Are Democrats Less Patriotic than Republicans

As tempting as it is to disregard dumb-a opinions, a lot of people hold them (you may have noticed that I have a small few myself). I do admit that Geography is not well-taught in most schools. How many Americans know which countries share a border with Afghanistan or what the topological differences between Iraq and Iran are? Too few, I say, too few!!!

However, I was contesting that Democrats and other folk calling for troop-withdrawal were, for the most part, calling for withdrawal from Afghanistan (is that still going on?) as well as Iraq and that the call was made "simply" because too many troops had died. You say you heard particular local Democrats say this - well, I don't doubt you did as I've also heard plenty of unsound opinions.

For what it's worth, I'm not a Democrat myself, but a genuine, registered Liberal.

No offense, but duh! And double-duh on the oxymoron part. I did not dispute that point at all. No, my comment was limited to your selective recall, imho, that Democrats were famous for it when I remember the Bush campaign shenanigans (which again, I would not attribute to all Republicans).

You're right. Ok?

 

Now daisy, I won't confirm nor deny any of your 'dumb-a opinions', but pray tell, what was your point about the "the topological differences between Iraq and Iran are?"

Yes, it does 'sound' good. But, what is your 'point' in asking?

I do know the topology (map wise) of that area - even the broken up 'stans' to the north of afghani-stan.

I just think that you must have an important point that I am totally missing, because I am trying to correlate your post in 3-D (topologically speaking that is).

 

The video has one cuss word in the very begining so I won't post a link to it, PM me for the link if you want to see it for yourself.

In the video a man on the sidewalk with a microphone holds some maps of the world in which all the countries are misnamed, Australia is labeled as Iran, Spain, France, etc. He then asks people walking by which country they think America should invade next in the war on terror and to find it on the "map". The people give their opinion then try to place a pin on the country they feel America should invade next. Needless to say nobody figured out the maps have been altered

 

Don't forget got no money
got no job
got no health care
got no BBQ
got no gas (prices too high but Bush needs a pension)
got no credit
cut old folks checks and medicare
so let's make citizens of the illegal aliens
unemployment so high there are 100's applicants to every job
Republican are today arguing how we need more immigrant workers

Sure, let's celebrate! Or was this why we left England???

 

'ppreciate that!

I was thinking of the Hersh article that KenH linked to the other day. It glanced briefly on how different the warfare logistics on desert terrain, like Iraq, is from that of mountain terrain like Afghanistan and Iran. It was interesting to me because I had not thought about it before. Over and over I've read that air support is essential in Iraq, that if we supply the air support, the Iraqi army might eventually supply most if not all the ground troops. That does not seem to be the case in Afghanistan where caves and clouds provide good cover to guerrillas.

Point? What is this "point" you speak of?

I wasn't debating, just conversing...musing - rambling free association. Billreber mentioned that some people confuse Europe with "our own soil", and attributed that to our education system. I was agreeing with him, thinking back on my own so-called education where geography was folded in with history and social studies & given very short shrift.

Do you find it interesting? Do you think geography affects culture? Geography affects the means by which a war is fought - do you think culture does as well or do you think "war is war"? These aren't things I'll ever learn first-hand, so I'm interested in your perspective, if you care.

Ha! Fooled ya!

I suppose I'm trying to find a point where various ideas come together as a coherent whole....haven't yet, perhaps never will.

 

We tried that in Vietnam, it doesn't appear Iraqi as a whole is interested in democracy and even in the Iraqi military, it's every man for himself. As soon as we leave, no matter when that is, the entire region will erupt into a giant civil war.

 

Yeah, I've heard that, too.

Do you think we could manage to cleanly divide the country into three parts and stabilize the region? If so, perhaps we could salvage the oil leases and bill them for reconstruction and a hefty management fee.

 

I don't believe that Democrats are less patriotic as I can't read their hearts, but a few observations from personal conversations and exchanges with a few:

--Dems tend to be more embarrassed to show their patriotism.

--Dems seem to be quicker to point to faults and shortcomings both in U.S. history and present U.S. military/foreign policy.

