Reinstate the Bellamy Salute

[Novorobo]

I'm not sure I like the idea of 8-year-olds saluting a flag in any form. It's kinda cultish...

But if we don't emulate the Nazis then the Nazis win!

Again, my point isn't so much to defend the pledge of allegiance itself so much as to point out that so long as we have it, tying it to the Bellamy Salute could serve as a co-ordinated way to "take it back," if you will, as opposed to one person at a time trying it, repeatedly being misinterpreted, and it never catching on.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Or to put it another way: Demanding a daily display of loyalty from the populace? How very North Korean of you.

Since I can't remember a war since 1812 that can be directly linked to 'defending that right', rather than 'going abroad to fight against brown/yellow/black people to take their land or secure our interests' or 'going abroad to help our friends out against their enemies', there is really no point in trying to guilt people with a veteran.

[Grenartia]

Since I can't remember a war since 1812 that can be directly linked to 'defending that right', rather than 'going abroad to fight against brown/yellow/black people to take their land or secure our interests' or 'going abroad to help our friends out against their enemies', there is really no point in trying to guilt people with a veteran.

As much as your conclusion is, as the kids say "on point", your logic is, to put it bluntly, whack. I can point to no fewer than 3 wars in the time between 1812 and the present day that are unambiguously examples wars that fit the description.

The Mexican-American War: caused by Mexico's refusal to get out of land that no longer belonged to it, and whose residents wished to become American citizens again, and exasperated by its refusal to even negotiate the border dispute.

The Civil War: Do I even need to explain how this fits?

World War Two: Decided the literal fate of the entire free world.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Since I can't remember a war since 1812 that can be directly linked to 'defending that right', rather than 'going abroad to fight against brown/yellow/black people to take their land or secure our interests' or 'going abroad to help our friends out against their enemies', there is really no point in trying to guilt people with a veteran.

As much as your conclusion is, as the kids say "on point", your logic is, to put it bluntly, whack. I can point to no fewer than 3 wars in the time between 1812 and the present day that are unambiguously examples wars that fit the description.

The Mexican-American War: caused by Mexico's refusal to get out of land that no longer belonged to it, and whose residents wished to become American citizens again, and exasperated by its refusal to even negotiate the border dispute.

You mean the war we went to because American Soldiers were shot on Mexican soil?

The Civil War: Do I even need to explain how this fits?

Point granted.

World War Two: Decided the literal fate of the entire free world.

It may have, but the United States and its liberties were not directly threatened, in any way, by Mr Hitler, and while the Japanese did strike first in Pearl Harbor, it is unlikely that they could have, or would have, launched a full scale invasion of America in such a way that our freedoms would have been extinguished, contrary to what "Man in the High Castle" would have you believe. I am not saying it wasn't a justified war, and that it didn't promote the good of all. the Japanese and the Germans did extremely fucked up stuff that are well documented, it just wasn't about our liberties or freedoms.

[The Two Jerseys]

As much as your conclusion is, as the kids say "on point", your logic is, to put it bluntly, whack. I can point to no fewer than 3 wars in the time between 1812 and the present day that are unambiguously examples wars that fit the description.

The Mexican-American War: caused by Mexico's refusal to get out of land that no longer belonged to it, and whose residents wished to become American citizens again, and exasperated by its refusal to even negotiate the border dispute.

You mean the war we went to because American Soldiers were shot on Mexican soil?

The land between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande was ceded to Texas in 1836. It's not our fault that Santa Anna can't keep his word.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

You mean the war we went to because American Soldiers were shot on Mexican soil?

The land between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande was ceded to Texas in 1836. It's not our fault that Santa Anna can't keep his word.

You mean when he signed as a prisoner a coerced treaty and which was not ratified by the Mexican government?

[Slaveavania]

You Americans are so funny.

[Wisconsin9]

The land between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande was ceded to Texas in 1836. It's not our fault that Santa Anna can't keep his word.

You mean when he signed as a prisoner a coerced treaty and which was not ratified by the Mexican government?

Name a peace treaty that hasn't been signed under coercion. That's what war is. The whole point of it is to put your enemy under enough duress that they accede to your demands, by putting their lives at risk when possible.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

You mean when he signed as a prisoner a coerced treaty and which was not ratified by the Mexican government?

