Has Living In Thailand Made You More Or Less Nationalistic?

[PeaceBlondie]

If people weren't so nationalistic there would be no wars. People who see themselves as members of the human population, instead of a countries population, are far less likely to invade, rape, torture, humiliate, and murder. That is my view. Nationalism only really serves the interest of a small elite.

You are echoing the lyrics of a dreamer, who was assassinated:

Imagine there's no countries

It isn't hard to do

Nothing to kill or die for

And no religion too

Imagine all the people

Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will be as one

[Naam]

So I guess you do not believe that Iran supports terrorist groups? That if they had atomic weapons that they might not find there way into some radical terrorist groups hands? Your probably not too worried if that happened because you know that the US is a bigger target and they would use them there first.

let's be realistic JST. do you really think the Iranians (those in power) are THAT stupid? making nuclear weapons available to terrorists? and then having their country levelled by B1 bombers into the biggest and flattest parking place on this planet? Rupert Murdoch and his minions like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity would like that or at least claim they'd like it. but would you like it? would you like the worldwide ramifications which would affect us all?

by the way, terrorists are called terrorists by some. others call them freedom fighters. some former terrorists have been awarded the "Peace Nobel Prize" and dozens of other terrorists have become respected heads of state for whom red carpets were and are still rolled out. ahmm. yes... "terrorists" have founded the United States and they gave the country a constitution which should be honoured by any country... last not least by the United States. unfortunately the reality differs.

[madjbs]

The US couldn't even handle Iraq, so the ultimate winner in Iraq has been Iran, which is now very strong.

Yes I agree, ultimately that is what has stopped Bush going any further and what makes it ridiculous when they even make it sound like they are considering it.

[garro]

Pakistan has atomic weapons and an abundant Al Quaeda population in the north (real terrorists, even according to Muslim people) mountainous regions. There is already a high likelihood that weapons could fall into their hands due to the support from certain divisions of the Pakistani army and very poor security.

If the U.S wants to invade Iran to stop any risk of terrorist gaining weapons and not because Iran opposes the U.S in most ways, then why isn't the U.S in Pakistan as well, helping the Pakistani army and insuring no dirty work takes place?

It is false to say the US wants to invade Iran or wants a war with Iran. The US couldn't even handle Iraq, so the ultimate winner in Iraq has been Iran, which is now very strong. The US can and will defend Israel against the threats of Iran if Isreal needs help with that. Iran has threatened to destroy Israel. That is what allies do, defend their friends. Nobody wants war, but you have to wonder if Iran does. The pie in the sky cheek turning peaceniks here are not awake to what kind of world we live in.

Israel, now there is a perfect example of American hypocrisy and the dangers of nationalism.

There you have a country where which most agree has nuclear weapons.

They have already shown their contempt of UN mandates.

Yet there is no complaint.

Blatant double standards.

Edited April 20, 2008 by garro

[madjbs]

by the way, terrorists are called terrorists by some. others call them freedom fighters. some former terrorists have been awarded the "Peace Nobel Prize" and dozens of other terrorists have become respected heads of state for whom red carpets were and are still rolled out. ahmm. yes... "terrorists" have founded the United States and they gave the country a constitution which should be honoured by any country... last not least by the United States. unfortunately the reality differs.

Exactly right

Occasionally some groups have even been supported and funded and then only to be disbanded and labeled terrorists by the very same people who supported them, once whoever it was, was finished benefiting from their actions.

Edited April 20, 2008 by madjbs

[jstumbo]

Pakistan has atomic weapons and an abundant Al Quaeda population in the north (real terrorists, even according to Muslim people) mountainous regions. There is already a high likelihood that those weapons could fall into their hands due to the support from certain divisions of the Pakistani army and very poor security.

If the U.S wants to invade Iran to stop any risk of terrorists gaining weapons and not because Iran opposes the U.S in most ways, then why isn't the U.S in Pakistan as well, helping the Pakistani army and insuring no dirty work takes place?

We are.

We do not have diplomatic relations with Iran anymore since they attacked our embassy, took it over and held everyone hostage for a year.

