Dying for Colored Rags

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Sheena/BoP -

You seemed to be pretty proud and "patriotic" sounding in your descriptions of New Zealand in the "What's your country like..." thread.


I don't know - sounds like you like New Zealand to me - nor does it sound like you just consider it a rock.


I sort of sense a little pride there too.

The first quote, okay, you are attracted to a particular kind of landscape.

The second one, he's gotcha.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by wahine
If I am not mistaken, GreyMouser, JD said that we had "waited" in WW II, and NOW we are taking initiative. So really you did not dispute what he said, only made the same point.

? ?

No, he might have said that, and it's certainly a legitimate point.
But as he made clear in the next post, he's supporting American isolationism in WWII. Certainly many Americans, notably Roosevelt, were aware of the danger.

Tell me where Hitler couldn't be dealt with early on by Europe? Why would a country half a world away get drawn into a ANOTHER European war after sending 100's of thousands to die in a European war less than 20 year prior to WWII. You were having wars right and left - it's just that World War I and II ended upo being huge because Europe tried ignoring the problems for so long.

Not me. I'm Canadian.

Let's see. Britain - directly threatened by Germany. France - directly threatened by Germany. Canada - owned by England. Australia - owned by England. New Zealand - owned by England. I think it was self intertest which guided the hand of England and France. England then recruited it's large "white" commonwealth countires into the fight. What about all the years where Europe appeased Hitler and actually GAVE him Austria and part of Czechloslovakia? Again tell me why the US should have gotten immediately involved in another European war.

That's the second time you've made the claim that Canada was "owned" by Britain in 1939. Anything whatsoever to back this up?

(Actually, I recall the last time you seemed to state that Canada "is" owned by Britain. Depends on your use of the term "was/is" - do you mean "was then and is now" or "I'm not sure?")

Again, tell me the reason why Canada or anyone else should have gotten into Gulf War II? Saddam certainly wasn't a threat to us.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
That's the second time you've made the claim that Canada was "owned" by Britain in 1939. Anything whatsoever to back this up?

(Actually, I recall the last time you seemed to state that Canada "is" owned by Britain. Depends on your use of the term "was/is" - do you mean "was then and is now" or "I'm not sure?")

Maybe it's the fact that you ARE part of the British commonwealth. You might want to look at who is the ultimate owner of your country.

Canada Act, 1981

THAT, WHEREAS in the past certain amendments to the Constitution of Canada have been made by Parliament of the United Kingdom at the request and with the consent of Canada:

AND WHEREAS it is in accord with the status of Canada as an independent state that Canadians be able to amend their Constitution in Canada in all respects;

AND WHEREAS it is also desirable to provide in the Constitution of Canada for the recognition of certain fundamental rights and freedoms and to make other amentments to that Constitution;

A respectful address be presented to Her Majesty the Queen in the following words:

TO THE QUEEN'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY: MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN:

We, Your Majesty's loyal subjects, the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, respectfully approach Your Majesty, requesting that you may graciously be pleased to cause to be laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom a measure containing the recitals and clauses hereinafter set forth:

An Act to give effect to a request by the Senate and House of Commons of Canada

Whereas Canada has requested and consented to the enactment of an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom to give effect to the provisions hereinafter set forth and the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled have submitted an address to Her Majesty requesting that Her Majesty may graciously be pleased to cause a Bill to be laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom for that purpose.

Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

1. The Constitution Act, 1981 set out in Schedule B to this Act is hereby enacted for and shall have the force of law in Canada and shall come into force as provided in that Act.

2. No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the Constitution Act, 1981 comes into force shall extend to Canada as part of its law.

3. So far as it is not contained in Schedule B, the French version of this Act is set out in Schedule a to this Act and has the same authority in Canada as the English version thereof.

4. This Act may be cited as the Canada Act.

Tell me - if you're a FULL and INDEPEDENT country - why do you have to go to Britain or ask the Queen's government for anything? We don't have to go to them and any other free country doesn't have to go to them to present anything. The Federal Government of the US actually has to go to the states to get the US Constitution changed.

Again, tell me the reason why Canada or anyone else should have gotten into Gulf War II? Saddam certainly wasn't a threat to us.

You didn't have to. I don't recall you getting involved. It would have been nice for your help for political reasons - but ultimately we don't need your help to take care of our own interests and protect ourselves. The problem with iraq is that people are so nearsighted - just like the were with Hitler. Hitler wasn't an immediate threat either. Saddam Hussein should have been eliminated a long time ago. After Gulf War I - the world was against taking him out - and he had been a threat in the Middle East since then. He is no longer a threat.

