Thursday, September 15, 2005

The Patriot

I remember when it used to mean something to have a flag. When it wasn't just the popular thing to do. Now you wear a flag lapel pin and it really doesn't mean much. Just go to your local supermarket for proof. There you can find things like Patriot's Choice bottled water and red white and blue chips.

A patriot is not just someone waving a flag or some sharply dressed business man with a flag tacked on his suit jacket. The patriot is known for their actions. The patriot doesn't have to shout it out from the tops of buildings or through the bullhorn of the media.

Take a look at the Patriot Act. Where once US citizens had privacy they now have a catchy term, an oxymoron... What kind of person must reiterate how patriotic they are by using such lovely names. Names like Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom. I thought you were supposed to endure hardships, not freedom. Perhaps you can tell me what kind of person that would be.

The true patriots are people who exercise their rights. They are the voters (yes all of them, not just the liberals). They are the people who make America work. People like the fireman and policeman, the people who bring you your mail, doctors, and teachers. They are all those things you wanted to be when you were little. They are the scientists, the farmers, and yes, even the soldiers.

I say only this in closing, they can call it any number of patriotic names, but let them pry your rights from your All American hands only when you are dead. To trample and walk so blatantly on American rights is not the action of a patriot, and let no one tell you otherwise.

53 comments:

Otto said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Otto said...

Amen to that! I don't think I've seen it put any better.

Paolo Ribichini said...

The real patriot is who says: NO. The real patriot is who scream "we are wrong" to his country.
Come on, go on in this way. In Italy many people read your blog and they are with you

tmg said...

Thank God for term limits.

Snag said...

I think there is a real misunderstanding (propagated by those who would retain power) between Patriotism and Nationalism. There's a huge disconnect by many as to what the original intent of our nation was and the feel good icons we have today. It's dangerous times when the members of a nation venerate its symbols and mythology more than the its actual citizenry.
Hmmm...where have we seen that before?

A Patriot supports the well being and power of the citizenry/electorate of a nation.

A Nationalist supports the well being and power of the state above the individual or community.

"Patriotism has connotations of self-sacrifice, implying that the individual should place the interests of the nation above personal interest, and in extreme cases their own survival. In wartime, patriotism is assumed to be the main driving force for participation in military operations, certainly if it is voluntary. In this context patriotism is seen as an explanation for the apparent suspension of the instinct for self-preservation, which implies that all humans would avoid a battlefield."

"Nationalists define individual nations on the basis of certain criteria, which distinguish one nation from another, and also determine who is a member of each nation. These might include a shared language, shared culture, and shared values, but the most important is probably now ethnicity
(or religion - Snag), the membership of an ethnic group. National identity refers both to these defining criteria and to the sense of belonging to that group. Nationalists see membership of nation as exclusive and involuntary, meaning that you can not simply join it like an association."

"Patriotism is often used as a euphemism for nationalism, in the face of accusations of extremism. In an English language context, patriotism has a positive connotation, while nationalism is used about others, usually in a negative sense."
- Wikipedia

Kim S. said...

Excellent entry. I just wish more Americans saw it that way.

Alain said...

You're totally right! (as usual...).
And what you say is valid for every countries.
Take care Zach.

Anonymous said...

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President."
- President Theodore Roosevelt

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. 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. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
- President Theodore Roosevelt, 1912

Some good quotes from TR.

-roamer in mich

Ernie said...

SGT.
I respect your thoughts and what is a Patriot, but the "Liberals" you are defending are the same that would call you a baby killer. They are not Patriot's, they are Anti American. America is always wrong.
You don't have to agree with the President, but you need to back what our country is doing.
A lot of the "Liberals" would rather spit on a Soldier than shake his/her hand.
If you look at what groups are in the Anti Bush, Anti War, they are the communist party.

A Patriot is someone that is proud of his country and willing to give up his/her life for it.

Most Liberals would rather someone else lose there life for their freedom.

USN Retired

Anonymous said...

Zach - very well put. I could not agree more.

Ernie - You sound as smart as Bush! You should run for president in the next election. And if your brother is governor of a major state you may even win!


The True Republican.