I don't think that either of these things mean that Dems don't love the USA. I do think that those more openly patriotic who are critical of the latter should understand that sometimes criticism is simply from a wish to see something you love become better, but those of us who aren't so critical would like to see Dems be more vocal in acknowledging "the good stuff".

Regarding the first point: (1) it seems that Dems are often embarrassed because patriotism (let's call it rather "more vocal patriotism") isn't a sign of sophistication/education/intelligence and they think that such displays are "beneath" them. Besides, that sophistication also involves a readiness to criticize the U.S. This goes back to a generally more internationalist bent that is integral to liberalism. (2) they often believe that one doesn't have to "wear it on one's sleeve" to love one's country. Fair enough.

 

No, one lesson we learned in Vietnam is no matter how much man hates his current situation, he will always fight for Brother before he will a stranger. Human nature. The US is far to hated in that region to ever be any part of the solution. No matter how much they hate each other we will always be viewed as a greater enemy.

We create a new terrorist with every door we kick in and every IED or stray round that kills an innocent child. They want us out and rightly so, we wouldn't want them taking over our government and putting Bush on trial.

Also, that region only knows war so it skews their definition of peace. They have no hope, faith in a god that rewards suicide and fight for the sake of fighting. Israel recently gave the Gaza strip back to Palestine yet they are still fighting. Even if the Kurds, Sunni and Shiites each had their own area they would still fight.

The oil to most of them is a resource to purchase a greater war machine. Normally war is an continuation of politics and should serve a political end but in this case war is merely their way of life. Their worst enemy is themselves.

 

The church I served in Washington, DC, lies close to a neighboring town in Maryland, Takoma Park, where political liberalism is so avid that the place is sometimes called the "People's Republic of Takoma Park". And yet the folks there gladly and vigorously have put on an Independence Day parade for well over 100 years -- I understand it is one of the oldest community parade traditions in the nation. Plenty of people attend; but you can hardly find Republicans to run for anything in that town.

This discussion about what constitutes a patriotic demonstration reminds me of that wonderful passage in the patristic Epistle to Diognetus, in which the early Christians defended themselves against the charge that they were unpatriotic by explaining that they chose a way other than pinching salt before the Emperor's image to express their loyalty. That is, they prayed for him to a real God.

They went on to say that for them every land is a fatherland, for their ultimate loyalty was above nationality. Maybe authentic patriotism is masked by the criteria that we use to define it.

 

And maybe it is not.

 

We need a uniter to lead this country.

 

"Uniter" No such a monster. Our President hasnt done anything to divide the country. It is the people who refuse to unite not the President.

So long as Capitolism and Communism remain the main apposing views in this country we will never be united. There are few issues between these two views that we can come together on. So it will alwys be a winner takes all attitude. In my mind no amount of Communism is acceptable. And Im not alone.

And by the way Socialism is Communism.

 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Sad thing is, you actually believe this!

 

And by the way, it is not! This comment reveals a total lack of knowledge in this area.


It is true that all communism is socialism, but not all socialism is communism. Your statement is an analog to saying "Mammals are dogs". It is true that dogs are mammals, but not all mammals are dogs.

 

Thanks, carpro. This is another good place to plug what I think is the best book to analyze the liberal worldview, Suicide of the West by James Burnham. It is far more analytical than the title suggests, is subtitled An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism. I know some of the folks here who can't stand those wascawwy neo-cons probably aren't wild about the fact that Burnham is another one of those former Trotskyites (they just keep missing that "former" part).

 

I thought those "wascawwy neocons" explained their true intentions quite well in their own documents from 1996 (and before) up to the invasion of Iraq. But who reads and compares those old documents to each other and reality? It's easier by far to just listen to their propaganda campaigns run by their neoliberal buddies that own the mass media.

No need to remind me that reading their documents is conspiracy theory FTR, I've already heard that excuse more than enough to know people aren't really interested in the truth enough to look for it where it might be found. We might have to put down the remote for the tv to do that.

 

poncho,

You might want to try another thread. The point of my post was not to debate neoconservatism but simply to make the point I made about Burnham. I'm not even sure that Burnham would be categorized as a neo-con, unless all former Trotskyites are somehow neo-cons. Care to debate that?