I do not think you know about the historical reasons for the oath of allegiance. I do not know what you mean about swearing allegiance goes beyond love of one's homeland. Everyone thinks their country is the best don't they? I love the UK - oh but maybe Samoa is better? No, perhaps not. You suggested German nationalism would "have the world up in arms" I think you chose to use the case of Germany due to the Nazis - nothing to do with personal reasons. Some people might worry about a united Germany being ultra nationalistic in a way they would not for other countries that did not have a recent past like that of Germany. I though that would be clear. Your personal circumstances did not enter my thinking - why would they as I know next to nothing about them.
'Every thinks their country is the best' ? Interesting comment. We all have a vast range of potential loyalties - to ourselves, to our family, to our town or region, to other members in some sort of club or sect, to a particular generation, to a religion maybe, to a social class grouping or profession, maybe a race (for some people), for a larger entity such as Europe, or maybe for the whole of mankind - different people have different starting points. Why should the nation state have priority over any of those other things ? I can say that I want Watford to beat eg. Southampton - because the former is my home town, but I cannot say 'Watford is better than Southampton'.
What are you talking about? The question "everyone thinks their country is the best don't they?" (note question ) was clearly referring to comparing against other countries - hence the Samoa mention. It had nothing to do with thinking about country versus any other social, political etc group. Why do you change the subject. We were talking nationalities. I might if I gave it thought decide to ask if everybody did not think their family, religion, football club etc were better that the SAME entity loved by someone else. (IN fact some of those I don't think people think theirs is the best - certainly in the town they live) I made no claim the nation state had priority - it was just the topic we were discussing at the time.
Due to your personal dislike of nation states you attack the likes of America for some of their beliefs and actions. Quite irrationally. Each country has a raft of history that helps to determine what it is, how its people act and so forth.
Your comment that everyone thinks their country is the best presumes that they place 'nationality' above other focuses of loyalty. I would suspect that many people have more connective feeling with others of the same social class, than with others of the same nationality. I certainly feel more 'at home' in some places than in others - but that may be down to language. To assume that my country is in any way superior to others is sick as far as I am concerned - the next logical follow on from that is that the lives of people of other nationalities is of less worth, - a dangerous road to travel. Besides which, nations are arbitrary things with arbitrary borders which I had no role in creating.
It does nothing of the sort - except in your mind. In the context we were discussing it was a simple defence of the American pledge of allegiance which you had disparaged. It was the same as saying that every football fan thinks his team are the best. That does not mean he prefers them to fish and chips. You simply cannot make up your own rules. If I wanted to say that nation is more important than other things then that is what I would have said. I did not though as I do not believe that. Good for you that class is more important to you than country. I am sure many others agree with you. Others might say food and drink are more important. I guess if you were to ask your question as to the highest priority of things people "like" you will get many different answers. If you think your family is best - does it mean you think it is superior to everyone else's - no of course not. You are expressing a personal and subjective preference. The same with country - most people are glad they were born where they were and have no wish to be another nationality. That is not "sick" - it is human - tribal- nature and if anything in my book is "sick" it is suggesting that one person's order of preferences is better than another one's. Your "logical step "is entirely illogical - it does not follow at all - it is simply one possible route. You build a straw man and knock it down - worthless exercise. Stick to what people say not what you put into their mouths. Of course borders are arbitrary. The earth was not made with borders. They are a historical development. What relevance is what you created? Whether or not you like it you are obliged to accept borders exist. Unless you are Canute you take real things as real.
My attack on the USA. has little to do with any abstract dislike of nation states Arturo - which I think you know. So often I have heard Iran described as part of an evil axis by US governments - that they are a danger to the region, which needs to be controlled. We preach non proliferation there but not to the Israelis. Yet how many countries has Iran invaded in the last 50 years ? The answer is 0. They have, themselves, been attacked by weapons (some of them chemical) made in the USA. North Korea is also, apparently, an aggressive state, as was Iraq - who need to be attacked before they can attack you. Apparently Islam is also an inherantly violent religion, which must reform itself. But who are the real war mongers of this planet ? Pick any year since 1776 and there is a 91% chance that the USA. was involved in a war in any one year. They have never had a decade without it. Since 1945 the USA. has been involved in military actions in 37 countries - with an accumulated 20 million dead. Yet still they point the finger at other 'trouble nations' and we believe them. They believe in democracy - but not when it brings governments to power which don't toe the line to America. Human rights are a problem with Iran, but not apparently with Saudi Arabia. As long as the USA. continues to believe that they have a divine right to interfere with the politics of every country on this planet then I will continue to attack them for it. This is not an attack on every single US citizen - though there comes a point where citizens must be held responsible for the governments they elect.
