Quite right Dlowan and I thank you for starting this thread and the healthy results. As near as I can tell everyone here is correct----in accordance with their individual beliefs. Nearly everyone has said that the word Patriot and Patriotism are very individualistic in their definition, adaptation, and interpretation. Below is a neutral definition which fits my perception of patriot.
pa·tri·ot
n.
One who loves, supports, and defends one's country.
[French patriote, from Old French, compatriot, from Late Latin patrita, from Greek patrits, from patrios, of one's fathers, from patr, patr-, father; see pter- in Indo-European roots.]
Note the words from which it was derived----all different languages. Some of you seem to think it uniquely American---as you can see it is not.
It is just a word but it has evolved into something beyond that-----it stirs emotion and polarizes the political ideology of nearly everyone who hears or sees it used.
Prior to the Vietnam war it was just a word that everyone took for granted when thinking about your country. During the Vietnam war it was linked to the gamut of human emotions: fanatacism, chauvinism, cowardice,bravery, stupidity, etc., and it has been so ever since.
Since America has become the only hyperpower and the rest of the world has reacted with suspician, fear, jealousy, loathing (greatly overplayed), compassion (rarely) and guarded friendship, the word patriotism has taken on new meaning. All of the above reactions are not so much in response to the country but are attached almost exclusively to the administration of President Bush and patriotism is perceived as a potential tool for this gov't. I you are inclined to lash out at the the current gov't you will tend to perceive patriotism as evil as many of you do. If you support the current gov't as I do you will tend to perceive Patriotism as benevolent and essential to the maintenance of a strong military and overall sense of purpose in our foreign and domestic policy.
The new policy of per-emptive strike has even further polarized the countries of the world. When I was a kid and even later when I found myself in a threatening situation and the bully raised his arm to strike, you didn't wait for the impact, you either ran or hit him first. To me it is just common sense. When Russia was the bully on the block it was a standoff militarily and had nuclear war resulted everyone would have been the loser. When it was a standoff we were forced to make deals with unsavory characters (despots and dictators) in order to further our foreign policy.
Now that we have more control of our destiny, we have not only the right but the obligation to correct our past deficiencies in foreign policy especially when dealing with tin-pot dictators and the first in line was Saddam. The alternative is back to posturing and hopeless diplomacy which has proven to be senseless as evidenced by 12 years of UN resolutions against Saddam. It is also evidenced by the failed unilateral agreement that Clinton signed with North Korea. When will we ever learn that thugs never play by the rules.
Gotta run----more later