Mihael said...

I don't really agree with you ernie.

"You don't have to agree with the President, but you need to back what your country is donig."

Basicaly what you say is that you don't have to agree with your president/policies but you have to support them anyway?. Even if you see that it is bad for the country itself?.

"A patriot is someone that is proud of his country and willing to give his/her life for it".

Giving your life for your country is one thing, giving your life for the interest of a few in charge, even though it is actually harming your country, and other countries in the process, is far from patriotic. It's being blind.

"Most liberals would rather someone else lose their life for their freedom"

And all those conservatives are sitting in trenches at this very moment, right?

There is a huge difference between being a patriot - being proud of your country and herritage, and being a sheep that goes where all the rest of the flock goes - even to the slaughter. It is totaly secondary wether you are a liberal or a conservative, christian or muslim - its irrelevant. You have to have a little bit of self-criticism, and be able to judge, when the man you have put in charge is not doing his job as he is supposed to, and he is doing harm to you and others.

Its like being in combat, and your officer freaks out under fire and starts giving out insane orders that would harm you and your men. What do you do?

Mihael

Anonymous said...

Ernie,
Take your stupid nationalism and shove it up your ass.

-roamer in mich

Adrienne Horton said...

Well said! Probably one of the best definitions of a patriot that I have heard. Hope all is well, take care of yourself.
Blessings,

Snag said...

Ernie,
That is one of the most bent and absurd statements I've heard in a long time. I'm suprised there is anyone left that still espouses those sort of ideas about "liberals" and "communists." I don't know how insular a world you might live in, but come on out and see the rest of the country. America's not quite so cartoonish.

Kate said...

I was thinking about all of this today too, Zach, after talking to my friend Lisa who will have her first child in two short months. I told her about my visit to the National Civil Rights Museum last month on my drive back to Chicago from New Orleans just six days before Katrina washed much of that city away. We talked about how many of the men and women highlighted in the museum were true patriots who died for their country. We often talk about soldiers dying for our country, but not civil rights activists who were willing to risk death to secure basic human rights for all. I find this curious because while we are asking soldiers like you and my husband to risk your lives for "your country" (a phrase made abstract by undefined, unknown goals these days) we also ask you to kill for us. What does it say about our society that those who are asked to kill are considered patriots, their deaths "sacrifices" for our country, while those who died fighting nonviolently for our country to live up to its promise of equality are not?

I don't mean to say that soldiers aren't patriots. Many are. It's just that I think it's sad that we only see patriotism through armed warriorship, not warriorship of another sort, the kind driven by the courage it takes to match your actions to your beliefs with a rejection of violence.

Our country is full of patriots. I met many of them in Houston last week, "ordinary" people who were willing to sacrifice their own comfort, finances, etc. to help fellow Americans in need. It is remarkable, really, this impulse to do good. I met a pediatrician and his wife who had taken two weeks off of work, packed up their truck with drug samples, and headed down to Houston to help out at the dome. I met a school teacher who took a day off work to match up a fifteen year old boy with his mother and grandfather. She drove around town collecting them and bringing them together, then she spent the evening finding them an apartment to live in. There were countless others who came to do what they could, expecting nothing in return. And there were evacuees who put on volunteer wrist bands over their resident bands who helped out for long hours though they had only a cot on a floor among thousands to go home to.

This country is also full of false patriots. Frankly I think anyone who is supporting Bush at this point is a false patriot. To support a man who has brought death and destruction on so many out of greed, then ignored his own country and caused the death and suffering of so many more, is not patriotic. I don't know if it is nationalistic or not. I'd have to ask Snag about it -- he understands these differences better than I. Regardless, though, it is symptomatic of our move toward capitalist fascism, an authoritarian government run by and for corporate interests, where our basic humanity is sacrificed for the profits of a few. Bush's supporters then are not patriots. They are fascists.

We own our actions and nothing more. If we call ourselves "patriots" but betray our neighbors, American or not, then we are liars. I would like us to redefine the word "patriot" to reflect a more wholistic view of what it means to love one's country. We need to define what it means to "love" one's country, too. Is our "love" only expressed through agression in other countries? Is it only about monetary enrichment? Is our country a collection of corporations or a group of people? To what or whom is this love directed?

