America as seen from other countries

I have NO idea why this is true. Way to marginalize those who disagree with you. While it might be argued that dissent is AS patriotic, I have a hard time stomaching a claim that it is MORE so. Especially considering the in the extreme you are saying its MORE patriotic to refuse to serve than it is to serve, which in my book is completely ludicrous.

 

Terrorism exists in many countries. Al Qaeda is in 60 countries, one of which is the U.S. But if we piss off the other 59 and they stop helping us in the war of terrorism then we will suffer. I've pointed out before but I have to do it again, France is and should be an ally in the war on terrorism.

They have arrested terrorists, foiled terrorist plots and flew more military air support missions in Afghanistan than any one other than the U.S. Guess who else helped out in investigating terrorists? Germany. Some of the 9/11 hijackers lived in Germany and tracing the trail there is very important. These are just some examples of countries that can continue to help us in the war on terror.

It's never smart in the middle of a war to start badmouthing people who are helping you. That's true in any war, but especially in a war like the one against terrorism.

 

Didn't some author in France write a book about how the US or Israel was really responsible for the 9/11 attacks? And this book became one of the biggest sellers.

Also, doesn't Eastern Europe support us? And I don't hear many protests coming out of Japan and India, 2 of our more important allies these days.

 

Interesting point, but I wouldn't want anyone to judge the USA based on the list of best sellers, or, even worse, a list of our favorite TV shows.

 

Except not all countries are pissed off at us and while the media focuses on the anti-Bush demonstrations the polls in this country show most poeple are for using force to remove Saddam.

Remember all the people here who were saying that we should focus on the war on terrorism instead of Iraq? Well, it turns out we were doing both just fine - the media just wasn't focusing on the hunt for terrorists as it wasn't as sexy as Iraq. Just because the media isn't reporting pro-American sentiment doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Also, think of all the doom and gloom people brought up before Gulf War I, Kosovo, Haiti and Afganistan. People said that the first Gulf War would increase anti-American sentiment and possible start another world war - didn't happen. People were afraid that intervening in Kosovo would start another World War (remember Russia threatened to veto any UN resolution calling for force there as well) because WWI started in the same region. Didn't happen. Same with Haiti and Afganistan. In ALL those cases the world is a better place for everyone (except maybe the Taliban, Al Quaeda and Milosovich). Think of all the people who said the stock market would tank after military intervention. Didn't happen until someone attacked us - and that someone had been attacking us consistantly for years and we just didn't really pay much attention.

In a few months we'll all look back and wonder what the fuss was about while Iraq rebuilds and people there can demonstrate against their government without fear of losing their toungues or their families.

 

So which is it?

 

True I wouldn't want to be judged by Joe Millionaire and ElimiDate. But if you look at our political discourse we don't have this dislike for France or a fascination with conspiracy theories. Even after 9/11, there were some conservative commentators bashing Islam, but the general public for the most part didn't go that route, and several books about Islam became best sellers.

France is different, there has been growing resentment for a while. There was some series on Slate a while ago, it was pretty interesting. Joel Klein compared current Europe to America of the 1970's, with the protests and social change and all that stuff.

I'm not saying Bush has done a great diplomatic job, but I don't think there was much hope for a different result.

 

Is this the exact same media that feeds the White House quotations to be altered and rubber stamped before they print the quotations? The same media that lobs only completely softball questions at this administration? I guess there must be two "medias": the evil, liberal media; and the good, patriotic media.

I think the bias cuts both ways, as I've said dozens of times. What drives media is ... (drumroll) ... cash dollars. Whatever newsfolk believe will get you watching and reading, that's what you'll get. So it'll be primarily negative and provocative. You'll see angry people, anything with T&A associated (nevermind blowjobs). You won't get thoughtful protestors who can articulate their opinions while wearing a boring sweatshirt. You'll get to see freaks with posters that have Bush with a Hitler mustache You'll get people in Hong Kong with masks as they fear the new killer disease. You'll see way too many stories about a sordid case of a 15-yr-old girl who was probably molested for nine months. That's what people watch, so that's what they get, ad nauseum.

I just flatly reject that we can blame the media for this or that. for every liberal editor, there is a conservative business person telling the liberal editor what to put on the front page. Ultimately, the media are simply the ugly underbelly of our collective consciousness, a slightly distored mirror image of our cultural obsessions. Everyone of us regularly watching or reading shares any guilt that is to be had.

If anyone's sick of the way the media portrays things, quit watching. Read a newspaper on-line that you trust, one that seems balanced (Christian Science Monitor comes to mind, no matter your political persuasion). Use google news (selects most popular stories world wide with a simple algorithm). You can seriously make a difference. If nothing else, you will simply be less frustrated by what you used to think you had to sit through!
... Just log on to the cc BBS for all the news that's fit to post!


Mr. Clutch, I hear you. Interesting point. I'll look for that slate article. I do basically agree that some anti-American sentiment existed pre-Dubya, shile I disagree on the extent of that ill will. That being said, I will submit this to bolster your argument. A lot of the "incredible good will and sympathy" expressed internationally after 9/11 was just so much hot air. That's the sad truth, and part of human nature to boot.

 

By the way. Sorry for typos. Should be more careful. "shile" is not some kind of slang, but my idiot self trying to type "while." That's just one example.

 

My apologies. I worded that terribly awkwardly. What I meant to say was that if you have questions about your government's policy, it is more patriotic to give voice to those questions/problems/complaints than it is to shut up and show support in the name of patriotism. I have always like the protest signs which read "Support our troops -- send them home" or "I support the troops but I oppose the war." While I have enormous problems with the war itself, I do not fault the troops and I do appreciate their willingness to risk their lives in service of our country.

All that said, giving voice to dissent, while enduring taunts of "appeaser," "traitor" or any other suggestion of a lack of patriotism is certainly a braver form of patriotism than that of the American flag decal on rear window of a car or the waving of a flag.

Further, I strongly believe that it is incumbent on all of us in a representative democracy to question everything our leaders do, most especially when lives are involved. Simply believing that they will do the right thing without us keeping them honest is a failure, in my mind, to do one's part as a patriotic American.

But sure, say the pledge, salute the flag, wear the shirts, support the troops, love your country. I do. I take great exception to those who suggest that dissent is an unpatriotic act though. It is as American as apple pie.

 

Bah, there are two separate issues here.

Dissent is more fundamentally in-tune with the classic American spirit than sheep-like conformity with the establishment. It is certainly true that America was established on principles that confrontational, antagonistic politics would result in the best possible ultimate results.

However, it's certainly less patriotic, which is more closely tied w/nationalism imo. I don't think it's necessarily unpatriotic, but I do think the oft-quoted phrase "my country, right or wrong" characterizes the ultimate patriotic position.

Or maybe that's nationalism and should be considered distinct from patriotism.