Orange Duce

[old salt]

MDLF76: Salty, you're playing the same game. You know better.

I'm not playing games. I'm resisting the PC (now Woke) perversion of our language & national discourse.

Nationalism is a good & positive thing , necessary if we are going to be a global community of independent nations, which protect & provide for their citizens.

Our sense of nationalism built this nation, bound it together after a divisive civil war, allowed it to prevail in 2 WW's & the Cold War, & gives us the national self-confidence necessary to continue as a global force for good. It enables us to integrate & assimilate more immigrants into our society than any other nation in the world.

The articles on Ukrainian nationalism I posted are instructive. The Ukrainian's lack of a long history of nationalism makes them easy prey for their revanchist Russian neighbor - whose greatest strength & unifying force is their sense of nationalism, having endured centuries of struggle.
Where was Ukrainian nationalism when they failed to maintain the awesome military capacity they inherited when the USSR came apart ?
Where was Ukrainian nationalism when the little green men rolled into Crimea, unopposed ?
Where is Ukrainian nationalism, when after every EU/US sponsored revolution, after the initial euphoria, they devolve back into the same old corrupt, self-dealing kleptocracy. There is no national ethos. Without a nationalistic history, they are a contrived, ersatz nation, propped up by their EU/US sponsors using them as a buffer & proxy in our renewed Cold War against their restive Russian neighbor.

[Brooklyn]

Pathetic.

[Typical Lax Dad]

MDLF76: Salty, you're playing the same game. You know better.

I'm not playing games. I'm resisting the PC (now Woke) perversion of our language & national discourse.

Nationalism is a good & positive thing , necessary if we are going to be a global community of independent nations, which protect & provide for their citizens.

Our sense of nationalism built this nation, bound it together after a divisive civil war, allowed it to prevail in 2 WW's & the Cold War, & gives us the national self-confidence necessary to continue as a global force for good. It enables us to integrate & assimilate more immigrants into our society than any other nation in the world.

The articles on Ukrainian nationalism I posted are instructive. The Ukrainian's lack of a long history of nationalism makes them easy prey for their revanchist Russian neighbor - whose greatest strength & unifying force is their sense of nationalism, having endured centuries of struggle.
Where was Ukrainian nationalism when they failed to maintain the awesome military capacity they inherited when the USSR came apart ?
Where was Ukrainian nationalism when the little green men rolled into Crimea, unopposed ?
Where is Ukrainian nationalism, when after every EU/US sponsored revolution, after the initial euphoria, they devolve back into the same old corrupt, self-dealing kleptocracy. There is no national ethos. Without a nationalistic history, they are a contrived, ersatz nation, propped up by their EU/US sponsors using them as a buffer & proxy in our renewed Cold War against their restive Russian neighbor.

We ain't Ukraine.....you need to find their version of Thomas Paine and ask him these philosophical questions. We have moved on since 1776. Or is that a battle we are still fighting?

[DMac]

I believe we have Cornell versus Dartmouth here. Nobody’s insulting the Army.

Actually no, CU88 did mean the Army or military overall...
No insult to my Big Green in Hanover.
Yup, and little does he know (maybe) his comment speaks volumes about him and his ilk. These are the types who will say thank you for your service and are about as sincere and honest about that as they are when they tell their wives their aszez don't look fat in that dress. I don't like it when people say that to me as I figure the majority of them think like he does (I also think some are sincere). I also don't stand up on Military Day or Veterans Day, in the Dome, for example, when the veterans are asked to stand for recognititon. I served for no one other than myself and did nothing for any of the people who are being asked to recognize me. I was looking for opportunity and adventure and I got it, no one needs to thank me for that.

We have some posters on here who seem to think that being in the military or a veteran automatically imbues one with qualities of character not found elsewhere in society, as well as some sort of immunity from critique.
You've got to throw an IMO in here. I certainly don't feel that way.

I happen to quite agree with you DMac that its quite likely that we can find knuckleheads and idiots and racists and jerks at all sorts of places other than military academies.
Which, of course is exactly the point. These types are, and always have been, amoung us. To say there is a prevalence of white supreacists in the military and claiming their philosophy is being taught at the military academies is nothing more than words coming out of an ignorant fool's mouth.

I also quite doubt that those running such military institutions skew significantly more racist than their peers at other institutions.
Nope, perecentages of gays, racists, bigots, pedophiles, rapists, murderers, etc are going to remain the same pretty much regardless of where you go.

That said, I'd not be at all surprised to learn that the views on such issues of those in the military reflect the views of the demographic from which they came, at least on intake. And, yeah, that does tend to skew more to the demographic most likely to reflect considerable bigotry.

