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.

Many feel that patriotic feelings do more to foment, rather than prevent, conflicts and potential

wars

. In my opinion, though

patriotism

can be a positive force in a nation, it is more likely to serve as the justification for armed conflict. Those who value the benefits of

patriotism

argue that it is a tool to oppose international interventions.

This

is most often the case in countries where it is possible for citizens to voice their opinions publicly. A standout example of

this

would be in the United States as the government is often engaged in unpopular conflicts abroad

such

as the

wars

in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Many critics make the argument that the US was originally isolationist and should not now interfere in the affairs of other countries.

This

appeal to the patriotic roots of the country is persuasive.

However

, it is more common for politicians to encourage nationalistic feelings to justify foreign

wars

. There are examples of

this

from both the modern era and past historical epochs.

For instance

, in Medieval Europe, there were frequent

wars

of aggression between France, England, and Spain. The rulers of these countries used both religious and ethnic or nationalistic justifications for either expansion or defensive measures. Over time,

patriotism

came to be considered a method to distract residents from the domestic situation and motivate them towards a common goal. In conclusion, despite the legitimate potential advantages of

patriotism

within a country, I feel that it is more likely to serve as a catalyst for international conflict. In fact, individuals have very little

overall

impact on whether or not their country enters a war.