NationStates Jolt Archive

This has more than likely been done before (but so have the scores of "Is the Iraq War justifed?"/"Do you like George W. Bush?" threads that will never end, even after both are long gone), but my question is: Would you die for your nation?

Me!

This has more than likely been done before
Countless times.
Would you die for your nation?

Depends on the circumstances.

yes, it depends on the circumstances.

For example, I wouldn't willingly die for my country by means of the death penalty (but I still say keep it there).

But I would die for my country like those men and women did in United Airlines Flight 93.

But I'd much rather kill for my country.

Depends on the circumstances.That's about as good an answer as I can get.

It also depends on what Colerica means by "die for your country." Does he/she (sorry, I don't know) mean voluntarily fight in a foreign war against a country who had not attacked or even threatened us? fight in a foreign war against a country that had attacked us? fight on our own soil against an invader? fight against an illegal usurpation of power inside our own country? My answer changes depending on the definition.

I would be more than willing to die for my country to keep my fellow countrymen (and woman) safe and to give them their freedoms. That is why i plan on going into the military. :)

No... a country is a country... its beyond the scope of man...

And if you are in the army you are no more than a number part of a statistic taht higher generals hurl around en masse. You become part of a giant war machine and thus your life is forfeit.

Would I do for my country?

I to the N to the D to the U to the B to the I to the D to the A to the B to the L to the Y. ;)

i would die if there isnt any ice cream :'(

SAVE THE COWS!!!

I might die for my nation and my countrymen's freedoms, but not for the freedoms of foriegners. They have to pay their own blood for their own freedom like our forefathers did.

I might die for my nation and my countrymen's freedoms, but not for the freedoms of foriegners. They have to pay their own blood for their own freedom like our forefathers did.
i would do the same thing too =)

That's about as good an answer as I can get.

It also depends on what Colerica means by "die for your country." Does he/she (sorry, I don't know) mean voluntarily fight in a foreign war against a country who had not attacked or even threatened us? fight in a foreign war against a country that had attacked us? fight on our own soil against an invader? fight against an illegal usurpation of power inside our own country? My answer changes depending on the definition.

I apologize for not defining the scenario and circumstances. Secondly, I'm a male.

Okay: Your gov't is invaded by some uber-powerful military force and your nation's military is in serious trouble, if not already defeated. Would you join the fight to save your homeland against said hypothetical invaders?

Historical situation #1: You're an American (it doesn't matter if you really are or not) on December 8th, 1941. Your nation was just attacked by Japan. Would you enlist in the military to fight for your nation?

Historical situation #2: You're a poor Southern farmer (again, see above) in 1861. Would you volunteer your services to the Confederate army and fight for your homeland against the Yankees?

Historical situation #3: You're a citizen of France, Poland, Belgium, et al, (you know how this goes) in World War II. Nazi Germany has blitzkrieged your nation and what's left of your nation's military are running like the devil himself was on their tails (which could be an actual comparison to Hitler). Would you join the organized resistance and fight the Nazis?

Me!

i would do the same thing too =)

A to the G to the R to the E to the E to the D, M to the Y D to the E to the A to the R. ;)

not for my country, but for my ideals. For international socialism. But die for the sake of vampires like Bush, or Blair, or Saddam. No way.

I apologize for not defining the scenario and circumstances. Secondly, I'm a male.

Okay: Your gov't is invaded by some uber-powerful military force and your nation's military is in serious trouble, if not already defeated. Would you join the fight to save your homeland against said hypothetical invaders?

Historical situation #1: You're an American (it doesn't matter if you really are or not) on December 8th, 1941. Your nation was just attacked by Japan. Would you enlist in the military to fight for your nation?

Historical situation #2: You're a poor Southern farmer (again, see above) in 1861. Would you volunteer your services to the Confederate army and fight for your homeland against the Yankees?

Historical situation #3: You're a citizen of France, Poland, Belgium, et al, (you know how this goes) in World War II. Nazi Germany has blitzkrieged your nation and what's left of your nation's military are running like the devil himself was on their tails (which could be an actual comparison to Hitler). Would you join the organized resistance and fight the Nazis?

Me!
I guess so.

I apologize for not defining the scenario and circumstances. Secondly, I'm a male.