Also Pakistan does not call for the destruction of the US. If Pakistan was hostile towards the US, had atomic weapons, supported Al Qeada and financed attacks on the US, we would have done more than just talked tough with them like we have Iran. That would make them kind of like Afghanistan only worse.

Economic sanctions do not work on these countries because there is usually some European country that will not follow the sanctions and ship them whatever they want to buy anyway. Or China will.

Look at Iran. After everything that is going on, do you think they have changed their minds about making atomic weapons? I doubt anything that has been done that has made them reconsider. Not that I am sure that they are trying to develop them in the first place. Don't really trust the government of the US to not lie to me when it is in their best interest, especially Bush. But the IAEA says that there are some questions that need to be answered.

[Jingthing]

Israel, now there is a perfect example of American hypocrisy and the dangers of nationalism.

There you have a country where which most agree has nuclear weapons.

They have already shown their contempt of UN mandates.

Yet there is no complaint.

Blatant double standards.

Hypocrisy, huh?

Does anyone seriously believe Israel would ever use its nukes aggressively? Of course they would never do so.

Yet Iran has pledged to destroy Israel. Such a regime must be stopped from acquiring this technology. No hypocrisy whatsoever.

[Naam]

Kind of like with Korean War. North Korea invades the south. We could have talked to them all we wanted and told them how bad it was that they did that and that they should go back over the border. But in the end the only way to make them do it was to force them at the end of a gun.

what was the justification that "we" intervened in Korea? what was the justification that "we" intervened and killed a couple of millions in Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia? until this very day innocent civilians are killed or maimed in the latter two states by mines. why did "we" not intervene when Phol Pot organized a genocide in Cambodia and murdered two millions? "we" supported him because he was an enemy of Viet Nam! why did "we" not intervene in 1994 and stop the killing of more than a million civilians in Rwanda?

[jstumbo]

If people weren't so nationalistic there would be no wars. People who see themselves as members of the human population, instead of a countries population, are far less likely to invade, rape, torture, humiliate, and murder. That is my view. Nationalism only really serves the interest of a small elite.

You are echoing the lyrics of a dreamer, who was assassinated:

Imagine there's no countries

It isn't hard to do

Nothing to kill or die for

And no religion too

Imagine all the people

Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will be as one

That is what happens when a peaceful person meets a person that believes in killing. The peaceful person uses words and the violent person kills him. If everyone was peaceful it would be great, but all it takes is one person that believes in violence to ruin it for everyone.

Didn't the UK appease Germany during the beginnings of WWII? Didn't they say that it was OK if they took Poland/Austria because it did not concern them. That it was historically part of Germany anyway? French tried to talk, but look what it got them. If the other person does not care what you have to say, you can not talk your way to a solution.

[madjbs]

what was the justification that "we" intervened in Korea? what was the justification that "we" intervened and killed a couple of millions in Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia? until this very day innocent civilians are killed or maimed in the latter two states by mines. why did "we" not intervene when Phol Pot organized a genocide in Cambodia and murdered two millions? "we" supported him because he was an enemy of Viet Nam! why did "we" not intervene in 1994 and stop the killing of more than a million civilians in Rwanda?

As usual, it comes down to nothing but money money money.

Edited April 20, 2008 by madjbs

[Jingthing]

You may say that I'm a dreamer

There is no may or might about it! You are a dreamer!

[jstumbo]

Israel, now there is a perfect example of American hypocrisy and the dangers of nationalism.

There you have a country where which most agree has nuclear weapons.

They have already shown their contempt of UN mandates.

Yet there is no complaint.

Blatant double standards.

I agree. I am no fan of Israel. The US supports them way too much. I say don't give them anything until they pull back to the 1967 borders. Remove all the settlements. That is what needs to happen. But that is a whole 'nother thread.

[garro]

Israel, now there is a perfect example of American hypocrisy and the dangers of nationalism.

There you have a country where which most agree has nuclear weapons.

They have already shown their contempt of UN mandates.

Yet there is no complaint.

Blatant double standards.

Hypocrisy, huh?

Does anyone seriously believe Israel would ever use its nukes aggressively? Of course they would never do so.

Yet Iran has pledged to destroy Israel. Such a regime must be stopped from acquiring this technology. No hypocrisy whatsoever.

