NationStates Jolt Archive

Thoughts, comments... post away!

I would die for one thing, me, and my causes, nothing else compares

Yes, to preserve my nation, yes I would.

Thoughts, comments... post away!

Solely for my country? No.
Against something which would make my country worse (say, Adolf)? Well, i'd prefer to fight it and live but i'd be more prepared to die for it.

I would die to defend my country (US), but not in order to attack another country because of some cockamamie BS the president and his men invent.

The question is not, "Would I die for my country?" The question is, "Would my country die for me?"



No. That doesn't make sense...

Solely for my country? No.
Against something which would make my country worse (say, Adolf)? Well, i'd prefer to fight it and live but i'd be more prepared to die for it.

Oh, and the above goes for "Killing for my country" as well.

No. no. No.
I don't see any reason to die for my country.

The question is not, "Would I die for my country?" The question is, "Would my country die for me?"



No. That doesn't make sense...

Would Hurley from "Lost" diet for his country?

Yes.

If my country was attacked, or if it was for a cause I truly believed in, then yes without a moment of thought.

Would Hurley from "Lost" diet for his country?
You say things. I look confused.

You say things. I look confused.

He's the big fat guy.

It was sizeist. Sue me.

If I had to I would. Somethings are more important than the individual.

He's the big fat guy.

It was sizeist. Sue me.
Fat man in a little coat?

If I had to I would. Somethings are more important than the individual.

I can't identify with that, no they are bloody well not, not in my case! :mad:

No because I live in a confusing country. I would die for my country, if it was necessary, but living in Northern Ireland, that means two countries! I an not a member of any terrorist organisation (IRA), but i would die for Ireland, but I'd rather Britain died for me! And only if it was to preserve my way of life, and in my country (repel invasion)

Fat man in a little coat?

You say things. I look confused.

;)

Maybe, it would depend upon the cirumstances really. If my country turned into a crazy fascist/communist dictatorship, then no. Absolutely not. If some crazy fuckers invaded and tried to turn it into a fascist/communist dictatorship, then yes.

I can't identify with that, no they are bloody well not, not in my case! :mad:
So basically you're saying "screw my culture, my people, and my civil liberties, I'm not gonna die"?

Seems kinda cowardly to me.

If my sacrifice would help America remain free, safe, etc., then yes I would.

How about, "I'd kill you for my country." I like that better. OK. Who's willing to take the deep six for my country? Anybody?

If it meant stopping my country from becoming the Corporate Facist system that it's becoming then yes, For my Government, no. In a war to perserve our 'interests', hell no. If it's an invader out to conquer the world then yes. If it's an Invader out to stop my insane government, I'm defecting.
(If you can tell by my statement I live in the US)

No. no. No.
I don't see any reason to die for my country.

thanks for saying it first. wouldn't i already be preparing it i'd think about asking you to marry me now.

anyway. no?! apart from me thinking that you will serve ANY cause better alive than dead..i see no reason to die for something as irrelevant as my country. goes for any country, by the way.

Yes, I would die for my country.

I would not, however, kill for it.

letting yourself be killed consentously is like killing yourself is like killing somebody. gotcha.

No fucking way

letting yourself be killed consentously is like killing yourself is like killing somebody. gotcha.

Er, no, but very interesting reasoning. :)

What I mean is, I would die to defend the ideals my country represents. Mind you, the question really is, are those ideals the current ones of my country? But that's not really the point of this thread...I don't think.

However, I would not kill or do violence to another person as that would violate my fundamental ideals. And, in a way, Me > My Country.

Depending on the circumstances, I might fight for my country, but I'd do my level best to avoid dying for it.

I really don't know what I'd die for, I haven't been in the kind of situation that would let me honestly tell. But it definitley would not be a country. A country is an arbitrary entity that may or may not be made up of components worth dying for. If you look back at many countries over time, they are worth dying for at some times and definitely not at others. If so, it's because of people and ideals, not just a set of borders.

Yes, I would die for my country.

I would not, however, kill for it. Really? Why not?
Assuming we're talking of invasion here, I'd rather kill people than have my city Berlin-ified (ie what the Russians did to Berlin).

If you are fighting against an invader, you are fighting for what the country is made of - people.

I'd fight for Britain and for Ireland. That does NOT mean that I'd just go off to some silly imperialist war (and I'm not talking about Iraq, I'm using a hypothetical example).

When it comes right down to it, you'd be dying for other people and their way of life. And that's something worth dying for. Even killing for.

* is rather frightened by liskeinland*

* is rather frightened by liskeinland* What's frightening about dying for the sake of others?

Really? Why not?
Assuming we're talking of invasion here, I'd rather kill people than have my city Berlin-ified (ie what the Russians did to Berlin).

Well, firstly, because I'm a Quaker, and we're a traditional peace testiment church. Secondly, because even without the religious reasons, to take the life of another person is to give up one's own humanity and thereby make any sort of rationale for the initial killing meaningless.


If you are fighting against an invader, you are fighting for what the country is made of - people.

Ideally, perhaps, but factually that's rarely true. Besides, there are a multitude of ways to resist that do not include violence or killing.


I'd fight for Britain and for Ireland. That does NOT mean that I'd just go off to some silly imperialist war (and I'm not talking about Iraq, I'm using a hypothetical example).

Again, though, there are ways to fight for a country, or a people or an ideal, that do not force one to give up one's basic humanity. We have brains and rationality. If we lay them down and start making our might from the point of a gun, we are no better than a particularly bright chimp with a shiny toy. Ayn Rand may have been generally full of it, but this is one point I agree with her on.


When it comes right down to it, you'd be dying for other people and their way of life. And that's something worth dying for. Even killing for.

No, it's never worth killing for. Period.

Ofcourse I would.

I'd rather kill people than have my city Berlin-ified
well- this is scary, for a starter. i'm german, trrust me i studied this well enough and i know that that's terrible, but still..i couldn't see myself ding that. *pacifist is winning the upper hand here*


I'd fight for Britain and for Ireland
i'm frightened by people who'd die for a/their country. to be true, patriotism scares the hell out of me *wonders at german influence(conditionin in her upbringing*

you'd be dying for other people and their way of life. And that's something worth dying for.Even killing for
[bolding done for emphasis]
i differ. i don't think dying for something, anything*, helps anybody. people thinking differentyl in most cases display an emotionality on subjects than can scare me. like, a lot.
*well dying in order to spare somebody else's life, as in a direct conflict, i see the point in that.

I can't identify with that, no they are bloody well not, not in my case! :mad:

Then you have no sense of duty or honor, not necessarily a bad thing, but true all the same.