Okay: Your gov't is invaded by some uber-powerful military force and your nation's military is in serious trouble, if not already defeated. Would you join the fight to save your homeland against said hypothetical invaders?

Historical situation #1: You're an American (it doesn't matter if you really are or not) on December 8th, 1941. Your nation was just attacked by Japan. Would you enlist in the military to fight for your nation?

Historical situation #2: You're a poor Southern farmer (again, see above) in 1861. Would you volunteer your services to the Confederate army and fight for your homeland against the Yankees?

Historical situation #3: You're a citizen of France, Poland, Belgium, et al, (you know how this goes) in World War II. Nazi Germany has blitzkrieged your nation and what's left of your nation's military are running like the devil himself was on their tails (which could be an actual comparison to Hitler). Would you join the organized resistance and fight the Nazis?

Me!De nada, and I just wanted to make sure and not insult you unintentionally.

Situations 1 and 3--no question at all, of course I join, especially the third situation. Situation 2, I would probably have joined one of the many units that specifically joined up for state defense, like one I read about in Arkansas while I was a grad student there. They fought and repulsed the Union armies around the city of Fayetteville, drove them to the Missouri line and then went home. In their minds, they were fighting for their farms and families, not for the Confederacy. I would have done the same.

I apologize for not defining the scenario and circumstances. Secondly, I'm a male.

Okay: Your gov't is invaded by some uber-powerful military force and your nation's military is in serious trouble, if not already defeated. Would you join the fight to save your homeland against said hypothetical invaders?

Historical situation #1: You're an American (it doesn't matter if you really are or not) on December 8th, 1941. Your nation was just attacked by Japan. Would you enlist in the military to fight for your nation?

Historical situation #2: You're a poor Southern farmer (again, see above) in 1861. Would you volunteer your services to the Confederate army and fight for your homeland against the Yankees?

Historical situation #3: You're a citizen of France, Poland, Belgium, et al, (you know how this goes) in World War II. Nazi Germany has blitzkrieged your nation and what's left of your nation's military are running like the devil himself was on their tails (which could be an actual comparison to Hitler). Would you join the organized resistance and fight the Nazis?

Me!
Yes in all three situations, because if I lived in the south at the start of the Civil war, I'd most likely have a racist mindset just because everyone thought that way back then.

not for my country, but for my ideals. For international socialism. But die for the sake of vampires like Bush, or Blair, or Saddam. No way.

I'd die to prevent that! :headbang:

I apologize for not defining the scenario and circumstances. Secondly, I'm a male.

Okay: Your gov't is invaded by some uber-powerful military force and your nation's military is in serious trouble, if not already defeated. Would you join the fight to save your homeland against said hypothetical invaders?

Historical situation #1: You're an American (it doesn't matter if you really are or not) on December 8th, 1941. Your nation was just attacked by Japan. Would you enlist in the military to fight for your nation?

Historical situation #2: You're a poor Southern farmer (again, see above) in 1861. Would you volunteer your services to the Confederate army and fight for your homeland against the Yankees?

Historical situation #3: You're a citizen of France, Poland, Belgium, et al, (you know how this goes) in World War II. Nazi Germany has blitzkrieged your nation and what's left of your nation's military are running like the devil himself was on their tails (which could be an actual comparison to Hitler). Would you join the organized resistance and fight the Nazis?

Me!
Still no...

Yes in all three situations, because if I lived in the south at the start of the Civil war, I'd most likely have a racist mindset just because everyone thought that way back then.

That's not why they fought. They fought to protect states' rights. :headbang:

I apologize for not defining the scenario and circumstances. Secondly, I'm a male.

Okay: Your gov't is invaded by some uber-powerful military force and your nation's military is in serious trouble, if not already defeated. Would you join the fight to save your homeland against said hypothetical invaders?

Historical situation #1: You're an American (it doesn't matter if you really are or not) on December 8th, 1941. Your nation was just attacked by Japan. Would you enlist in the military to fight for your nation?

Yes.

Historical situation #2: You're a poor Southern farmer (again, see above) in 1861. Would you volunteer your services to the Confederate army and fight for your homeland against the Yankees?

