Are you a jingoist?

liblady said:

there is no justification for iraq, imo. and afghanistan is looking worse and worse.

Click to expand...

liblady said:

if we decided to do something about sudan, we should do it all the way. i don't know enough about their culture to advocate that, however.

Click to expand...

I agree with you on Afghanistan.

Please explain how you state that there was no justification for Iraq, yet there is for Sudan?

reefedjib said:

I agree with you on Afghanistan.

Please explain how you state that there was no justification for Iraq, yet there is for Sudan?

Click to expand...

i didn't say there was justification. i said i didn't know enough about the situation to advocate any action.

we had no justification for iraq. none. bush made a terrible mistake with that invasion.

liblady said:

i didn't say there was justification. i said i didn't know enough about the situation to advocate any action.

Click to expand...

Ah, I see. Sorry I misread what you wrote.

liblady said:

we had no justification for iraq. none. bush made a terrible mistake with that invasion.

Click to expand...

Well I have debated this a few times in the past couple of weeks. I do think it was justified, at this time, but this could change. I have just started "Just and Unjust Wars" by Michael Walzer.

My most compact reasoning for the justification of Iraq is in post #17: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/59418-you-jingoist-2.html#post1058341854. Note that according to my reasoning, Iraq was a candidate while Sudan is not. Which part(s) of that reasoning do you object to?

reefedjib said:

Ah, I see. Sorry I misread what you wrote.



Well I have debated this a few times in the past couple of weeks. I do think it was justified, at this time, but this could change. I have just started "Just and Unjust Wars" by Michael Walzer.

My most compact reasoning for the justification of Iraq is in post #17: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/59418-you-jingoist-2.html#post1058341854. Note that according to my reasoning, Iraq was a candidate while Sudan is not. Which part(s) of that reasoning do you object to?

Click to expand...

a history of wmd is not enough.
spreading democracy is not a sufficient reason.

it's my belief that iraq posed no threat to us.

liblady said:

a history of wmd is not enough.
spreading democracy is not a sufficient reason.

it's my belief that iraq posed no threat to us.

Click to expand...

Ok, so it has to be in the National Defense? I believe this is what this book will say as well. Like I said, I think "in the National interest" is sufficient, but I am prepared to change my mind. It looks like a great book.

Let me add that there is a history of intervention by the US "in the national interest", without a threat, or the threat was a threat to economic interests abroad and not a security threat. Some of them are:
- Mexico
- Phillipines
- Korea
- Vietnam
- Many countries in Latin America
- Long War in the west

Collectively known as the Small Wars.

reefedjib said:

Ok, so it has to be in the National Defense? I believe this is what this book will say as well. Like I said, I think "in the National interest" is sufficient, but I am prepared to change my mind. It looks like a great book.

Let me add that there is a history of intervention by the US "in the national interest", without a threat, or the threat was a threat to economic interests abroad and not a security threat. Some of them are:
- Mexico
- Phillipines
- Korea
- Vietnam
- Many countries in Latin America
- Long War in the west

Collectively known as the Small Wars.

Click to expand...

i think we walk a fine line when we decide to invade a relatively stable sovereign country. i don't believe all action has to be in the national defense, and i do believe we should be pragmatic.

for example, i had no issue with the first gulf war.

I don't think it's jingoistic to express that my country is simply better than many others.

liblady said:

i think we walk a fine line when we decide to invade a relatively stable sovereign country. i don't believe all action has to be in the national defense, and i do believe we should be pragmatic.

for example, i had no issue with the first gulf war.

Click to expand...

What is your justification for the first gulf war?

Catz Part Deux said:

I don't think it's jingoistic to express that my country is simply better than many others.

Click to expand...

no it's not. here is his definition:

"extreme patriotism in the form of aggressive foreign policy".

liblady said:

if we decided to do something about sudan, we should do it all the way. i don't know enough about their culture to advocate that, however.

Click to expand...

Sudan is a tough one. The problems in Darfur are complex, multi-ethnic and tribal. South Sudan is made up of more traditional African culture, while the north is primarily Islamic and Arab. The government is aiding the fighters killing Africans in Darfur and are probably the biggest problem; they are not only failing to do anything, but also making it worse. Sudan's President is under international indictment and can only travel to certain countries or he will be arrested. Unfortunately, all the other African thug leaders have come to his defense; Qaddafi, most notably.

liblady, I think you may have missed my question in post #33.

Gardener said:

I am not a jingoist, no, but I might point out that neither am I a self-loathing reactionary.