I, on the other hand, am joining the US army, most likely as Armor, as once I graduate.

* is sliightly surprised at this but 100%edly agrees with berkylvania. except for that being a quaker part, which i'm not. *

I'd definitely kill for my country (Assuming innocent people were at risk. I'm not cold-blooded.). I would only die for my country if I had to.

"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."
- Attributed to General George Patton Jr

The only way I could ever kill someone is if they were trying to kill me or someone who is innocent. I'd feel no remorse, either. In no way, however, could I kill an unarmed person or innocent person. It'd eat me up inside.

*EDIT*-Sorry about that. Double posted. Fixed now.

I'd definitely kill for my country (Assuming innocent people were at risk. I'm not cold-blooded.). I would only die for my country if I had to.



*EDIT*-Sorry about that. Double posted. Fixed now.


well obvioulsy, everyone would rather live for their country than die for their country. I would, fight for my country and if that means dieing, then I would die but it would not be my frist choice.

I'd definitely kill for my country (Assuming innocent people were at risk. I'm not cold-blooded.). I would only die for my country if I had to.
Oh yes, because that generally is a very rational decision to take.
Make a list of all the pros and the cons, define who the bad guys are (because you wouldn't want to kill innocent people. Just all the mean terrorists), and really think about whether it is necessary for you to die for your country in that very instant.
If you think it all through, you should come up with a decision that pleases everyone, since it is just and fair.
:rolleyes:
[/sarcasm]

I would never die for anything or anyone else. To me, self-preservation takes precedence.

I would never die for anything or anyone else. Self-preservation is far more important to me.

I would say something about people whop are to concerned with themselves to considre others, but I know that if he ever finds himself in that situation, he might find that he cares more for Someone, or something, else, than he does for himself.

So basically you're saying "screw my culture, my people, and my civil liberties, I'm not gonna die"?

Seems kinda cowardly to me.


You didn't ask me, I know, and it's impolite to answer, but I can't remain quiet. :rolleyes:

No I wouldn't die for my country.
My country is not my culture, my country is not my people and not my civil liberties.
Even if my country is destroyed, my would culture remain, in the minds of my people, and they'd remember civil liberties and they'd restore them when building up a new country. Really important things can't be destoryed by foreign enemies. :)

Dying for your country could be seen as cowardice too (please don't flame me for that, it's just a thought and not meant to offend those whom you might consider great heroes). Cowards, who are scared of being forced to start anew and rebuild what they have lost. A country needs the living, not the dead.

I will die for my country, my people, my beliefs, even things seem to be as bleak and as meaningless. Even if my country would inevitably lose, or it would not exist anymore.

For the sake of my country, I will die for it.

I will die on foreign soil, only to have my country gain more land.

I will die on enemy soil, only to bring another day of victory.

I will die on allied soil, because my country wishes me to help my allies.

I will die in a torture room, but never utter a word; only die.

I will die in any way possible, at any time needed, for whatever purpose.

I will die for my country.

I will die for my country, my people, my beliefs, even things seem to be as bleak and as meaningless. Even if my country would inevitably lose, or it would not exist anymore.

For the sake of my country, I will die for it.

I will die on foreign soil, only to have my country gain more land.

I will die on enemy soil, only to bring another day of victory.

I will die on allied soil, because my country wishes me to help my allies.

I will die in a torture room, but never utter a word; only die.

I will die in any way possible, at any time needed, for whatever purpose.

I will die for my country.


Hmm, okay, but would you live for your country?

no fucking way!

*wants it to be noted that jenrak scares me ven more than liskeinland*

what scares me most is that you would not only die for such things as ideals/principles/your culture/family or simliar meaningful things, but you'd die and kill in order to get your country some more land?!?!
*in loss of words*

Hmm, okay, but would you live for your country?

I'm alive now. Or at least, I think so.

*wants it to be noted that jenrak scares me ven more than liskeinland*

what scares me most is that you would not only die for such things as ideals/principles/your culture/family or simliar meaningful things,
*in loss of words*

I must be really frightening then, a Hightech redneck, who intends to join the army...

I'll be killing(maybe) and possibly even dying to protect my brothers in arms, what can you say that compares to that?

Well, firstly, because I'm a Quaker, and we're a traditional peace testiment church. Secondly, because even without the religious reasons, to take the life of another person is to give up one's own humanity and thereby make any sort of rationale for the initial killing meaningless.
Ideally, perhaps, but factually that's rarely true. Besides, there are a multitude of ways to resist that do not include violence or killing.
Again, though, there are ways to fight for a country, or a people or an ideal, that do not force one to give up one's basic humanity. We have brains and rationality. If we lay them down and start making our might from the point of a gun, we are no better than a particularly bright chimp with a shiny toy. Ayn Rand may have been generally full of it, but this is one point I agree with her on.
No, it's never worth killing for. Period. Yes, there are other ways to resist, and I think that non-violence is great - except that sometimes it is necessary when you have no other choice. For instance, to save the lives of others you may have to kill - to sacrifice your own humanity.
This is why the "knightly virtues" were thought up in Europe ages agp. To make sure that the defenders of people did not become the same as the attackers. I don't think killing sacrifices one's humanity per se - it is like an axe hitting a tree. The axe can kill the tree, but with each blow it is blunted and damaged - with people it's the same, but in the spirit. (And yes, I know I just paraphrased from the Eye of the World.)
If you believe that killing is always wrong, you could say that self-sacrifice is always wrong, because after all, according to Christianity, your life does not belong to you.

I'm not a "super-patriot". I just wouldn't stand by and let my friends and family be killed, or my country unjustfully oppressed, or whatever.

Only kill to save more life. Not for land, unless of course that would save lives (getting into shaky territory here). You can see my views in my nation's motto: "If you would seek peace, prepare for war.) :)

I'd kill this puppy here for my country. What, you don't want me to? Are you sure? It's no trouble. Maybe just take off a leg or something?

But seriously, if my death could slightly improve our economic growth, or maybe give us an advantage in trade negotiations, of course I would gladly sacrifice myself!

Yes, there are other ways to resist, and I think that non-violence is great - except that sometimes it is necessary when you have no other choice. For instance, to save the lives of others you may have to kill - to sacrifice your own humanity.
This is why the "knightly virtues" were thought up in Europe ages agp. To make sure that the defenders of people did not become the same as the attackers. I don't think killing sacrifices one's humanity per se - it is like an axe hitting a tree. The axe can kill the tree, but with each blow it is blunted and damaged - with people it's the same, but in the spirit. (And yes, I know I just paraphrased from the Eye of the World.)
If you believe that killing is always wrong, you could say that self-sacrifice is always wrong, because after all, according to Christianity, your life does not belong to you.

