Is it unpatriotic to not support a war?

[spacemonkey]

Patriotism is sometimes associated with ethnocentrism, i.e. the belief in the inherent superiority of one's own people, however this may be defined. However, in the case of ethnocentrism, the people in question need not form a nation, but can be a smaller or larger unit. Moreover, the term ethnocentrism is generally used negatively, whereas the term patriotism is quite often used positively.

It is also sometimes problematic to distinguish between patriotism and nationalism, as some people tend to use nationalist as a near-synonym for patriot. However, nationalism (but not patriotism) also has a particular meaning, expressing a desire among a people to form an independent nation.

The word chauvinism denotes a narrow-minded and thoughtless but impassioned dedication to a particular cause, and thus is always used negatively. The cause can be of any kind (hence the widespread use of the phrase male chauvinism), but the term can also refer to national chauvinism; that is, a negative characterization of patriotism.

Lastly, the word jingoism is similar to patriotism, but it can only be used negatively, to denote a variety of patriotism deemed to be aggressive and thoughtless.

This is from everybody's favorite online resource, Wiki.

 

[Sunstone]

Your turn, Sunstone. How do you see patriotism?

The more I think about it, Sey, the more I think that my understanding of patriotism is what you might call a good social conscience. (For me, that begins with one's immediate community, the people one has some contact with. But it extends beyond that , in some respects, to humanity itself.) Patriotism is not one of my favorite words. I guess I would prefer "social conscience" instead.

 

[Darkdale]

Darkdale, where you draw the line between not supporting a war, and undermining a war effort?

There are tons of things you can do to not support a war, without endangering our troops (though most of them are best done before the war begins... though often times folk just don't have the heads up ahead of time): I'm fine with respectful protests, I'm fine with congressmen voting against the war. However, once the country is in a war, now things have become more serious, everything we do now as more significant consequences. So, once we are in a war, regardless of whether you were for it or against it, if you have any love at all for your country, you will want to do everything you can to help us win the war.

Anything people do that hurts our ability to win the war, I see as undermining the war effort. Everything else that doesn't effect our ability to win, is fair game.

I have no problem with democrats demanding to know what went wrong with our intelligence, or why we are still friendly with people that passed us crap information, or what did the administration know that congress did not... was there another agenda? I have no problem with people trying to figure out the fastest way to win the war and get our troops home. I have no problem with people condemning the President for putting us in a situation they feel we never should have been in.

But once you start talking about surrendering... once you talk about leaving our friends in Iraq, still ill-equipped, to fight an organized terrorist movement on their own... once you start questioning the patriotism and gallantry of our troops... once you start siding with our enemies and working toward the exact same ends as they are... well, then you've crossed the line... and I see people like that as less than cowards.

 

[Mike182]

I'm sorry if this has been done before, but with what I've seen in threads recently, I seem to get the impression that some people think it's unpatriotic to not support a war. I don't believe this at all. One of the best things about this country is that (for the most part) you're allowed to freely voice your opinions, whether or not they're the same as the government's. It would seem at least somewhat patriot to take advantange of that right. The less patriot thing, in my opinion, is to tell the dissenters to shut up. Yes, you're just taking advantage of your right to express your opinion, but by telling others that they for some reason have less of a right to do so than you do.

should i be patriotic after my government has listend to my voice, along with thousand of others, shouting to not go to war, and then done it anyway?

should i support my government in the killing of many innocent civilians?

should i support my government when oil and money are higher priorities than human life?

hmmmm, after careful concideration, i think i am not very patriotic at the moment. we do have freedom of speach, but that does not make us patriotic! a patriot is "someone who loves his or her country and supports it loyaly" - (dictionary deffinition)
i do not love this country for its war with iraq, thus i am not a patriot

C_P

 

[Valjean]

Darkdale: "...siding with our enemies...?" Who, pray, are our enemies, and what are their nefarious ends? And, for that matter, who are these "friends in Iraq?"

I've stated before, somewhere on these boards, that I see little chance of a happy outcome from our Iraqi imbroglio, regardless of weather we stay or go. We broke it, and we can't fix it.

In re: "gallantry of our troops" -- I see nothing gallant about war or warriors. Frankly, I'm not worried about "endangering" them -- it was their choice to live by the sword.

Sunstone -- You are sounding more and more like an anarchist in denial. :bounce

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

A criminal Gang can have a code that says it must support the other members no matter what they do.
This is like blind Patrotism. where loyalty to a country is more important than truth,
justice and humanity, or the love of God.

What we support in life, is no less important than what we do our selves.
Patrotism with out limits is a very dangerous concept.

Terry______________________
Blessed are the gentle, they shall inherit the land

 

[retrorich]

Given the broad effects of war, I don't mind people that don't support it, but I do mind when they threaten the security of our nation by trying to undermine the war effort. You simply cannot both love your country and at the same time try to hurt your country.

I do not believe that not supporting the Iraq war hurts our county. It is the unjust war and our incompetent president that are hurting our country, and the rest of the world as well. The Iraq war has not improved our security, in fact, it has hurt it by causing more people around the world to hate us.

 

[Sunstone]

Sunstone -- You are sounding more and more like an anarchist in denial. :bounce

You are perceptive! I've often thought it was a mistake for humans to organize themselves into complex societies, and that we were much happier living in the bands and tribes of our ancestors. But alas! Some damn fools got together and set themselves up as priests and kings! It's all been downhill since then, in terms of social organization.