[jerseydevil]

There is also this...

Canadian Politics

The Constitution Act, 1982. This act created for the first time a set of amending procedures for the Constitution to be amended entirely in Canada. Until 1982, many changes to the then British North America Acts had to be carried out by the British Parliament. This act also includes the Charter of Rights & Freedoms. The Constitution Act, 1982, was actually created as a part of the Canada Act, 1982. The Canada Act ended any further British legislative authority over Canada.

If you are truly free - why would you have to go to a foreign body for okays to your laws?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
No, he might have said that, and it's certainly a legitimate point.
But as he made clear in the next post, he's supporting American isolationism in WWII. Certainly many Americans, notably Roosevelt, were aware of the danger.

I didn't make clear whether I supported American isolationism in WWII - you inferred it. If you can tell me where I said that I supported isolationism during WWII - can you please point it out. By the way the MAJORITY of American did not support getting DRAGGED into another EUROPEAN war. 70% were against fighting in Europe for a second time in less than 20 years.

[GrayMouser]

Yep, until 1982 Canada was NOT a wholly free and independent country- it is now- but that doesn't mean it was owned by Great Britain . It was a "self-governing Dominion"- not that it couldn't make it's own decisions about going to war- the declaration of war in WWII was the subject of fierce debate, with most French-Canadians being strongly opposed, for the same reasons as most Americans were.

And BTW, there is no "British" Commonwealth anymore- it's just "The Commonwealth"; including some states such as Canada and Australia who still have the Queen as their Head of State, and others, such as India, who definitely do not.

Okay, this gets almost metaphysical, but the Queen in her position of Canadian Head of State is not the Queen of Britain - she is the Queen of Canada; just as in Australia or New Zealand she is the Queen of those respective countries.

Britain does not (as of 1982!) have any control whatsoever over Canada.

You didn't have to. I don't recall you getting involved. It would have been nice for your help for political reasons - but ultimately we don't need your help to take care of our own interests and protect ourselves. The problem with iraq is that people are so nearsighted - just like the were with Hitler. Hitler wasn't an immediate threat either. Saddam Hussein should have been eliminated a long time ago. After Gulf War I - the world was against taking him out - and he had been a threat in the Middle East since then. He is no longer a threat.

Consistency.

If you say that it was terrible that the world, including America, allowed Hitler to gain his position of power and that with Saddam we should all have learned better, okay.

If, OTOH, you say that while Hitler may have been an evil tyrant, since he didn't threaten America, America had no reason to get involved in another European War, that's okay too.

What you can't say with any consistency is that America was justified in staying out of WWII because Hitler didn't threaten America, but countries which didn't get involved in second Gulf War were weak-kneed appeasers, just because Saddam wasn't a threat to them.

[sun-star]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Britain does not (as of 1982!) have any control whatsoever over Canada.

Pity. You know how much us imperialists like our control

[afro-elf]

I will try this again.

Humans will fight, kill and die for the symbolic. For ideas.

If you tell a tiger that he or his country, god, family, etc is stupid or whatever if will not affect such a creature. If you physically harm him then the situation changes.

Humans organize crusades and jihads.

Will kill if you offend their honor or pride, both of which are relative.

Symbolism.


My first thought is I guess there is a human need to belong and to matter. Maybe it is partly generated by fear of death.

[Ruinel]

I agree with AE. Humans have a desire to belong to something, a collective. In general, they feel pride in belonging to something. I dont know if it stems from the fear of death or not. perhaps it's more than that. Perhaps it is because 99% of humans are social creatures. Part being a social creature is being a part of a larger group. In such a collective, the role of the individual is to further the cause of the collective. Perhaps that is the answer, rather than fear of death. I don't know. I'm just rambling here.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by afro-elf
I will try this again.

Humans will fight, kill and die for the symbolic. For ideas.

If you tell a tiger that he or his country, god, family, etc is stupid or whatever if will not affect such a creature. If you physically harm him then the situation changes.

Humans organize crusades and jihads.

Will kill if you offend their honor or pride, both of which are relative.

Symbolism.


My first thought is I guess there is a human need to belong and to matter. Maybe it is partly generated by fear of death.