I'm not a "super-patriot". I just wouldn't stand by and let my friends and family be killed, or my country unjustfully oppressed, or whatever.

Only kill to save more life. Not for land, unless of course that would save lives (getting into shaky territory here). You can see my views in my nation's motto: "If you would seek peace, prepare for war.) :)


Sol THAT'S where metallica got that line...

"Don't Tread on Me" has the line, "To secure Peace is\To prtepare for war", and I always wondered where that came from, now I know...

Yes, living should be a first priority. I said only if I have to meaning that, if in the situation, I would definitely die. Peace is the best solution, but there cannot be peace without war. It is a known fact of our nature.

@Alinania
No, I'm not just saying "kill the evil terrorist and save the innocent people." I'm saying kill anyone who gets in my way or my country's way. Anyone trying to take my freedom away, no matter what nationality, race, or ideology, is as good as dead. I'd kill 'em in a heartbeat.

I am willing to die for my nation as long as there is no other possible outcome.

_________________
Please, don't kill the puppy. For the sake of the puppy!!!

*admits she is less scared of liskeinland now, but realizes in horror that there are waayy to many scary people attracted to this thread an dwill therefore leave before being paralyzed by shock*

This has probably been said in several different ways, but...

"I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees"

That quote sounds like a lot of rebel-rousing bravado, but the idea is sound. By no means do I support everything my country does or stands for (I live in America, by the way), but there are people here in this country that I care about and would die for without any hesitation, were their lives in danger. My intention is not to sound brave; I'm no Audie Murphy, for sure. But when push came to shove, my well being ranks well below the lives of my countrymen. If defending my countrymen means defending my country, then yes, I'd die for my country.

Would I go invade some other poor bastard's country? No.

Would I defend the people of this one? Without question.

Of course, given the choice, I'm pretty content with being alive.

Yes, there are other ways to resist, and I think that non-violence is great - except that sometimes it is necessary when you have no other choice. For instance, to save the lives of others you may have to kill - to sacrifice your own humanity.
This is why the "knightly virtues" were thought up in Europe ages agp. To make sure that the defenders of people did not become the same as the attackers. I don't think killing sacrifices one's humanity per se - it is like an axe hitting a tree. The axe can kill the tree, but with each blow it is blunted and damaged - with people it's the same, but in the spirit. (And yes, I know I just paraphrased from the Eye of the World.)
If you believe that killing is always wrong, you could say that self-sacrifice is always wrong, because after all, according to Christianity, your life does not belong to you.

I'm not a "super-patriot". I just wouldn't stand by and let my friends and family be killed, or my country unjustfully oppressed, or whatever.

Only kill to save more life. Not for land, unless of course that would save lives (getting into shaky territory here). You can see my views in my nation's motto: "If you would seek peace, prepare for war.) :)

Whilst i don't argue with your views, your bit on "the knightly virtues" is quite innocent and - i would argue - naive. I'd say the whole knightly thing was basically the church co-opting an already violent society to it's views on "order" with the Pope at the top. Read "Hawkwood - Devils Englishman", fantastic book, for an explanation of this theorem.

*admits she is less scared of liskeinland now, but realizes in horror that there are waayy to many scary people attracted to this thread an dwill therefore leave before being paralyzed by shock*

*Is sorry he actually may be responsible for frightening someone away from a thread...*

*admits she is less scared of liskeinland now, but realizes in horror that there are waayy to many scary people attracted to this thread an dwill therefore leave before being paralyzed by shock*
*feels the same way*
*leaves as well*

Whilst i don't argue with your views, your bit on "the knightly virtues" is quite innocent and - i would argue - naive. I'd say the whole knightly thing was basically the church co-opting an already violent society to it's views on "order" with the Pope at the top. Read "Hawkwood - Devils Englishman", fantastic book, for an explanation of this theorem. Who cares what they were intended for? Whether or not they were intended for political means, honour's still a great thing.

Incidentally, I bet that everyone here is capable of killing. Everyone is. There's always something that'll push people over the edge. :) (damnit, I'm being scary again)

*Is sorry he actually may be responsible for frightening someone away from a thread...*

Another one, eh? Tsk Tsk.

Who cares what they were intended for? Whether or not they were intended for political means, honour's still a great thing.

Incidentally, I bet that everyone here is capable of killing. Everyone is. There's always something that'll push people over the edge. :) (damnit, I'm being scary again)

That's no scary, just disturbingly truthful.

That's no scary, just disturbingly truthful.

BTW, where did you do your year? My… what? :confused:

Another one, eh? Tsk Tsk.

I said I was sorry... I'm really not all that scary, I'm just an over-educated redneck is all, ho got a 98 out of 99 on the ASVAB, and can literally do any job in the US army...

i would die for my country hands down, with one condition, whoever was being the mad deluded fool trying genicide on scotland wipes out all NEDS first. :D then hell yeah just to see Scotland NED free i would easily give up my life! (NED = CHAV = ASSHOLE = whatever else you guys call em)

Yes, there are other ways to resist, and I think that non-violence is great - except that sometimes it is necessary when you have no other choice.

No, right there we disagree. You always have a choice. It may not always be a choice that you might like, but you always have a choice.


For instance, to save the lives of others you may have to kill - to sacrifice your own humanity.

No, again, there is a choice. Firstly, it is wise to make sure that situation never comes about. Secondly, you can certainly make that rationalization, but that is exactly what it is, a rationalization. If your moral code works with it, that's fine, but don't say tha it is "necessary" or that "you have to kill". You are making a choice and a justification.


This is why the "knightly virtues" were thought up in Europe ages agp. To make sure that the defenders of people did not become the same as the attackers.

Which is all fine and great, but completely beside the point. One of the other great thought processes that came from Middle Ages Europe is bleeding.

The point is advancement for the individual or for the species doesn't lie down the path of violence. Ever. Can good things come of it? Possibly, but the question is, if everyone was playing at the top of their game, might there not have been a posssible way around this? The answer is usually yes.


I don't think killing sacrifices one's humanity per se - it is like an axe hitting a tree. The axe can kill the tree, but with each blow it is blunted and damaged - with people it's the same, but in the spirit. (And yes, I know I just paraphrased from the Eye of the World.)

Meh, thank God you paraphrased, otherwise it would have just gone on and on and on and on and...well, you get the point. :)

The thing is, there is no "process", no threshold value. You can't say, "Well, I've killled 20 people, so as long as I don't kill 21, then I'm okay." One death, each individual action, is its own little microcosim of choice and consequence. There is no trial period on brutality.


