I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE.....

"John Mullen" wrote:

[snieep]

I assure you I'm not jealous or resentful!

I'm not buying your "playing dumb" act with regards to that nonsense
you posted about not understanding why Americans respect the
Stars & Stripes. You're obviously smarter than that and I think you
are jealous and resentful but are too proud to publically admit it.

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...
"John Mullen" wrote:

[snieep]

I assure you I'm not jealous or resentful!

I'm not buying your "playing dumb" act with regards to that nonsense
you posted about not understanding why Americans respect the
Stars & Stripes. You're obviously smarter than that and I think you
are jealous and resentful but are too proud to publically admit it.

If you can't understand what I said previously, I doubt if I can explain it
further to you.

I didn't say I didn't say I didn't understand why Americans respect the
Stars and Stripes. Hell, *I* respect the US flag, it's a nice flag and in
spite of everything still stands for a lot of good things.

What I don't fully understand is the way a lot of intelligent Americans let
ritualistic patriotism blunt their scepticism about their country's foreign
policy adventures and how they relate to the founding fathers' dream.

HTH

(but I doubt it!)

John

"Gordon" wrote in message
...
With all respect Gordon, this sort of 'respecting the symbol of our
nation'
is probably very hard for most Europeans to understand.

I doubt if I could clear it up, but I grew up thinking that our flag stood
for
everyone on earth who wanted to live free. I know that time has proven
this
notion to be wrong, but I also know that 29 of my friends gave their lives
in
US Navy aircraft so that the rest of us could live ours in relative peace.
I
think that when folks have died under this banner of ours, for no other
reason
than to earn freedom for people in other nations, its a symbol to be held
with
pride. I know - impossible to explain what that flag means but it
represents
the freedom that all people deserve, to me.

I concur. With the proviso that it might not be guaranteed in the future
that any adventure conducted under that flag is OK.

John

"John Mullen" wrote:

[blah blah]

What I don't fully understand is the way a lot of intelligent Americans let
ritualistic patriotism blunt their scepticism about their country's foreign
policy adventures and how they relate to the founding fathers' dream.

All you need to know is that not every intelligent American behaved
in a "ritualistic patriotic" manner during Vietnam, nor does every
intelligent American behave in a "ritualistic patriotic" manner
nowadays during the Iraq war.

In 'Nam, communism was demonstrably a grievous threat to the
U.S. and our allies and something called the "Domino Theory" was
in vogue at the time. In Iraq, terrorism IS a demonstrably grievous
threat to the U.S. and our allies and something called "Weapons of
Mass Destruction" IS in vogue at this time.

Not every American is patriotic and supports our foreign policy
adventures (as you so eloquently put it). But since you don't
understand American patriotism, you are the last person who
should be making snide remarks or questioning those of
us who aren't quite as confused as you are when it comes
to the simple concept of patriotism.

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...
"John Mullen" wrote:

[blah blah]

What I don't fully understand is the way a lot of intelligent Americans
let
ritualistic patriotism blunt their scepticism about their country's
foreign
policy adventures and how they relate to the founding fathers' dream.

All you need to know is that not every intelligent American behaved
in a "ritualistic patriotic" manner during Vietnam, nor does every
intelligent American behave in a "ritualistic patriotic" manner
nowadays during the Iraq war.

I'm certainly relieved to hear that.

In 'Nam, communism was demonstrably a grievous threat to the
U.S. and our allies and something called the "Domino Theory" was
in vogue at the time. In Iraq, terrorism IS a demonstrably grievous
threat to the U.S. and our allies and something called "Weapons of
Mass Destruction" IS in vogue at this time.

Good comparison. So you think the WMD justification will look just as daft
in the future as the domino theory does looking back on it now?

Not every American is patriotic and supports our foreign policy
adventures (as you so eloquently put it). But since you don't
understand American patriotism, you are the last person who
should be making snide remarks or questioning those of
us who aren't quite as confused as you are when it comes
to the simple concept of patriotism.

I didn't make any snide remarks. That was you. And only the truly stupid
think patriotism is a simple concept.

John

"John Mullen" wrote:
"Mike Marron" wrote:

All you need to know is that not every intelligent American behaved
in a "ritualistic patriotic" manner during Vietnam, nor does every
intelligent American behave in a "ritualistic patriotic" manner
nowadays during the Iraq war.

I'm certainly relieved to hear that.

