Would You Die For Your Country?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics not related to music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=73314
Printed Date: November 25 2024 at 07:21
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Would You Die For Your Country?
Posted By: Textbook
Subject: Would You Die For Your Country?
Date Posted: November 17 2010 at 21:24
|
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.
|
Replies:
Posted By: The Truth
Date Posted: November 17 2010 at 21:28
No, but I'm just a selfish teenager.  ------------- http://blindpoetrecords.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow">  
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 17 2010 at 21:29
|
Hell, no. We pay for people to do that for us. I still respect those who serve in the military. Hell of job when people are trying to kill you for doing it. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: November 17 2010 at 21:30
|
No.
But there are few things I would die for. ------------- Dig me...But don't...Bury me I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect. |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: November 17 2010 at 21:40
|
I certainly would. I love my country, even it has been moving in the wrong direction for a long time. I always hold out hope that we can pull back before we go over the precipice. God bless America! (whether you believe in him or not) ------------- 
|
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: November 17 2010 at 21:48
 Screw imagined communities, polities founded on national myths and the whims of power. |
Posted By: Textbook
Date Posted: November 17 2010 at 21:48
|
Isn't America traditionally a she? Oh wait you meant god, sorry.
|
Posted By: Textbook
Date Posted: November 17 2010 at 21:49
| Walter: Traditionally I find you to be an a****le but after that last post I want you to make wild passionate love to me. |
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: November 17 2010 at 21:51
I love you too, but let's keep our pants on. |
Textbook wrote:Posted By: Textbook
Date Posted: November 17 2010 at 21:52
| That's not what she said. |
Posted By: Textbook
Date Posted: November 17 2010 at 21:52
| You gotta love someone who cheerfully derails their own serious threads. |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: November 17 2010 at 21:56
| Eh probably, as long as Tom Hanks makes a movie about me. |
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: November 17 2010 at 22:01
It's also amusing when he makes a movie about a man with no country  |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: November 17 2010 at 22:18
|
Probably not. The only way I could see it happening was some honest to god civil war/revolution type situation, and I have to truly believe in what's happening of course. As time has gone on I've become more apathetic about nationalism and all that jazz. All this trouble over lines we drew up all over the Earth and really...we're all the same just trying to live every day and get by.
Although THAT would make it tempting... |
Posted By: Lozlan
Date Posted: November 17 2010 at 22:20
|
Um, no. Patriotism is a lie devised to feed the poor into a nation's war machine. I'd kill for a decent White Russian, though. ------------- Certified Obscure Prog Fart. http://scottjcouturier.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow - The Loose Palace of Exile - My first novel, The Mask of Tamrel, now available on Amazon and Kindle |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: November 17 2010 at 22:26
Hell, I'd kill for a just alright one. |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: November 17 2010 at 22:39
|
Nah, I'm pretty cowardly, but I would like you to elaborate on what you mean "For your country". Does dying in Iraq/Afghanistan count? Vietnam? What about preventing the USSR, Russia, or England from taking control of your government? What about preventing the government from being overthrown by anarchists so there is no government? Because I am pretty sure you are not going to find many people who are willing to die for a flag, and probably not even a symbolic statement of allegiance, although most people would agree that dying would be very noble, even though I'm sure you would disagree. And, to be fair, the terrorist almost certainly is not going to let you go anyway. Maybe if someone is in the military, but there are other factors at work there than just patriotism, like possibly being courtmartialed if you get back, and getting back is even more unlikely for them. People in general are much less respectful of symbols: my dad was in the military (non-combat in Vietnam) and thinks flag burning should be illegal, but I remember when I was younger, some people were moving a large flag at school, and some mother said "Be careful not to let it touch the ground!" And I said "It's not like the Feds are here to bust you" and she replied contemptously "It's called respect" I really didn't understand why should be annoyed by that, it's reasonable to be careful with your country's flag if you like your country, but how does it matter at all if a piece of cloth touches the ground? The President doesn't know, the people who died in the 1700s don't know, that guy who just got the Medal of Honor doesn't know. At least when people complain about the abuse of religious symbols there's an actual entity that (presuming it exists) would be upset about that and whom you would not want to upset. Although I still think it's silly to get upset about Piss Christ and Madonna, who was even getting SHOCKED OUTRAGE on her latest tour, because you're feeding the trolls, but now we're wandering off-topic. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: November 17 2010 at 22:44
|
I wouldn't. I would do that only for my family. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Any Colour You Like
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 00:47
|
Short answer: yes. Long answer: no. CBF'd explaining. |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 00:50
That's a shame because I kinda want you to explain this one |
Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 00:51
well that wasn't very long at all, you're not fooling anybody |
Posted By: Billy Pilgrim
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 00:51
| No. Patriotism is crap, round world last time I checked. |
Posted By: Any Colour You Like
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 00:52
| It was an ironic long answer. |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 00:53
|
I can't imagine Benkato dying for his country. Mainly for reasons Billy Pilgrim put so elegantly |
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 00:55
| Lol no. (I wouldn't die for my city or my province either.) |
Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 00:56
|
I would have to perceive a direct threat.