If you believe that killing is always wrong, you could say that self-sacrifice is always wrong, because after all, according to Christianity, your life does not belong to you.

Well, I'm not completely sure where you get that blanket statement about Christianity, but I assure you that my life is indeed mine to do with as I wish. Furthermore, I'm not looking to die for an ideal or a country or a person because my belief remains that, if I'm at the top of my game, then those situations can be either avoided or solved without violence.

However, this translates into the idea of living for an ideal. I have chosen my values and ideals for this life and I will live by them. If that leads to my death and I am not smart enough to avoid it, then so be it. But I refuse to compromise my ideals because of the actions of others or play by their rules because they expect me to.


I'm not a "super-patriot". I just wouldn't stand by and let my friends and family be killed, or my country unjustfully oppressed, or whatever.

So it would be better to kill the person who is on the other end of the gun? Who's most likely just like your friends and family, just in the wrong place at the wrong time because some political fat cat told him he had to go and invade your country? When they're just as scared, frightened and, indeed, human as you are or your friends are or your family is? And why did you let it get to this point to begin with?

Violence solves nothing. Ever. If it did then we wouldn't have a problem in Eastern Europe or in the Middle East or, indeed, anywhere because they would have all been solved long ago. One should use one's mind to get out of it without violence or admit that one is not smart enough to, sacrifice one's humanity and do whatever one likes with the understanding that, in a very real way, one in no better than an animal marking territory in the forest.


Only kill to save more life.

But that never happens. Such solutions are only temporary.

Man From Country A: I only killed that guy to save my family.
Man From Country B: That man killed my son who never wanted to go over there in the first place. I demand revenge.

And it just keeps going. You never "save" life by taking it, you only slightly delay death.


Not for land, unless of course that would save lives (getting into shaky territory here). You can see my views in my nation's motto: "If you would seek peace, prepare for war.) :)

And that statement has never made a lick of sense to me. If you would seek peace, seek freaking peace. Otherwise, you're just looking for a fight, regardless of the lip service. I mean, if you would be rich, be poor? If you would be happy, be sad? Like William Graham Sumner said, "A wiser rule would be to make up your mind soberly what you want, peace or war, and then to get ready for what you want; for what we prepare for is what we shall get.”

My… what? :confused:

NM, my bad, that belonged in another thread...

I was gonna edit that out, but I was too slow.

Who cares what they were intended for? Whether or not they were intended for political means, honour's still a great thing.

But why is honor only measured at the end of a gun? I would suggest that is not honor at all.


Incidentally, I bet that everyone here is capable of killing. Everyone is. There's always something that'll push people over the edge. :) (damnit, I'm being scary again)

Of course everyone is capable of killing. Everyone is capable of eating nothing but deviled eggs for an entire week. Does that mean it's a good idea? No. What we are capable of and what we should aspire to are not always the same thing.

And that statement has never made a lick of sense to me. If you would seek peace, seek freaking peace. Otherwise, you're just looking for a fight, regardless of the lip service. I mean, if you would be rich, be poor? If you would be happy, be sad? Like William Graham Sumner said, "A wiser rule would be to make up your mind soberly what you want, peace or war, and then to get ready for what you want; for what we prepare for is what we shall get.”

Then why is it the Swiss, who are the most heavily armed Nation in Europe, Per Capita, haven't been in a war for centuries?

The preepared for war, and they have had nothing but peace for years and years, whereas peacable countries keep getting their asses conquered by roving bands of imperialists.(An exaggeration in the latter case, but not by much)

Maybe because they bribe their enemies. Wise thing to do, if you ask me.

*Also sorry for scaring away people. Hides face in bag to prevent being scary.*

No, again, there is a choice. Firstly, it is wise to make sure that situation never comes about. Secondly, you can certainly make that rationalization, but that is exactly what it is, a rationalization. If your moral code works with it, that's fine, but don't say tha it is "necessary" or that "you have to kill". You are making a choice and a justification. Yes, it certainly is wise to make sure that situation never comes about - quite hard to do that if you're the man in the street in a war. Sometimes it is necessary to endure a wrong - if you want to prevent a worse wrong. It is better to kill the guilty than for the innocent to suffer.



Which is all fine and great, but completely beside the point. One of the other great thought processes that came from Middle Ages Europe is bleeding.

The point is advancement for the individual or for the species doesn't lie down the path of violence. Ever. Can good things come of it? Possibly, but the question is, if everyone was playing at the top of their game, might there not have been a posssible way around this? The answer is usually yes. Yes, of course there would be ways around it. But that won't help. All that is needed for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. The Second World War is a prime example. However, the First World War was full of patriotic (die for your country) stuff - and it was fought over nothing but idiocy. The Second World War, however, saved Europe from something even worse than the Soviet nightmare that came after: Naziism. Fighting Naziism - even killing to destroy it - was justifiable.

Well, I'm not completely sure where you get that blanket statement about Christianity, but I assure you that my life is indeed mine to do with as I wish. Furthermore, I'm not looking to die for an ideal or a country or a person because my belief remains that, if I'm at the top of my game, then those situations can be either avoided or solved without violence. Everything belongs to the Lord. He owns us.
Even God used violence on occasion - for instance, to wipe out the nephilim race which, given its ancestry of the fallen angels, was irredeemably violent and bloodthirsty. Violence cannot solve problems on its own, but if you want to solve problems it can be necessary to do so. For instance, if your daughter was about to be raped (yes, this is my example because it's one of the things that would actually push me into violence). You have two choices - do nothing or act violently. There is no middle ground in that situation. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and it's a case of the lesser of two evils.

So it would be better to kill the person who is on the other end of the gun? Who's most likely just like your friends and family, just in the wrong place at the wrong time because some political fat cat told him he had to go and invade your country? When they're just as scared, frightened and, indeed, human as you are or your friends are or your family is? And why did you let it get to this point to begin with?

Violence solves nothing. Ever. If it did then we wouldn't have a problem in Eastern Europe or in the Middle East or, indeed, anywhere because they would have all been solved long ago. One should use one's mind to get out of it without violence or admit that one is not smart enough to, sacrifice one's humanity and do whatever one likes with the understanding that, in a very real way, one in no better than an animal marking territory in the forest. As I said, lesser of two evils. I know that violence solves nothing in the Middle East, and indeed most times - what I am saying is that it sometimes is the only option to help solve an immediate and urgent problem. Reason only works on the reasonable.

Maybe because they bribe their enemies. Wise thing to do, if you ask me.