Iran is just grandstanding for the arabs. The fact that Israel constantly violates UN mandates is appalling and not a sign of a stable state. Who knows what they would do if they believed they were under attack. When I was younger I had a lot of sympathy for the Zionist cause. I was a big Leon Uris fan. In recent years though it has become obvious that Israel has gotten out of control and needs to be reigned in. I don't believe that Israel will always have the same support in America, and I don't think America will always be able to give this support. Israel must do more to help peace- building walls and illegal settlements will not achieve this.

Edited April 20, 2008 by garro

[Jingthing]

Iran is just grandstanding for the arabs

Easy for you to say. If you were living in a place where they had their guns aimed, you would take their loud threats seriously. It is called self defense. All countries have that right.

Edited April 20, 2008 by Jingthing

[Naam]

Israel, now there is a perfect example of American hypocrisy and the dangers of nationalism.

There you have a country where which most agree has nuclear weapons.

They have already shown their contempt of UN mandates.

Yet there is no complaint.

Blatant double standards.

Hypocrisy, huh?

Does anyone seriously believe Israel would ever use its nukes aggressively? Of course they would never do so.

Yet Iran has pledged to destroy Israel. Such a regime must be stopped from acquiring this technology. No hypocrisy whatsoever.

dream on Jingthing. Iran will have nuclear weapons and there's nothing that can stop that development no matter what Israel or the jewish lobby in Washington is after. "Iran" has never published the intention to destroy Israel. Ahmadinejad made it quite clear that the "institution" Israel should be destroyed and any stolen land should be given back to Palestinians. but of course he is not aware that all this stolen land is "GOD given". all relevant title deeds are clearly mentioned in the Old Testament.

i don't condone the actions of the Hamas <deleted>. but i resent the "rights" Israel claims based on some old fairy tales and because of the horror jewish people had to suffer when "my" country had the power to make them suffer.

whatever i wrote is all in my (NOT SO) humble opinion

[Mosha]

Well despite coming from god's country. North of the Humber, south of the Tees , and east of The Pennines. I am happy to live where the wind isn't so lazy.

[Naam]

Israel, now there is a perfect example of American hypocrisy and the dangers of nationalism.

There you have a country where which most agree has nuclear weapons.

They have already shown their contempt of UN mandates.

Yet there is no complaint.

Blatant double standards.

Hypocrisy, huh?

Does anyone seriously believe Israel would ever use its nukes aggressively? Of course they would never do so.

Yet Iran has pledged to destroy Israel. Such a regime must be stopped from acquiring this technology. No hypocrisy whatsoever.

Iran is just grandstanding for the arabs. The fact that Israel constantly violates UN mandates is appalling and not a sign of a stable state. Who knows what they would do if they believed they were under attack. When I was younger I had a lot of sympathy for the Zionist cause. I was a big Leon Uris fan. In recent years though it has become obvious that Israel has gotten out of control and needs to be reigned in. I don't believe that Israel will always have the same support in America, and I don't think America will always be able to give this support. Israel must do more to help peace- building walls and illegal settlements will not achieve this.

you are wrong Garro but i fully agree with your way of thinking!

[madjbs]

It is called self defense. All countries have that right.

Quite right, which is the reason why Iran is entitled to atomic weapons, Israel has them and the U.S certainly does. How can Iran be expected to protect itself if it doesn't have a nuclear program? Or is it one rule for you and another for all who oppose?

Edited April 20, 2008 by madjbs

[Jingthing]

It is called self defense. All countries have that right.

Quite right, which is the reason why Iran is entitled to atomic weapons, Israel has them and the U.S certainly does. How can Iran be expected to protect itself if it doesn't have a nuclear program? Or is it one rule for you and another for all who oppose?

A country that has shown a tendency to use nukes aggressively should indeed be stopped from getting them, if possible. Do you doubt the world will be more unsafe if Iran gets these weapons?

[jayhech]

If people weren't so nationalistic there would be no wars. People who see themselves as members of the human population, instead of a countries population, are far less likely to invade, rape, torture, humiliate, and murder. That is my view. Nationalism only really serves the interest of a small elite.

