Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

Freakzilla wrote:He can't do both? Why ONLY talk about the bad things?

Fair nuff. I think he's in damage control mode after Bush, but you could be right, maybe he's over doing it.

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:He can't do both? Why ONLY talk about the bad things?

Fair nuff. I think he's in damage control mode after Bush, but you could be right, maybe he's over doing it.

Maybe not...opinions around the world have been really bad for the US in the last eight years...besides, i think there is some strategy in it...you get more bees with honey...

I'll admit though that I was pleasantly suprised at how non-anti-american his D-Day 50th Anniversary speech was.

Being patriotic doesn't mean you have to agree with everything your government does. I think nationalism is a good thing.

I wonder if Michelle still thinks our country is hatefull?

I personally have different definitions in my mind (but not so much in the dictionary I imagine) for patriotism and nationalism. Patriotism (to me) is just being pround of your country, while acknowledging that other countries have value (and might in fact actually be better than your country). Nationalism (to me) is being proud of your country at the expense of others, and I automatically think of fascists whenever this word comes up (not necessarily justly, it's just how I'm wired).

I don't think that anything that creates "us vs you" mentality can be entirely good for the species, but we seem to be deeply drawn to doing so. People are patriotic to their country, then their state/province, then their city, then their quadrant, then their neighborhood. Gets a bit rediculous some times, it's all good for picking sports teams, but I think it's suprising how many people take it much more seriously than that.

But it does bring people together too, not just drive them apart, so I guess all things in moderation? People just need to examine their patriotic priorities IMO.

I'm not patriotic to my city, nor my province. I am mildly patriotic to the nation I happened to be born in and plan on contributing to for many years before I move somewhere else and contribute to that place. I am strongly patriotic to every nation that has values I agree with, and I'm violently patriotic to humanity in general. That to me is how patriotism should be prioritized, as little "you" as possible, with a much "us" as possible.

end rant.

I didn't mean to imply that patriotism and nationalsim are the same.

pa·tri·ot·ism
n. Love of and devotion to one's country.

na·tion·al·ism
n.

1. Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
3. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.
na'tion·al·ist adj. & n., na'tion·al·is'tic adj., na'tion·al·is'ti·cal·ly adv.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

I don't think nationalism has to forsake other nations, just that you put yours first.

Baraka Bryan wrote:

Freakzilla wrote: I don't think nationalism has to forsake other nations, just that you put yours first.

i agree with this summary. you gotta support your nation over another in case of a war, (that's not to say you agree with the war in the first place, just that you aren't treasonous), and in international sporting events

In case of a war I'd side with my nation if I agreed with my nation, otherwise I'd have some decisions to make, but I wouldn't consider switching sides treason - unless if I'd already joined the military, IMO joining the military is a solomn promise to fight whoever the gov tells you, or to accept that you have to face the consequences if you absolutely cannot fight as per your morals.

If the US got involved in a war I agreed with strongly but Canada was staying out of it I would consider joining the US army. If Canada was fighting a war I strongly dissagreed with I'd consider joining the army of whatever nation was fighting against Canada. I don't consider that treason, because I consider overall morality and humanity far more important than nationalism. My dissagreement would have to be pretty extreme though, obviously.

Baraka Bryan wrote:there's nothing wrong with speaking out against actions taken by your country. that's a freedom we have as members of a civilized country... but if your country of citizenship was at war and you took deliberate actions to hinder their success or overtly fight against them, I'd consider that treason. If you plan to fight against your country, you'd better denounce your citizenship first, IMO.

Fair enough, they have a form for doing that?

Baraka Bryan wrote:there's nothing wrong with speaking out against actions taken by your country. that's a freedom we have as members of a civilized country... but if your country of citizenship was at war and you took deliberate actions to hinder their success or overtly fight against them, I'd consider that treason. If you plan to fight against your country, you'd better denounce your citizenship first, IMO.

What if is just a segment of your country's government and the 'war' or 'cause' was immoral. The sample that jumps out to me is was Hitler did to citizens of his own country and then to other Jewish people plus other groups that he disapproved of. If more of his people had stood up to him instead of Germany first Germany best mentality then maybe so many lives would have been saved. I know this is an extreme example but IMO it can be used to show that hindering some courses taken by one's country is not neccessarily Treason.

I question how informed the German people were of the "Final Solution" in it's conception and early stages. It's not like it was open to a vote. There was a lot of racism in Eastern Europe in the last century, it and nationalism contributed to WWI, it was never really resolved and set the stage for WWII. Germany went to war with Russian and France to defend their Austrian-Hungarian allies and felt they were severely wronged by the terms of the armistice. It's not a stretch for me to believe that most Germans may have thought the Jews really were only being deported.

That's something I've always wondered about World War II, but it's never really explored in any media. The Nazi were able to keep the truth from the Jews, so would the general German population even be aware of what was happening? And wouldn't the Nazi's have a incentive to keep the truth from them? I mean, it's not like today where anyone can get on the internet and within a minute the world knows what's happening (which on the flip side has interesting implications for misinformation). I suppose this could be a taboo subject because of the possibility for misunderstanding and holocaust denial, but isn't this a legitimate question?

Baraka Bryan wrote:

Eyes High wrote:

Baraka Bryan wrote:there's nothing wrong with speaking out against actions taken by your country. that's a freedom we have as members of a civilized country... but if your country of citizenship was at war and you took deliberate actions to hinder their success or overtly fight against them, I'd consider that treason. If you plan to fight against your country, you'd better denounce your citizenship first, IMO.

What if is just a segment of your country's government and the 'war' or 'cause' was immoral. The sample that jumps out to me is was Hitler did to citizens of his own country and then to other Jewish people plus other groups that he disapproved of. If more of his people had stood up to him instead of Germany first Germany best mentality then maybe so many lives would have been saved. I know this is an extreme example but IMO it can be used to show that hindering some courses taken by one's country is not neccessarily Treason.