:rolleyes:
Please don't get him going on this yet again. ;)


Historical situation #3: You're a citizen of France, Poland, Belgium, et al, (you know how this goes) in World War II. Nazi Germany has blitzkrieged your nation and what's left of your nation's military are running like the devil himself was on their tails (which could be an actual comparison to Hitler). Would you join the organized resistance and fight the Nazis?
Me!

Yes and my grandfather did. He fought the invasion of Poland under Sosabowski and later again in the 1st Polish Airborne.

Only if we were attacked, or the threat of invasion was real. Otherwise, war is not justifiable.

I would die for my country, but only if my country needed me to. Were I to die in, for instance, the current war in Iraq, or in Vietnam, I would (hypothetically) feel that my death had been in vain. However, if I felt that I was being sent to fight a real threat to my country, I would certainly do it. Basically, I would die for my country, but not for my country's politicians.

edit: sorry, didn't read much of the thread at first. Given those three situations, I would most certainly be willing to die for my country, and would consider anyone unwilling to exist to be a traitor.

Only if we were attacked, or the threat of invasion was real. Otherwise, war is not justifiable.

Agreed.

For my country, yes.

For my government, no.

I would die for my country, but only if my country needed me to. Were I to die in, for instance, the current war in Iraq, or in Vietnam, I would (hypothetically) feel that my death had been in vain. However, if I felt that I was being sent to fight a real threat to my country, I would certainly do it. Basically, I would die for my country, but not for my country's politicians.

I would have fought in Vietnam. I would have loved to kill some VC! :sniper:

That's not why they fought. They fought to protect states' rights. Some of them fought for states' rights. Some of them fought to protect their homes and families from invaders. Some fought because there was a fight. Some of them fought to uphold the existing system that included slavery. It's unfair and frankly, stupid to try to come up with a single reason as to why the Civil War was fought.

I would say that in any situation where my way of life was threatened, I would die to protect it. I would be willing to give up my life to ensure that my children and their children, etc., could live in a land where they had every oppurtunity I had, if not more. Granted, if I had been a Southerner during the Civil War, this would mean I would be fighting for the Confederate army, but, then again, I would be fighting for the Union army if I lived in the north. I think it all comes down to whether or not you respect your lifestyle enough to make sure that your descendants could have that same lifestyle, if not a better one.

OK, I never saw the scenarios before. In scenario 1, I think probably, but that wouldn't be just to defend the country, but also because you want to be where the action is. Also, a byproduct of the US-Japanese imperialist rivalry in the Pacific meant that fascism in Europe was also attacked by the US.
In the second case, I'd like to say no, because as Marx pointed out in his letters on the civil war, the slave system also kept poor whites in grinding poverty. Same was true in Northern Ireland, where wages where the lowest of the whole UK, but the protestants accepted it because they were at least better off than the taigs. But have said that, if I was a poor southern white, chances are I'd be a redneck (in the ideological sense) - even though there were lots of good poor whites involved in reconstruction politics.

In the third case, I'd be in the resistance for sure. The communist resistance of course. The Italian partisans by preference. That would be fighting for your country - against everyone's worst enemy - your own ruling class.

Sorry to annoy you so much d to the a to the r to the k dimension.

I would have joined the Confederacy even if I was a Northerner, not to defend slavery, but to defend states' rights. I would have never fought for that tyrant Lincoln! :mad:

OK, I never saw the scenarios before. In scenario 1, I think probably, but that wouldn't be just to defend the country, but also because you want to be where the action is. Also, a byproduct of the US-Japanese imperialist rivalry in the Pacific meant that fascism in Europe was also attacked by the US.
In the second case, I'd like to say no, because as Marx pointed out in his letters on the civil war, the slave system also kept poor whites in grinding poverty. Same was true in Northern Ireland, where wages where the lowest of the whole UK, but the protestants accepted it because they were at least better off than the taigs. But have said that, if I was a poor southern white, chances are I'd be a redneck (in the ideological sense) - even though there were lots of good poor whites involved in reconstruction politics.

In the third case, I'd be in the resistance for sure. The communist resistance of course. The Italian partisans by preference. That would be fighting for your country - against everyone's worst enemy - your own ruling class.

Sorry to annoy you so much d to the a to the r to the k dimension.

You didn't annoy me, SS.