You can continue to play dumb if you like John, but like I said
before you're simply jealous and resentful. And I might also
add that you're also too cowardly to come right out and admit
that you hate any American who happens to express their
patriotism by proudly flying the Stars & Stripes and/or reciting
the Pledge of Allegiance.

In 'Nam, communism was demonstrably a grievous threat to the
U.S. and our allies and something called the "Domino Theory" was
in vogue at the time. In Iraq, terrorism IS a demonstrably grievous
threat to the U.S. and our allies and something called "Weapons of
Mass Destruction" IS in vogue at this time.

Good comparison. So you think the WMD justification will look just as daft
in the future as the domino theory does looking back on it now?

I'm beginning to think your cynical and contemptuous "playing dumb"
act isn't an act afterall, John. Now, whether you realize it or not,
you've just insulted tens of thousands of brave men who died in
service to their country fighting the expansion of Communism.

Just to refresh your memory, recall that North Vietnam was a Soviet
client state and in the world of the 60's it was by no means obvious
that the USSR and Communism would ultimately self-destruct as it
did. It could easily have gone the other way.

The point is, right or wrong, we believed that the loss of Vietnam
meant the loss of all Southeast Asia, ultimately over to the
Phillipines, Malaysia, Indonesia and finally a serious threat to
India. Should we have stood aside? Then I suppose we should
have done so in Korea and other places where Communist bullies
tried armed takeover as well?

With regards to the threat of WMD by Iraq, what DON'T you understand
about Saddam's attempt to develop a nuclear weapons program such
as the Osirak nuclear reactor near Baghdad? What about Saddam's
chemical weapons attack on the Iraqi Kurdish village of Halabja where
entire families died while trying to flee clouds of nerve and mustard
agents descending from the sky? How about the jet airliner fuselage in
Salman Pak, Iraq used to train Al-Qaeda terrorists? You've heard of
Al-Qaeda, right? They're the same bunch of Arab cowards who turned
our domestic airliners into deadly WMD's by flying them topped off
with 17,000 gallons of Jet-A into the WTC towers and the Pentagon.
Evidently you've chosen to conveniently forget about all this, matey?

Not every American is patriotic and supports our foreign policy
adventures (as you so eloquently put it). But since you don't
understand American patriotism, you are the last person who
should be making snide remarks or questioning those of
us who aren't quite as confused as you are when it comes
to the simple concept of patriotism.

I didn't make any snide remarks. That was you. And only the truly stupid
think patriotism is a simple concept.

Your closing comment above is yet another snide remark and you
know it. In fact, pretty much everything that you write are snide
remarks about patriotic Americans.

You insinuate that I'm "stupid" because I think patriotism is a simple
concept. You've insulted American's patriotism by referring to it as
"quaint and simplistic." You've alluded to "USAians" as being too
ignorant to know what "freedom of expression" means. You use the
disparaging term, "ritualistic patriotism" in a feeble attempt to
portray patriotic Americans as a bunch of brainwashed, flag-waving
zealots.

You then go on to insult the thousands of courageous and great
Americans who fought in Vietnam and are fighting and dying to this day
in the Middle East. You engage in speculation, empty and arrogant
moralizing, calculated affront, and offensive attention-seeking. Only
the fact that you put yourself on display in such a manner makes your
insults amusing and not to be taken seriously. If your opinions or
your manner demonstrated any humility or perspective, your
self-rightous, condescending insults and stinkbait wouldn't even
get noticed.

Continue to cast all the aspersions against patriotic Americans as
you see fit, John, because like you said that's what "freedom of
speech" is all about. But like it or not, it is all those "stupid,
quaint and simplistic, ignorant and ritualistic patriotic etc."
Americans who preserved your right to act like just another
ungrateful European asshole who publically insults American's
patriotism -- from behind the relative safety of your PC, of course!
Oh sure, you want your freedom of speech alright, but you also
want to have contempt for those who won that freedom of speech
on behalf of ingrates like you.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 13:06:03 -0400, Bob McKellar
wrote:


Depending on venue, most people think the last line of the National Anthem is
either

"Play Ball!"

My mother says that when I went off to school at first, I came home
one day to report that we sang the song from all the football and
basketball games. It took very little questioning to discover that I,
good little daughter of a football and basketball coach, had actually
learned the words at the games. Apparently I was surprised that the
song was sung elsewhere....