*Also sorry for scaring away people. Hides face in bag to prevent being scary.*

They never had to bribe Germany in WWI, the threat of the damage they would cause resisting the German advance was enough to keep them safe.

And they really didn't HAVE to bribe Germany in WWII, not to say they didn't, but it would have wrecked all of Hitlers plans if he lost an entire army taking Switzerland from its distrbingly competent defenders.

Then why is it the Swiss, who are the most heavily armed Nation in Europe, Per Capita, haven't been in a war for centuries?

The preepared for war, and they have had nothing but peace for years and years, whereas peacable countries keep getting their asses conquered by roving bands of imperialists.(An exaggeration in the latter case, but not by much)

Because the Swiss have worked very hard to preserve their peace. People don't attack Switzerland because they're frightened of their armory, they don't attack them because the Swiss have through astute political manovering made it not in their best interests to do so. That is preparing for peace. Having a gun and showing the entire world that you're a crazy enough son of a bitch to use it are entirely different things.

They never had to bribe Germany in WWI, the threat of the damage they would cause resisting the German advance was enough to keep them safe.

And they really didn't HAVE to bribe Germany in WWII, not to say they didn't, but it would have wrecked all of Hitlers plans if he lost an entire army taking Switzerland from its distrbingly competent defenders.

LOL, hardly. The Germans weren't "scared" of the Swiss. The Swiss carefully positioned themselves as not worth the German effort. They took no sides and interred any pilot, Allied or Axis, that came down on their territory.

Because the Swiss have worked very hard to preserve their peace. People don't attack Switzerland because they're frightened of their armory, they don't attack them because the Swiss have through astute political manovering made it not in their best interests to do so. That is preparing for peace. Having a gun and showing the entire world that you're a crazy enough son of a bitch to use it are entirely different things.

But you haven't addressed my salient point, thwe Swiss have maintained peace since the time of the Romans by being the toughest mother fuckers around, there's a reason the SWISS are the Papal Guard, and not some other country(well, a few reasons actually, but only one really matters) and that is because they were, and still are, the most dangerous fighters on the face of the plkanet, except for MAYBE the Israeli's.

As an american, I sincerely doubt it.

I'd probably die for England or for France though.

LOL, hardly. The Germans weren't "scared" of the Swiss. The Swiss carefully positioned themselves as not worth the German effort. They took no sides and interred any pilot, Allied or Axis, that came down on their territory.

Ever heard of the "Shoot Twice" Postcard?

I'm just glad some of you replying no to this question were not around 60 years ago.

I would die for my country, if something was putting the UK or any of its allies at risk, i would die for it and revel in the knowledge that hopefully i would have save my country.

Graham Harvey

I'm just glad some of you replying no to this question were not around 60 years ago.

I would die for my country, if something was putting the UK or any of its allies at risk, i would die for it and revel in the knowledge that hopefully i would have save my country.

Graham Harvey

Why would it be BAD for us to be arounf in WWII, maybe during the Cold War I can see it, but WWII?

Why would it be BAD for us to be arounf in WWII, maybe during the Cold War I can see it, but WWII? I think he means that if you aren't willing to die for your country, you wouldn't be welcome then.

I notice nobody is addressing my points made in a huge post earlier. :( I'm sure I must have said something stupid.

Cause if the amount of people on here had answered no to this question in 1939 (if you then scaled this up to the general population of the time), the allies would have lost and we will all be speaking German and under the power of Hitler's Son, maybe.

Plus of course, you would be tried and prosecuted for being a war shy. (there is a proper term, but i can't remember it)

Pretty simple?

Graham

I think he means that if you aren't willing to die for your country, you wouldn't be welcome then.

I notice nobody is addressing my points made in a huge post earlier. :( I'm sure I must have said something stupid.

Oh, gotcha. The word was a different place 60 years ago, none of this PC-don't offend anyone-that's not right-respect everyone even if they undermine everything you believe in mentality.


As for your post, I agreed with you pretty much.

Cause if the amount of people on here had answered no to this question in 1939 (if you then scaled this up to the general population of the time), the allies would have lost and we will all be speaking German and under the power of Hitler's Son, maybe.

Plus of course, you would be tried and prosecuted for being a war shy. (there is a proper term, but i can't remember it)

Pretty simple?

Graham

I misunderstood what you meant...

Lol, np

Sorry if it sounded patronising

Graham

Lol, np

Sorry if it sounded patronising

Graham

Quite alright.

Yes, it certainly is wise to make sure that situation never comes about - quite hard to do that if you're the man in the street in a war.

So don't be that man and work hard to ensure that no one ever has to be that man.


Sometimes it is necessary to endure a wrong - if you want to prevent a worse wrong. It is better to kill the guilty than for the innocent to suffer.

Again, we disagree. Killing does not separate the innocent from the guilty, it merely makes everyone guilty. Furthermore, the idea of "enduring" a wrong is flawed. You're not willing to endure a wrong if it's committed against you, only if you commit it against someone else. You can't get out unscathed and you can't get out with the moral high ground. Death happened. You were the cause. You are lessened by that, regardless of your reasons.


Yes, of course there would be ways around it. But that won't help. All that is needed for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Why is doing "something" only equated to killing someone else? As I've said before, there are other ways to accomplish, to resist, to fight, that do not involve violence, do not involve killing. One of the first things good men must do is say, "Never again will I allow war to rob me of my sons and daughters." That's doing something a lot more productive than slaughtering someone else's sons and daughters.


The Second World War is a prime example. However, the First World War was full of patriotic (die for your country) stuff - and it was fought over nothing but idiocy. The Second World War, however, saved Europe from something even worse than the Soviet nightmare that came after: Naziism. Fighting Naziism - even killing to destroy it - was justifiable.

True, WWII presents a dilemma. Again, though, it was not unavoidable had action been taken soon enough. The best we can do is learn from those mistakes, attempt to ensure they don't happen again and vow not to perpetuate them into the future ourselves.


Everything belongs to the Lord. He owns us.

No one owns me but myself. God may lay claim to "that of God" that resides within me, but the rest is mine. And this, I think, may very well be one of the deeply held points of view that are going to prevent us from ever seeing eye to eye on this topic.


Even God used violence on occasion - for instance, to wipe out the nephilim race which, given its ancestry of the fallen angels, was irredeemably violent and bloodthirsty.