But I'd also like to think (you guys have more background can probably help illuminate this) that the military and service tends to help folks break down prejudices if only by greater exposure to one another, dependence upon one another.
It does, and for the reasons you mention. It's a good education in that respect.

Now, the folks in the White House, that's another matter altogether.

[MDlaxfan76]

I believe we have Cornell versus Dartmouth here. Nobody’s insulting the Army.

Actually no, CU88 did mean the Army or military overall...
No insult to my Big Green in Hanover.
Yup, and little does he know (maybe) his comment speaks volumes about him and his ilk. These are the types who will say thank you for your service and are about as sincere and honest about that as they are when they tell their wives their aszez don't look fat in that dress. I don't like it when people say that to me as I figure the majority of them think like he does (I also think some are sincere). I also don't stand up on Military Day or Veterans Day, in the Dome, for example, when the veterans are asked to stand for recognititon. I served for no one other than myself and did nothing for any of the people who are being asked to recognize me. I was looking for opportunity and adventure and I got it, no one needs to thank me for that.

We have some posters on here who seem to think that being in the military or a veteran automatically imbues one with qualities of character not found elsewhere in society, as well as some sort of immunity from critique.
You've got to throw an IMO in here. I certainly don't feel that way.

I happen to quite agree with you DMac that its quite likely that we can find knuckleheads and idiots and racists and jerks at all sorts of places other than military academies.
Which, of course is exactly the point. These types are, and always have been, amoung us. To say there is a prevalence of white supreacists in the military and claiming their philosophy is being taught at the military academies is nothing more than words coming out of an ignorant fool's mouth.

I also quite doubt that those running such military institutions skew significantly more racist than their peers at other institutions.
Nope, perecentages of gays, racists, bigots, pedophiles, rapists, murderers, etc are going to remain the same pretty much regardless of where you go.

That said, I'd not be at all surprised to learn that the views on such issues of those in the military reflect the views of the demographic from which they came, at least on intake. And, yeah, that does tend to skew more to the demographic most likely to reflect considerable bigotry.

But I'd also like to think (you guys have more background can probably help illuminate this) that the military and service tends to help folks break down prejudices if only by greater exposure to one another, dependence upon one another.
It does, and for the reasons you mention. It's a good education in that respect.

Now, the folks in the White House, that's another matter altogether.

I think you're a bit harsh on thinking that others aren't actually sincere if they thank someone in uniform for their service. I don't think anyone actually bothers to say such if they don't mean it. Easier to just not bother, I'd think.

I also think CU88 is nowhere's near the "ignorant fool" or whatever else you think negatively about him. I think you're overstating what he said about people in the service or at an academy being "taught" this sort of ideology as if it's in the curriculum versus an undercurrent of acceptance amongst their peers and some in command. The latter could well be more accurate than we'd like to think...it's true across society in 2019, why not in the military?

Seems to me that military is aware of this challenge and is making moves to address it, but there's political pressure from the White House the opposite direction. That's the issue.

As to "prevalence", I doubt there's greater such in the military than what the demographics would suggest. The sorts of ideology that we're talking about, "white nationalism/white supremacy" is indeed more "prevalent" in less educated, working class, rural populations than it is in suburban, more affluent, more educated, more diverse population regions. Fact. So, if the military disproportionately gets white recruits from that demographic it would be expected that the 'prevalence' of this sort of ideology (at least on intake) would match pretty closely.

Unfortunately, it's not insignificant. Not in America, not in our military.

And it really does matter who gets weapons and explosives training, right?

So, lets keep those knuckleheads out.
Much bigger issue ('higher prevalence' or "higher incidence") than keeping, say, radical muslims out (and that's certainly a big deal!).

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pent ... the-ranks/

Doesn’t mean there is a problem with 25% of the troops. Small number but maybe not insignificant. I don’t know why it’s surprising. There are problems on college campuses, in corporations, in police departments and I am sure in the military. Best to not just ignore it. I don’t trust anything involving Stephen Miller.

[MDlaxfan76]

MDLF76: Salty, you're playing the same game. You know better.

I'm not playing games. I'm resisting the PC (now Woke) perversion of our language & national discourse.

Nationalism is a good & positive thing , necessary if we are going to be a global community of independent nations, which protect & provide for their citizens.

Our sense of nationalism built this nation, bound it together after a divisive civil war, allowed it to prevail in 2 WW's & the Cold War, & gives us the national self-confidence necessary to continue as a global force for good. It enables us to integrate & assimilate more immigrants into our society than any other nation in the world.

