You should always be patriotic.

"I object to many events in American history. The Iraq war happens to be one of them. .. I don't know if you are referring to all the wars we have ever fought or just the more recent wars in the Middle East. The former would exhibit a dearth of knowledge on American history. The latter could also easily be contended. " Well I'm sure you do object to many wars America has been involved in. However, I stand by my statement. We have never instigated a war. I invite you to give an example since you failed to do so. There is not a single war in our history that you can accuse America for being the root cause of. Therefore, the seeming lack of knowledge rests with you. "Yes, we did go into the Middle East for those reasons. It doesn't mean they are justifiable. " Well if we are not justified to go into a country that aids, abets, trains, and funds our enemies then, pray tell, what would? I was rather surprised when I read that. "I would join the military, but not out of patriotism. It would be for (1) Self-interest, and (2) to defend against the world against a power that I felt was evil. " Patriotism is love of country, but for an American it also means to defend the liberties and freedoms he/she enjoys. So it is definitely a self-interest. You said earlier that you would join the military to defend your freedoms AND THE FREEDOMS OF THOSE BEING ATTACKED. So you see that while patriotism is definitely a self-interest I also see that you believe in defending the freedoms of others as any true patriot would. I'm afraid you were a little contradictory there. As for your second point, looking at your previous arguments what right do you have to judge which powers are evil and which aren't? I would like to reference one of your previous statements: "For some reason, when people say that something "is the best", they feel the need to eradicate anything that is different. Why couldn't America be happy with capitalism on its own soil? Why do we find it so important to force our beliefs onto others, who clearly don't want our help? The ideas of superiority and inferiority are the causes of probably every war. The egocentric and seemingly inescapable idea that "I am right and you are wrong" has already does so much more harm than is will ever do good. " Since you are such an advocate for world peace this seems a rather hypocritical statement. You say that the cause of war is that concept of superiority vs. inferiority and yet you would join the military to combat a power you felt was evil? You are contradicting yourself severely. "I don't think it was the love of their country (which is what you define patriotism to be) that defended them from the oppressive British. They didn't even have a country. Hell, many them didn't even WANT a country. They were just a loose association of 13 colonies. Are you now going to try to contort your definition of patriotism so it fits this situation? " That is simply historically and factually inaccurate. They DID have a country. The colonies operated as any other country in the world with established laws and independent government. The only difference between them and anyone else was the word "colony" and the nominal allegiance England laid claim to. They were a free society that resented any external interference in there government or laws. So your statement about them not wanting a country is completely false. So for one thing your concept of the original colonies is very shallow and for another it is perfectly clear that I have no need to "contort" my position. "The truth is, it was the very OPPOSITE of patriotism that led to the foundation of our country. When you accepted the affirmative of this debate, and using the definition that you provided for patriotism, you are saying that "You should always love and be willing to defend your country". (NOTE: Always is 100% of the time. ) If the founders of this country had adhered to that maxim, they would still be in Europe--loving and defending their oppressive monarchies. Or they would be in the New World--still loving and defending their oppressive monarchies. Either way, this is not what happened and because there were people willing to be the opposite of patriotic, we now have America. " Once again I make the point that patriotism is not blind devotion to government, but rather a love and devotion to one's country. It becomes rather tedious to have to continually point this out to you. Our founding fathers guided this country to freedom because of their love of country and their freedoms that they had enjoyed. The people were, in fact, extremely patient with the British government in the hopes they the king and Parliament would recognize their rights and grant them equal representation. The colonies were not opposed to being taxed as long as they received the same representation the people of England did. Taxation without representation was what sparked the conflict. Parliament failed to see the colonies for what they were and instead attempted to use them as nothing more than a source of ready income. Much to their chagrin they discovered what happens when attempting to ignore the rights of a free people. I don't have the space to go into a miniature history lesson, but I leave it as openly obvious that your statement in regards to our origin is completely false as well. As patriots our founding fathers had no other choice BUT to declare independence. "Instead of being patriotic, why can't we be compassionate? Sympathetic to the plight of others? Interested in self-preservation? In no stretch of the definition of patriotism, can it be claimed that these sentiments are patriotic. " When did I ever say they were patriotic sentiments? In addition to that, what do those topics have anything to do with the subject? ! However, I shall briefly address this rabbit trail. America is already the most sympathetic and compassionate nation in the world. She gives more humanitarian aid and donates more capital than ANY OTHER NATION. Patriotism is what we have for our defense, but to introduce these subjects is completely off-topic. "Patriotism would say that you should be willing to defend your own country. Sympathy and compassion would say that you should be willing to defend others--no matter what country. " I will say again that you are going completely off-topic. A desire to aid other nations under oppressive governments has nothing to do with our debate. However, I will point out that you make these statements and then say that we should not be in Iraq where the people were oppressed by a tyrannical mass murderer who used biological weapons and terror on them. So even if you don't think we should have gone in to stop the sponsored terror camps and seize suspected nuclear WMDs one would think your "sympathy and compassion" would start to kick in. "A country is nothing more than imaginary lines drawn to separate people. " Wrong again. Each country represents a different form of government, ideologies, concepts, etc. Some have prospered, but many more have not, all because of the choices those countries make in the area of government and the extent of voice given to the people. A country is so much more than lines drawn on paper. "I myself, however, am more interested in the well-being of all mankind -- no matter where you happen to live -- than in the limited and trivial scope of my countrymen. " That would be great if we lived in a universal utopia, but unfortunately we need to look at reality. Your country is where it all starts. Americans have proven time and again that they are dedicated to bettering mankind. However, if you are not willing to defend these most vital and dearly held beliefs then you have no right to expect them to survive the evils of this world. Thank you this debate. GOD BLESS AMERICA!