Personally, I think "country" is an abstract notion to define the people who inhabit this specific piece of land. I can think of no one who loved this country more than Dr. King. He loved this country so much he was willing to die to make it more equal, to make it better for all, not just for himself. What could be more patriotic than that?

Ernie said...

Take your stupid nationalism and shove it up your ass

Thank you, it is so nice to see how the other side thinks and acts.
In 1970 my high school history teacher taught me every thing I should now about liberalism. We were going over the WWII, she told us about Dresden bombing. She paid several days on that one time during WWII. I got out of it that America was the bad guy during WWII. We did not go over any battles of WWII, how our soldiers fought so bravely or how bad Hitler was. America was bad because we Bombed Dresden. This is what Liberalism has become from the 60’s. I had a problem warring my uniform in public because of the comments you would receive.
I support our troops and there mission; if you do not support the mission you are saying what they said in the 60’s. Soldiers are baby killers.

My writing may not be flowery or correct at times but it is not a hate speech that I am getting feed back.

By the way I have a Daughter in the Army Reserves that spent last year in Iraq.

USN Retired

mihael said...

Real patriotism is something silent ... under the skin. It is like love - you dont have to say to someone that you love him/her - you have to show it. It is nothing to be vocal about.

Funny thing is that majority of the loudest and most vocal "patriots" are the last ones to sit in trenches.

I am not from US, but I was caught in another war about 10 years ago. All nationalist self-proclaimed patriots were loud and agressive and all priests knew god, but once the convoys of conscripts started rolling, there was none of them in sight. People that were going to sleep covered with flags as the expression of their patriotism on one side, and people dead covered with flags they did not want as a dirrect result of former's patriotism. And priests did not know god either ...

In all that confusion, there were none of those people you Kate talk about, the rare voices of the sane were too silent to overcome the roar of the masses that supported war from their couches, and in the end, most of them left.

mihael said...

Ernie,

There are no good guys and no bad guys in a war. Each side sees themself as a "good guy" and the opossing side as a "bad guy". In the end, every side kills, and every side dies. Nobody wins. Nobody goes out with clean hands, no matter how much he scrubs. Liberal, conservative, left, right, christian, jew, muslim, democrat,republican, communist, terrorist - those are all names and tags used by politicians and priests of all sides to promote their agenda, which all utterly fail once you fire the first bullet at someone.

World is not black and white, its a huge scale of grays.

Giovanni said...

Vai avanti con coraggio per Linnea.
Una forte stretta di mano dall'Italia.
Grazie a Paolo per la segnalazione.

Snag said...

"I support our troops and there mission; if you do not support the mission you are saying what they said in the 60’s. Soldiers are baby killers."
Ernie, they call this logic fallicy "attacking a straw man."
Not one single "liberal" I know or have read has called anyone a "baby killer" in Iraq. But you have assigned those words to someone, so I ask you to provide proof that a liberal has called our troops that. Since it was you sir, that has brought the phrase into play, it is you that has indirectly called our troops "baby killers" in an attempt to further rally support for Bush's agenda. Personally, I'm pretty damn tired of NeoCons playing this game. Bush has failed Conservatives and Liberals in his ardent support of the NeoCon agenda.
In fact I have seen nothing but support for the troops from the left in such forms as opposing Bush's reduction in VA spending and the desire to remove them from a poorly planned and executed mission.
First thing you need to do really is to be able to seperate out the arguments here. Would you have had George Washington support the Redcoats because if he didn't support the mission he wasn't supporting the troops? After all, he was a British subject at the time. Had the founding fathers, who were all British subjects, said "My country, right or wrong" they would have been Nationalists and never lifted a finger or raised a voice against King George. However, they didn't and today we call them Patriots. In fact, the founders gave us the first amendment to insure that we took the opportunity to question the government, so sir, you do a disservice to them by suggesting that questioning government and holding representitives accountable is Anti-American.
A Patriot stands up for the people and sacrifices for what is right (as Kate pointed out, this can come in the form of civil rights activist as well as soldiers).
A Nationalist defends his government over the people, right or wrong.
If almost 60% of the country now thinks this war against those that use terror against us is not being fought properly by our invasion of Iraq, do you consider the majority of the country "UnAmerican?"
Look, I want our country to fight enemy combatants as much as the next guy, that's why I never wanted our resources squandered in Iraq. We need to get away from the Cold War thinking that it's all black and white. This is a new type of war that requires new thinking and new tactics. We're being played for suckers by those in charge. We need to get our troops home, regroup, get effective leadership with a clear and effective plan, go back to where they are rather than where we would like them to be, and effectively engage those that would harm us.