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Mike Marron wrote in message . ..
"John Mullen" wrote:
"Mike Marron" wrote:

All you need to know is that not every intelligent American behaved
in a "ritualistic patriotic" manner during Vietnam, nor does every
intelligent American behave in a "ritualistic patriotic" manner
nowadays during the Iraq war.

I'm certainly relieved to hear that.

You can continue to play dumb if you like John, but like I said
before you're simply jealous and resentful.

I'm truly sorry you think that. It isn't what I said or what I meant.

And I might also
add that you're also too cowardly to come right out and admit
that you hate any American who happens to express their
patriotism by proudly flying the Stars & Stripes and/or reciting
the Pledge of Allegiance.

I genuinely don't hate any American who happens to express their
patriotism by proudly flying the Stars & Stripes and/or reciting the
Pledge of Allegiance. I also don't think I'm a coward for having my
own opinions.

In 'Nam, communism was demonstrably a grievous threat to the
U.S. and our allies and something called the "Domino Theory" was
in vogue at the time. In Iraq, terrorism IS a demonstrably grievous
threat to the U.S. and our allies and something called "Weapons of
Mass Destruction" IS in vogue at this time.

Good comparison. So you think the WMD justification will look just as daft
in the future as the domino theory does looking back on it now?

I'm beginning to think your cynical and contemptuous "playing dumb"
act isn't an act afterall, John. Now, whether you realize it or not,
you've just insulted tens of thousands of brave men who died in
service to their country fighting the expansion of Communism.

That's ********! I didn't insult anyone.

Just to refresh your memory, recall that North Vietnam was a Soviet
client state and in the world of the 60's it was by no means obvious
that the USSR and Communism would ultimately self-destruct as it
did. It could easily have gone the other way.

The point is, right or wrong, we believed that the loss of Vietnam
meant the loss of all Southeast Asia, ultimately over to the
Phillipines, Malaysia, Indonesia and finally a serious threat to
India. Should we have stood aside? Then I suppose we should
have done so in Korea and other places where Communist bullies
tried armed takeover as well?

With regards to the threat of WMD by Iraq, what DON'T you understand
about Saddam's attempt to develop a nuclear weapons program such
as the Osirak nuclear reactor near Baghdad?

Destroyed by Israel.

What about Saddam's
chemical weapons attack on the Iraqi Kurdish village of Halabja where
entire families died while trying to flee clouds of nerve and mustard
agents descending from the sky?

Supported at the time by your country. Whether you like it or not.

How about the jet airliner fuselage in
Salman Pak, Iraq used to train Al-Qaeda terrorists? You've heard of
Al-Qaeda, right?

Yes. I know they got a lot of CIA support in the early days. For all I
(or you)
know, the CIA are still training loonies like that.

They're the same bunch of Arab cowards who turned
our domestic airliners into deadly WMD's by flying them topped off
with 17,000 gallons of Jet-A into the WTC towers and the Pentagon.
Evidently you've chosen to conveniently forget about all this, matey?

No, I would say you have, 'matey'. Do you regard 9.11 as a foreign
policy success for your country? Serious question, please answer it.

Not every American is patriotic and supports our foreign policy
adventures (as you so eloquently put it). But since you don't
understand American patriotism, you are the last person who
should be making snide remarks or questioning those of
us who aren't quite as confused as you are when it comes
to the simple concept of patriotism.

I didn't make any snide remarks. That was you. And only the truly stupid
think patriotism is a simple concept.

Your closing comment above is yet another snide remark and you
know it. In fact, pretty much everything that you write are snide
remarks about patriotic Americans.

Only in your mind. Think about it from my point of view, if (and I
doubt it) you can do that.

You insinuate that I'm "stupid" because I think patriotism is a simple
concept. You've insulted American's patriotism by referring to it as
"quaint and simplistic." You've alluded to "USAians" as being too
ignorant to know what "freedom of expression" means. You use the
disparaging term, "ritualistic patriotism" in a feeble attempt to
portray patriotic Americans as a bunch of brainwashed, flag-waving
zealots.

More or less true.

You then go on to insult the thousands of courageous and great
Americans who fought in Vietnam and are fighting and dying to this day
in the Middle East. You engage in speculation, empty and arrogant
moralizing, calculated affront, and offensive attention-seeking. Only
the fact that you put yourself on display in such a manner makes your
insults amusing and not to be taken seriously. If your opinions or
your manner demonstrated any humility or perspective, your
self-rightous, condescending insults and stinkbait wouldn't even
get noticed.