The articles on Ukrainian nationalism I posted are instructive. The Ukrainian's lack of a long history of nationalism makes them easy prey for their revanchist Russian neighbor - whose greatest strength & unifying force is their sense of nationalism, having endured centuries of struggle.
Where was Ukrainian nationalism when they failed to maintain the awesome military capacity they inherited when the USSR came apart ?
Where was Ukrainian nationalism when the little green men rolled into Crimea, unopposed ?
Where is Ukrainian nationalism, when after every EU/US sponsored revolution, after the initial euphoria, they devolve back into the same old corrupt, self-dealing kleptocracy. There is no national ethos. Without a nationalistic history, they are a contrived, ersatz nation, propped up by their EU/US sponsors using them as a buffer & proxy in our renewed Cold War against their restive Russian neighbor.

What a crock, Salty.
Read the freaking definition of a nationalist: "a person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations."

Patriotism is the word you want.

Certainly having patriotic pride in one's nation and willingness to defend it is important if that nation is to be sustained.

But when such 'pride' translates to a willingness to do whatever the rulers' say, in the name of the nation, that's another matter altogether. And that's the ugly history of nationalism run amuck.

And when someone thinks their national identity is based in their ethnicity, their race, their religion, the subjugation of others becomes all too predictable. That's what history tells us.

[DMac]

I believe we have Cornell versus Dartmouth here. Nobody’s insulting the Army.

Actually no, CU88 did mean the Army or military overall...
No insult to my Big Green in Hanover.
Yup, and little does he know (maybe) his comment speaks volumes about him and his ilk. These are the types who will say thank you for your service and are about as sincere and honest about that as they are when they tell their wives their aszez don't look fat in that dress. I don't like it when people say that to me as I figure the majority of them think like he does (I also think some are sincere). I also don't stand up on Military Day or Veterans Day, in the Dome, for example, when the veterans are asked to stand for recognititon. I served for no one other than myself and did nothing for any of the people who are being asked to recognize me. I was looking for opportunity and adventure and I got it, no one needs to thank me for that.

We have some posters on here who seem to think that being in the military or a veteran automatically imbues one with qualities of character not found elsewhere in society, as well as some sort of immunity from critique.
You've got to throw an IMO in here. I certainly don't feel that way.

I happen to quite agree with you DMac that its quite likely that we can find knuckleheads and idiots and racists and jerks at all sorts of places other than military academies.
Which, of course is exactly the point. These types are, and always have been, amoung us. To say there is a prevalence of white supreacists in the military and claiming their philosophy is being taught at the military academies is nothing more than words coming out of an ignorant fool's mouth.

I also quite doubt that those running such military institutions skew significantly more racist than their peers at other institutions.
Nope, perecentages of gays, racists, bigots, pedophiles, rapists, murderers, etc are going to remain the same pretty much regardless of where you go.

That said, I'd not be at all surprised to learn that the views on such issues of those in the military reflect the views of the demographic from which they came, at least on intake. And, yeah, that does tend to skew more to the demographic most likely to reflect considerable bigotry.

But I'd also like to think (you guys have more background can probably help illuminate this) that the military and service tends to help folks break down prejudices if only by greater exposure to one another, dependence upon one another.
It does, and for the reasons you mention. It's a good education in that respect.

Now, the folks in the White House, that's another matter altogether.

I think you're a bit harsh on thinking that others aren't actually sincere if they thank someone in uniform for their service. I don't think anyone actually bothers to say such if they don't mean it. Easier to just not bother, I'd think.
I said that some are sincere but believe me when I say I'm not the only veteran who feels this way. This same ilk are the ones who were calling us baby killers when we returned from Southeast Asia as it was in vogue in those days. Today the politically correct thing to do is thank us for our service and many people just mouth those words. Again, I assure you I'm not the only veteran who feels this way.


I also think CU88 is nowhere's near the "ignorant fool" or whatever else you think negatively about him. I think you're overstating what he said about people in the service or at an academy being "taught" this sort of ideology as if it's in the curriculum versus an undercurrent of acceptance amongst their peers and some in command. The latter could well be more accurate than we'd like to think...it's true across society in 2019, why not in the military?
What he said is in black and white if you want to go back and look at. There's really no mistaking what he said....and it is born of ignorance.

Seems to me that military is aware of this challenge and is making moves to address it, but there's political pressure from the White House the opposite direction. That's the issue.