I'd still call it Treason, and it probably would be considered so from the perspective of that government. despite the evil it promoted, the Nazi government was a legitimate ruling government in Germany at the time, so actions taken against it by Germans would be treasonous. That said, it'd be legitimate on moral grounds. Even the most staunch relativist thinkers probably agree that the Holocaust was an immoral travesty. So while rebelling against the Nazi's plans would be morally right, it would still technically be treason against that government and country.

I might have to agree with BB here technically, it would be treason against your country. BUuuut, not committing treason against your country in such a case would be (IMO, becuase the word doesn't really apply in this way) to commit treason against humanity... which would be worse.


As for what the citizens knew? I doubt they new much of anything at all.

GamePlayer wrote:That's something I've always wondered about World War II, but it's never really explored in any media. The Nazi were able to keep the truth from the Jews, so would the general German population even be aware of what was happening? And wouldn't the Nazi's have a incentive to keep the truth from them? I mean, it's not like today where anyone can get on the internet and within a minute the world knows what's happening (which on the flip side has interesting implications for misinformation). I suppose this could be a taboo subject because of the possibility for misunderstanding and holocaust denial, but isn't this a legitimate question?

I've always thought of it as the 800lb gorillia in the room that everyone pretends not to notice. NOt only is it legitimate, I think it's crucial to understanding what happened. Nobody seems to ever point the finger at the German people for not doing something. I don't see how they would know unless they had been inside a concentration camp. I'm sure genocide wasn't included in Hitler's antisemetic propoganda.

I'm sure there are still people alive that could be asked.

I'm sure things were a little different in the Wehrmacht, but in the US Army, soldiers are not obliged to follow unlawfull orders.

But still, what are you going to do if your officers says, "Shoot these jews or I'll shoot you."?

Freakzilla wrote:

GamePlayer wrote:That's something I've always wondered about World War II, but it's never really explored in any media. The Nazi were able to keep the truth from the Jews, so would the general German population even be aware of what was happening? And wouldn't the Nazi's have a incentive to keep the truth from them? I mean, it's not like today where anyone can get on the internet and within a minute the world knows what's happening (which on the flip side has interesting implications for misinformation). I suppose this could be a taboo subject because of the possibility for misunderstanding and holocaust denial, but isn't this a legitimate question?

I've always thought of it as the 800lb gorillia in the room that everyone pretends not to notice. NOt only is it legitimate, I think it's crucial to understanding what happened. Nobody seems to ever point the finger at the German people for not doing something. I don't see how they would know unless they had been inside a concentration camp. I'm sure genocide wasn't included in Hitler's antisemetic propoganda.

I'm sure there are still people alive that could be asked.

Yeah and that's where I think we get confused between harsh indifference/ignorance and complicity. It seems racism was widespread and thus the deportation of the Jews would have been welcomed by the German people. And after the Jews were gone, what would be the incentive for any German to care where the Jews were moved, just as long as it was somewhere else? And therein lies the tragedy of indifference, since the Nazi's were able to seize advantage of that indifference to perpetuate a much more terrible plan of extermination.

So the German people could be blamed for racism and crimes of harsh discrimination, theft, and mistreatment, but did they have any part in the Nazi agenda? It seems highly unlikely, at least generally speaking. Or maybe I'm being incredibly naive. Perhaps the human capacity for harm extends farther than I'd think and there was more complicity than I'd care to believe. I guess I'd just really like to know one way or the other and I'm kinda saddened that we don't.

Rakis wrote:

GamePlayer wrote:I love our flag!



Oh Canada, we stand on guard for thee!

I bet we can't see a nice girl like that with the American flag...





(Waits anxiously to be proven wrong)

I can't believe no one has posted a response to you yet:

Well, you're welcome buddy...

Finally...

Thanks Nekhrun !

The Canadian chicks boobs are real. The American chicks boobs are obviously fake, probably financed and soon to be repossessed by the Chinese.

Canada = Win

Freakzilla wrote:The Canadian chicks boobs are real. The American chicks boobs are obviously fake, probably financed and soon to be repossessed by the Chinese.

Canada = Win

Zing, my friend, zing.

Freakzilla wrote:The Canadian chicks boobs are real. The American chicks boobs are obviously fake, probably financed and soon to be repossessed by the Chinese.

Canada = Win

Must everything be a swipe at Obama? Do I even need to ask?

GamePlayer wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:The Canadian chicks boobs are real. The American chicks boobs are obviously fake, probably financed and soon to be repossessed by the Chinese.

Canada = Win

Must everything be a swipe at Obama? Do I even need to ask?

It has become a learned reflex, I'm sorry.

Actually, that wasn't aimed at Obama, just political economics in general. I know that only a small portion of our debt/deficit is his, but I also think his plan doesn't go beyond the bumper sticker slogan "hope and change" and he's spending money like a brotha with a stolen credit card.

(No offense towards brothas with stolen credit cards intended.)

Fair enough.

Well in defense of our American contributors, the Canadian's woman's breasts might be real, but there's no way her tan could ever be

The plot thickens

LOL Don't hold back on my account.

Baraka Bryan wrote:

GamePlayer wrote:Fair enough.

Well in defense of our American contributors, the Canadian's woman's breasts might be real, but there's no way her tan could ever be

I dunno if that's a tan or if she's just a native...

Exactly what I though.

Freakzilla wrote:The Canadian chicks boobs are real. The American chicks boobs are obviously fake, probably financed and soon to be repossessed by the Chinese.

Canada = Win

So what? A fake mutatay is still a mutatay.