I'd die to protect myself and others.

I'm willing to risk death as in you scenerios, but I hesitate to commit myself to certain death. You might wish to include an option for dedicated pacifists, something on the order of becoming a combat corpsman if your nations is invaded and in danger of being destroyed.

In the words of George S. Patton:

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

But in reguards to the poll... yeah. I'd probably die for my country so that others could live. I like to think I'm pretty selfless like that.

I would have joined the Confederacy even if I was a Northerner, not to defend slavery, but to defend states' rights. I would have never fought for that tyrant Lincoln! :mad:

Well said...and, those that know my stance on this, already know that I whole-heartedly agree with you....

Me!

Well... We (In Croatia) had independence war 91-95... So I know what am I talking about.

I wouldn't die for my country as a state, but for all the people within it, (with the possible exception of the BNP), I probably would die for them. However, it does depend of the cirumstances.

My city was bombed once in that war... I was 4 or 5 years old then.

As a Vietnam Vet (Electronic Warfare Officer for the Weasels) I've come close to death more times then I'd like to remember. Since I was always trying to take out the SAMs to protect our boys, I'd do it again if I had too. Even with my wounds I can say I was proud to serve, knowing that what I did may have saved others.

How old are you?

How old are you?

I'm 56, why? Is it an issue. I served in Vietnam in 1972.

And there's two examples right there of wars that really shouldn't be fought. In the one case, Vietnam, where US soldiers fought because that would maybe, in the long run, be saving US lives, if the domino theory was relevant. So Even with my wounds I can say I was proud to serve, knowing that what I did may have saved others.
May have saved others in the US, certainly killed 60'000 US soldiers, plus millions of South East ASians and left a legacy of chemical weapons that is still killing Vietnamese kids.

In the case of Croatia, I'm not siding with the Serbs or the Bosnians or any other side, but the Yugoslav republic was a viable state that had told even Stalin where he could get off.

But it's finances were gutted by the IMF in the 80s, then bankrupt ex-stalinist politicians in all of the republics distracted peoples attn by playing the nationalist card, and voila - one long, bloody, wasteful war (or a series of wars) and a whole lot of tiny statelets at the end, who after fighting so hard for their precious independence turn around and beg the EU to tell them what to do.

Not sure. Are we talking about sacrificing my life for the millions everyday people who inhabit my country, or just the greedy self-serving bastards who run it?

I certainly wouldn't take a bullet for the Prime Minister, but maybe I'd lay down my life if I knew it would save the lives of innocent people. Not sure if I could go through with it when it came to the crunch.

No. My country is big enough to look after itself. And hell, invasion is just a change of government.

I would die for my country...in the cause of revolution to oust the government that has twisted the national ideals I learned to love in my youth and turned them into the disgusting bastardization of freedom that America has become.

Under no circumstances would I fight in one of my nation's acts of aggression.

i'd die for the carlemnaria inside my head before i'd die
for the dear old mundane u.s. of a. as it exists today that
surrounds my tangble physical life form.

whether i'd willingly die to see something like carlemnaria
REPLACE today's u.s. of a. is another question.

what i would do, do do, and openly advocate doing,
is boycotting aggressiveness under any idiology, form of
government, economic theory or system of belief.

tyranny is the price of refusing to connect the dots,
whatever idiology, ..., belief, or anything else is used
as an excuse for doing so. that is what we have in the
mundane world and that is why we have it.

belief doesn't chainge that, and neither does armed revolution nor couter revolution nor anything else.

you build a wooden house somebody's gonna chop down a tree.
you drive a car somebody's gonna stop at nothing to make
a buck off your doing so
and if you cause more then a couple of children to be born
there's gonna be that many more people wanting to do both

dying for or against anything ain't gonna chainge that
either. and all the big holes in the ground full of
unhappy dead people in the world ain't making me a damd bit
more free and neither is making them.

=^^=
.../\...

I'm 56, why? Is it an issue. I served in Vietnam in 1972.

A vet, eh? There's nobody on Earth I respect more than Vietnam veterans!

Also, can we exclude people from the dying-for thing? Because there's no way I'm laying down my life for that bastard who shoved in front of me in the newsagents the other day, or people who don't ring the bell when they ride bicycles in the park and nearly run me over, or those annoying people off My Restaurant rules. :mad:

A vet, eh? There's nobody on Earth I respect more than Vietnam veterans!