mihael said...

I watched a documentary the other day about creation of Israel and division of north Africa. Believe it or not, the images were black and white, but the rhetorics are the same.

I won't limit myself to US when I say that we - as a western civilisation, have to stop interfiering with arab world. We have been tearing that piece of the globe, for our own interests - wether strategic or economic - for so long that its absurd to expect anything but deeply rooted hate.

You can never "win" a war like that, no matter how strong and advanced you are. What you can do is win "hearts and minds" to some extent. Thing is, that from an economic standpoint, we have no interest in letting the north Africa and Africa in general advance, because we need a market for our cheap surplus, we need cheap raw materials, we need to avoid poluting our own country while extracting them and we need cheap workforce so the western civilisation may continue satisfying its overdeveloped consumer apetites. So it is an illusion to thing that we are going to stop creating puppet regimes, arming and supporting them and using a general "divide and conquer" formula anytime soon. Sad, but true.

Kate said...

As usual, Snag, you are a voice of clarity and reason. An excellent retort, brother!

Anonymous said...

Nah, ernie. Your dear leader and his cabal are war criminals and are the baby killers in a war based on LIES. Funny how the liberals built Japan and Germany into functional countries after WW2, but you neo-cons have failed with Iraq. Proves which ideology is correct. Why don't you just admit you're an imperialist?

-roamer in mich

d.K. said...

As usual, well said, Sarge.

Shavonne said...

Well said.

Snag said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Go On Zach,
Soon i will mail again.

Jan From Holland

d.K. said...

Ernie,
I wonder if you understood the lesson your teacher was teaching in 1970. The bombing/burning of Dresden is still taught at West Point and other military academies as a case study on the military concept of "proportionality." This does not ever imply U.S.=bad NAZI Germany=Good. It questions the morality of proportionate response. Many argue that the response in Dresden (and Hiroshima and Nagasaki) WAS correct, because ultimately it quite possibly saved many lives. Others disagree. The point is to have the discussion and examine the issue.
My question here isn't meant to insult your intelligence, but when you throw up that old canard that equates (American) liberalism with Communism, you lose credibility with about 95% of the population -- both liberals and conservatives.
Like the bumper stickers say:
THINK!
QUESTION AUTHORITY!
Don't follow BLINDLY.

banana said...

"I respect your thoughts and what is a Patriot, but the "Liberals" you are defending are the same that would call you a baby killer....."

that's ridiculous.

you're really a lost soul.

If FDR was a Communist... then yes, I"m a communist.


I would rather live in a country where the government is controlled by the people rather than a handful of corporate CEOs. for goodness sakes!! don't you realize that the Vice President of our country is a corporation with a human face?

don't you realize that when the radio stations stopped playing the Dixie Chicks after Natalie Mains said she was ashamed of Bush that this is what dictatorships do?

And before you try to state that it was the decision of the people to remove the Dixie Chicks from the radio......please remember that Clear Channel owns about 75% of the major radio stations out there and that it's CEO is one of George Bush's best friends.

therefore, it wasn't by the will of the "people" that the Dixie Chicks were taken off the air, but an act of "Corporate Dictatorship"

This is NOT what my ancestors envisioned this country to be when they were fighting the Redcoats.

Google it. you will see for yourself.

Chris said...

Dude...98GRU 88-92....way to go...keep doing it.

Anonymous said...

Ernie said: We did not go over any battles of WWII, how our soldiers fought so bravely or how bad Hitler was. America was bad because we Bombed Dresden. This is what Liberalism has become from the 60’s. I had a problem warring my uniform in public because of the comments you would receive.