------------- https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow">  https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 00:58
|
I would've fought in the Revolutionary War, but then what else would one do under those circumstances. WW ll as well, though I would've tried to get a non-combat position. Vietnam? Hell no. |
Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 00:59
|
This is philosophical question that can not be answered with a simple answer. ------------- |
Posted By: KoS
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 01:02
| goddam hippies |
Posted By: Any Colour You Like
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 01:33
| Mmm, philosophical debate. |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 02:45
| Depends, I wouldn't take a certain pill just because my country asks so, but I would go to war to defend it (with the possibility of getting killed). The question is not well put. |
Posted By: someone_else
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 02:57
|
I say NO! If there ever had been a day in my lifetime on which my country was worth dying for, it must have been long ago. But this country has prostituted itself to the European occupant, who tightens its grip on our throats every day. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 02:58
|
It's a complex and philisophically broad question.
If my country was being invaded, and I was called upon to defend it, I guess I would. If I was conscripted to fight in some oil war somewhere in a desert, I would rather top myself, than give my life to that cause. Another point of philosophical discussion would be, would you die protecting yourself against your own government? ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Billy Pilgrim
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 03:41
Who is Benkato? |
Posted By: Billy Pilgrim
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 03:45
Very well put. If there was a reason to put my life on the line than yes. I can say one thing, I wouldn't even kill for my country anymore, as there is no reason that are soldiers and there soldiers, and most sickeningly there civilians have to die. Of course I'm talking about the war we are currently in. |
Posted By: Textbook
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 04:18
|
By "for your country" I mean because the government asks so, reasons irrelevant. This may seem like an idiotic prospect to people today- I'm not going to die just because a politician requests it- but not that long ago you would have found plenty of people who felt it was their solemn duty to leap under a passing bus if their queen or president requested it. What I'm saying is that feeling has deteriorated (well not everywhere, it's very much alive in China for example) and now people are saying either "no" or "yes but only if there was some sort of threat" which actually means no because you're reacting to the threat, not the will of the country's leaders. |
Posted By: Billy Pilgrim
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 04:24
| If anyone jumps in front a bus because someone just says, well, I don't know what to say about that. So I guess the sane answer is no, I wouldn't kill myself for no cause whatsoever. |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 04:28
Yes, fair point. In that case: No I would not die for my country just because my government asked me to. More poeple are starting to realise that it is not all about good guys vs bad guys. It's just about different perspectives. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Textbook
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 04:35
|
Billy: Exactly my point. That attitude sounds insane now but 100 years ago it was the norm. Even though this is much more recent than that, remember "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"? I have a feeling you might. That was endlessly repeated and trumpeted as some great quote of the ages. But if we look at it, what it means is "Give your life to the collective, drone. Your individual welfare is meaningless in comparison to our political agenda." However the government made it some sort of golden auraed maxim because it promoted just doing whatever the hell they said, foremost among those things being putting yourself in deadly situations so they could stay in cozy offices in Washington screwing the secretaries.