Thank you for your support. Keep hope alive and also support the local POW/MIA organizations in your area. Whenever we can find remains, it will help bring closure to some family somewhere.

:sniper: I believe that nationalism would bring victory to a nation.

A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon. ~Napoleon



Gen. Adolf Tzu
The Holy Empire of Ponton

I must agree.I Salute People who haved served their country.


King Gustavo Ponton
The Holy Empire of Ponton

reading those scenarios; 1,2, and 3. i don't beleive i'd
expect to accomplish anything by joing the regular military

but in example three, expecting i was going to die anyway,
no matter what i did, yah that would be a good day to die,
and i'd probably take out as many of the (explative)'s as i
could before they got me. (yah i'd probably be scarred
youknowwhatless, but ever hear of fear biters, yah i might
hide as much a i could, maybe even try to use a little
stratagy but basicly that would be bearserker time!)

(which is probably how a lot of people who live in places
the u.s. or other super powers have invaded feel and
rightfully so!)

=^^=
.../\...

Until you actually face death, it is very hard to tell how you will handle it. Before my first mission with my pilot, we both puked for about 20 min until we could compose ourselves enough to prepare to leave. Oddly I would remain calm during the flight until we got into the north. Then as I knew how far in we were my whole body would be so stressed but I was still able to perform my job. Having only a few seconds to dance, us in our thud, and the sam coming in straight at 12 oclock. Having faith that he could dive under it in time. Then locking on the NVA sam sites and destroying them so the bombers could get through. I could only unwind by having several drinks, thus later I am a recovering alcoholic. War is truely hell. Esp when you have breakfeast with a good friend and you come back to find he was shot down. Or you hear the launch alarm but can't see where it is and have only a few seconds to make peace before it will slam into you. It's a total disgrace the way governments put their young men in harms way. Our part of the Airforce was generally considered the most dangerous as you had to fly 100 missions before you went home. Most didn't make it.

So to everybody concerned about whether to die for your country, remember it's painful and dirty to die for your country. Even if the government tells you its a just cause, you question it and think things over before you decide to become a soldier or whatever. Thats my rant sorry.

That's about as good an answer as I can get.

It also depends on what Colerica means by "die for your country." Does he/she (sorry, I don't know) mean voluntarily fight in a foreign war against a country who had not attacked or even threatened us? fight in a foreign war against a country that had attacked us? fight on our own soil against an invader? fight against an illegal usurpation of power inside our own country? My answer changes depending on the definition.
This I agree with in regards to dependency. However, since there was no option for this in the poll, I was unable to vote. Also there are degrees of dependency. The number one priority would be the defense of my country, and the second would be the defense of an allied country. Knowing what I was defending against and why would be very important considerations.

only if my act was not used for political purposes id do it for the deed not the fame basically and definalty not if political spin artists of new labour could latch on to my memory and abuse it for there own gain

If my nation asked me to fight, I would fight. Dying for your nation has to be the best way to die. Because you lived, fought, and died to server your country. But I differ from others when I say, if I died, I wouldnt want to die in vain, for my nation to just back out of the war I died for.

although I have nothing against veterans and so on I still believe that all wars and weapons are unnecessary
most wars are started by a few in order for their own benefits, be it power, money, becoming a part of history or something else

Dying for your country is all good and fine, but the pay is horrible. So I'd have to say: no, nothing is worth dying for. Because after you've gone off and snuffed it, ever how nobly it was, that is exactly what you've got: nothing.

Thank you for your support. Keep hope alive and also support the local POW/MIA organizations in your area. Whenever we can find remains, it will help bring closure to some family somewhere.

I will. I have a wristband with the name of an MIA. Clifford Feiszel, I think. By the way, I'd recommend a great site:

www.hanoijohnkerry.com

It also has many links to other great sites.

God bless all Vietnam vets!!!

I'd like to point out another way to die for your country. Back in the Vietnam war, I'm sure many of you remember the pictures of the immolating monks. The most publicized was Quang Duc I believe, and he walked into a busy intersection, sat down, and lit himself on fire. He never moved or said a word, and this was all in protest of how his people were being treated. How many of you would die for your country in this way? There is just something about laying down your own life like that to make a change.

