You should always be patriotic.

"If there was an actual, imminent, foreign threat to the freedoms that we enjoy (like if Washington DC had been attacked and seized by another country), I would willingly join a militia/military to defend against this threat. Just because I'm not joining the Marines to go fight in the Middle East where our presence is brutalizing and unwanted, doesn't mean that I'm not willing to defend my freedoms and the freedoms of those who are being attacked." Well I think I finally understand where you are coming from. If you believe in defending your country and the freedoms of others then you are a patriot. Plain and simple. However, it seems that you cannot separate patriotism and your disdain for the war on terror. I am not going to go off-subject by starting a debate on the war on terror, but I will say that our presence is far from brutalizing and that it is also far from unwanted. "Sure America might "embody those qualities and more", but so do countless other countries. Do you think the slogan of Canada is "Captivity and misery!"?" I wish I knew the names of those "countless" other countries. Canada is no better than England. It too is a primarily socialist state. "I could be just as happy as I am here in many other places around the world--and so could you. Suppose you were born in Italy--do you honestly think that you would love America?" Well you are welcome to judge for yourself if you would be just as happy elsewhere as you would be here, but I am fairly confident I would wish for a better life in America as many an Italian has. I realize we seem to have gone on numerous rabbit trails in this debate, but in the end this particular subject is irrelevant to the topic. Patriotism is not reliant on freedom, but rather the love one has for his/her country and people. One of the greatest examples that can be given is that of the Russian people during World War II. Even though suffering under an oppressive system and under the rule of the greatest mass murderer in history they came together in a most remarkable display of patriotism. "America being the greatest country in the world has nothing to do with patriotism." Of course not. I was simply rebutting your statement about America not being the greatest nation in the world. As for your mother's Brazilian friend, I can understand her still loving her native country, as anyone would, but I think it only strengthens my position even more that she chooses to live here. Since you did not say to the contrary I must assume that she came here because she realized that, love for her native country or not, America offered her opportunity that her country could not. You may continue to think reasons for patriotism "trivial" and dismiss them as "silly", but you do so most blindly. "it engenders a sense of elitism and divides peoples of the world. When you are patriotic--you are patriotic to ONE country and ONE country alone. You think everyone else should be just like you. Why did we fight in Vietnam? Because the "threat of communism"? Communism doesn't kill people--tyrannical, fascist dictators do." Patriotism does not divide, it brings together, and it certainly has nothing to do with believing everyone should be just like you. As to communism, it breeds tyrannical dictators. I'm not sure what Vietnam has to do with this, but we intervened to defend a nation from having the communist yoke forced on it. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a war micro-managed by politicians, but one we were winning before we decided to abandon Vietnam to its fate. Patriotism is all we have to defend against tyrannical dictators bent on dominating other nations. So once again I reject your analysis as completely inaccurate. "If patriotism was the opposite of aggressive and offensive, then, again, why do we instigate so many wars? Could we survive if we left Iraq alone? Yes we could, and we could do it without sacrificing thousands of our soldiers and spending trillions of dollars." Your objection to patriotism really only stems from one source if you are honest with yourself. Namely the Iraq war. We have never instigated a war. You are of course referring to the Iraq war and possibly the war in Afghanistan, but such is not the case. We went into Afghanistan because of the treacherous attacks of 911 and we went into Iraq because it too sponsored terrorism, refused to stop nuclear activity, and continued to be a threat to all other nations in the Middle East(most notable of which is our close ally, Israel) with its power hungry dictator. I realize this is a very unpopular position to take on this subject, but the fact remains it is the correct one. "Whoa. "Patriotism" doesn't start wars? "A strong sense of national pride" does? I think you lost me. Even if those two aren't exactly the same, one implies and causes the other. Hence, using the transitive property: Patriotism --> Strong sense of national pride Strong sense of national pride --> The beginning of wars Patriotism --> The beginning of wars." Well since I lost you, please allow me to make the point a little more clear. Patriotism is not a strong sense of national pride. Once again I will point out that patriotism is a LOVE for one's country and people and a willingness to defend and sacrifice for the same. National pride is just that. A pride in one's country and, in certain cases, a willingness to increase her power and glory at the expense of other nations. Perhaps there is a better term for this, but national pride is the term that came to mind. "you say patriotism is what stopped all those wars? When a war is fought for the purpose of a war, in the end, there is a side of definite winners and a side of definite losers. It doesn't matter what side you fall on, you still have patriotism for your country. Just because the Nazi's lost WWII, doesn't mean that they conceded that they were wrong. They simply didn't have enough power to force their beliefs on others. The Allies did. Suppose that the Nazi's did win WWII and much of the world was under control of the regime. Do you think that they would call themselves the "Axis of Evil"? No. The winners of war get to write history, and thus the winners of war are always portrayed in a good light" I'm not sure what you mean when you say a war is fought for the purpose of a war, but as you pointed out both sides still have patriotism. The Allies responded defensively to the Nazi invasion. Your notion that the Allies forced their beliefs is totally false, and anyone who knows anything about World War II would tell you this. History was not written by the 'winners"; it speaks for itself. As you said, this is a little off-subject so I will leave it at that. "When support the position that "You should always be patriotic", you are saying that no matter where you were born, you should be patriotic for the government that is sovereign over you...What happens when everyone loves the government that governs them, is war...I would like to know what you think patriotism does for world peace and tranquilty." Patriotism does not mean blind loyalty to a government as I have repeatedly tried to point out. It is loyalty to your country. For Americans it also means defending the form of government they love and prosper under, but not a blind loyalty by any means. As long as there are evil men able to get into positions of power there will be war. PATRIOTISM DOES NOT CAUSE WAR. It is the defensive shield that these men come up against when attempting to subdue other nations. I already told you what patriotism does for world peace. It stops wars. You hold up a double standard. You said that you would join the military to defend freedom if invaded by another power, but later on you say that if unconditional love for your country was eliminated you could do away with a very large part of war. Don't you see the problem here? Without patriotism we are defenseless against tyranny.