|
Posted By: Billy Pilgrim
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 04:35
| ^ I think there's a fine line between perspective and right and wrong. |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 04:38
In some circles it is still considered 'un-patriotic' to question the actions of your government. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 04:44
It's the old 'freedom fighter' vs 'Terrorist' debate. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Billy Pilgrim
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 04:48
Yes Kennedy said that. Quite odd to think about. When put in perspective, goverments seem to have the power to manipulate human nature, the survival instinct, and just regular old common sense. For instance, why we think it's ok that we are in the middle of a war where we drop depleted uranium on little brown people, with a civilian casualty count that goes beyond belief. It's not ok, it's wrong, and no one seems to care.. |
Posted By: caretaker
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 04:50
| After careful thought and since the question was "would you?" and not "will you?", I'll say yes. But then, I'm a Libertarian. |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 04:55
You'd be suprised how many people do care about such things, but the tragedy is that they are powerless to do anything about it. One million people marched through London in protest about the plans to go into Iraq. There were protests in every city, but our leaders ignored us. Since then there have been firther protests, albeit smaller in scale, but still big, organised by the Stop the war Coalition, and mainstream media has not reported them. They are clearly under instruction not to draw attention to anti war groups. In short people care, but their governments ignore them. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Billy Pilgrim
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 05:02
I know there's people out there. I'm mostly just talking about allot of my peers. Being nineteen I can't even get people to think about things like this. And, from my experience, the mainstream media doesn't report anything. Private journalism is something I've tried to follow. Although sometimes the story's are very hard to read. |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 05:16
I know exactly what you mean, when you say your peers don't care or don't seem to care. It frustrates me sometimes that my friends will only go so far in any discussion about politics, when the discussion becomes philisophical, they are out of their depth straight away. Most believe what they see on the teatime news, not because they intentionally swallow anything dished up to them by the mainstream media, but simply because it's easier than to question what they're told. A note of caution about independent news media. There is no such thing as 'un-biased' news, mainstream or otherwise. All news organisations have an agenda of somekind, even if they claim to be impartial. That includes everything from the BBC to Prisonplanet. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Billy Pilgrim
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 05:26
|
Yes I know. When it comes down to it we can only guess as to what the true motives are. Story's written by Iraqi family's are where I base allot of my opinion of the war. That and common sense of course. You gotta wonder why these very big events don't seem to phase people at all though? |
Posted By: TheProgtologist
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 05:29
|
I laid my life on the line for my country for 12 years,so the answer is yes.I know I sound like a brainwashed drone,but when your country needs you to fight,you fight.The apathy and selfishness of the current generation makes me sick,millions of people selflessly laid their lives on the line and paid the ultimate price for the freedom that you enjoy. -------------  |
Posted By: Billy Pilgrim
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 05:39
See, this is where I become divided on this topic. Sometimes I believe war is the only answer left, and I'd certaintly never discredit a veteran or anyone who's actually put his life on the line. But with the current war I just do not understand why it's happening, and I don't agree with the way our goverment is pursuing it. But what the heck do I know? |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 06:15
|
This country has a horrible record of taking care of it's vets, so hat's off to all who choose to serve. Speaking personally, I would make a lousy soldier, because I couldn't stand taking orders from someone who isn't smarter than me. Now to mix threads: only if Marijuana were legalized. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 06:16
Yes, you're right , it snowballed with Nam; but because no-one had dared to do the same in Korea and/or Algeria
Counter-culturte gave balls to the tender cannon-meat sent into the trenches...
However, it's mostly that Nam was not USA's war proper (neither was Korea or the European WWII, though), but it clearly appealed that Vietnam was also not just a cold war oir decolonization act, but also a industrial interests (not just weapons or chemicals) war.
The Nam situation was clearly no danger or even a remote menace to the USA's security (China's backing of the Viet Minhs was not exactly Russian expansion), but the CIA fabricated proof (like in Irak).
It was not only non-vital to US citizens' freedom, but obviously the communist-fears after the McCarthy witch hunt or inquisition years of the previous decade, most young students saw the benefits of a controlled market economy. To top it all of, their indistry magnate's kids found ways not to fight, and let the lower classes' kids get butchered on the battlefields with weapons they were keen to sell.
Let's not forget that the first warmongers are weapon builders
----------------
anyway, back to your question....
Of course not, there is no stupidest cause than your country to die for....