As to "prevalence", I doubt there's greater such in the military than what the demographics would suggest. The sorts of ideology that we're talking about, "white nationalism/white supremacy" is indeed more "prevalent" in less educated, working class, rural populations than it is in suburban, more affluent, more educated, more diverse population regions. Fact. So, if the military disproportionately gets white recruits from that demographic it would be expected that the 'prevalence' of this sort of ideology (at least on intake) would match pretty closely.

Unfortunately, it's not insignificant. Not in America, not in our military.

And it really does matter who gets weapons and explosives training, right?

So, lets keep those knuckleheads out.
Much bigger issue ('higher prevalence' or "higher incidence") than keeping, say, radical muslims out (and that's certainly a big deal!).

[cradleandshoot]

MDLF76: Salty, you're playing the same game. You know better.

I'm not playing games. I'm resisting the PC (now Woke) perversion of our language & national discourse.

Nationalism is a good & positive thing , necessary if we are going to be a global community of independent nations, which protect & provide for their citizens.

Our sense of nationalism built this nation, bound it together after a divisive civil war, allowed it to prevail in 2 WW's & the Cold War, & gives us the national self-confidence necessary to continue as a global force for good. It enables us to integrate & assimilate more immigrants into our society than any other nation in the world.

The articles on Ukrainian nationalism I posted are instructive. The Ukrainian's lack of a long history of nationalism makes them easy prey for their revanchist Russian neighbor - whose greatest strength & unifying force is their sense of nationalism, having endured centuries of struggle.
Where was Ukrainian nationalism when they failed to maintain the awesome military capacity they inherited when the USSR came apart ?
Where was Ukrainian nationalism when the little green men rolled into Crimea, unopposed ?
Where is Ukrainian nationalism, when after every EU/US sponsored revolution, after the initial euphoria, they devolve back into the same old corrupt, self-dealing kleptocracy. There is no national ethos. Without a nationalistic history, they are a contrived, ersatz nation, propped up by their EU/US sponsors using them as a buffer & proxy in our renewed Cold War against their restive Russian neighbor.

What a crock, Salty.
Read the freaking definition of a nationalist: "a person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations."

Patriotism is the word you want.

Certainly having patriotic pride in one's nation and willingness to defend it is important if that nation is to be sustained.

But when such 'pride' translates to a willingness to do whatever the rulers' say, in the name of the nation, that's another matter altogether. And that's the ugly history of nationalism run amuck.

And when someone thinks their national identity is based in their ethnicity, their race, their religion, the subjugation of others becomes all too predictable. That's what history tells us.

Except for when a full blown shooting war breaks out. That is when everybody gets a lot less picky about who they want defending the country.

[seacoaster]

Here's who is defending the Republic:

https://twitter.com/roper_93/status/1208899385708466181

"I know windmills very much."

"You know we have a world, right? So the world is tiny compared to the universe...fumes are spewing...."

Now I understand why every member of the GOP in the House and Senate want to mortgage their sacred honor for this guy. Totally get it.

[CU88]

Here's who is defending the Republic:

https://twitter.com/roper_93/status/1208899385708466181

"I know windmills very much."

"You know we have a world, right? So the world is tiny compared to the universe...fumes are spewing...."

Now I understand why every member of the GOP in the House and Senate want to mortgage their sacred honor for this guy. Totally get it.

Insane! Wa Po reported on this also.

Here is the r's hero, o d, indoctrination of the r youth; with r science...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... nd-energy/

Me thinks the r's are huffing too many fumes these days...

[MDlaxfan76]

I believe we have Cornell versus Dartmouth here. Nobody’s insulting the Army.

Actually no, CU88 did mean the Army or military overall...
No insult to my Big Green in Hanover.
Yup, and little does he know (maybe) his comment speaks volumes about him and his ilk. These are the types who will say thank you for your service and are about as sincere and honest about that as they are when they tell their wives their aszez don't look fat in that dress. I don't like it when people say that to me as I figure the majority of them think like he does (I also think some are sincere). I also don't stand up on Military Day or Veterans Day, in the Dome, for example, when the veterans are asked to stand for recognititon. I served for no one other than myself and did nothing for any of the people who are being asked to recognize me. I was looking for opportunity and adventure and I got it, no one needs to thank me for that.

We have some posters on here who seem to think that being in the military or a veteran automatically imbues one with qualities of character not found elsewhere in society, as well as some sort of immunity from critique.
You've got to throw an IMO in here. I certainly don't feel that way.

I happen to quite agree with you DMac that its quite likely that we can find knuckleheads and idiots and racists and jerks at all sorts of places other than military academies.
Which, of course is exactly the point. These types are, and always have been, amoung us. To say there is a prevalence of white supreacists in the military and claiming their philosophy is being taught at the military academies is nothing more than words coming out of an ignorant fool's mouth.

