Screw Democracy- Al-Qaeda- force captures Fallujah, raises Flag, stakes claim.

[Danno 1,228]

What nationalism was promoted by the Soviets?

Suddenly all this appeal to the "Mother land" and former great Russian leaders (non-comunist at that).

It's pretty well documented, the more stunning thing was meeting with the CHurch to use that angle too.

The Collectivist does not like allegiance to any thing higher than the State. It just gets to hard to control... to manage ......to silence.

Which is why Obama is so pissed the Court has put his birth control mandate on hold concerning some religious objections.

Wouldn't it be so much easier if the State had no such push back?

Nationalism in the Soviet Union

The Bolshevik revolutionaries who seized power in 1917 were nominally "antinationalists" and "antipatriots". The newborn Communist republic underVladimir Lenin proclaimed internationalism as its official ideology using the Russian language—which was also the language of their party and government.^[5] Since Russian patriotism served as one of the legitimizing props of old order, Bolshevik leaders were particularly anxious to suppress its manifestations and ensure its eventual extinction. They officially discouraged Russian nationalism.

The flag of the Soviet Union.

In mid-1930s with the prospect of a big war, Stalin concluded that the slogans of Marxism-Leninism had little appeal and decided to exploit selected aspects of Russian nationalism and patriotic symbols. The terms rodina(motherland or homeland) and otechestvo (fatherland), which had been out of currency since revolution, were permitted to make dramatic reappearance.^[8] Romantic Russian nationalist themes appeared in art, such as the historical epic films by Sergei Eizenshtein and Vsevolod Pudovkin, as well as Sergei Sergeyev-Tsensky's patriotic

[spookyturtle 9,466]

The Iraqi's didn't want to be free. Some places just can't handle it. It's a lot of hard work to be free.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Getting back on point, this is an example of what I was talking about:

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=147KUsegLciV7Abxt4CwBg&url=http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~lorenzo/McCartney.pdf&cd=7&ved=0CEEQFjAG&usg=AFQjCNE2S-I2tEl20C5693yI0sZ22RsgIQ

And here's a shorter version for lazy people or those with attention deficit disorder:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-nationalist-heresy-and-the-iraq-war/

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

...Whatever else was behind the decision to invade Iraq, the war was most certainly sold to the public using explicitly religious and nationalist language. Whether he actually believed it or not, Bush presented the coming war in terms of America’s divinely-appointed liberalizing mission. If that isn’t “messianic nationalism,” it is something very similar. Bush was certainly guilty of preaching some form of American nationalist heresy during his time in office.

...This is how Bush concluded his State of the Union address two months before the invasion of Iraq:

And we go forward with confidence, because this call of history has come to the right country. Americans are a resolute people who have risen to every test of our time. Adversity has revealed the character of our country, to the world and to ourselves. America is a strong nation, and honorable in the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers. Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America’s gift to the world, it is God’s gift to humanity.

Bush was pretty clearly claiming that the U.S. would be doing God’s will by unnecessarily and illegally invading Iraq. (Earlier sections of the address are even worse when Bush incredibly claims that the coming war was going to be “forced” on the U.S.) The invasion would have been an outrageous crime and the Iraq war would have been unjust in any case, but we shouldn’t forget the warped religious rhetoric that was used to justify it.

Here's the short version that doesn't require clicking on links.

Edited January 6, 2014 by Papa Lazarou

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

They took over those satellite countries. And did all they could to destroy nationalism and religion in each one.

BUt again, the LEFT and the Soviets agree, Nationalism is counter productive to herding people into collectives.

People can be hered with nationalism. Just look at how this country was herded into an illegal and idiotic war. And that happened more than once.

[Danno 1,228]

People can be hered with nationalism. Just look at how this country was herded into an illegal and idiotic war. And that happened more than once.

Your point is valid...

Though with nationalism, it is the exception. All over the world today people are nationalistic..... how many are at war..... of those at war (or under attack) one could affirm the value of nationalism as people defend their homeland.

As for Bush and our wars..... I think to be fair, the people were pushing for action NOW..... The president was the one who showed restraint, built coalitions, tried to avoid war.

But in the end it was his final decision.... a decision I still back. For me it was this need to win hearts and minds is what does us in.