Mind you, if I had lived in 39 and knew of the atrocities the Nazis would perpetrate, I'd probably have joined the ranks of the resistance or fought from the UK
------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 06:44
|
It's very easy to say a strong yes or no to that question from the comfort of your armchair whilst swearing at the politicians from the safety of your own home, but very few of us actually know what we would do if it actually came to the crunch (whether you were ordered to be in a situation or volunteered through principle).
For myself, I genuinely don't know. ------------- 
Jon Lord 1941 - 2012 |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 07:04
Indeed, it difficult to know exactly how you'd feel in such times. If boat loads of invaders arrived at our shores, I would fight if called upon to do so, but only because I would probably sh*t enough bricks to build an effective barricade. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 07:09
I'd prefer to kill for my country. If there's any dying involved on my part, I'd rather not. Unless it's tie dieing.  ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 08:16
No you don't.  ------------- |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 08:44
If that's your criteria, then of course not. I thought you were asking in the traditional sense of dying to protect and defend your country, and the values for which it stands. -------------
|
Posted By: caretaker
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 09:30
| Where's Epignosis? |
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 10:09
|
I am pretty certain that my answer to this question has always been and would still be "no". Aside from a couple of fights in elementary school in which I was defending myself I have avoided physical conflict my entire life. I am not a hunter and have never fired a gun, so would probably be useless to my country in a conflict anyways. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 10:11
|
Posted By: Valarius
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 10:16
Hell no. As long as I survive I'm not bothered. 
|
Posted By: Paravion
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 11:39
|
No. I hate Denmark. Hopefully it will dissolve at some point in the future and humankind will stop identifying themselves relative to the location where they happen to be born.
|
Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 12:01
|
^ what is it with Denmark you don't like (or is it anything with Denmark you rather like or should be brought back, preserved)
I have nothing against Denmark (on March the 27th I will have reasons to differ that statement when our national squads/teams/armies are gona play against eachother in a very important Euro Cup qualifying match which will become more important then a simple football game ) -------------  
|
Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 14:01
|
MARSEILLE, I WOULD NEVER LET YOU DOWN I WILL GO AND SHOOT, SHOOT AGAIN ON THE GREEN FIELDS OF THE VELODROME TO WIN OR PERISH IN THE SOCCER GAME! PARIS AND ITS WIMPS WILL NEVER SUCCEED TO TAKE BACK THE CUP THAT BELONGS TO US .... Oh, after all, dying at a soccer game would be rather stupid. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 14:16
Denmark would be OK if weren't for all the Danish living there. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: November 18 2010 at 14:19
|
Yep, those Danishes are definitely bad for the diet. -------------
|
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: November 19 2010 at 02:09
I have trouble believing you would ever get somebody to do that, I really don't think it's very much alive in China. Basically, [citation needed] ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: npjnpj
Date Posted: November 19 2010 at 02:34
|
Seeing as I regard things like countries to be artificial constructs that only exist in people's minds and on paper, a political country isn't a thing worth fighting for. In reality it's NOT THERE! You are a subject of lifelong CONDITIONING. You'd just be told to defend one repression against the other. Grotesquely enough quite often somewhere very, very far away from home. In the end it's all about economic interests and power, and strangely enough, always someone elses. If you fight for your country, you're a mug. An you'll come home in one. |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: November 19 2010 at 03:17
I agree with some of what you are saying. But I think if you're country was being invaded by a power who wanted to impose a life of bread queues, soup kitchens curfews and regular beatings from the authorities, no internet, no independent news media, no free speech whatsoever, you might be inclined to at least object, don't you think? The only way - in theory - to stop all wars would be to impose a global government, a global currency, and a global army, so there are no longer any opposing sides. Anyone who thinks that will work is insane. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I believe that. There would, if anything be an increase in conflict, as the global police force faught terrorists opposed to global governance; be they real terrorists or merely an invention of the global 'state' to keep their people in fear, under surveilance and in a state of curfew. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: November 19 2010 at 04:32
With the greatest of respect, there are those (some on this forum) who may have fought for their country, or may have lost a friend or relative, in past or current conflicts who may consider this statement deeply offensive. When it comes to principles, you cannot generalise in this way. -------------
Jon Lord 1941 - 2012 |
Posted By: Philamelian
Date Posted: November 19 2010 at 04:54
|
When you look at relations between modern governments in a broad sense it's not far different than the human clans in early ages. So it seems all the intellectual development has no benefit on this issue if you exclude the complexity of paperwork and organisations etc. State of belonging (to a human group, a cultural entity) , territory , food is still basic facts which is governing the relations of states and nations. I find the word "nation" a bit exaggerated. It's filled with concepts which is changing from time to time. I agree with the global government idea but it's like a dream far far away. And I think this should be something that human race should reach naturally but I am not sure if you leave human race in a test lab like world and wait for millions years it would come true. I wouldn't want to loose my only real belonging, my life, for a territory on earth. I hope others (states, people, animals, aliens :) ) don't couse any threat on me as well. |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: November 19 2010 at 06:36
|
I'm quite suprised the amount of support the concept of global government gets. Not specifically here, but generally among people I know.
