I can't speak for everything you said, but I think it's an unfair assumption that today's citizenry wouldn't have won World War II. If anything, part of the problem many have in our country when it comes to the military is we have been placed in conflicts with no declaration of war, no real measurable goals for what was hoped to be accomplished, and many times conflicts that weren't "winnable" in the minds of people. World War II was the total opposite of that. Faced with a legitimate war, legitimately declared, against a legitimate nation/enemy, I think the American people would respond differently. Instead we are involved in repeated conflicts and operations, often fought by contractors as much as soldiers, paid for by money that we don't have, and therefore most citizens aren't really gung-ho for it.

 

I respectfully disagree. Since the first moment that we allowed politics to dictate how a war was fought in this nation, thus making the goal appeasement and victory over just victory, we haven't really had an all out victory in a war. There is a much larger percentage of the American population today than there was in 1941 that feel they are far and away entitiled to the comforts our nation's soldiers and leaders provide through conflict, without feeling like they are respoinsible for the least bit of self-sacrafice to obtain it. We had people publically talking about what we had done to deserve the events of 911 the day after is happened. Do you think that was the discussion in the news on Dec 8th 1941?

I haven't really read much of this thread... although I can guess what a lot of it was about. I will say this about the title at least:

 

The word "nationalist" scares the hell out of me and it should scare the hell out of you, too.

 

First image I had was of a certain "Nationalist" party that basically wanted the same goals met for their country. Their cries were shockingly similar to those at the start of this thread.

I respectfully disagree. Since the first moment that we allowed politics to dictate how a war was fought in this nation, thus making the goal appeasement and victory over just victory, we haven't really had an all out victory in a war. There is a much larger percentage of the American population today than there was in 1941 that feel they are far and away entitiled to the comforts our nation's soldiers and leaders provide through conflict, without feeling like they are respoinsible for the least bit of self-sacrafice to obtain it. We had people publically talking about what we had done to deserve the events of 911 the day after is happened. Do you think that was the discussion in the news on Dec 8th 1941?

 

Serious question: Would the American people have more ownership in military affairs if the draft still existed? Without any form of conscription, it seems to me that wars just happen and people get killed, but I don't know any of them and I'm not really affected by it personally. If it were possible for me, family members, church members, etc. to be called into war, would I be more focused on the issues and be louder about whether we should be in war and louder in my demands for succint, goal-oriented fighting?

Serious question: Would the American people have more ownership in military affairs if the draft still existed? Without any form of conscription, it seems to me that wars just happen and people get killed, but I don't know any of them and I'm not really affected by it personally. If it were possible for me, family members, church members, etc. to be called into war, would I be more focused on the issues and be louder about whether we should be in war and louder in my demands for succint, goal-oriented fighting?

 

More than likely, yes. However, in WWII the draft was not met with very much hostility. People were ready to defent their nation. By 1965 self indulgance had taken over for patriotism. Now we have mind numbing indifference mixed with "I want my piece of the pie for nothing." It is a dangerous transition, and not all that different from Rome. It is just occurring so much faster with changes in technology, information, and society coming at a greater rate.

More than likely, yes. However, in WWII the draft was not met with very much hostility. People were ready to defent their nation. By 1965 self indulgance had taken over for patriotism. Now we have mind numbing indifference mixed with "I want my piece of the pie for nothing." It is a dangerous transition, and not all that different from Rome. It is just occurring so much faster with changes in technology, information, and society coming at a greater rate.

 

Was it self-indulgence or did Americans get tired of seeing so many deferments for a particular segment of society and the ones being drafted were without options. (i.e. college, etc) One of the great problems comparing the reaction of the American public to WW II and say "Vietnam" was the very issue of "everyone being eligible" to be drafted. Ball players in the professional ranks were being drafted. How many were taken in the Vietnam era? Collegians were drafted in WW II and how many were drafted during the Vietnam Conflict?

 

Add to that the frustration of not seeing a clear goal or what "victory" looked like in Vietnam versus fighting for total capitilation of the Axis.

 

Self-indulgence is surely in there as you suggest but so are a lot of other things beyond that. Things like injustice in the systems and a sense of hopelessness.

I haven't really read much of this thread... although I can guess what a lot of it was about. I will say this about the title at least:

 

The word "nationalist" scares the hell out of me and it should scare the hell out of you, too.

 

Why should a word meaning proud of your country scare you? The word socialist or dictator should scare you more.

Why should a word meaning proud of your country scare you? The word socialist or dictator should scare you more.

 

I take it you've never read about fascism.

Why should a word meaning proud of your country scare you? The word socialist or dictator should scare you more.

 

From Merriam-Webster:

 

Nationalism: loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.

 

Here are the groups that immediately come to mind when I hear "nationalist":

 

National Front (France)

British National Party

Irish Republican Army

 

Here's the problem: despite the fact that we all live in the same country, anytime someone comes around espousing to represent a "nation," you had better make darn sure you're a part of "their nation."

From Merriam-Webster:

 

Nationalism: loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.

 

Here are the groups that immediately come to mind when I hear "nationalist":

 

National Front (France)

British National Party

Irish Republican Army

 

Here's the problem: despite the fact that we all live in the same country, anytime someone comes around espousing to represent a "nation," you had better make darn sure you're a part of "their nation."

 

 

And you even left out the "Brown Shirts" who are the "Nationalist Party" I most think of when I hear the word.

Why should a word meaning proud of your country scare you? The word socialist or dictator should scare you more.

 

Now that's a word you often find associated with "Nationalist."

 

Historically speaking of course.

Why should a word meaning proud of your country scare you? The word socialist or dictator should scare you more.

 

 

To build on what Hatz said, most countries ran by a nationalist party were socialist ran but a cult like dictator. The first party that comes to mind is the National Socialists better known as Nazi's found and ran by Hitler. Most Nationalist Parties I can think of care little for the individual and his/her rights and care more about the people showing blind alliegence to the nation and particularily its leader. Other examples are Mussolini in Italy and Franco in Spain.

Why should a word meaning proud of your country scare you? The word socialist or dictator should scare you more.

 

WHAT? You're at it again? I guess we need so send the planes over again? :sssh:

WHAT? You're at it again? I guess we need so send the planes over again? :sssh:

 

Too late I already saw planes today.

Easy out for some of you, just bring up Hitler. Hitler cared more for Germany as a country than Obama does America. And yes Hitler was a very evil man who is in a bad place. Obama is running America into the gutter and the sooner his term is up the better.

I do not believe anyone would argue with your overarching theme of "let's not ignore today's issues."

 

All problems need to be dealt with constantly.

 

If so, then why mention there were problems in the good old days also? Why would that be relevant to the fact that we have problems today and we need to address them? Folks might have well responded to my post by stating cows give milk.