Name a peace treaty that hasn't been signed under coercion. That's what war is. The whole point of it is to put your enemy under enough duress that they accede to your demands, by putting their lives at risk when possible.

He was a prisoner at the time, and the treaty was not ratified by the Mexican government, and so, not actually legally binding.

[Oasisa]

In between the 1895 and 1941, a much different form of the Pledge of Allegiance was used by Americans citizens. It involved extending ones right arm towards the flag during the saying of the accompanying words.
(Image)

(Image)

Obviously, in December of 1941 when World War II spread to America, it was dropped to not cause confusion with the Nazi or Italian salutes. But now, over 75 years later, is it it really necesary to continue the death of such a great symbol of unity and freedom? Would'nt it be beneficial, to try and help put an end to the legacy of Hitler?

Hilarious. The same thing happened with the Swastika too.

[Slaveavania]

You mean when he signed as a prisoner a coerced treaty and which was not ratified by the Mexican government?

Name a peace treaty that hasn't been signed under coercion. That's what war is. The whole point of it is to put your enemy under enough duress that they accede to your demands, by putting their lives at risk when possible.

I hate to argue semantics but there's a difference between signing a treaty because a gun is against your head and signing one when there isn't one against your head, but you know the war is over. But hey, that's just me. However I do like your description of the point of war. Reminds me of Medieval 2. Or any of the Total War series.

[Farnhamia]

Name a peace treaty that hasn't been signed under coercion. That's what war is. The whole point of it is to put your enemy under enough duress that they accede to your demands, by putting their lives at risk when possible.

I hate to argue semantics but there's a difference between signing a treaty because a gun is against your head and signing one when there isn't one against your head, but you know the war is over. But hey, that's just me.

Which has next to nothing to do with the topic, any of it. The Bellamy Salute, remember, everyone?

[Slaveavania]

I hate to argue semantics but there's a difference between signing a treaty because a gun is against your head and signing one when there isn't one against your head, but you know the war is over. But hey, that's just me.

Which has next to nothing to do with the topic, any of it. The Bellamy Salute, remember, everyone?

Hey, I'm Australian. We have no Bellamy Salute, or Pledge of Allegiance. So I am commenting on what I can.

You have a good day.

[Grenartia]

As much as your conclusion is, as the kids say "on point", your logic is, to put it bluntly, whack. I can point to no fewer than 3 wars in the time between 1812 and the present day that are unambiguously examples wars that fit the description.

The Mexican-American War: caused by Mexico's refusal to get out of land that no longer belonged to it, and whose residents wished to become American citizens again, and exasperated by its refusal to even negotiate the border dispute.

1. You mean the war we went to because American Soldiers were shot on Mexican soil?

The Civil War: Do I even need to explain how this fits?

Point granted.

World War Two: Decided the literal fate of the entire free world.

2. It may have, but the United States and its liberties were not directly threatened, in any way, by Mr Hitler, and while the Japanese did strike first in Pearl Harbor, it is unlikely that they could have, or would have, launched a full scale invasion of America in such a way that our freedoms would have been extinguished, contrary to what "Man in the High Castle" would have you believe. I am not saying it wasn't a justified war, and that it didn't promote the good of all. the Japanese and the Germans did extremely fucked up stuff that are well documented, it just wasn't about our liberties or freedoms.

1. No. I mean the war that was fought because Mexico threw a temper tantrum when Texas wanted annex itself to the US, because Mexico reneged on a treaty it signed acknowledging Texan Independence.

2. I sincerely question that liberties and freedoms aren't threatened by any form of belligerence against the US unless the entire nation is seriously threatened. Any attack on US soil or in our waters, is a threat to our freedom. Besides, Hawaii, Guam, Alaska, and the Philippines were all either occupied or under threat of occupation by Japan.

[USHALLNOTPASS]

Even for NSG this is a fairly stupid suggestion.

It hasn't reached IM level yet...
plis....i may hav awoken teh gr8 IM....plis spare me O Drunk and/or possibly high one

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

1. No. I mean the war that was fought because Mexico threw a temper tantrum when Texas wanted annex itself to the US, because Mexico reneged on a treaty it signed acknowledging Texan Independence.