I also quite doubt that those running such military institutions skew significantly more racist than their peers at other institutions.
Nope, perecentages of gays, racists, bigots, pedophiles, rapists, murderers, etc are going to remain the same pretty much regardless of where you go.

That said, I'd not be at all surprised to learn that the views on such issues of those in the military reflect the views of the demographic from which they came, at least on intake. And, yeah, that does tend to skew more to the demographic most likely to reflect considerable bigotry.

But I'd also like to think (you guys have more background can probably help illuminate this) that the military and service tends to help folks break down prejudices if only by greater exposure to one another, dependence upon one another.
It does, and for the reasons you mention. It's a good education in that respect.

Now, the folks in the White House, that's another matter altogether.

I think you're a bit harsh on thinking that others aren't actually sincere if they thank someone in uniform for their service. I don't think anyone actually bothers to say such if they don't mean it. Easier to just not bother, I'd think.
I said that some are sincere but believe me when I say I'm not the only veteran who feels this way. This same ilk are the ones who were calling us baby killers when we returned from Southeast Asia as it was in vogue in those days. Today the politically correct thing to do is thank us for our service and many people just mouth those words. Again, I assure you I'm not the only veteran who feels this way.


I also think CU88 is nowhere's near the "ignorant fool" or whatever else you think negatively about him. I think you're overstating what he said about people in the service or at an academy being "taught" this sort of ideology as if it's in the curriculum versus an undercurrent of acceptance amongst their peers and some in command. The latter could well be more accurate than we'd like to think...it's true across society in 2019, why not in the military?
What he said is in black and white if you want to go back and look at. There's really no mistaking what he said....and it is born of ignorance.

Seems to me that military is aware of this challenge and is making moves to address it, but there's political pressure from the White House the opposite direction. That's the issue.

As to "prevalence", I doubt there's greater such in the military than what the demographics would suggest. The sorts of ideology that we're talking about, "white nationalism/white supremacy" is indeed more "prevalent" in less educated, working class, rural populations than it is in suburban, more affluent, more educated, more diverse population regions. Fact. So, if the military disproportionately gets white recruits from that demographic it would be expected that the 'prevalence' of this sort of ideology (at least on intake) would match pretty closely.

Unfortunately, it's not insignificant. Not in America, not in our military.

And it really does matter who gets weapons and explosives training, right?

So, lets keep those knuckleheads out.
Much bigger issue ('higher prevalence' or "higher incidence") than keeping, say, radical muslims out (and that's certainly a big deal!).

DMac,
I understand that you and some other veterans may think that to be the case, but there's no way that someone who would have been calling soldiers 'baby-killers' back in that era (I was youngster and know exactly what you're describing) would be thanking any military folks for their service today (unless they've had an immense change of heart). The sorts of folks who would go there back then, simply wouldn't say anything today...no one's actually expected to say that today so why bother? I really think it be very rare.

Gotta remember that most of the anti-Vietnam protestors, angry as they were, weren't spitting on and cursing the military personnel, though way, way, way too many were...it was indeed a really ugly time. So much social turmoil, most all of it entirely justified (though not some of the tactics). Roughest turmoil in my lifetime and I sure hope that remains the case.

The folks who do think it's worth the bother are the ones who do. For instance, I don't intrude on someone in uniform just to thank them, but if I'm somehow otherwise engaged in conversation, it's likely to be said very naturally. Not a big deal to do.

Of course, for those of us who went through that Vietnam era, we do understand how awful it was that young men who believed they were simply answering a call to duty were treated so abominably by many of those who thought the war was a disgrace, a terrible mistake in judgment.

I think what really shook me with regard to the military and Vietnam was not My Lai, but rather the Pentagon Papers. I could see how something like My Lai could happen when things spun out of control. I've never assumed that Americans are somehow immune from committing atrocities. And I could understand how things could indeed spin out of control.

But the Pentagon Papers revealed a mendacity at the highest levels that betrayed the American people's trust. Bottomline, it wasn't just the politicians. That's what horrified me, how political pressures could lead to that level of dishonesty from the military itself.

I turned 18 in 1975, one of the few years when there was neither a draft nor even a number. I'd always assumed growing up that I'd be going to Vietnam, as a volunteer if need be, but by the time we got to '75 and '76 when I graduated HS, I was pretty darn disgusted...and mostly that was the Pentagon Papers.

Looks like we've had some of that with Afghanistan. Perhaps not as bad, but still not ok.