If we want to look at this from a religious perspective, then let's do that. According to the doctrine of James:

"What causes wars, and what causes fightings among you? Is it not your passions that are at war in your members? 2 You desire and do not have; so you kill. And you covet and cannot obtain; so you fight and wage war. You do not have, because you do not ask." (James 4:1-2, RSV)

War arises out of the lusts and desires of mankind. Not sexual lust, but basic greed. This understanding, gospelized in James, is one of the hallmarks of primitive Christianity, the refusal to indulge in violence or bear arms. Other notable passages include:

"26Then Jesus said to him, 'Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.'" (Matthew 26:52, RSV)

"19Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." 20 No, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head." 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. " (Romans 12:19-21, RSV)

The New Testament makes a very strong calling for peace in all things. This call was even foretold by Old Testament prohpets.

"6Then he said to me, "This is the word of the LORD to Zerub'babel: Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the LORD of hosts." (Zechariah 4:6, RSV)

And both Isaiah and Micah shared a vision.

"4He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." (Isaiah 2:4, RSV)

Quakers have always believed this. As the historian Rufus Jones said, "It gave the world, as a living object-lesson, the exhibition of a coherent body of Christians who, generation after generation, staked their lives and fortunes on the absolute reality and worth of love as a working principle of social relations; who believed the kingdom of God as Christ proclaimed it should be put into operation here and now and practiced with seriousness and sincerity; and who were determined to test out that way of life in all its bearings and implications, whether, here in the temporal order, it led to survival or to annihilation."

If God wishes to punish, then it is God's right to do so. It is not the right or the provenance of mankind to do so. Period.


Violence cannot solve problems on its own, but if you want to solve problems it can be necessary to do so.

Never.


For instance, if your daughter was about to be raped (yes, this is my example because it's one of the things that would actually push me into violence). You have two choices - do nothing or act violently. There is no middle ground in that situation. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and it's a case of the lesser of two evils.

That's just the thing, though. There is no "lesser" evil. There is evil. You don't lose your soul piecemeal, it goes all at once. If you start attributing values to evil, then you will end up saying things like, "It's better that poor child should die, that my child should live." Everyone throws out lifeboat situations at this point. However, it is not what one does in these lifeboat situations that make the man. It is the morality one chooses to live his everyday life by. Certainly, if given a circumstance such as that, I might react on instinct and do violence. The hope is I would be able to hold on to enough of my principles that I wouldn't kill, but again there's no way to be certain. The issue isn't do I have instinctual desires. The issue is how do I process and handle those desires and do I allow them to control me? Furthremore, these lifeboats always occur in a vacuum. Real world situations don't. There is always a lead up. Endeavor to ensure you are never met with this choice.


As I said, lesser of two evils. I know that violence solves nothing in the Middle East, and indeed most times - what I am saying is that it sometimes is the only option to help solve an immediate and urgent problem. Reason only works on the reasonable.

And if you abandon your reason then you are no better than the unreasonable you struggle with. Here's the thing. Mankind survives not because of claws. Not because of camoflage or super speed or the ability to fly or any of these things other members of the animal kingdom possess. Mankind survives and prospers on the basis of his mind. His ability to think, to evaluate situations, predict outcomes and judge their acceptability. Our minds have allowed us not only to survive but prosper. Surrender that, and all we are is a comparatively slow and awkward meal on two legs. The easiest way to surrender that is to give into the primal impulse to do harm. In our past, perhaps it had a place, but it does not in our future if we don't allow it.

This is the challenge set before us, be it approached from a religious stand point or a rational one. It is the only hope we have of advancing as a species or realizing the Kingdom of God here on Earth. It is all we have and yet we willfully throw it away for megadeaths and shiny new death toys and think ourselves advanced because we can now achieve body counts in the millions. We revel in destruction, confuse it with morality and assume the price of progress must be paid in blood. It is abhorrent to me and everything I believe in or stand for and I will not allow myself to be led down that path. If that leads to my death, so be it. If that leads to my humiliation, so be it. If that leads to my utter disassociation from mankind, so be it. I'll be right with myself and right with God and that's all any man can hope for at the end of the day.

"True, WWII presents a dilemma. Again, though, it was not unavoidable had action been taken soon enough. The best we can do is learn from those mistakes, attempt to ensure they don't happen again and vow not to perpetuate them into the future ourselves."

And what action would you have taken, i am curious, most Historians are pretty agreed, WW2 was unavoidable, even if Hitler did not exist, the Treaty of Versailles would have caused it, and of course the Japanese at the time always had plans for more territory.

I would agree with if you had said WWI, but WWII?

Graham

Wars are inevitable, its human nature to fight, to prove who is best, who has got the biggest cock, etc etc. What we have to do as a people, is to try and limit the devastation caused by war on out species. MAD and so on.

BerkylvaniaYetAgain, I love your sentiment. Unfortunetly I think you are being more than a little idealistic. You are assuming that each and every person has control on whether or not their country goes to war. This simply isn't true.

Yes, they can choose the government, assuming it's a democracy. If it's not, and there's a dictator running the country, then there's no non-violent way to get the dictator out of office. He doesn't care if he's popular or not. The only way to get him out would be to get each and every government official to disobey orders, and that's not going to happen, because of the desire for power and loyalty. But besides this, let's say that the citizens can control everything about their country.

The country still can't always control what other countries do, anymore than you can control what I'm going to do or say next. Yes, you might be a skillfull manipulator, but if I take some LSD, there's no way any sane person is going to try to reason with me.

Some people just cannot be reasoned with. Yes, ideally you would not allow these people into power, but even this cannot be helped always. Going back to WWII, using your logic the governments of Europe would have tried to reason with Hitler, and try to avoid a war at all costs. Which is exactly what they did, they allowed Germany to become extremely powerful before they actually tried to take action.

No, for your ideas to work, everyone must be like minded. Everyone has to agree that war is to not be an option. The thing is, even if every leader in the world were to agree that war and killing is wrong, and so do away with their armies and weapons, it wouldn't take long before someone else would rise up, and using boards with nails, take over whole countries. (That was an awesome episode of Simpsons by the way)

Have you seen Trigun? It's a cool anime about an extremely pacifistic gunfighter who believes that "no one ever has the right to take the life of another, ever" So he's a gunfighter, but he never kills, and yes, he's not all together human, so he actually has the skills to be able to do that. The point is, situation after situation rose up in the series where Vash (the main character) was able to get make out without killing anyone. But eventually, he was placed in a situation where he was forced to kill, and he hated himself for it, but there was literally no way about it, not without many many more people being killed.

Conflict between people is inevitable. Conflict doesn't necissarily = killing, but it can very quickly lead there.