We were not winning hearts and minds when we fire bombed Tokyo and Dresden. We really should stay out of wars we don't want to win.

When the last man leaves Afghanistan, will those people fear our return? (Or that there is anything that could make us return)

Who really won?

Edited January 6, 2014 by Danno

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Your point is valid...

Though with nationalism, it is the exception. All over the world today people are nationalistic..... how many are at war..... of those at war (or under attack) one could affirm the value of nationalism as people defend their homeland.

As for Bush and our wars..... I think to be fair, the people were pushing for action NOW..... The president was the one who showed restraint, built coalitions, tried to avoid war.

But in the end it was his final decision.... a decision I still back. For me it was this need to win hearts and minds is what does us in.

We were not winning hearts and minds when we fire bombed Tokyo and Dresden. We really should stay out of wars we don't want to win.

When the last man leaves Afghanistan, will those people fear our return? (Or that there is anything that could make us return)

Who really won?

That wasn't how it came across outside the US.

[Danno 1,228]

That wasn't how it came across outside the US.

You were not watching, this clip speaks for how the nation as a whole felt. Hear the crowd, restless with words of consolation.... they demanded more.

Not only there but everywhere.

Revisionist history is planned manipulation.

Fight it.

Edited January 6, 2014 by Danno

[Karee 4,191]

That wasn't how it came across outside the US.

Who cares what the rest of the world thinks? Go America!!!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

As for Bush and our wars..... I think to be fair, the people were pushing for action NOW..... The president was the one who showed restraint, built coalitions, tried to avoid war.

That is some of the most ridiculous re-writing of history I have seen in awhile.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

That wasn't how it came across outside the US.

That's because it is not what happened. Bush didn't bend to public pressure to invade Iraq. His administration carefully herded the nation into supporting the effort by working hard to fabricate a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

And as for the great coalition building, well we all know what a grand coalition he built. 45 countries were on the list of supporters. Including regimes such as Eritrea. Going in with US troops? Well, that grand colaition was 4 strong - the US, UK, Australia and Poland. The later contributed less than 200 troops, Australia committed barely 2,000. So, really, it was the US and the UK going in. Oh but Palau and Tonga supported the US.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You were not watching, this clip speaks for how the nation as a whole felt. Hear the crowd, restless with words of consolation.... they demanded more.

Not only there but everywhere.

Revisionist history is planned manipulation.

Fight it.

Didn't I say at the outset and consistently throughout this thread that the Iraq war was sold to the American people on a wave of post 9/11 nationalist jingoism?

Surely that's a case in point. Nationalist rhetoric, invoking God, invoking America's manifest destiny as 'freedom bringer' to the world. That's how it was sold. And for everyone else we were given spurious claims of imminent threat wmd.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's because it is not what happened. Bush didn't bend to public pressure to invade Iraq. His administration carefully herded the nation into supporting the effort by working hard to fabricate a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

And as for the great coalition building, well we all know what a grand coalition he built. 45 countries were on the list of supporters. Including regimes such as Eritrea. Going in with US troops? Well, that grand colaition was 4 strong - the US, UK, Australia and Poland. The later contributed less than 200 troops, Australia committed barely 2,000. So, really, it was the US and the UK going in. Oh but Palau and Tonga supported the US.

That's what the focus of debate was in the UK parliament - a feeling that the policy had already been decided upon behind closed doors and that the US were looking for the evidence that supported their conclusion, regardless of the truth.

That's why neither the French or Germans were behind it. That the then UK government was, despite huge public opposition, despite several high profile resignations, is truly shameful.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Another American Romance ending badly, next stop back to Africa.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Al-Qaeda-linked force captures Fallujah amid rise in violence in Iraq

And mid you the motley crew has been criticizing the current administration for not starting another war in Syria and Iran....

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Who cares what the rest of the world thinks? Go America!!!

When you're talking about an international foreign policy (like a war) that some USC's was decided upon after a process of due consideration by the then administration, the foreign perspective is quite pertinent I'd say.

Of course 'who cares' wasn't untypical of what a lot of Americans were saying at the time - hence the backlash against teh French. As I said, nationalist jingoism.