Perhaps in a different universe then, as the treaty Mexico "reneged" on weren't actually ratified by the Mexican government, meaning it was never reneged. In fact, the US stationed troops on Mexican land in order to provoke and thereby engender war. Lincoln, himself, whose war you cite, was a vocal opponent of the war.

2. I sincerely question that liberties and freedoms aren't threatened by any form of belligerence against the US unless the entire nation is seriously threatened. Any attack on US soil or in our waters, is a threat to our freedom. Besides, Hawaii, Guam, Alaska, and the Philippines were all either occupied or under threat of occupation by Japan.

Seeing as we were not seriously threatened in any way at the moment of our entry into the war, how exactly are our freedom threatened, beside the general 'they attacked us, we need our vengeance'?

[USHALLNOTPASS]

Which has next to nothing to do with the topic, any of it. The Bellamy Salute, remember, everyone?

Hey, I'm Australian. We have no Bellamy Salute, or Pledge of Allegiance. So I am commenting on what I can.

You have a good day.

same m8

[Manmeth]

Yes reintroduce it into the wild, not in captivity.

If my son wants to start a Para-Military organization in his school, he should be able too. The only thing that stops my son from world domination is that he can't do the Bellamy Salute.

[Tahar Joblis]

Do we get the original Pledge back with the salute? Because that one was a lot shorter.

[Grenartia]

1. No. I mean the war that was fought because Mexico threw a temper tantrum when Texas wanted annex itself to the US, because Mexico reneged on a treaty it signed acknowledging Texan Independence.

1. Perhaps in a different universe then, as the treaty Mexico "reneged" on weren't actually ratified by the Mexican government, meaning it was never reneged. In fact, the US stationed troops on Mexican land in order to provoke and thereby engender war. Lincoln, himself, whose war you cite, was a vocal opponent of the war.

2. I sincerely question that liberties and freedoms aren't threatened by any form of belligerence against the US unless the entire nation is seriously threatened. Any attack on US soil or in our waters, is a threat to our freedom. Besides, Hawaii, Guam, Alaska, and the Philippines were all either occupied or under threat of occupation by Japan.

2. Seeing as we were not seriously threatened in any way at the moment of our entry into the war, how exactly are our freedom threatened, beside the general 'they attacked us, we need our vengeance'?

1. So what about the Texans? Boohoo, they didn't deserve freedom from the corrupt, oppressive, and incompetent Mexican government?

2. American citizens were at risk. That, by definition, means we were seriously threatened. I was under the impression I would not have to explain that.

[Anarchist Synergy]

No.

[Novus America]

1. No. I mean the war that was fought because Mexico threw a temper tantrum when Texas wanted annex itself to the US, because Mexico reneged on a treaty it signed acknowledging Texan Independence.

Perhaps in a different universe then, as the treaty Mexico "reneged" on weren't actually ratified by the Mexican government, meaning it was never reneged. In fact, the US stationed troops on Mexican land in order to provoke and thereby engender war. Lincoln, himself, whose war you cite, was a vocal opponent of the war.

2. I sincerely question that liberties and freedoms aren't threatened by any form of belligerence against the US unless the entire nation is seriously threatened. Any attack on US soil or in our waters, is a threat to our freedom. Besides, Hawaii, Guam, Alaska, and the Philippines were all either occupied or under threat of occupation by Japan.

Seeing as we were not seriously threatened in any way at the moment of our entry into the war, how exactly are our freedom threatened, beside the general 'they attacked us, we need our vengeance'?

Tell it to the people living on Guam, in The Phillipines or Hawaii. Many Anericans were seriously threatened.

[Tekania]

How about a compromise, rather than bring back the Bellamy sallute, let's use Bellamy's pledge. About time took out the "under God" addition to the pledge anyway.

[The Alexanderians]

Do we get the original Pledge back with the salute? Because that one was a lot shorter.

NAh man we need a longer pledge, because it's simple coffee for elementray school students.
"...with liberty and justice for all"
*beat*
"F***! I'm in school!"

[West Aurelia]

No, we should get rid of the Pledge instead. It's forced patriotism.