If I'm walking down a street, and I hear a woman scream. I run to investigate, to find that there's a man there about to rape her. Am I to sit there and try to reason with him? I'm not saying I'd rather shoot him on the spot (though personally I've always felt that a man that rapes a woman deserves to have his family jewels confiscated) but he's probably not going to be very reasonable. Chances are he'll probably flee the scene, but if he doesn't? Am I to say, "well, I tried to reason, and he's not reasonable, and so I'll just be on my way? "

Again, your ideas are great, they are just more than a little idealistic. Germany made a bid for world power and tried to systematically annihalate Jews. Maybe it could have been prevented, but it wasn't. If we lived in 1942, it would be cruel to say "well, it should have been prevented" and ignore the plight of the Europeans. No, we needed to act. Maybe when Hitler started acting up, we could have gone in there and tried to force him out. But I bet even that couldn't have been done without deadly force.

So now that I've been all over the place, that's my $.20. Heh. Again, I really do wish we lived in a world without war, it's just not realistic.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.
The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings,
which thinks that nothing is worth war, is much worse.
The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight,
nothing, which is more important than his own personal safety,
is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless
made and kept so by the exertions of better men than him."
- John Stewart Mill (1806-1873)

^That's my feelings towards it.

Sure my country may be overrun with American hippies, but hell, my ancesters died for this country, I'm not gonna sit on my couch and lose the country that I love.

Hell yeah I'd die for my country.

I'd die for my country.

Having served in the US Army in actual combat would qualify me as willing to die for my country. Now the unlucky souls on the other end of our 120mm barrel Im not sure of. I for one am fortunate enough to live for my country.

I wouldn't consider doing it willingly unless there stood a nation (note: not terrorists) whose goals and ideals clash severely with the U.S.'s, and more importantly, mine as well. (i.e. something like Nazi Germany). Then I would consider it, although I'd rather help out while living in the process. Although I won't deny that the romantic glory of martyrdom is appealing on a deeper, more emotional level than giving assistance without putting yourself in danger.

Probably the U.S includes my family sooo yeah....
Although I want to die :D in a cool way... you know with 2,000 bullets going through me and then I make some unforgetable quote and get written down in history as the saint who saved america with his nuke

Depends on the circumstances. I would die in defense of the United States, ie. go on a suicide mission, if we were invaded or seriously threatened (yeah, i know it would never happen, but...), but I wouldn't VOLUNTEER to die in a foreign war. I would however, fight and kill.... but i would be trying as hard as possible to, uh, not die.

If my country (US) and her values were under attack, I would definitely die for her, for she has given me more than anything else but God ever could. If she came under attack, from the outside, or from within (Really crappy administration that tries to alter the values), I would gladly sacrifice myself to save her. Those who aren't willing are NOT my countrymen, and I will never fully trust them. One must show loyalty to their country in time of need, because she will do the same for you one day.

I would fight for it if it was under attack :sniper: But if it was hopeless (if there was no way we could win) I would be outta there, I like living

If my country (US) and her values were under attack, I would definitely die for her, for she has given me more than anything else but God ever could. If she came under attack, from the outside, or from within (Really crappy administration that tries to alter the values), I would gladly sacrifice myself to save her. Those who aren't willing are NOT my countrymen, and I will never fully trust them. One must show loyalty to their country in time of need, because she will do the same for you one day.

......well you should also keep in mind that the president and his cronies are not America so you shouldn't be so eager to be the next American Kamikaze if we begin to have fund problems in Iraq :D

I'd die if I believed in what I was doing. Not for Iraq.

If my country (US) and her values were under attack, I would definitely die for her, for she has given me more than anything else but God ever could. If she came under attack, from the outside, or from within (Really crappy administration that tries to alter the values), I would gladly sacrifice myself to save her. Those who aren't willing are NOT my countrymen, and I will never fully trust them. One must show loyalty to their country in time of need, because she will do the same for you one day.

Right Fuckin on.

If my country (US) and her values were under attack, I would definitely die for her, for she has given me more than anything else but God ever could. If she came under attack, from the outside, or from within (Really crappy administration that tries to alter the values), I would gladly sacrifice myself to save her. Those who aren't willing are NOT my countrymen, and I will never fully trust them. One must show loyalty to their country in time of need, because she will do the same for you one day.
duckspeak


=========================

My answer is this: It depends.
There are times where perhaps I would go and help out where I can, I guess I owe it to 2000 years worth of people who did the same.
But not on principle. If my country does something stupid, if I don't share the goal of this war/other situation, then it can honestly just bugger off.

......well you should also keep in mind that the president and his cronies are not America so you shouldn't be so eager to be the next American Kamikaze if we begin to have fund problems in Iraq :D

No one administration will perfectly represent anything, and I admit I don't agree with everything Bush does, however, the American public showed that he represented us better than the other guy. I am, quite frankly, tired of Iraq, but we have to finish what we started, or else the 1200+lives lost will be in complete vain.

Right Fuckin on.

Thanx for your words of confidence, I was afraid I'd be the only one who felt that way.

duckspeak


=========================

My answer is this: It depends.
There are times where perhaps I would go and help out where I can, I guess I owe it to 2000 years worth of people who did the same.
But not on principle. If my country does something stupid, if I don't share the goal of this war/other situation, then it can honestly just bugger off.

Yes, that is basically what I'm saying. If we delcared war against, say, Britain (NO offense meant, I needed an example), than yeah, that's just udder BS, and my nation doesn't need me. I meant should another world war come about, or if we're invaded *shudders*.

I would not volunteer, no not for my country. if there were some guy about to take over my country and i was the only person to stop it, and i knew i would die in the process, i would. i might also die for my beliefs, my friends, my family, depending uppon the situation. I would undoubtedly die for someone i was in love with, though, such as a wife.

...If we delcared war against, say, Britain (NO offense meant, I needed an example), ...
No offense taken...been there, done that.

[QUOTE=Pschycotic Pschycos] I am, quite frankly, tired of Iraq, but we have to finish what we started, or else the 1200+lives lost will be in complete vain.
QUOTE]

Is 1200 lost in vain better than 2200 or 22,000? Don't we kind of have to take some other things into account than lives lost on our side. Like our ability to actually stabalize the government in Iraq? I am not saying we should pull out, at least not yet. However, we have to realize that a line must be drawn somewhere.

No offense taken...been there, done that.

Yeah, I know, just needed something totally unrealistic.

As far as I'm concerned, here's my priorities:

God
America
Family
Friends

I'd end up following the highest one, and hope like hell the others follow. I'd be willing to die to protect anyone of these.

I'd end up following the highest one, and hope like hell the others follow. I'd be willing to die to protect anyone of these.
Well, no matter what one's priorities (and guess what, if America attacked Germany one day...maybe I'd be there ;) ), it must be everyone's own decision, and I need to respect if others don't want to fight.

