Main Entry: pa·tri·ot Pronunciation: 'pA-trE-&t, -"ät, chiefly British 'pa-trE-&t Function: noun Etymology: Middle French patriote compatriot, from Late Latin patriota, from Greek patriOtEs, from patria lineage, from patr-, patEr father Date: 1605 : one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests Main Entry: pa·tri·ot·ic Pronunciation: "pA-trE-'ä-tik, chiefly British "pa- Function: adjective Date: 1757 1 : inspired by patriotism 2 : befitting or characteristic of a patriot - pa·tri·ot·i·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb Main Entry: pa·tri·ot·ism Pronunciation: 'pA-trE-&-"ti-z&m, chiefly British 'pa- Function: noun Date: circa 1726 : love for or devotion to one's country Nope, sorry. Doesn't say anything about actually doing anything, just a bunch of gobbedleygook about feelings... Which One could infer to mean believing or thinking about.
you need a better dictionary pa·tri·ot ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ptr-t, -t) n. One who loves, supports, and defends one's country.
Sorry, you're right. Merriam-Webster just sucks... What dictionary are you using? You realize that by that definition, one can only be a patriotic American if he/she has served in the military, intelligence services, police, etc? That sure does exclude quite a few people who I am sure think of themselves as patriotic. Silly definition, Merriam-Webster's definition makes more sense.
Macbeth and Friendly, thanks for the poem. A flip side is that many an inglorious "defeat" has also been meaningless. Vietnam is a classic case. We lost and nothing really happened bad to the US. Similarly with Iraq. We can declare victory like we tried to do with Vietnam. We declared that "Vietnamization" was a success and pulled out. This idea of a meaningless defeat is important in Iraq. A fall back position for the occupiers and war profiteers is: "Well there were no wmd and Iraq wasn't that much of a threat but now that we're there we can't leave as it would be seen as a defeat and weakness by terrorists and would therefore threaten our security" Seems moronic and self serving, but it is a way to appeal to some to support teh neocon's war.
For the record, Treeman did indeed call his shot on these poll results, for what it's worth. Friendly (sic) Fan, I think the self-righteous routine is counter-productive. Seriously. I actually agree with many of your views, but you're more likely to drive the faithul away than to recruit with the disrespectful and/or high-n-mighty schtick. Just 2 cents, which you can readily dismiss I suppose since I never served.
Sorry, glynch, but I can't agree with this at all. Plenty bad happened to the United States and to Americans because of our defeat in Vietnam. I'm assuming that you're not talking about the cost of the war to those who participated in it, on both sides. I'm thinking that you mean the aftermath had no real affect on this country. Am I right? And I just don't agree. I think it could be argued that we are still getting over that war. I imagine you're thinking that if we pull out of Iraq and leave things to work out as they will, an unknown that can only be imagined... an unknown that could have numerous theories and a decade or 2 decades afterwards still be impossible to get a firm grip on, that the long term damage to this country will not be significant. I think it will. That's one of the things that makes Bush's ill-conceived and poorly planned war on Iraq such a nightmare. We have begun something that has unforseen consequences. Wars have a tendency to produce them. It's why you should never embark on one "lightly". And in a real sense, I think that's what the talking heads in the Bush Administration did. And we will continue to pay for it.
I'm assuming that you're not talking about the cost of the war to those who participated in it, on both sides. I'm thinking that you mean the aftermath had no real affect on this country. Am I right? Deckard, you are correct. I don't really mean that nothing at all bad happened. It is just that the catastrophic harm that the supporters of the war claimed did not happen. No dominoes fell. We did not sucumb to international communism. Overall the US prospered. The catastrophic predictions that led to that enormous waste of lives and money that was used to defend the war is what didn't happen. I would expect the same if we left Iraq. No great loss in our efforts to prevent terrorism, other than the spur to terrorism that the hatred generated by our ill advised attack has engendered already. Now you can make an humanitarian argument that since we have fukded up Iraq we need to help out. True, but as many realize our presence there and the hatred resulting impedes the rebuilding. We should supply a lot of the money and let others with more credibility do the job.
You once again put your glaring lack of strategic understanding on display for all to see... Tell me, what do you think would have happened had the US never intervened in Vietnam? If the Communists would have taken the whole country in '54? I'll tell you what would have happened: the dominoes would have continued to have fallen. India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Thailand, Cambodia, etc - none of these countries were in a position at that time to fight back a surging China and/or USSR. All were technologically, politically, and militarily backwards countries that wouldn't have stood a chance. What we did was in fact buy the rest of south Asia time, and allowed them all 20 years of development. Was China or the USSR in a position to take these countries in '54? Easily. How about in '75? No way. Therefore, many of our aims in fighting that war - the primary one being halting the surge of Communism in Asia - were largely accomplished. We just didn't save Vietnam. Are you serious? Please, you can't be serious. You are not that stupid. If we left Iraq it would not only A) turn Iraq into an Afghanistan-style mecca for terrorists, where they would be free to use an oil-rich state to build their training camps, train jihadis, and make whatever weapons they wanted, but it would B) send the message that the US can be defeated by a few car bombs and well-placed RPGs. Now, I know that this is exactly the message that you would like to send to our enemies, as you appear to thrive on any hit American power takes, but the rest of us understand what a catastrophe that would be...