I totally agree especially the "elite" part.

[garro]

It is called self defense. All countries have that right.

Quite right, which is the reason why Iran is entitled to atomic weapons, Israel has them and the U.S certainly does. How can Iran be expected to protect itself if it doesn't have a nuclear program? Or is it one rule for you and another for all who oppose?

A country that has shown a tendency to use nukes aggressively should indeed be stopped from getting them, if possible. Do you doubt the world will be more unsafe if Iran gets these weapons?

I am only aware of one country that has ever resorted to nuclear weapons.

[Naam]

Didn't the UK appease Germany during the beginnings of WWII? Didn't they say that it was OK if they took Poland/Austria because it did not concern them. That it was historically part of Germany anyway? French tried to talk, but look what it got them. If the other person does not care what you have to say, you can not talk your way to a solution.

let facts rule! the UK did not appease Germany when WWII started. fact is that Chamberlain (reluctantly) let Hitler annex the area "Sudetenland" in (then) Czechoslovakia where an overwhelming majority of Germans lived since centuries. that was one year before Germany attacked Poland and started WWII.

[Jingthing]

I am only aware of one country that has ever resorted to nuclear weapons.

Of course. And if you study history, there was a justification and it was in a time of total war. Whether or not that decision saved many more lives than it took (which I think) is a matter of historical debate.

What kind of logic are you coming from? That the weapons won't ever be used again? The more countries that have them, the more likely they will be used.

The Iran thing is relevant to nationalism because nationalism is linked to wars, no doubt. Most Americans do consider Iran their enemy or at least potential enemy, and a threat. Probably less so from Europeans.

Edited April 20, 2008 by Jingthing

[madjbs]

It is called self defense. All countries have that right.

Quite right, which is the reason why Iran is entitled to atomic weapons, Israel has them and the U.S certainly does. How can Iran be expected to protect itself if it doesn't have a nuclear program? Or is it one rule for you and another for all who oppose?

A country that has shown a tendency to use nukes aggressively should indeed be stopped from getting them, if possible. Do you doubt the world will be more unsafe if Iran gets these weapons?

And Isreal has never shown aggressive tendencies has it?

Actually I do doubt the world would be more unsafe, what is unsafe right now is the fact that theoretically another war could take place which would intensify the hatred towards the west tenfold. In fact that has already happened in Iraq, we defiantly do not want it to happen again. As Naam pointed out, there has never been any official statement of "the obliteration of Israel" or any evidence to suggest that would ever happen, do you think Iranians are all whacked out cavemen or something?

Edited April 20, 2008 by madjbs

[Naam]

It is called self defense. All countries have that right.

Quite right, which is the reason why Iran is entitled to atomic weapons, Israel has them and the U.S certainly does. How can Iran be expected to protect itself if it doesn't have a nuclear program? Or is it one rule for you and another for all who oppose?

A country that has shown a tendency to use nukes aggressively should indeed be stopped from getting them, if possible. Do you doubt the world will be more unsafe if Iran gets these weapons?

I am only aware of one country that has ever resorted to nuclear weapons.

Papua New Guinea?

[garro]

I am only aware of one country that has ever resorted to nuclear weapons.

Of course. And if you study history, there was a justification and it was in a time of total war. Whether or not that decision saved many more lives than it took (which I think) is a matter of historical debate.

What kind of logic are you coming from? That the weapons won't ever be used again? The more countries that have them, the more likely they will be used.

The Iran thing is relevant to nationalism because nationalism is linked to wars, no doubt. Most Americans do consider Iran their enemy or at least potential enemy, and a threat. Probably less so from Europeans.

jingthing, I was responding to your comment that; 'A country that has shown a tendency to use nukes aggressively should indeed be stopped from getting them'. Only one country has ever used them and it wasn't Iran.

I understand that you have your reasons for sympathizing with Israel. I think though, if you could step back and look at the what is happening just as a human (and not as a Jew or an American) you would agree that Israel is not doing itself any favours by its actions.