If it ever became necessary, then, yes, I would die to serve my country. If a war came to our shores, I'd take up arms against the invaders. If I was in the military, and the military says something is important, then it's important, and I'd die to complete my mission. Most importantly, if the government ever became tyrannical, I, along with others, would rise against it, because my first loyalty is to no one person or persons, but to the Constitution. That's how I'd repay the thousands upon thousands of brave Americans who died for me during the Revolutionary War.

This has more than likely been done before (but so have the scores of "Is the Iraq War justifed?"/"Do you like George W. Bush?" threads that will never end, even after both are long gone), but my question is: Would you die for your nation?

Me!

Hell no. That's what the army is for.

In the words of General Patton, "Nobody ever helped their country by dieing for it, but rather by making the other poor son of a bitch die for his."

I mean ... I couldn't help it that the other guy had bad aim ...

Situation One: Hell yes. Though I'd rather serve in the European front than anywhere else, primarily because I'd get to stick it to the Nazis and I'd have a better chance of coming back alive.. the Nazis were threatening civilization itself. Bastards that they were notwithstanding, Japan was threatening to make colonies out of other people's colonies.

Situation Two: Dunno. If I was your average, poor southern farmer, I'd be torn. On one hand, a union held together by force isn't much of a union at all. On the other hand, the reason for my state's secession was to protect the economic interests of the slave-owning oligarchy which is probably screwing me out of business anyway. So likely, I'd remain neutral.

Situation three: Goes without saying. If somebody was to invade my country, I would consider it my duty to take the fight to the enemy even if our regular army has been defeated. They might hang onto our land for god knows how long, but it's sure as hell not going to be a pleasant stay.

Unaddressed in these three scenarios are the possibility of "dieing for your country" in a foreign war of aggression, in which case I say screw that. If for some reason we're stuck with another Vietnam-like situation, the only thing the government would gain by trying to draft me is a 5-year manhunt and an assload of burnt down draft offices. No way in hell will I be used by the ruling elite to keep other men down, no matter what flag they're flieing.

Would you die to protect someone who was robbing you? Only if you were forced to. Nuff said. Nations are imaginary boundaries. The cultures of Texas and New York are not the same.

Well, let´s just face it:
The higher the educational level of a nation´s people is, the smaller is the wish to "sacrifice" oneself for his/her country. In the old days it was easy to convince people that they are doing something good when going to war. But hey, show me one guy who really wants war!

Just look at the countries in war nowadays. They have barely enough food to feed their own people. The educational level is quite low and it is easy to "manipulate" people for some maniac´s aims.

IF my country was attacked, I´d defend it if my help is needed. I would do it with the intention to defend it, not to give my life for it. It might be a sad "by-product" though.

I don´t know if it is true what I read somewhere:
"Did you know... that there was no war between countries that both had a McDonald´s?" I don´t consider the yellow M as an indicator for educational levels but it shows some degree of "development" for the country concerned.

----------------------------
If you may find some spelling or grammatical mistakes, feel free to mark them red and keep them. :eek:

Depends who wants to send me to die, and what I'm dying for.

Having been born in this free country with plenty of opportunity and a prosperous outlook for the future, and considering those that have shed their blood to protect and serve it before me, so that I could live in such a place...I feel automatically in debt to the United States of America, and thus if I were called upon to serve, fight, and if needbe die (though I'd preferably kill for the country, in keeping with George S. Patton Jr.) for the US. So yes, if called upon or needed, I would serve. And yes, I would enlist in all three of those situations mentioned, and if I lived in the North during the Civil war, like my ancestors did before me, I would also fight to preserve the Union and free society.

I would die for my country but I would much rather kill ALL the people that I was fighting.

Depends on if I agreed that my nation was justified in asking me to die for it, or not.

That's not why they fought. They fought to protect states' rights. :headbang:
States' rights to deprive black people of what we now consider, and what the Union considered, basic human rights.

This has more than likely been done before (but so have the scores of "Is the Iraq War justifed?"/"Do you like George W. Bush?" threads that will never end, even after both are long gone), but my question is: Would you die for your nation?

