Ridiculous to feel personal shame. Hey, I felt shame when I watched the new Star Wars movies, but I didn't blame myself personally for how terrible they were.

It's a matter of tact and balance. Naturally you're going to feel good when you perceive good things as having happened. I don't fault anyone that. But to extrapolate that sensation into nationalistic pride and childishly pretending it has something to do with you (when it doesn't) is a cheap psychological move which betrays how desperately eager people are to give themselves credit for anything they can arguably link themselves to in any capacity. (Note that they are far, far less willing to make such huge leaps of empathy when it comes to assigning blame and taking responsibility for perceived injustices; and those who do are quickly heckled with accusations of "Anti-Americanism," etc.)

When a war occurs, the factors motivating and built into it are extremely complicated -- way over my head, for sure -- and the lives shed due to it no small number. It's not the sort of thing I feel comfortable simplistically waving a flag and thumping my chest over. Even if a war is arguably, all things considered, "for the best" given whatever the existing situation, it's not something I'm going to use as a catalyst for self-congratulation, being a simple bystander who happens to be -- through no effort or genuine choice of my own -- on the winning team (and conditioned, like it or not, with some variation of their common values.)


K

Maybe we should just gather around and pray for a decent democrat candidate for 2004.

If Dubya would have been the president during the cuban missile crisis instead of JFK, nuclear winter would've happened after two days.

Oh and I'm a french canadian and I think I'm entitled to an opinion on american politics because it has a direct effect on my life.

If they'd stop acting like they owned the world I might shut up.

I'm going to leave you on these wise words:
War. hou. what is it good for. absolutly nothing,

Is that all it'd take?

I think I'm as aware as anyone regarding how nationalistic pride can be distorted into simplistic jingoism. But I also believe one can be aware of the faults or vulnerabilities of one's nation and still have a cognitive appreciation for its positive qualities. I agree that the common herd doesn't have DIRECT control over the nation's military policies, but in a democratic society there is room for SOME influence.

Take the earlier-mentioned example of Sean Penn going to Baghdad. On one level, I know that the gesture doesn't accomplish anything practical: it's unlikely Penn saw anything that the Iraqi regime didn't want him to see. But his trip there demonstrated that a private citizen (albeit one with a lot of money) could make a vocal statement against the military program of the Bush admininstration.

And while I agree that most people accept praise more readily than blame, there are quarters in American society where "the self-blame game" becomes almost an exercise in cultural masochism. Only in such a culture could Osama bin Ladin impugn Americans for carrying on "the new Jewish and Christian crusader campaign that is led by the Chief Crusader Bush under the banner of the cross." In a culture where intellectuals have been taught to feel guilty only about their own culture's depradations, while turning a blind eye to those of other cultures, it's easy for a demagogue to get away with the hypocrisy of emphasizing an opponent's imperialistic ambitions ("crusader campaign")while tacitly ignoring those of his own culture.

Bush does much the same thing, in fact, but by appealing to super-patriotism rather than "pity the poor underdog" rhetoric.

And please, don't anybody claim that I've said Bush and Osama are "the same," I've just pointed out a similar end to their very different means.

Or, Castro might not STILL be in power. See, anyone can assume they have total clarity on the situation. :rolleyes:

A possible clarification:

In one sense it's pointless to argue whether one should or should not feel pride or shame at the deeds of one's nation (or any other societal body: one's religion, profession, etc.). Some people feel those feelings, and others don't.

When one person identifies with the deeds of the societal body to which he belongs, what we have is more or less what anthropologists called 'participation mystique.' It's something that can't be proved in any rational manner-- but in a real sense, it can't be disproved by logic, either.

And just to go back to the original topic, more or less:

Does anyone here agree with Dubya that (whether it's because we "have the receipt" or not) there's no trusting the Iraqis until they come across with some substantial surrender of arms?

I agree with Dubya that there is no trusting Saddam. Ever.

I agree Hussein's untrustworthy. At this point, however, with two more nations putting pressure on the U.S. to wait and let inspections "run their course," (I think it was China and Russia, today) I think it really is time to put the brakes on, pull out, and just wait for Saddam to flub-up. Suddenly, you'll see nations demanding action from the U.S., though they'll never agree that Bush was "right" to demand action in the first place. Although he, and those of us who have supported him, will know it.