Questioning a complacent liberal viewpoint on global terrorism. Who is more patriotic, support the war or not

Question

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so
by the exertions of better men than himself."

-John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)

The reason I hold this quote in such high regard and hold it as one
of my favourites is because Mill expressed what I believe to be a truth, that is, that if we believe that Democracy is truly an important ideal, than we must be willing to protect it at a cost which may not be a pleasant one.
In this day and age of global terrorism, it is the duty of all freedom
loving countries to align themselves and demand that terrorists be brought to justice. Merely wishing that it happen will not make it happen

Funny how a few of you think I'm an American... Some have you have jumped to the conclusion that I'm just speaking about Iraq... I'm Canadian and I suppose I should have mentioned Afghanistan... Terrorists groups like the Taliban threaten our way of life. The only way to deal with such a threat is by use of force.

Mr. tatme296... wow what to say to someone that can't even understand what he is reading.. you brought up the American Constitution, the Patriot Act, and Iraq etc..which I already said I'm not discussing... I was referring to global terrorism.. you know planes flying into buildings, trains blowing up in Madrid, trains and buses blowing up in London.. terrorists that tried to blow up planes from the UK bound for the United States...
I know I put that word out there Afghanistan.. Did you see that? Nope you didn't, you were too busy being "complacent" (complaining about things and having no answer or plan to anything) you are against war; you proved it by your own words. You are what Mill calls a miserable creature.

I'll say it again.. I'm Canadian... I have nothing to do with the Patriot Act or any other American political issue that you are blaming me for. I am questioning the non-willingness to fight terrorism.. try to understand that.

Answer 1

John Stewart Mill’s quote is based on a fundamental truth. That is a fundamental truth of those who hold individual rights and sovereignty as the highest achievement. An achievement founded in more than 3,000 years of cultural evolution. An achievement for which we not only strive but one we promote and protect.

This is not an issue of being, or not being, patriotic.

Clearly we are in a cultural war with those who do not believe in such fundamental truth. Rather, they believe in subjection of women and the death of those who are not totally committed to their belief system.

If we of the West are not willing to support and promote our cultural philosophy, to defend our cultural philosophy, to go to war if required, then we will cease to exist and the barbarians will win..

Answer 2

I certainly respect your admiration for Mill's quote. But we can't say that people have degraded their patriotism when they question the mission and goals of armed conflict.

Let's skip the current wars and let's just look back at WWI. Just what in the world were they fighting for or over?? A Serb murders an Austro-Hungarian ruler and the next thing we know the ever efficient Germans are crossing the Belgian borders to win the Franco-Prussian War Redux. Of course we all know it didn't work out the way the Germans had hoped. Instead 4 years were spent with men slaughtering each other for each other's trench lines.

Then you have this amazing moment...the 1914 Christmas Truce...Germans and Brits standing in No Man's Land realizing that they have the same loves, concerns, and dreams...and really don't want to kill one another. They didn't suddenly stop loving their countries...they just stopped wanting to kill for reasons that truly had nothing to do with protecting their nations.

Personally, I think we should always question what our governments tell us. And just because I believe that doesn't mean I love this country less. The US is a great nation, but it was made so by men who questioned what the King told them.

Answer 3

Well, first off you don't have so much a question here as a just a statement. However, I will respond anyway.
Yes, this is an excellent quote. I am familiar with it and hold it in high regard as well. Unfortunately, like many good quotes, it is often taken out of context and used to prop up a specific political agenda. The quote was referring to pacifists, that is, those who refuse to fight any war any time. There is a world of difference bewtween a pacifist and someone who feels war should be a last resort, only after all reasonable diplomatic means have been exhausted.
Now, as to the liberal complacency. I agree action MUST be taken on this matter, The question is, just what is the best course of action?? It's easy to get caught up in the ferver of reactionary violence. "They hit us, so we better hit SOMEBODY back HARD!" But as a matter of historic truth, war is rarely the best answer. Things usually work out best when cooler heads prevail - usually.
As to who is more patriotic? Patriotism is simply loving one's country. How you love your country, and what you feel is in your country's best interest differs from one person to another. Asking who's more patriotic, liberals or conservatives, is like asking who's more christian, protestants or catholics?

Answer 4

I believe in the war on Al qaeda and against other terrorist organizations. Finding and capturing Osoma Bin Ladin should be the number one concern of this country. The war in Iraq pulls personal, resources, and focus away from the war on terror. The reasons given to go to war in Iraq proved false.

As far as complacency, I think most Americans have it too good to really fight for anything they believe in and risk loosing what they have. That's regardless of political affiliation. And yes I am a registered Liberal.

Answer 5

If we had caught Bin Laden we would not be having this discussion. If Bush had kept his eye on the terrorists, we would have our fighters, our money and the respect of the world, however grudgingly given. With those things we could wage any defense we needed without strain. Instead we went into a country that had nothing to do with terror on our shore. This foolish distraction has cost us dearly and won us nothing. Saddam was an evil and vicious dictator, but so are many others in this world and it was our mission to destroy those who destroyed us, not one more crazy dictator with delusions of grandeur. We should have stuck with one objective, Bin Ladin, and not allowed ourselves to be distracted by a country already subjected to inspections and air lane restrictions. There is nothing complacent here, but there is plenty of anger...I live in New York.

Answer 6

If we allow ourselves to draw lines and a call to patriotism by either supporting the war or not, we will be affecting our way of thinking and interrupt our ability to offer up a dialog between the two sides of any issue. One thing I know for sure, character assassination and labeling other people is never patriotic. It is stupid.

In the united States, we have the highest standards possible for our elected officials as compared to other countries. We try to maintain the integrity of government.

The only way to maintain the integrity of government is to continually challenge the integrity of government. There is no other way.

Now, that's patriotic.

Answer 7

I think it's going to take more than a demand... and it's going to take a WHOLE lot more than attacking Iraq...

I have been called a liberal... I don't know if I exactly fit that mold, but I think that we should go AFTER BIN LADEN... full throttle... Iran, Syria, Iraq... they are crazy folks... but did they hit us... no... they were little more than cheerleaders... and you don't win the game by taking out the cheerleaders...

Edit: uh... we're not doing much in Afghanistan... a few troops just trying to keep the peace... not really a war...

Answer 8

I don't have a problem with protecting, I have a problem with invading. I don't think it is America's duty to impose an ideology. If you want to make a demand that all terrorists be brought to justice, that's fine. But realize that according to the word as it is defined, we ourselves are being run by one.

(Add. : Sorry, I did assume you were American.)

Answer 9

The French are a good example of complacent liberalism, the only war they ever won was the French Revolution and still half of them lost that one...

Answer 10

You assume that because someone thinks it's wrong to invade a sovereign country which was no danger to this country, they won't fight for anything. Bad assumption. We did not invade Iraq to protect democracy, unless that's the justification for invasion du jour. Last I heard (reason 57) it was to establish democracy there, which has absolutel;y nothing to do with being willing to fight to protect our democracy.