There is nothing wrong with patriotism and legitimate national interests (not "nationalistic" as you label them). Despite globalization, each nation is entitled to have its own interests, just as any individual is entitled to have his/her own ideals and personal/private goals.
Patriotism looks different in this context, because it is partly the "not invented here syndrome". Some people are afraid of using Soyuz because it is not a US system, not operated by the US, that is "not invented here" (and in some cases because it's from ex-communists). This is a form of nationalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Invented_HereCan you explain why, while every nation that contributed to the ISS proudly displays this achievement with little flags in prominent places throughout the ISS, the US should not aim for same pride of achevement? Aren't pride, patriotism and national interest legitimate rights of the US too?
If they use Soyuz for ISS support and US crew transport, there is nothing wrong or worse to use Soyuz "only" whilst NASA does not manage to get a STS replacement.
Times have changed anyway. Look to Boeing: the new Boeing 787 is not really an American airplane anymore for the first time. It's a global product. Boeing does just the final assembly. Just like the ISS also is not just a US program solely. There is no reason to be afraid of using Soyuz.
European astronauts do travel into space by "foreign" systems for decades. And there is nothing wrong if US astronauts do travel into space only by "foreign" systems as well. In future we will see more international partnership, not only for the ISS.
Sputnik was a shock, just like for Russia Apollo was a shock because it was "not invented here". But that does not fit into the 21st Century anymore.
US, just like any other nation, should not be snared at for having them, under any circumstance, especially since most of the recent history technological and scientific achevements have been reached either by, or with American crucial assistance - including, and especially the ISS.
The ISS would not have been possible the way it is in orbit, without the Proton launches and all the Soyuz and Progress support flights, and most importently without the significant Russian space station and long term mission experience of which the USA had none until the late 1990s. Mir was in orbit for 15 years. That was something the USA and the rest of the ISS partners could build on.
The US progress in space is often overrated, especially because of Apollo and the collapse of the Soviet Union (which led to the Buran program cancellation). Russia was the first nation to send a satellite and a human into orbit for the very first time. And, before the ISS program, the only nation to operate a space station for 15 years, including the quite successfully Soyuz program which until today survived 3 US programs (actually 4 - Gemini, Apollo, Skylab and the STS).
Today more nations can join the Space Club thanks to "nationalistic" space race between USSR and USA.
Especially thanks to the German Reunification (and espcially to Margaret Thatcher, François Mitterrand, Helmut Kohl, Michail Gorbatschow etc.) and the collapse of the Soviet Union which at the end made the international work politically possible
But the Ariane launches into space since the late 1970s already.
ESA, JAXA, and other Space Agencies owe their creation to space programs initiated, largely funded and supported by the US - just like the pathetic UN.
Nope. The Ariane program for example, which is actually the core of ESA, is not supported by the US. It is solely a commercial European program, just like ESA is funded by its European members (national budgets, related to gross domestic product) and not by the US. Europe (ESA) funds the ISS program by 8 billion Euro (41% of that money is comming from Germany by the way), and support is done by the Ariane and the European Automated Transfer Vehicle (development and operation of the ATV costs more than 4 billion Euro).
I don't know about JAXA but the agency actually exists since the 1960s and I can't imagine it's funded by the USA. The USA already has enough problems with proper NASA funding.
There is another thing some people often forget in this context when they talk about the amazing "US" progress in the 20th Century: the Concorde, the only supersonic passenger aircraft that could carry 100 passengers with twice the speed of sound without reheat (reheat or the "after burner" were just used for acceleration up to Mach 1,7). Initially Concorde did not get a permission to land in the USA, because it was called to be too noisy. So far the initial conclusion, until they had to admit that some US aircraft at that time were even more noisy. The actual reason for the initial landing prohibition was just the "not invented here" mentality back then (even Henry Kissinger, a frequent Cocnorde passenger, still likes to mention this).