 

[Darkdale]

I do not believe that not supporting the Iraq war hurts our county. It is the unjust war and our incompetent president that are hurting our country, and the rest of the world as well. The Iraq war has not improved our security, in fact, it has hurt it by causing more people around the world to hate us.

I don't think you understand what I meant. There is nothing wrong with saying that you don't support the war, as long as you don't undermine the war. But if you actively seek surrender or you support the terrorists in killing Jews and Westerners, then that makes you an enemy of the United States.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Seyorni, if you haven't already read it, you might enjoy Terry Pratchett's "Jingo."

 

[Fluffy]

I think it is unpatriotic if you do not support your country. War is no different.

I guess I'm just unpatriotic .

 

[NoName]

To support a war that you believe is wrong for your country is like supporting a friend when he decides to do something you believe will injure him. It is neither true friendship, nor true patriotism, to support a friend, or to support your country, in a wrong course of action.

Good analogy, one with which I completely agree.

I think it is unpatriotic if you do not support your country. War is no different.

I guess I'm just unpatriotic

So do you think the highest form of patriotism is blindly following whatever your country says to do? If so, why would you think that is more patriotic than anything else?

 

[Fluffy]

So do you think the highest form of patriotism is blindly following whatever your country says to do? If so, why would you think that is more patriotic than anything else?

Well I wouldn't exactly call it the highest form of patriotism. I think that patriotism is celebrating and taking pride in your country because you think it is great. If you didn't like such a big decision as going to war then I hardly see how you could continue to celebrate and take pride in the country that took part in something that you strongly disagreed with.

Some people would argue that their country stands for something very specific and that going to war betrays this ideal. They are loyal to the ideal not the country itself. I would argue that this is therefore not true patriotism. Merely an expression of alignment to a particular way of thinking made easier through turning the abstract idea into something more tangible (ie the flag of a country).

 

[NoName]

Well I wouldn't exactly call it the highest form of patriotism. I think that patriotism is celebrating and taking pride in your country because you think it is great. If you didn't like such a big decision as going to war then I hardly see how you could continue to celebrate and take pride in the country that took part in something that you strongly disagreed with.

Some people would argue that their country stands for something very specific and that going to war betrays this ideal. They are loyal to the ideal not the country itself. I would argue that this is therefore not true patriotism. Merely an expression of alignment to a particular way of thinking made easier through turning the abstract idea into something more tangible (ie the flag of a country).

Oh, I see. You're saying the patriotism in itself is going along with whatever your country says, and that therefore of course you're being unpatriotic if you don't support a war. But (I'm assuming) you also don't think that's a bad thing.

 

[Fluffy]

Oh, I see. You're saying the patriotism in itself is going along with whatever your country says, and that therefore of course you're being unpatriotic if you don't support a war. But (I'm assuming) you also don't think that's a bad thing.

That is pretty much it exactly and better put than I could have said.

 

[Valjean]

I don't think you understand what I meant. There is nothing wrong with saying that you don't support the war, as long as you don't undermine the war. But if you actively seek surrender or you support the terrorists in killing Jews and Westerners, then that makes you an enemy of the United States.

I was always taught to support the good guys and oppose the outlaws.

Hypothetical: What would you do if you became convinced that not only was your country the "bad guy" in a conflict, but that that conflict was endangering the security and well-being of its citizens by generating terrorists from its opponents while simultaneously alienating its allies?

 

[bartdanr]

Hi All,

In the case of "patriotism", I just use the dictionary definition: "Love of and devotion to one's country." (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.) From that perspective, I find it not a vice, but rather a virtue. It becomes a vice when it falls into several different traps, such as:
*Identifying certain political figures with the will of the nation (even in a democracy, no one person can truly represent all of a nation)
*Identifying government with the country (some governments are little more than the strongest thugs in a country, and their will is hardly the good of the nation)
*Supporting what the will of the majority is in the nation, when that will is evil (yes, even democracy can lead to evil actions)

I was always taught to support the good guys and oppose the outlaws.

Hypothetical: What would you do if you became convinced that not only was your country the "bad guy" in a conflict, but that that conflict was endangering the security and well-being of its citizens by generating terrorists from its opponents while simultaneously alienating its allies?

Hypothetically? It would be unpatriotic not to oppose the conflict. But it's rarely this black-and-white. In the current war, even if you feel (as many Americans now do) that invading Iraq was a mistake, the regime that the US and UK ousted could hardly be considered the "good guys" and the insurgents who indescriminately kill non-combatants are also not the "good guys". Rarely is it a "good guys" vs. "bad guys" situation. Even in WW II, we found ourselves supporting a cruel dictator (Stalin) because we felt that Hitler was a greater threat. (Ironic that the initial reason to go to war was to free Poland--which a few months before gobbled up a piece of Czechlosovakia when it was being dismembered by Germany--and the war ended with Poland along with half of Europe still being occuplied and unfree.)

But in the current situation, even if we're not the good guys, it's hard to think of who would be. Though I think it's painfully obvious that the original justifications for the war were unfounded, what do we do now? We destroyed the state in Iraq, and if we pulled out right away, there would no doubt be civil war. (Probably fairly one-sided; the Sunnis would be annihiliated.) Maybe even if we stayed another 10 years that would still be the eventual result, so perhaps there's no good way to get out--just leaving might be the least harmful action, though I suspect that there's a better way.

Peace