Actually, the liberalism of today is quite different from the liberalism of the 1960s--most anyone will tell you that. You won't find people calling soldiers, who are simply doing their jobs, "baby killers." You just don't see that type of ridiculous ideological blindness in most liberals these days. I am ashamed and saddened that you had to endure this type of treatment. However, I think you should realize that things are quite different today.

As for your experiences with your high school history teacher: you are painting all liberals using an impression you have from ONE PERSON. This is hardly a rational analysis.

I support our troops and there mission; if you do not support the mission you are saying what they said in the 60’s. Soldiers are baby killers.

That's quite ridiculous, honestly. I support the troops wholeheartedly. I do not approve of the war. That does not imply in any fashion that I would ever deem a soldier a "baby killer." Again, I am sorry for your experiences, but if you cannot see that liberals today are immensely different from liberals in the 1960s, you simply are not looking.

Anonymous said...

Ernie, I think the quote below from a couple of posts down is more typical of taunting today. Funny how it is obviously from someone with a conservative view. Obviously, it's not the liberals these days that are offensive.

" Anonymous said...

You are worthless as a soldier in the US military and a detrement to your fellow troops. Come home....no better yet take your family and go to a country more to your ideology like Cuba. I hear they have good medical coverage.

September 10, 2005 6:23 PM "

Anonymous said...

Ernie, you are clearly too stupid and ignorant to be allowed near a computer, never mind the internet. Please go and lie down.

Anonymous said...

A true patriotic soldier would refuse to take part in a war that is causing people more harm than good.
Why then are you still fighting?

Mike Crichton said...

A true patriotic American would identify himself rather than posting anonymously.

Mike Crichton said...

Ernie wrote:

I respect your thoughts and what is a Patriot, but the "Liberals" you are defending are the same that would call you a baby killer. They are not Patriot's, they are Anti American. America is always wrong.

That's interesting. How do you reconcile that view with the fact that in my own extremely liberal family, 6 out of 7 children are either veterans or currently serving? Or the fact that almost half of my Army company voted Democratic in the last election?

A lot of the "Liberals" would rather spit on a Soldier than shake his/her hand.

That is, simply, a bald-faced lie. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you don't actually know many liberals, in which case I strongly urge you to stop getting your opinions from Limbaugh and Faux news, and start getting out and meeting people.

If you look at what groups are in the Anti Bush, Anti War, they are the communist party.

Again, bullshit.

Most Liberals would rather someone else lose there life for their freedom.

I think you're actually describing the current leadership of the Republican party. Easy mistake, I guess.

In 1970 my high school history teacher taught me every thing I should now about liberalism. We were going over the WWII, she told us about Dresden bombing. She paid several days on that one time during WWII. I got out of it that America was the bad guy during WWII. We did not go over any battles of WWII, how our soldiers fought so bravely or how bad Hitler was. America was bad because we Bombed Dresden. This is what Liberalism has become from the 60’s. I had a problem warring my uniform in public because of the comments you would receive.

That was 35 years ago. Most of the soldiers in today's Army weren't even alive back then. Sorry that things were so bad for you, but things are different now. You go out in uniform these days, and even people who are actively protesting the war will shake your hand and offer to buy you a drink.

I support our troops and there mission; if you do not support the mission you are saying what they said in the 60’s. Soldiers are baby killers.

A true patriot is not someone who blindly insists that his country is always in the right, and any criticism is evil. He is someone who does everything in his power to ensure that his country actually _is_ in the right, and if that means condemning our "leaders" and working for change, then so be it.

By the way I have a Daughter in the Army Reserves that spent last year in Iraq.

Glad she came back safe. May the rest of us be so lucky.

Anonymous said...

ernie,

I respect your opionion, but "liberals," today don't hate our troops. The Baby Killer crap from the 60's was unfortunate and stupid. We don't oppose our troops, we oppose poorly thought out war plans and question the integrity of those making those plans.

It's sad that we have fallen for the game of politicians who would rather split us into factions rather than have to answer for their policies. Many of us don't think any more, but rather repeat what our "side" is saying.