It's something that needs to be looked at from a pragmatic and intellectual perspective, not an idealistic socialist one. The current arrangement of nation states may seem flawed to some people, but currently, if someones life is threatened, or they are pursecuted in their nation of orign they have the option - if they can - of fleeing that nation and seeking assylum in another, more sympathetic to their plight. In a system of global government this individual would be an enemy of the world, and not able to seek assylum anywhere. Their only crime may be opposing the structure of global governance. I'm amazed people have such faith in the goodwill and honesty of politicans they normally would trust as far as they could throw, to implement global government, and then trust them NOT to abuse this enormous level of unnacoutable power they will have vested in themselves. The idea is insane, idealistic and unworkable and must be agressively opposed at every turn. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: npjnpj
Date Posted: November 19 2010 at 06:43
|
Ah, but in a global government there would be no reason for anybody to disagree. Under that government nobody would be poor or unhappy. Well, at least nobody important. |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: November 19 2010 at 06:51
I'm assuming you're being ironic. At least I hope so, because the world you're describing is a fantasy. In fact it's a dystopian nightmare vision of hell. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: LateralMe
Date Posted: November 19 2010 at 15:17
|
Nope
------------- A Flower!? |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 19 2010 at 15:36
|
Governments are all dysfunctional. Why not do it on a bigger scale?
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 19 2010 at 15:40
|
Nope. And I'd rather not die for anyone elses country either. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: November 19 2010 at 16:15
|
There are lots of things that could come under "Die for your country?" Would I volunteer in a disaster zone where riots might take my life? Maybe.
Would I go to the site of an infectious disease outbreak where obviously I could fall victim? Maybe. Both depend on how much I thought I was needed / could actually help?
Would I serve as a military doctor in a war zone? In very specific circumstances
Would I pick up a rifle and fight? No, that's not my role. ------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all. |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: November 19 2010 at 17:02
|
I find it revealing that people 'cherry pick' those human constructs they point out as being imaginary and 'not real' e.g. countries, patriotism, sovereignty, allegiance etc while extolling the values of democracy, privacy, free speech, pluralism etc as if the latter were somehow inalienable rights that obeyed natural laws. All our values are man-made. Most wars seem to be waged to allow us the right to condemn their stupidity. Like many posters have stated already, yes (I like to think) I would die for my chosen values but would be fighting against those who don't even have a choice. (Those with nothing to lose are the fiercest adversaries) ------------- 
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: November 19 2010 at 17:18
|
I guess you are also ready to kill for your country, aren't you all who said "yes"? -------------
|
Posted By: TheGazzardian
Date Posted: November 19 2010 at 17:58
|
I voted no, but this is a really loaded question and my brain could probably trail for hours coming up with circumstances where I would and would not do so. Suffice it to say though that I believe there's a bit more to a country than just the lines on the map - and while a lot of liberties most of us have are taken for granted if one of the countries that wasn't quite so giving was involved, then maybe. But I voted no because I'm not really sure who's going to be coming after Canada these days. We were lucky to have been "created" long after the tribal wars that shaped Europe and so forth, so our geography doesn't quite have the same history. And our only neighbouring country is pretty friendly with us.
|
Posted By: John McIntyre
Date Posted: November 19 2010 at 18:21
|
I voted no.
It's a pure accident of birth that we have the nationality we have.