[MDlaxfan76]

MDLF76: Salty, you're playing the same game. You know better.

I'm not playing games. I'm resisting the PC (now Woke) perversion of our language & national discourse.

Nationalism is a good & positive thing , necessary if we are going to be a global community of independent nations, which protect & provide for their citizens.

Our sense of nationalism built this nation, bound it together after a divisive civil war, allowed it to prevail in 2 WW's & the Cold War, & gives us the national self-confidence necessary to continue as a global force for good. It enables us to integrate & assimilate more immigrants into our society than any other nation in the world.

The articles on Ukrainian nationalism I posted are instructive. The Ukrainian's lack of a long history of nationalism makes them easy prey for their revanchist Russian neighbor - whose greatest strength & unifying force is their sense of nationalism, having endured centuries of struggle.
Where was Ukrainian nationalism when they failed to maintain the awesome military capacity they inherited when the USSR came apart ?
Where was Ukrainian nationalism when the little green men rolled into Crimea, unopposed ?
Where is Ukrainian nationalism, when after every EU/US sponsored revolution, after the initial euphoria, they devolve back into the same old corrupt, self-dealing kleptocracy. There is no national ethos. Without a nationalistic history, they are a contrived, ersatz nation, propped up by their EU/US sponsors using them as a buffer & proxy in our renewed Cold War against their restive Russian neighbor.

What a crock, Salty.
Read the freaking definition of a nationalist: "a person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations."

Patriotism is the word you want.

Certainly having patriotic pride in one's nation and willingness to defend it is important if that nation is to be sustained.

But when such 'pride' translates to a willingness to do whatever the rulers' say, in the name of the nation, that's another matter altogether. And that's the ugly history of nationalism run amuck.

And when someone thinks their national identity is based in their ethnicity, their race, their religion, the subjugation of others becomes all too predictable. That's what history tells us.

Except for when a full blown shooting war breaks out. That is when everybody gets a lot less picky about who they want defending the country.

Certainly, when it comes to "defending the country".
IE when it's an existential question.

But I'm not sure where you draw the line on "full blown shooting war". Does that include Afghanistan and Iraq?
Or are these "conflicts" or "military operations"?

I think we should be darn "picky" short of existential threat.
And our current military operations are not existential for the US.

We have a volunteer military and it's the most effective force in the world.
It needs continual renewal and improvement.

But if we need to cull out the racists from the ranks and recruiting and that actually is expected to put a crimp in recruiting (I doubt it would, but that's the hypothesis), I'm all for doing what's necessary to attract more non-racists. Pay, family benefits, veteran's benefits...whatever it takes.

[DMac]

It's all good, MDlax, I know there are plenty of people who are sincere about it (I still don't feel as if there's any reason for them to be thanking me) but there are plenty who say it because they think it's the PC thing to do. You can see through it like the windshield on your car and feel it like a hammer to your thumb. Military service means nothing to them, it's just something other people do but they feel as if they're supposed to say something. Mind you, I'm always polite about it all and just say it was my pleasure. No biggie. It obviously piszez me off when people like CU88 spread the ridiculous bs about military people that he's spreading around though.

[3rdPersonPlural]

With our President now adding 'Christianity Today' to his list of publications to batter with churlish insults, I'm thinking that our patriotic answer to this question has finally been subsumed by the political one.

[CU88]

Yes, no offense to Dartmouth! Big Green = US military

Sad to see the continual defending of the US military over the rights of Citizens. Such blind and frothing devotion to the long standing “traditions” of “might makes right”. Remember the outrage from that crowd when this report was issued by the Fed’s? https://fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf
An apology was issued, but the report was NOT retracted. Facts are the facts. How many veterans have been connected hate crimes or to the race-based melee in Charlottesville? Just more “good people on both sides”??? The military has a long history of racism, and they always say; it is in the past, we have addressed it and no longer is it an issue; until the next time. A real American doesn’t question authority or tell the truth. I know, I know, I crossed a line, and the jack boots are coming for me; because I hurt their feelings.

[old salt]

MDLF76: Salty, you're playing the same game. You know better.

I'm not playing games. I'm resisting the PC (now Woke) perversion of our language & national discourse.

Nationalism is a good & positive thing , necessary if we are going to be a global community of independent nations, which protect & provide for their citizens.

Our sense of nationalism built this nation, bound it together after a divisive civil war, allowed it to prevail in 2 WW's & the Cold War, & gives us the national self-confidence necessary to continue as a global force for good. It enables us to integrate & assimilate more immigrants into our society than any other nation in the world.