Hey, great invective. But next to you, that status would be hard to
attain. You sound like a Stalinist. Did you ever listen to Radio
Tirana? Too young? Pity, you would have liked it.

Continue to cast all the aspersions against patriotic Americans as
you see fit, John, because like you said that's what "freedom of
speech" is all about. But like it or not, it is all those "stupid,
quaint and simplistic, ignorant and ritualistic patriotic etc."
Americans who preserved your right to act like just another
ungrateful European asshole who publically insults American's
patriotism -- from behind the relative safety of your PC, of course!
Oh sure, you want your freedom of speech alright, but you also
want to have contempt for those who won that freedom of speech
on behalf of ingrates like you.

I don't think I've ever encountered anyone in 7 years of Usenet use
who was as (I think) wilfully perverse in misreading what I've
written.

Think about the international nature of this wonderful, US-invented
medium.

Think about what freedom of speech (one, as I've said, of the things
your country stands for that I'm proud to agree with) actually means.
Sorry if that's difficult for you.

Think of what I've actually written in this thread, and that from the
other thread you quoted, and what your insane paranoia says about you.

Try and say something intelligent, rather than just taking offence.
Have you travelled widely in the world? If not, consider it.

John

"John Mullen" writes:


With all respect Gordon, this sort of 'respecting the symbol of our nation'
is probably very hard for most Europeans to understand. Particularly this
one, to whom the UK flag is a symbol of an Empire whose great days are
behind it, the EU one a symbol of a dream whose time has not yet come, and
the Saltire a symbol of a nation which sold itself out, or was sold out, a
very long time ago.

Just one of the factors which makes it hard for us to understand each other
from the different sides of the Atlantic.

Here's another way we differ. Take this:

"I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States
of America and to the principles for which it stands, one
nation under law, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
all."

Just as in the oath a federal employee takes ("support and defend the Constitution")...

But the oath is to:

not the President....
not the party in power...
not the government....

but the Constitution itself. We take this for granted, but non-AmCits can have
a hard time grasping that the Armed Forces are NOT loyal to the President...
they are loyal to the document....

So? Well play alternate history. Suppose Nixon tried a coup when on
the ropes. Where would the Army land? With the CinC of the moment...or
the Constitution? Ask yourself that about Haiti, or Liberia, or most
anywhere. In the Commonwealth, it's not even the nation's army --
it's Her Majesty's!

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

"David Lesher" wrote in message
...
"John Mullen" writes:


With all respect Gordon, this sort of 'respecting the symbol of our
nation'
is probably very hard for most Europeans to understand. Particularly this
one, to whom the UK flag is a symbol of an Empire whose great days are
behind it, the EU one a symbol of a dream whose time has not yet come,
and
the Saltire a symbol of a nation which sold itself out, or was sold out,
a
very long time ago.

Just one of the factors which makes it hard for us to understand each
other
from the different sides of the Atlantic.

Here's another way we differ. Take this:

"I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States
of America and to the principles for which it stands, one
nation under law, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
all."

Just as in the oath a federal employee takes ("support and defend the
Constitution")...

But the oath is to:

not the President....
not the party in power...
not the government....

but the Constitution itself. We take this for granted, but non-AmCits can
have
a hard time grasping that the Armed Forces are NOT loyal to the
President...
they are loyal to the document....

Good point.

So? Well play alternate history. Suppose Nixon tried a coup when on
the ropes. Where would the Army land? With the CinC of the moment...or
the Constitution?

Great question! They would have a difficult choice to make, that's for sure!

Ask yourself that about Haiti, or Liberia, or most
anywhere.

Trouble is, a lot of these places aren't really countries in the sense that
you or I would understand them. They were drawn on a map in Germany or
Britain, taking no account of ethnicity or anything else. No reason for the
locals to feel allegiance to any particular govt or constitution.

In the Commonwealth, it's not even the nation's army --
it's Her Majesty's!

Last time it was a major issue in UK history AFAIK was the Curragh Mutiny in
Ireland, where just before WW1 many British officers were prepared to refuse
orders on this basis. In the event, WW1 came along, we had the Easter
rising, partition, followed by 70 odd years of sporadic problems in Ireland
and Britain. My alternate history, where WW1 is delayed by even a year or
so, might give rise to a more peaceful Ireland in the 20th century.

John