Edited April 20, 2008 by garro

[Scott]

I have become more nationalistic, but I think in a realistic sense. I have dual nationality, so I can chose to answer 'where do you come from' according to how much grief I want to get. One of the problems--and I think this is actually a type of nationalism--is the bashing of other people's countries. I think that this lovely SE Asian nation where I am living has some of the absolutely stupidest, silliest, most illogical policies I have ever seen. I, however, generally keep my mouth shut and if I do discuss them, I do so in a rational manner without implying the nations people are stupid or monkeys or anything else. Like many of us, we/they are victims of our gov'ts--whether elected or not.

I make every effort to listen to other people's point of view--and often to refrain from expressing my own, if it's going to lead to a serious and unproductive outcome, but a lot of people don't chose to listen. They are right and the other person's country and people --as expressed by 'you people', are wrong is nationalism and it's counterproductive.

[jstumbo]

Kind of like with Korean War. North Korea invades the south. We could have talked to them all we wanted and told them how bad it was that they did that and that they should go back over the border. But in the end the only way to make them do it was to force them at the end of a gun.

what was the justification that "we" intervened in Korea? what was the justification that "we" intervened and killed a couple of millions in Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia? until this very day innocent civilians are killed or maimed in the latter two states by mines. why did "we" not intervene when Phol Pot organized a genocide in Cambodia and murdered two millions? "we" supported him because he was an enemy of Viet Nam! why did "we" not intervene in 1994 and stop the killing of more than a million civilians in Rwanda?

So are you suggesting that "we" should have even more war? Pretty sure it was a UN force that was in Korea, with the approval of the government of South Korea. Pretty sure that the US was in South Vietnam with the approval of the South Vietnamese government.

Or are you suggesting that nobody should have fought in Korea to stop the North Koreans from taking over South Korea? That we should not have tried to help the south Vietnamese government fight the communist north that was trying to take over them?

Could you imagine what the world would look like if the US did not come to the aid of other countries? What would Europe look like if the US did not go there? England could not have held out much longer. North Africa would be speaking German. What would Asia look like? Japan would have controlled it all. Sure the British and the ANZAC forces were also a large part in the pacific, but if England fell, there would be no way that ANZAC could have defeated the Japanese. Korea would be one country now. Vietnam would be the same though. Every Muslim in Kosovo would be dead. Kuwait would be part of Iraq. Maybe Saudi Arabia would also be part of Iraq.

I think Iraq is probably one of the first places we have fought were we were not there by invitation of the government. I guess Panama also, but we had large interests there, they had voted in a government but the dictator nullified the election.

[Naam]

i think we should give Jingthing the "benefit of genetics" i have a number jewish friends with whom (nearly) each and everything can be discussed rationally. but once the topic "Israel / Falastinis" comes up then any ratio vanishes as fast like a piece of smoked german sausage in my mouth

[lannarebirth]

Israel, now there is a perfect example of American hypocrisy and the dangers of nationalism.

There you have a country where which most agree has nuclear weapons.

They have already shown their contempt of UN mandates.

Yet there is no complaint.

Blatant double standards.

Hypocrisy, huh?

Does anyone seriously believe Israel would ever use its nukes aggressively? Of course they would never do so.

Yet Iran has pledged to destroy Israel. Such a regime must be stopped from acquiring this technology. No hypocrisy whatsoever.

dream on Jingthing. Iran will have nuclear weapons and there's nothing that can stop that development no matter what Israel or the jewish lobby in Washington is after. "Iran" has never published the intention to destroy Israel. Ahmadinejad made it quite clear that the "institution" Israel should be destroyed and any stolen land should be given back to Palestinians. but of course he is not aware that all this stolen land is "GOD given". all relevant title deeds are clearly mentioned in the Old Testament.

i don't condone the actions of the Hamas <deleted>. but i resent the "rights" Israel claims based on some old fairy tales and because of the horror jewish people had to suffer when "my" country had the power to make them suffer.

whatever i wrote is all in my (NOT SO) humble opinion

True, they will get their weapons, but as in all actions of the west, it is "when" that matters. Most western wars/political battles of the past 50 years have been nothing more than delaying tactics till common ground can be established (usually through trade or banking intertwinements). Strong rhetoric though:

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles...eats_141201.htm