That has to be about the most biased and unhistoric analysis I have read in years. By implication Iraq, North Korea and Iran are victims. Never mind their human rights abuses. The USA has a 91%- not 90 or 92 or even 70-90% chance of involvement in a war in any one year. We won't mention Germany or Hitler, or Argentina or any other country that has invaded another but will single the USA out as the Great Satan. I am sorry Cologne - but what little integrity you have ever had for impartial political analysis has been sacrificed on that rant. That is OK - we are all entitled to bigoted views - especially of nations where we are not attacking an individual but your last post was exceptional.
I have already said that I have nothing against the citizenry of the USA, and would never discriminate against one of them personally. My 'problem' with America comes from their missionary zeal Arturo. I have said that a large proportion of Americans believe it to be their divine right to interfere with the politics of other countries - if necessary invading them to impose change, or paying/helping someone else to do so. Not to mention keeping many a dictator in power for stategic reasons, such as Pinochet or Sadam Hussain - the latter of which they actually supplied with chemical weapons. I retract nothing of my last text because although other countries have also invaded others, and also committed human rights crimes they have not done so over such a long period as the USA. You appear to have forgotten that the Americans need conflict, and need enemies, not only for their arms industry, but also because they do not have the barracks and resources in the USA. to bring all their armed forces back to America - logistically they have to be abroad, and, therefore, need a reason.
That has some of the sound of "some of my best friends are black - or gay" about it. You hate America but like some if its people. Very admirable. I will not defend the politics of war but would point out that you could add a dozen or more countries to your list if you want to appear balanced. You also overlook the fact that without America. Germnany would not have been defeated in two world wars. Korea would be entirely run by the communist. Most of south east Asia would be "communist" (or actually a dictatorship naming itself communist). Australia would be very exposed. India - who knows? You point out that Iran etc have never invaded another country - but are you happy that Iraq and Iran were developing nuclear weapons - and North Korea has them? I would like to see all countries abolish them but that wont happen so at least try to stop their spread. I dread to think what Europe would look like today without America. You have a very blinkered view due to your dogma and one sided view of the political system. Excellent. That is why I believe in democracy so that people can freely hold such views.
To begin with Germany Arturo. Without the Americans the second World War would still have been won, but the Russians would have penetrated far further Westwards - it was the USSR that defeated Hitler. All of the turning points in that war: Stalingrad, Leningrad, El Alamein had been reached without America. The US involvement in World War 2 was aimed at the containment of Communism. The same applies to Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Japan was beaten at that stage, and these were meant as a warning for the USSR. Going on to South East Asia - the Americans used both chemical weapons and nepalm in Vietnam - they lost, and so the north moved into the south. But where were the subsequent human rights violations ? Vietnam moved on and became a stable country only once the Americans had gone - could this pattern not have been repeated in other Asian countries ? I am also against nuclear weapons but......in terms of conventional weaponry the rest of the World is about 20 years behind the USA. 50% of all spending on weaponry is done by the USA. The only way to balance this and ensure a countries security is to take a short cut through the possession of nuclear weapons. Has any country with them ever been invaded ? Would Iraq really have been invaded if they had had weapons of mass destruction ? If there are nuclear weapons in the World then why should Iran not also possess this deterent ? They are surrounded by countries which are puppets of the USA - Afghanistan, Iraq, with Russia to the north and Israel constantly rattling sabres in their direction. For a couple of decades they have been on the American list of evil states (to be liquidated if possible) - if I were Iranian I would be very gratefull for a nuclear deterent.