Ah, yes, I should have said "most of the rest of us"... I forgot about you, rimrocker. And it is quite obvious to me that glynch wants us to be defeated in the war on terror. Every single post of his screams for our defeat.
So treeman, if you don't respect glynch (and you obviously don't), then don't post to him. Don't engage him in dialogue; don't reply to him. Very simple. (I could and would defend glynch's stance, but it is pointless; you've given up on him, which is fine). You getting your panties (camo, of course) in a wad over someone you regard to be insane makes for really tedious reading. I'm serious. You're at your best when you're calm and non-sarcastic, IMO. And your best is quite interesting.
B-Bob: You are right, of course. Sometimes I just can't let some of the things he posts slide, though. There is always the danger that someone may actually believe him, and I feel a need to counter that. Don't know why.
Treeman has the opinion that if we hadn't fought in Vietnam all of Asia would be communist. I suppose he would argue that the communists would be landing in California. Reagan, his hero, said if we didn't fund the contras, the Niargauans would be crossing in Brownsville. Treeman also thinks that if we withdraw from Iraq it will lead to all sorts of terrorism. He is entitled to his opinions. Others think differently. It is ok to have opinions, just as long as you understand that is what they are. Treeman doesn't seem to understand that his opinions are just that opinions. Treeman's opinion always lead to the same conclusion. We should start wars, and even if they go badly, we must then keep fighting because it would look bad if we didn't . The only important thing that counts is military power. I'm not saying don't defend the United States. It is just that militarists like Treeman have never seen a war that they didn't like. If they would be slightly nuanced in their support for all things military and always in favor of wars they would have more credibility.
I have the opinion that had we not fought in Vietnam, the southward expansion of Communism might not have been blunted. There is no way we could have known whether or not that expansion would have continued then, and there is certainly no way to know whether or not it would have now. But the uncertainty over whether or not it would have existed and exists, and a hindsight analysis indicates that our Vietnam venture did indeed blunt it. You appear to be sure that such a southward expansion would not have taken place. Would you mind if I took a ride with you in your Alternate Reality Probability Truth machine? I mean, you obviously have one, and I'd just like to see for myself... Highly unlikely. At no point in their history have they ever had sufficient amphibious or airlift capability to successfully do so in any meaningful way. Perhaps not Brownsville, but maybe Chiapas. Oh, wait... I believe that retreating from Iraq simply because of a few RPGs and carbombs - attacks that in no way threaten our military presence there - would be a strategic defeat for us and a strategic and moral victory for our enemies. How would it not be so? Do you have another interpretation? And you are entitled to yours, no matter how silly or ill-conceived they are. No they don't. You're just saying that to make me cry. I understand perfectly what they are. What you fail to understand is that despite what they'll try to teach you nowadays in Anthropology and Psychology courses, not all opinions are equal. Some make more sense and are less silly than others, and therefore deserve more careful consideration. Tell me, if I was of the opinion that a Dark Piglord named Tom who lived in Tonga was casting spells against us, and that evil ethereal pig-servants were the real hijackers on those planes, would that opinion demand merit and thought? More than likely, you would think to yourself "OK, this guy is nuts, and that particular opinion can safely be stricken from my 'to-think-about' list" Granted, your opinions are not that silly, but... They rarely make my 'to-think-about' list. You've never given any indication at all that defending the US is a remote priority of yours. Patriotism is not one of your strong points, or at least it has never been apparent here. I can say, and have said in the past, that there is no such thing as a "good" war, and that wars are regrettable but sometimes necessary ventures, but it wouldn't matter. To glynch I am just a militarist who gets wood when he sees people dying... He is free to his opinions. You mean, if I showed up next to you at a rally and put my "No Blood for Oil" sign next to your "Fu*k War, Fu*k Bush, America is the Real Terrorist" sign, then I'd have more credibility? OK glynch. OK.
TreeSpec, patriotism is more than a feeling it is a feeling accompanied with some ACTION. *Speaking out is an action *Writing about it is an action *Joining the military is an action *Marching in a parade is an action *Saying the pledge is an action *Standing for the national anthem is an action In my view, and that of dictionary.com, it is a belief accompanied with some action which demonstrates that belief.