I say quit your party, liberal or conservative, and let's begin to look things in the eye. Let's begin to make up our own minds. We need a new age of the independent, because we are all unique and aware and ready for a new day. The New American!

Republicans and Democrats have both dropped the ball - and we the people need to pick it up and realize the true potential of this amazing country.

Rick

Anonymous said...

I agree with Rick and everyone else but Ernie. I have been against this war from the beginning, but support our soldiers as well since they had no choice & are only following orders. This war has only strengthened our enemies & the war on terror has only gotten harder for all of our people Thanx to Bush & his policies.

Zack, most important of all is, take care of yourself & stay safe, I hope & pray that everyone comes home safe.

Kate said...

Mike and Zach, I'm hoping you guys come back safe too. Take care, brothers. We're thinking about you.

Hurria said...

"I...support our soldiers as well since they had no choice & are only following orders."

Funny, that's just what the Nazis said at Nuremberg. "I was just following orders". That is also, no doubt, what the criminals from Saddam's regime will say in their defense when they are tried for their crimes: "I had no choice, I was just following orders."

That was not considered a valid defence at Nuremberg, and it will not be considered a valid defense when the criminals from Saddam's regime are tried. How, then, can it possibly be a defense for American troops, who had far, far more of a choice than either the Nazi criminals or the criminals from Saddam's regime?

Snag said...

Hurria,
Again, I agree there needs to be accountablity for the actions of those who make the decisions to conduct war, but I want to make sure history is clear here.
Individual soldiers of any regime that has been brought before war crimes tribunals have never been charged unless they had been directly involved in violations of the Geneva Convention.
As an example, the soldiers who comprised the Whermacht (the primary fighting forces) of Nazi germany were never tried for invading Poland, France, etc. nor were they held responsible for the atrocities comitted against jews, catholics, communists, homosexuals, and so on.
And neither are the individual soldiers of Husseins regime held responsible for the actions of the regime.
I think the idea is that soldiers themselves also suffer at the hands of those that would send them into war, justified or not. It is an acknowledgement by society that when there is unjust suffering, everyone directly involved suffers because of the power that some would have over lives.

Anonymous said...

referring to hurria,

i suppose there are some who still go in for blaming the troops - wow, i thought that had died in the 60's. But that attitude shows just how dualistic some left leaning people still are. (And I am a very left leaning person.)

In the Ram Das book, "How can I help," he talks about how the classic shot from the 60's protest movement where the protester puts her flower in the rifle of a soldier as being a very aggressive act.

That action said, "You are separate from me. You are beneath me. You are evil and I am good."

This is the problem with many who oppose any force in society they see as unjust. Rather than relate to the humanity of those they oppose, they engage in the same ignorance as the aggressors. They cast them out. And so there is never any communication and real activism in that attitude. Just more aggression.

If you read any of Martin Luther King, Jr. speeches, he speaks directly to agape love for those you consider your "enemies." You cannot engage in non-violence unless you see those you oppose as part of the family of humanity. Otherwise you become aggressive, separate, and filled with the same sort of hate that leads to genocide.

It's sad but there are no leaders who speak in the tone of Dr. King. Rather, We are encouraged to see the opponent as separate and "other." This is our problem, on both sides.

This country needs to wake up. Everyone is asleep under the hungry God of "ideas," and lost to the true nature of pure love that transcends differences and religous orientations and nations.

Rick

Snag said...

Nice piece Rick. You've captured many of the thoughts I've been exploring lately, particularly the the application of Taoist and Buddhist thought.
I still fluctuate between my emotions for true "peace" and "war/anti-war."

The Seriously Ill said...

I have come to hate the word patriotism because it has come to mean the opposite of its dictionary definition: The love and devotion for one's country. What it has come to mean is the hatred for other countries and willingness yo kill those against whom we have nothing personally. I wrote a post here wherein, among other things, I discuss a little known hero in the peace movement named Alfred Delp. Delp was a German Jesuit Priest who was murdered by the Nazis. His words should teach all of us the difference between patriotism and blind obedience to the regime: "My offense is that I believed in Germany and her eventual emergence from this dark hour of error and distress, that I refused to accept that accumulation of arrogance, pride, and force that is the Nazi way of life, and that I did this as a Christian and a Jesuit."