Interesting. I think that humans have a great need for unification, and at the same time competition. I would like to think that the majority of the human race is good and cares about the rest of humanity, but we, at least in this society are brought up to be competetive. We begin on a small scale in school, competing for awards, and in athletics against other schools, and so on. We strive to be #1. As we grow and enter the real world, that pride and competetive nature is taken with us and expanded. I think the symbolism begins and ends with that conditioning.. This is what we thrive on, and this is also the thing that wars are made of, stubborn pride for ones own country, and the need to be the best. Like Freud said though: "A cigar is only a cigar." A human is only a human, and behaves accordingly.

[afro-elf]

I would like to think that the majority of the human race is good and cares about the rest of humanity

I wonder how much of that is due to social controls. If the system failed would we be so kind?


At least the sense of group is expanding. From the cave man's family to tribe, clan, city, nation, etc... Perhaps it will expand to embrace all humanity. Maybe if aliens appeared then we would all be human.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Maybe if aliens appeared then we would all be human.

My point exactly. Look at how humans ban together in the case of tradgedy. We see it all the time. In tornadoes, earthquakes, and so on. Humans have nothing better to do than to fight among themselves. After all, they are the superior race. But, they then have to narrow that down to being superior among themselves. I think the flag, "rag" thing though symbolizes our cultures, and represents who, and what we stand for. Not as humans, but as societies that are proud in varying ways as humans. It is competitive though.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by afro-elf
At least the sense of group is expanding. From the cave man's family to tribe, clan, city, nation, etc... Perhaps it will expand to embrace all humanity. Maybe if aliens appeared then we would all be human.

Well I have always expected that is the only time man would join together - is if there is some outside thing about ready to destroy all of us.

[Ruinel]

I know what I'm about to say will probably upset many people who have been posting here. But I do not have a problem with people burning the US flag in protest. I feel that the US was based on the concept of individual freedoms. Part of that is the freedom to peacefully protest against the government without the fear of retribution. I do not feel any particular pride in a piece of colored cloth, no matter what it is supposed to represent.

A few months ago, one of my neighbors offered me a sign to put in my bit of yard that had a US flag on it and it said: I support our president and our troops. I said no thank you. She looked a bit insulted. What can I say? I do not support the president.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Ruinel
I know what I'm about to say will probably upset many people who have been posting here. But I do not have a problem with people burning the US flag in protest. I feel that the US was based on the concept of individual freedoms. Part of that is the freedom to peacefully protest against the government without the fear of retribution.

I have no problem with peaceful protest, and although I find flag burning disrespectful, and can't see why one would resort to such an act to get their point across, I defend their right to do it.

A few months ago, one of my neighbors offered me a sign to put in my bit of yard that had a US flag on it and it said: I support our president and our troops. I said no thank you. She looked a bit insulted. What can I say? I do not support the president.

Well, you don't have to support the president to support the troops.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Well, you don't have to support the president to support the troops.

but the sign had both. so I declined her offer.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Ruinel
but the sign had both. so I declined her offer.

I see.

[Ruinel]

My brother served in the Gulf War. He was permanently disabled from breathing something over there. So, if you think I would pull a Jane Fonda, you're nuts. Those men and women are sent there because that's their job.

[Anglorfin]

I can't stand all the debate about whether or not we should "be there". Right now, it is too late to argue. Now no matter if we are opposed to it or not, all we can do is support the troops that are there. Even if people do oppose a war they should realize that now there is nothing they can to do stop it so they should support the people that actually have to be there. Why do you think Vietnam was so bad? Because afterwards all the troops came home to booing civilians who had no appreciation for what they had been through. At the least, everybody should show respect for what the troops have to go through regardless of whether or not they agree with the war.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Anglorfin
I can't stand all the debate about whether or not we should "be there". Right now, it is too late to argue. Now no matter if we are opposed to it or not, all we can do is support the troops that are there. Even if people do oppose a war they should realize that now there is nothing they can to do stop it so they should support the people that actually have to be there. Why do you think Vietnam was so bad? Because afterwards all the troops came home to booing civilians who had no appreciation for what they had been through. At the least, everybody should show respect for what the troops have to go through regardless of whether or not they agree with the war.

No, if you are against it, you can take action to organise support to bring the troops home. I don't think that's a particularly good idea at this time, but then my country doesn't have soldiers there, and I'm saying that for the sake of the Iraqis, not the Americans.

You could bring your soldiers back tomorrow and it (probably ) wouldn't have any effect on America's future.