I wouldn't.
I think one of the more profound sociological changes in the last few decades (the sentiment doesn't begin with Vietnam but it snowballs from there) is that people feel a lot more resentful about things their government/countries ask them to do. The internet is increasingly making us feel like citizens of the world itself and less beholden to a particular region or system. Which I think is a good thing because it's paving the way for global organisations and co-operation which we'll need to tackle global problems. Countries sink things like fighting climate change because they all try to get everybody else to do everything and play the blame game. The less importance people give them, the more people might be inclined to ignore borders and boundaries and just do what's best.
Personally, the more I learn and experience the more obvious it becomes that countries are essentially fictitious and that politicians do not care about the individual human lives of their populace. (Arguably though, being a politician would be unworkable if they did.) What is important to me is human life and I would die to save family, friends and even strangers. But my country? Preserving a particular political agenda? No. I would go to the toilet on the flag, set it on fire and then do a little dance on the ashes on camera if a terrorist said the alternative was for me to be shot, because respecting a little piece of cloth is hardly more important than surviving to be with my family and raise my children.
Often the two get mixed up- for example I would've taken up arms against Hitler had I been eligible to do so, but not "for the country" but rather because he posed a direct threat to human wellbeing. But the idea that I would lay down my life simply because a member of my country's government asked me to is anathema.
Edited by Textbook - November 17 2010 at 21:28