Some argue that patriotism is the primary cause of wars globally. Others feel that it serves to prevent less ethical politicians from running a country and starting wars. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

It is widely believed that patriotism has a pivotal role in causing wars across the globe

whereas

others consider that it may protect a nation from careless politicians as decision-makers.

This

essay will discuss both opinions and state my own opinion.

First,

a sense of belonging to a nation can bring people to chauvinism which occasionally can lead to battle. First Indonesian President Sukarno,

for instance

, agitated Indonesian citizens to consider Malaysia as a common enemy. Because of

this

, these two countries had been clashing for about ten years from 1961 to 1971.

Therefore

, chauvinism could be utilized as fuel for bilateral and multinational conflicts that may have long-term deteriorating effects.

On the other hand

, others thought that heroism is an effective method to protect governments from unqualified politicians who want to manage the government and begin a war. Taking the USA as an example, when Gorge Bush became President, many governors opposed his policy to destroy Iraq. It means that even though patriotism has no negative connotation, it shows that it has a tendency to bring regional and even international clashes.

Thus

, it could be a positive aspect of patriotism. In conclusion, nationalism has its negative and positive aspects. On the one side, it is often said that heroism can lead people to fight again other countries

while

others believe that it could be an effective method to protect a nation-state from atrocious political party representatives who want to run the government and introduce warfare as their main national policy. In my opinion, avoiding war is the most appropriate approach regarding heroism since

Add an article

the

show examples

war has more detrimental effects compared to its benefits.