Anonymous said...

may God bless you so you can return from that terrible mess.

Anonymous said...

right on

Hurria said...

"may God bless you so you can return from that terrible mess."

Where are your wishes for the Iraqis who are the victims of this disaster, and have no escape from the terrible mess created by Zach and his colleagues, and who will have to live with it for generations to come? At least Zach gets to go home. Iraqis ARE home, and that home has been destroyed.

Anonymous said...

hurria,

do you drive a vehicle? do you pay taxes? do you live in this country? because if you do, according to your logic, you are just as complicit in this war as our soldiers.

If you say, I voted against bush (as I did), if you say, It's the goverment's policy, not mine, then you are selecting this argument for yourself but denying it to these brave men and women who are unfortunately pawns in Bushes Big Game.

The idea of service in our military is one of hope and love for our country. If they have been betrayed by our leaders, you're somehow saying it is their fault.

Have you ever worked for a company whose decisions you did not agree with? And do you generally lump everyone in a group together and call them the same, and judge them and hate them as a group?

If so, You have a shaky worldview. Brave outspoken military like Zach who are trying to speak their truth as they see it are to be applauded, not derided, as you are doing.

Perhpas you could look at your own life and see what you are really saying. Because most likely all that you have said here refers more to yourself than to those you are condeming. Your own self loathing and lack of awareness is what is apparent to me.

I hope you find out the truth of this, because we all need to find our truth, and live it from the heart, not the hot head, as you appear to be doing.

Rick

Dave In Seoul said...

Zach,

Well said. There is too much confusion these days on what a patriot is, and what it is not.

- It IS a love of country
- It IS NOT blindly following misguided leaders

- It IS having a sense of duty
- It IS NOT suffering in silence while being lead by the very ill-informed and misguided

- It IS the freedom to speak out passionately for what on believes
- It IS NOT demanding that others fall in to a 'goose step' behind what is wrong

- It IS being willing to die for country
- It IS not being betrayed by those that have sent you to die

- In short, a Patriot in a free country demands that it's country lives up to the ideals of freedom and liberty
- A Nationalist says "USA, love it or leave it

- As for me, I would rather my county's leadership allow me to be a Patriot, rather than demand I be a Nationalist thru the use of the Patriot Act

Mike Crichton said...

Rick: actually, she's an Iraqi civilian.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Mike -

in that case, Hurria, as an Iraqi, do you feel the same condemnation for your brothers and fathers and nephews who served under Sadam and commited horrible crimes against your own people and others? Were they just following orders?

It is an easy question.

I, as well as many of us here in the us, are horrified by what our leaders do in our name. We do the best we can with what we have. As i'm sure you do.

rick

Hurria said...

"in that case, Hurria, as an Iraqi, do you feel the same condemnation for your brothers and fathers and nephews who served under Sadam and commited horrible crimes against your own people and others?"

My brothers, fathers, and nephews are/were all physicians, dentists, engineers, academics, or artists (as are/were myself and all my sisters, mothers, and nieces - women count too, you know). None of my brothers, fathers and nephews ever committed any horrible crimes on behalf of
Saddam or anyone else.

"I, as well as many of us here in the us, are horrified by what our leaders do in our name. We do the best we can with what we have."

If you participate in the crimes of your leaders I have no use for you. If you do not participate in the crimes pf your leaders I have no problem with you. If you take action in opposition to your leaders and their crimes I thank you.

Paul said...

-earnie
patriotism is not the blind following and suport of your country. It is a love and support of the people. We don't need a leader or people like you. you probibly have a picture of bushler on your wall to salute in the morning. People like you are the main cause of the stagnation and capitalism. and no, i'm not talking about the type of 'capitalism' as what was so idolized by the 'free' countries. it is the capitalism that becomes plutocracy.

Paul Strealer

p.s. and yes i'm a proud communist not the type demonized by america in the 50's but actual communism.