The articles on Ukrainian nationalism I posted are instructive. The Ukrainian's lack of a long history of nationalism makes them easy prey for their revanchist Russian neighbor - whose greatest strength & unifying force is their sense of nationalism, having endured centuries of struggle.
Where was Ukrainian nationalism when they failed to maintain the awesome military capacity they inherited when the USSR came apart ?
Where was Ukrainian nationalism when the little green men rolled into Crimea, unopposed ?
Where is Ukrainian nationalism, when after every EU/US sponsored revolution, after the initial euphoria, they devolve back into the same old corrupt, self-dealing kleptocracy. There is no national ethos. Without a nationalistic history, they are a contrived, ersatz nation, propped up by their EU/US sponsors using them as a buffer & proxy in our renewed Cold War against their restive Russian neighbor.

What a crock, Salty.
Read the freaking definition of a nationalist: "a person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations."

Patriotism is the word you want.

Certainly having patriotic pride in one's nation and willingness to defend it is important if that nation is to be sustained.

But when such 'pride' translates to a willingness to do whatever the rulers' say, in the name of the nation, that's another matter altogether. And that's the ugly history of nationalism run amuck.

And when someone thinks their national identity is based in their ethnicity, their race, their religion, the subjugation of others becomes all too predictable. That's what history tells us.

You're using the Oxford definition of nationalism, which adds -- especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.
It does not state, or imply, "in all cases."
In other words, there are times when nationalism can take that form, but not necessarily in all cases.

Webster approaches nationalism slightly differently :

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-a ... ationalism

The Difference Between 'Patriotism' and 'Nationalism'

Although treated as synonyms, there is a distinction. But it's more complicated than "'patriotism' good; 'nationalism' bad."

One of the many difficulties inherent in creating a dictionary that accurately reflects the language of any large group of people is that these people may not all view certain words and values as equal. Nationalism and patriotism present us with an appropriately problematic pair with which to illustrate this. Are these words synonymous? Is one an insult, and the other not? Can either of them mean different things to different people?

These two words may have shared a distinct sense in the 19th century, but they appear to have grown apart since. Or rather, it would be more accurate to say that only nationalism has grown apart, since the meaning of patriotism has remained largely unchanged. There are still obvious areas of overlap: we define patriotism as “love for or devotion to one’s country” and nationalism in part as “loyalty and devotion to a nation.” But the definition of nationalism also includes “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.” This exclusionary aspect is not shared by patriotism.

So now that we’ve briefly looked over the history of patriotism and nationalism can we draw any firm conclusions about whether one or the other is pejorative? The answer is: it depends. It seems certain that, at least with nationalism, it may mean different things to different people. Of the six different kinds of X nationalism cited just above, it is likely that most people would find some politically questionable, and others not. Patriotism is rarely used in these contexts.

In U.S. usage nationalism is now perhaps most frequently associated with white nationalism, and has considerably negative connotations.

As a dictionary, we must weigh all matters of semantic and regional difference. Therefore we can offer no firm guidance as to whether or not nationalism qualifies as an insult across the board. We can, however, advocate for the revival of the tradition of insult with precision.

Patriotism is a feeling, a sentiment, an attitude. It is a component part of nationalism.
Nationalism is patriotism in action.

[MDlaxfan76]

MDLF76: Salty, you're playing the same game. You know better.

I'm not playing games. I'm resisting the PC (now Woke) perversion of our language & national discourse.

Nationalism is a good & positive thing , necessary if we are going to be a global community of independent nations, which protect & provide for their citizens.

Our sense of nationalism built this nation, bound it together after a divisive civil war, allowed it to prevail in 2 WW's & the Cold War, & gives us the national self-confidence necessary to continue as a global force for good. It enables us to integrate & assimilate more immigrants into our society than any other nation in the world.

The articles on Ukrainian nationalism I posted are instructive. The Ukrainian's lack of a long history of nationalism makes them easy prey for their revanchist Russian neighbor - whose greatest strength & unifying force is their sense of nationalism, having endured centuries of struggle.
Where was Ukrainian nationalism when they failed to maintain the awesome military capacity they inherited when the USSR came apart ?
Where was Ukrainian nationalism when the little green men rolled into Crimea, unopposed ?
Where is Ukrainian nationalism, when after every EU/US sponsored revolution, after the initial euphoria, they devolve back into the same old corrupt, self-dealing kleptocracy. There is no national ethos. Without a nationalistic history, they are a contrived, ersatz nation, propped up by their EU/US sponsors using them as a buffer & proxy in our renewed Cold War against their restive Russian neighbor.

