started that silly little weapons of mass destruction rumor?

One need only recognize one thing to attain a thourough understanding of American forign policy: Everything is about MONEY.

[questioner4]

I have a question for those who look down on people who choose to leave the US. Why is it so wrong for people to emigrate from the US - yet you have respect for people who immigrate to the US? Why don't you have the same scorn for those who choose to immigrate to the US, and tell them that they are being traitors to the respective countries that they came from? So why is it okay for non-Americans to immigrate to the US - yet it's so wrong for Americans to emigrate from the US? What if an American chooses to go to Canada, not for political reasons, but simply because they prefer the Canadian culture?

[juliod]

Why is it so wrong for people to emigrate from the US - yet you have respect for people who immigrate to the US?

I don't think you have described a realistic view. Your experience may be different, but in my experience the people who denigrate emmigrants also hate immigrants. Conservatives are very suspicious of any form of internationalism, and that includes moving from one country to another. Only arrogance-based tourism is acceptable.

DanZ