Me!

I would die for a cause, but not for a country. At least I think I would, if it really came down to it. But I would tend to think I'd be more useful to most causes, military included, alive than dead, and that my mental capacities would tend to be more useful than my physical.

Here's an interesting question: my grandmother was a Jew in Hungary during the Nazi occupation. She didn't fight, per se, in the war, but she fought the Nazis in the following way: she worked for an operation (with a hospital as a front) to help obtain Swedish passports for Jews to escape Hungary. Although she wasn't killing, she was risking her life to save her people from genocide. If "nation" is substituted for "country", would one say she was risking her life for her nation?

I'd like to point out another way to die for your country. Back in the Vietnam war, I'm sure many of you remember the pictures of the immolating monks. The most publicized was Quang Duc I believe, and he walked into a busy intersection, sat down, and lit himself on fire. He never moved or said a word, and this was all in protest of how his people were being treated. How many of you would die for your country in this way? There is just something about laying down your own life like that to make a change.
Setting fire to yourself and standing in an intersection seems pretty daft to me. Pointless, really, as it solves nothing, and only makes the peope trying to go by your great "statement" peevish at the delay in transit. You should at least carry a sign, as the fact that "man on fire in the middle of an intersection" is an international sign for "stop the current war" is not a well known fact.

No -- I don't feel my nation would ever be worth giving my life to try to save it.... I'd rather serve in the Military of the United States then give my own life for Canada.

I apologize for not defining the scenario and circumstances. Secondly, I'm a male.

Okay: Your gov't is invaded by some uber-powerful military force and your nation's military is in serious trouble, if not already defeated. Would you join the fight to save your homeland against said hypothetical invaders?

Historical situation #1: You're an American (it doesn't matter if you really are or not) on December 8th, 1941. Your nation was just attacked by Japan. Would you enlist in the military to fight for your nation?

Historical situation #2: You're a poor Southern farmer (again, see above) in 1861. Would you volunteer your services to the Confederate army and fight for your homeland against the Yankees?

Historical situation #3: You're a citizen of France, Poland, Belgium, et al, (you know how this goes) in World War II. Nazi Germany has blitzkrieged your nation and what's left of your nation's military are running like the devil himself was on their tails (which could be an actual comparison to Hitler). Would you join the organized resistance and fight the Nazis?

Me!

My answer to all of the above is yes

I'd like to point out another way to die for your country. Back in the Vietnam war, I'm sure many of you remember the pictures of the immolating monks. The most publicized was Quang Duc I believe, and he walked into a busy intersection, sat down, and lit himself on fire. He never moved or said a word, and this was all in protest of how his people were being treated. How many of you would die for your country in this way? There is just something about laying down your own life like that to make a change.

has a great point. would you die in protest of the way your country is treated? Here is a little twist to this one: What do you with people who are willing to give everything for their cause?

has a great point. would you die in protest of the way your country is treated? Here is a little twist to this one: What do you with people who are willing to give everything for their cause?

Yeah, I think his name was Thich Quang Duc. He immolated himself in protest of the Ngo Dinh Diem regime's persecution of Buddhists.

This has more than likely been done before (but so have the scores of "Is the Iraq War justifed?"/"Do you like George W. Bush?" threads that will never end, even after both are long gone), but my question is: Would you die for your nation?

Me!

Its all entirely dependant upon the situation. If it is a case of 'really' defending your countries democracy (as was the cause in World War 2) then I'm sure I'd be one of the first to sign up and ship out.

But die so Halliburton can roll in the dough, Bush can settle a vendetta and The Oil Pigs can find some more black gold? No, I really don't think so.

Its all entirely dependant upon the situation. If it is a case of 'really' defending your countries democracy (as was the cause in World War 2) then I'm sure I'd be one of the first to sign up and ship out.

But die so Halliburton can roll in the dough, Bush can settle a vendetta and The Oil Pigs can find some more black gold? No, I really don't think so.

A) America isn't a democracy (the Founders hated democracy, and even say so in the Federalist Papers)

B) World War II was not about that; it was about globalism

All wars come down to one reason and that is money. Whether it be natural resources, or to bring an economic boom to a country, wars since the dawn of man have been fought for the bloodlust that comes with greed for greater wealth. Even so called rightous wars like WWII are fought over money.