What a crock, Salty.
Read the freaking definition of a nationalist: "a person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations."

Patriotism is the word you want.

Certainly having patriotic pride in one's nation and willingness to defend it is important if that nation is to be sustained.

But when such 'pride' translates to a willingness to do whatever the rulers' say, in the name of the nation, that's another matter altogether. And that's the ugly history of nationalism run amuck.

And when someone thinks their national identity is based in their ethnicity, their race, their religion, the subjugation of others becomes all too predictable. That's what history tells us.

You're using the Oxford definition of nationalism, which adds -- especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.
It does not state, or imply, "in all cases."
In other words, there are times when nationalism can take that form, but not necessarily in all cases.

Webster approaches nationalism slightly differently :

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-a ... ationalism

The Difference Between 'Patriotism' and 'Nationalism'

Although treated as synonyms, there is a distinction. But it's more complicated than "'patriotism' good; 'nationalism' bad."

One of the many difficulties inherent in creating a dictionary that accurately reflects the language of any large group of people is that these people may not all view certain words and values as equal. Nationalism and patriotism present us with an appropriately problematic pair with which to illustrate this. Are these words synonymous? Is one an insult, and the other not? Can either of them mean different things to different people?

These two words may have shared a distinct sense in the 19th century, but they appear to have grown apart since. Or rather, it would be more accurate to say that only nationalism has grown apart, since the meaning of patriotism has remained largely unchanged. There are still obvious areas of overlap: we define patriotism as “love for or devotion to one’s country” and nationalism in part as “loyalty and devotion to a nation.” But the definition of nationalism also includes “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.” This exclusionary aspect is not shared by patriotism.

So now that we’ve briefly looked over the history of patriotism and nationalism can we draw any firm conclusions about whether one or the other is pejorative? The answer is: it depends. It seems certain that, at least with nationalism, it may mean different things to different people. Of the six different kinds of X nationalism cited just above, it is likely that most people would find some politically questionable, and others not. Patriotism is rarely used in these contexts.

In U.S. usage nationalism is now perhaps most frequently associated with white nationalism, and has considerably negative connotations.

As a dictionary, we must weigh all matters of semantic and regional difference. Therefore we can offer no firm guidance as to whether or not nationalism qualifies as an insult across the board. We can, however, advocate for the revival of the tradition of insult with precision.

Patriotism is a feeling, a sentiment, an attitude. It is a component part of nationalism.
Nationalism is patriotism in action.

Ahh, in action.
Of course, that BS too, patriotism can be very active, not simple a "feeling".

Did you actually read what you posted above?

Webster doesn't deal with why 19th century understandings of the word "nationalism" changed so significantly from simply "loyalty and devotion to nation" to the "and" aspect, as in "ALSO INCLUDES", the negative aspects.

Well, it's because the term proved so immensely damaging as various dictatorships invoked "nationalism" as "loyalty" to the leader, and downright evil leaders at that.

"loyalty" ain't the same as "love" of nation.

And that's how the word is understood today...not in the 19th century, but now, you betcha.

As to the question as to whether to call some a "nationalist" is an "insult" Webster doesn't make that claim and neither can I.
But as to whether nationalism is very much problematic, and quite distinct from patriotism...yes.
In 21st century understanding, yup.

[old salt]

MDLF76:
Did you actually read what you posted above?

Webster doesn't deal with why 19th century understandings of the word "nationalism" changed so significantly from simply "loyalty and devotion to nation" to the "and" aspect, as in "ALSO INCLUDES", the negative aspects.

Well, it's because the term proved so immensely damaging as various dictatorships invoked "nationalism" as "loyalty" to the leader, and downright evil leaders at that.

That does not eradicate the positive results which nationalism produced in US history, or British history, for that matter.

...& spare me the 1970's Ivy education anti-imperialism rap or a recitation on the evils of manifest destiny.
Look at the nations of the world that have not developed as sh!t holes.

[Typical Lax Dad]

MDLF76:
Did you actually read what you posted above?

Webster doesn't deal with why 19th century understandings of the word "nationalism" changed so significantly from simply "loyalty and devotion to nation" to the "and" aspect, as in "ALSO INCLUDES", the negative aspects.

Well, it's because the term proved so immensely damaging as various dictatorships invoked "nationalism" as "loyalty" to the leader, and downright evil leaders at that.

That does not eradicate the positive results which nationalism produced in US history, or British history, for that matter.

...& spare me the 1970's Ivy education anti-imperialism rap or a recitation on the evils of manifest destiny.
Look at the nations of the world that have not developed as sh!t holes.

Der’ it is.