My country won't die for me, so why should I die for my country?
The implication is that my country is at war with another. This means that my elected representatives (bloody politicians) have mucked it up, and expect me to compensate for their incompetance with my life. Not a chance.
I will never pick up a gun and kill someone, unless it's one of those (censored) politicians that got me into this mess in the first place. ------------- I am one of only about 1,800 people in the world with an original M400 Mellotron! |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: November 19 2010 at 20:38
Depends on who I would have to kill. I wouldn't kill an innocent person for my country, but I would kill someone who was threatening me or my country, sure. -------------
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: November 19 2010 at 20:51
Exactly, I wouldn't kill an innocent people for anybody, but if somebody threatens the life of my family, enters with a gun in house or rises a weapon against my country, I would kill. BTW: A country is not just a place where you were born, a country groups
At least for me, my country is very important, despite the fuc**ng politicians. Iván
------------- 
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 19 2010 at 20:56
But I don't believe you should kill anything you don't intend to eat. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: November 19 2010 at 23:34
Don't made me remember, that was the rule at home when I got my first rifle. I was forced to clean and eat two birds and a reptile I shoot....My sister always told my mother. Iván. -------------
|
Posted By: Chela
Date Posted: November 24 2010 at 22:41
Yep.
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: November 26 2010 at 17:13
|
Absolutely not. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Jörgemeister
Date Posted: November 28 2010 at 20:13
| Not even if my country worth killing for. |
Posted By: NecronCommander
Date Posted: November 28 2010 at 20:49
|
I answered no, and I did it on the basis of would I voluntarily join the military in a combatant position, which I would not. However, if for some reason the draft were enacted in the near future and I was required to take up arms for my country, I wouldn't flee to Canada or anything. -------------  
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 28 2010 at 22:24
| How about if I just dine for my country instead? |
Posted By: cyclysm748
Date Posted: December 06 2010 at 14:14
In that case, no I would not. If I knew why I might be dying and there was a good reason, say protecting those closest to me, yes.
|
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: December 06 2010 at 15:26
I served. The food was not that bad. To be honest I just wanted to fly jets. My country allowed me to do that. I managed an exchange tour with the RAAF so I guess it was my job. I considered it a job. The F-111 was a high point in my life. If I was ordered to do the job I would have done it. No questions. I 'm getting hungry. ------------- |
Posted By: Textbook
Date Posted: December 06 2010 at 20:20
|
Related question, would you refuse a draft for a political war? I would have refused the draft for Vietnam I'm pretty sure. (I say "political war" because let's say WWII where Hitler clearly had designs on world conquest, the question is not so interesting because you'd be a moron not to fight an evil maniac intent on destroying you and everyone you know. But a war fought for resources or ideology, would you refuse a draft there?) Not sure this question needs its own poll, maybe later.
|
Posted By: CCVP
Date Posted: December 07 2010 at 07:04
|
Brazil only fought worth-wile wars, so I would say yes.
-------------   
|
Posted By: jampa17
Date Posted: December 07 2010 at 11:22
|
Country is a complex concept. At the end, my country is my people, family, friends, community and the people with whom I share my life with, so I think I would kill somebody who is threaten my family-friends-community, but not in the name of a Country.
200 years ago, of course I might get enrolled in the military to defend my nation... but in the lights of these days, we all know that wars are more complicated and the interests are different... so, I vote NO. Complex though... ------------- |
Posted By: krishl
Date Posted: December 07 2010 at 16:08
| Yes. |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: December 07 2010 at 20:09
I think it does, but yes I would dodge the draft. I would do so proudly too. I think people that allow themselves to be drafted should be ashamed. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: December 07 2010 at 20:40
So you would fly for your country?  |
Posted By: GaryB
Date Posted: December 08 2010 at 09:15
|
Maybe the question should be "Would you FIGHT for your country?"
There were, give or take, three million Americans that served in Viet Nam and the total number of deaths was a little over 57,000.
You do not go to war with the intent of dying for your country. You go to war to make the other guy die for his country.
BTW...I see some comments on one global government being the answer to a lot of, if not all of our current problems. But no one has said how we will get to one global government.
Will it be a peaceful transition or is it something that will have to be fought for?
|