Striking the US where it hurts

[Fish]

Originally Posted by August

Neither do we but where did i say "better"? Your defensiveness sounds like jealousy.

Ehhh...sounds? No, but you sound as your way is better.

[Driftwood]

Originally Posted by August

Neither do we but where did i say "better"? Your defensiveness sounds like jealousy.

Since I've known Fish for quite some time I can safely say he wasn't being defensive, he was being complimentary. It appears you have read something into his post that just isn't there.

[Fish]

Aye Driftwood.
I have no problem with flag waving or patriotism as long as it is not some kind of nationalist (right wing) expression.
At the end a flag is just a lap of cloth.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Fish

Aye Driftwood.
I have no problem with flag waving or patriotism as long as it is not some kind of nationalist (right wing) expression.
At the end a flag is just a lap of cloth.

That almost perfectly illustrates my own attitude as well.

Some French thinker, forgot his name, said something like this: Patriotism is love for one's own people, Nationalism is hate on other people.

[fredbass]

Patriotism: a national loyalty; a devoted love and support of country; and willing to defend your country.

[August]

Originally Posted by Fish

Ehhh...sounds? No, but you sound as your way is better.

I apologize then. I'm the one who is getting defensive.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by fredbass

Patriotism: a national loyalty; a devoted love and support of country; and willing to defend your country it.

that defintion fails me: all this has been true of many Nazis and SS thugs as well: they were loyal to their Third Reich, devotely loved and supported it and sometimes defended it to their death. but noone would call them patriotic, or? A loyalty maybe is better spend on certain principles and values... :hmm: Many resistance fighters - could be called German patriotists. so, what is the decisive difference...? :hmm:

[MothBalls]

Originally Posted by Skybird

that defintion fails me: all this has been true of many Nazis and SS thugs as well: they were loyal to their Third Reich, devotely loved and supported it and sometimes defended it to their death. but noone would call them patriotic, or? A loyalty maybe is better spend on certain principles and values... :hmm: Many resistance fighters - could be called German patriotists. so, what is the decisive difference...? :hmm:

The country they stand for.

[bradclark1]

all this has been true of many Nazis and SS thugs as well

Didn't these guys have to swear loyalty to Hitler and not to the state? (In fact it was all armed forces if I remember right.)
So patriotism didn't come into it for Nazis and SS thugs.

[Wim Libaers]

Originally Posted by Skybird

That almost perfectly illustrates my own attitude as well.

Some French thinker, forgot his name, said something like this: Patriotism is love for one's own people, Nationalism is hate on other people.

Sure, it makes sense he's French, as the French have a long history of oppressing minorities, denying them an independent nation and forcing them into the French state instead

Nationalism doesn't have to imply hatred of anyone, that's just something that those who want to suppress it want people to believe.

On nationalism:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nationalism/

[Fish]

Originally Posted by August

I apologize then. I'm the one who is getting defensive.

Np, probable the ( use of) language.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by MothBalls

The country they stand for.

But the country can claim to stand for this given value - but act on the basis of others. you can write something into a constitution - and then brake the constitution, or deformate it, or ignore it. Bypass it. Exploit weaknesses in phrasing. Manipulate the interpretation of it. So where should the loyalty be: with the value as an abstract quality, which will always be a subjective interpreation of yours, then, or the country and it's institutions? You then need to differ between the nation like you wish it to be, and the nation like it really is in reality.

[JSLTIGER]

I'd wish I'd seen this thread before all of the discussion.

Regardless, my views on the articles:

The ideas presented in the article itself are technically relatively sound. The problem with the theories of bringing down the US hard, is that the entire world would be impacted. The problem with the articles is that they ignore the effect of globalization and the impact of the US on the world.

Attempting to destroy the US economy by causing a run on the dollar is at the very least impractical. If the dollar collapsed, it would take with it many of the other currencies around the world, as many nations receive supplements in aid from the US. Furthermore, if the US collapsed, the Chinese would lose a market for many of their goods, as many Americans would be unable to afford the goods, however low-cost they may be.

Iran hasn't and won't cut off the oil shipments to America because they're making a fortune off of the oil money they receive. The only situations that I could see that would cause the Iranians reacting in that manner would be an immenent attack on them by the US (which, lets face it, is not about to happen), or the immenent conversion of the majority of US power to hydrogen or alternative-based fuels. As the biggest user of oil the world has ever known, the US provides Iran with substantial income, thus its not in their interests to harm the US's purchases of oil. It is, however, in their interests to raise the price of oil, which they've managed to do quite effectively in the last months by raising the tensions of the region and presenting the possibility of blocking the Gulf.

The bottom line is that the US is simply too big and the world too interconnected for a collapse of the US economy not to negatively impact the remainder of the world. Does that mean that a US collapse cannot happen? Of course not. But the world is deluded if it believes that it would escape unscathed by the collapse of an economic power with a GDP of $12.5 trillion (approximately 1.5 times larger than China, the world's number two). Keep in mind that the inverse is also true. Were China to collapse, than the US would be feeling the pain from that as well.

[fredbass]

Skybird, you need to take a chill pill. It really isn't that complicated.

If you want to know what it's really about here, then I suggest you read this:
http://www.taemag.com/issues/article...cle_detail.asp

But don't be in a hurry to move here. It's getting a little crowded.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by fredbass

Skybird, you need to take a chill pill. It really isn't that complicated.

If you want to know what it's really about here, then I suggest you read this:
http://www.taemag.com/issues/article...cle_detail.asp

But don't be in a hurry to move here. It's getting a little crowded.

By paperform and original intention, I love America. not all my books on America are about present time and politics. Yes, it's true, believe it, Skybird says: "I love the idea of what America hopes to be." Great idea, really. but there is a difference between wish, and reality, and by the differing reality and after the many shifts over history, away from how it once was meant, I plan to remain sceptical.

BTW, the religious problems the article claims to be solved, have already found you again. You are just not yet aware. You will be.