Patriotism

[Dante]

Should they really suffer and lose rights in their own country?

[GUNWOUNDS]

we arent talking "should"  we are discussing what "is"

sure it what edrico is referring to would be ideal... but fat chance of a leader losing his power in a middle of a war.

I mean look at WWII when pearl harbor got bombed... we retaliated like the world had never seen before....

I mean look at the Twin Towers falling down.... Bush wiped out afghanistan and iraq without blinking an eye...

nobody got in his way.... congress speedily approved anything he wanted....

like i said before... thats just how it is... in the middle of a war the dictator/captain/leader/president/tyrant  whatever will always have the most strength.

this is due to the fact that in combat situations you want the utmost form of unity to ensure complete victory.  that is why i dont think it will ever change.

[nemafakei]

"nobody got in his way.... congress speedily approved anything he wanted..."

That's not the point. Edric was saying that "The president/leader should NEVER have the power to silence dissent. Not in peace time, not in the middle of a war, not ever"

The point is, it's fine if "that's just how it is" and everyone does agree with the leader (assuming their agreement is a free and informed choice). But the point is that there should be the freedom to question wartime actions in the event that there is disagreement. Otherwise, if the leader makes a mistake and is not questioned, then the mistake occurs - and in wartime, that could mean millions of deaths.

"we arent talking "should"  we are discussing what "is""

Since when?

"To me there is no point trying to criticize the president in mid war."

That sounds like a "shouldn't" type stance to me...

[GUNWOUNDS]

"we arent talking "should"

[nemafakei]

I see... Not really obvious, especially in context.

So how does patriotism (the subject) fit into that?

No-one's really going to argue that it doesn't do that much. If you actually want a discussion, feel  free to join the rest of us and argue about whether or not we should encourage a little caution and moderation into our sense of devotion to our leaders.

[GUNWOUNDS]

I see... Not really obvious, especially in context.

So how does patriotism (the subject) fit into that?

No-one's really going to argue that it doesn't do that much. If you actually want a discussion, feel

[nemafakei]

Utopias and idealism? How so?

[GUNWOUNDS]

Utopias and idealism? How so?

by stating that having a leader interrupted in mid battle is plausible.

[danielsh]

I wonder if someone from The Onion reads these forums...

"I Should Not Be Allowed To Say The Following Things About America"

[nemafakei]

The back-sear driver is a slightly better analogy than the 'armchair quaterback'. But anyway...

"Sure it would be nice for us the people to be able to influence our government at any time.. especially passionate critical situations such as mid-war ... but such is a pipe dream. [ ... ] My point is that they dont give a rats ass about your opinions or thoughts, they will do what they came to do.  And the only thing you can do is try to ruin  his re-election"

Accountability of decisions to parliament and similar structures is what should be enforced. As Dan has frequently pointed out (and I've heard nothing to the contrary, even from you) your president declared war (or whatever euphemism he's currently using to hide from Geneva) without the consent of your parliament, indeed the nearest war debate Blair actually held he won on (as I recall) an ambiguous definition by six votes and the support of the official opposition.

Yes, the only thing we can really do besides put the case forward to everyone we meet is vote against Blair and Bush next election, but frankly you could say that to any debate - 'yes we might decide abortion is evil, but we can't do anything about it except vote for 'pro-life' parties, so why even bother debating about it' - and PRP would cease to exist.