If the forums I have visited are any indication, the "America, love it or leave it crowd", is matched pretty closely by the "America is the source of all the world's ills" set.

Neither get my respect.

Click to expand...

An attempt to paint some form of disingenuous equivalence indicates bias on the part of the former option. The first crowd you speak of are pure jingoists in the sense of each being "[o]ne who advocates an aggressive nationalism; one who vociferously supports a nation's military aims," as put by Wiktionary. Their belligerent irrationality is intended to silence rational analysis. The second crowd focuses attention on political regimes rather than a national citizenry...and it's quite valid to contend that U.S. political regimes have caused a substantial amount of international damage, typically without the knowledge and mandate of the electorate or general population.

reefedjib said:

What is your justification for the first gulf war?

Click to expand...

Saddam threatened to destabilize the global oil supplies by invading and he did. Remember when Saddam set fire to oil fields as he left Kuwait? Yeah. That wasn't cheap.

Hatuey said:

Saddam threatened to destabilize the global oil supplies by invading and he did. Remember when Saddam set fire to oil fields as he left Kuwait? Yeah. That wasn't cheap.

Click to expand...

So we can invade a country that is either a physical threat or an economic threat and that is in the national defense?

Catz Part Deux said:

I don't think it's jingoistic to express that my country is simply better than many others.

Click to expand...

And incidentally, there needs to obviously be a reasonable distinction drawn between beneficial domestic conditions and the effects of a country's political regime on international conditions, since the U.S. has a relatively high quality of internal domestic conditions, but has been governed by political regimes that have exported calamity abroad, and some disingenuously attempt to refer to the beneficial domestic conditions as a justification for the perpetuated exportation of the calamitous international conditions.

But the fact that we have universal suffrage or something like that can't alter the reality that .S. ruling administrations have traditionally been and continue to be among the foremost of political regimes directly or indirectly responsible for anti-democratic coups and support of dictatorial political conditions throughout the world. This pattern has been particularly stark in Latin America, with the CIA-backed removals of democratically elected leftists Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala and Salvador Allende in Chile (who was to be replaced by the brutal military dictator Augusto Pinochet), and support of the Contras and the Somoza family of Nicaragua, Manuel Noriega of Panama, Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, the Duvalier father and son pair of Haiti, Fulgencio Batista of Cuba, etc.

Moreover, there are countries that are objectively better than the U.S. in terms of HDI categories, and even in terms of the average freedoms that their citizens possess. Being born in the U.S. doesn't restrict me from saying that. :shrug:

reefedjib said:

Those of you who answered "No", what would say is the problem with being a Jingoist?

Click to expand...

Hmm. I wouldn't say that not being a jingoist is the same as being opposed to jingoism. A person can simply not feel that swell of pride in their chest when encountering the symbols of their nation or upon recalling their nation's achievements, especially including military achievements. And, really... I'd say that quite a few of the people who answered "no" did so falsely, given the explanations offered for their votes.

liblady said:

really? i have never understood why people believe it's acceptable to invade a country because they have the capacity for democracy.

Click to expand...

I believe it's acceptable to invade a country because they have something we want. I don't understand the impulse to spread democracy in foreign countries, but if spreading democracy is both desirable and noble, then how much more acceptable must invasion in the name of democracy be than invasion in the name of conquest?

Agnapostate said:

And incidentally, there needs to obviously be a reasonable distinction drawn between beneficial domestic conditions and the effects of a country's political regime on international conditions...

Click to expand...

For what purpose? The duty of a government is to its own citizens. A government that provides beneficial domestic conditions at the expense of destabilizing the rest of the world is doing its job. One could even argue the virtues of destabilizing foreign powers for its own sake as it gives the successful government more leverage in international relations and contributes to the desire to immigrate, allowing the successful country to benefit from "brain drain."

Agnapostate said:

Moreover, there are countries that are objectively better than the U.S. in terms of HDI categories, and even in terms of the average freedoms that their citizens possess. Being born in the U.S. doesn't restrict me from saying that. :shrug:

Click to expand...

This is all true. Of course, I'd argue that the proper response to these facts is not to abandon one's pride in the United States, but to exercise one's patriotic duty to attempt to rectify the situation. (The fact that doing so will lead people to criticize you as "unamerican" and "unpatriotic" is bitterly ironic, but that's the price we pay for attempting to improve the lives of morons instead of merely fleecing them on a regular basis.) And, of course, there is the matter that not all objective measures of "freedom" and "human development" are necessarily objectively better in terms of the long-term prosperity and growth of nations.