A) America isn't a democracy (the Founders hated democracy, and even say so in the Federalist Papers)

B) World War II was not about that; it was about globalism


A) The leaders of the American Revolution hated democracy, but they couldn't have beaten the Brits without an armed citizenry. And once they had beaten the Brits, they discovered that an armed citizenry tends to be awkward about things like having a say in politics. This tension between ordinary Americans and the US ruling class has not yet been resolved. As a result, democracy is partial - at times better and at times worse, but never complete.

B) world war 2 was about a lot of things, not just globalism. At it's heart, i think it (and ww1) was a battle between the emerging economic powers of Germany and the US to succeed the declining UK as world power. But the hatred that ordinary people in the USSR and the west had for fascism was used by the elites as a powerful rallying cry. (the Queen kept quiet about her admiration for Hitler and Churchill didn't repeat the assertion made earlier that if he were Italian, he would be fascist).

Probably not. If I were to be drafted to fight in Iraq, for example, it'd be hello Winnipeg!

If my nation asked me to fight, I would fight. Dying for your nation has to be the best way to die. Because you lived, fought, and died to server your country. But I differ from others when I say, if I died, I wouldnt want to die in vain, for my nation to just back out of the war I died for.
The best way to die is in my sleep after having the best sex of my life.

Apart from that sidetrack, if I died in a war fighting for my nation and my nation made a decision to withdraw because it knowingly could not continue the war without suffering insurmountable casualties, then I would have no problem with that.

All wars come down to one reason and that is money. Whether it be natural resources, or to bring an economic boom to a country, wars since the dawn of man have been fought for the bloodlust that comes with greed for greater wealth. Even so called rightous wars like WWII are fought over money.

This is certainly true, but the question has to be, who is getting the money and how is being spent. For example, the American Revolution was a war to have US money spent in the US.

The Civil War was a war initially to break the wealth of the Southern oligarchy in the the interests of Northern industrialists, but it became a revolutionary war in the South to redistribute economic power to the slaves.

The First World War offered worse than nothing to the majority of people - it was a war to consolidate the power of the aristocratic elites against working poeple and agaisnt rival elites. In the Second World War at least people were promised that it was a war for progress, for democracy, for increasing the plitical power (and with it the money or economic advantage) of ordinary poeple.

The wars of national liberation were good too - colonialism had thrown millions into misery at a great profit to western financiers. The wars of the 50s, 60s, and 70s were about money - but about saying that money that should be used for human need in the countries it came from instead of profit somewhere else.

The best war, although ultimately defeated, was the Russian Civil War that followed the communist revolution in 1917. Because there it was so clear - the war was about money, but about the vast majority of working people not wanting to keep the TSar and his mates in great wealth and luxury.

Wars over money can still be wars for human life and dignity.

This is certainly true, but the question has to be, who is getting the money and how is being spent. For example, the American Revolution was a war to have US money spent in the US.

The Civil War was a war initially to break the wealth of the Southern oligarchy in the the interests of Northern industrialists, but it became a revolutionary war in the South to redistribute economic power to the slaves.

The First World War offered worse than nothing to the majority of people - it was a war to consolidate the power of the aristocratic elites against working poeple and agaisnt rival elites. In the Second World War at least people were promised that it was a war for progress, for democracy, for increasing the plitical power (and with it the money or economic advantage) of ordinary poeple.

The wars of national liberation were good too - colonialism had thrown millions into misery at a great profit to western financiers. The wars of the 50s, 60s, and 70s were about money - but about saying that money that should be used for human need in the countries it came from instead of profit somewhere else.

The best war, although ultimately defeated, was the Russian Civil War that followed the communist revolution in 1917. Because there it was so clear - the war was about money, but about the vast majority of working people not wanting to keep the TSar and his mates in great wealth and luxury.

Wars over money can still be wars for human life and dignity.

Good points but still they are all about money. Now money doesn't always mean cash, it means property, labor, natural resources, and freedom (for example the American Revolution, we won freedom, thus ensuring wealth as the US was a soverign nation which could now keep what had gone to England.). When slaves were an issue, it was seriously about money for the South as they had a huge basically unpaid labor pool.