BerkylvaniaYetAgain, I love your sentiment. Unfortunetly I think you are being more than a little idealistic. You are assuming that each and every person has control on whether or not their country goes to war. This simply isn't true.

I never claimed not to be idealistic. There is a notion that idealism is somehow unworthy or naive. This is not true. We are all idealists, in our way. Without ideals, there is no progress, no advancement, no point. What do we have, at the end of the day, other than our ideals? Everything else can be taken from you. Home, money, family, friends, all of it can be removed at the whim of someone else. All that is truly yours are the rules you live your life by. If you aim low and those rules are get through the day and aquire a reasonable amount of comfort while minimizing your threat profile, you'll probably be successful. If you demand more from your brief whirl on this planet...well, you might not get it. But just imagine the change that can happen if you do. I'm not a gambler, but that wager seems worth it to me. I am idealistic and perhaps those ideals will get me into trouble, but if if shirked that responsibility because it was too hard or too dangerous or too innocent, then how can I expect to look at myself in the mirror or be able to look at the faces of my children, knowing I leave them not a better world, but the status quo?

And while each person in a country may not have control over their country and its war stance (which is highly debateable), they do have control over their reaction to it.


Yes, they can choose the government, assuming it's a democracy. If it's not, and there's a dictator running the country, then there's no non-violent way to get the dictator out of office. He doesn't care if he's popular or not. The only way to get him out would be to get each and every government official to disobey orders, and that's not going to happen, because of the desire for power and loyalty.

Not completely true. A dictator only remains in control of a country as long as that country lets him by continuing to function while he is in power.


But besides this, let's say that the citizens can control everything about their country.

The country still can't always control what other countries do, anymore than you can control what I'm going to do or say next. Yes, you might be a skillfull manipulator, but if I take some LSD, there's no way any sane person is going to try to reason with me.

The point is where does the pebble go. When did I try to reason with you? You're right, reasoning with you when you're hopped up on LSD is going to be questionably effective. It's my job to see it doesn't get that far or to remove myself from the danger or, being unable to do that, find a way to diffuse the situation.


Some people just cannot be reasoned with. Yes, ideally you would not allow these people into power, but even this cannot be helped always. Going back to WWII, using your logic the governments of Europe would have tried to reason with Hitler, and try to avoid a war at all costs. Which is exactly what they did, they allowed Germany to become extremely powerful before they actually tried to take action.

I think there has been a mistake. There is some notion that I reject the inevitability of conflict. I don't. So long as there is change, there will be conflict. It is the approach to that conflict that I question and refuse.

I will fully admit that Hitler was a monster. I will also admit that WWII presents deep challenges to my belief and the beliefs of other pacifists and nonviolent protest proponents. However, I will go on to say that I can not make a life decision on the basis of something that happened over 60 years ago, nor can I make that decision on the basis of this incident. Indeed, one might go so far as to say situations such as this are the exceptions that proove the rule, but for me there can be no exception.

Each person is unique. A brief spark in the darkness and no other spark will ever burn that way again. Belief in God or even an afterlife is not necessary to appreciate the extreme uniqueness of human life. Because of that uniqueness, I can find no situation in which I would say, "It is good to extinguish that spark." The fundamental uniqueness of human life is paramount and, although it may seem like a paradox, I can not find reason to destroy a human life, even to save another.


No, for your ideas to work, everyone must be like minded. Everyone has to agree that war is to not be an option. The thing is, even if every leader in the world were to agree that war and killing is wrong, and so do away with their armies and weapons, it wouldn't take long before someone else would rise up, and using boards with nails, take over whole countries. (That was an awesome episode of Simpsons by the way)

Perhaps that's true. Perhaps my goals are unreachable and my ideals are too lofty. However, you never know until you try. Furthermore, if this is truly what I believe, how can I justify not following through with it just because no one else will? It's taken a long time for me to get to this moment of clarity and to find a level of synergy between my personal, rational, beliefs and my religious/spiritual path and the coorespondence I see in myself, my beliefs and the lessons of pacifists from Jesus to Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., makes me think there is something here. There is a next step here. Perhaps I'm not 100% right in it's formulation. I can live with that. What I can't live with is not even trying to find out what it is because it's too hard, the world won't respond, it's too naive, it's too dangerous, it's too much. I only fail if I let myself and I won't let myself, regardless of the actions of others.

And how can you bring about change unless you are willing to be an embodiment of that change yourself? The goal is a world where not only do all the leaders agree war isn't an option, but all people realize the futility of it so that no one ever needs to rise up with "boards with nails" because no one would even consider it in the first place. A lofty goal? Sure. An unattainable one? Possibly. But you'll never know until you try.


Have you seen Trigun? It's a cool anime about an extremely pacifistic gunfighter who believes that "no one ever has the right to take the life of another, ever" So he's a gunfighter, but he never kills, and yes, he's not all together human, so he actually has the skills to be able to do that. The point is, situation after situation rose up in the series where Vash (the main character) was able to get make out without killing anyone. But eventually, he was placed in a situation where he was forced to kill, and he hated himself for it, but there was literally no way about it, not without many many more people being killed.

I've seen a few episodes. It's interesting, but again not something I would really base a personal philosophy on.

Look, I never said I had all the answers. No philosophy is without it's holes. But comparing the violence of war and the reason of pacifism, I can find no reason not to support pacifism, flaws and all.


Conflict between people is inevitable. Conflict doesn't necissarily = killing, but it can very quickly lead there.

Indeed, I never said it wasn't. So long as there is change, there will be conflict. As long as water runs in the streambed, the stones will rub against it. Like you said, conflict doesn't equal killing, though. And while it can lead there, it shouldn't and you must work to not let it and if it does then you have failed. Pure and simple.


If I'm walking down a street, and I hear a woman scream. I run to investigate, to find that there's a man there about to rape her. Am I to sit there and try to reason with him? I'm not saying I'd rather shoot him on the spot (though personally I've always felt that a man that rapes a woman deserves to have his family jewels confiscated) but he's probably not going to be very reasonable. Chances are he'll probably flee the scene, but if he doesn't? Am I to say, "well, I tried to reason, and he's not reasonable, and so I'll just be on my way? "

Bluff ("Hey, I just called the police on my cell phone."), restrain (in some cases, a level of violent action may be needed, such as throwing yourself at his legs and sitting on him until the police arrive), intimidate and threaten, even. I never advocated taking no action, I simply say that there are always options and whichever gods you serve is apparent in your choices. I will not allow another to remove from me my firm belief in the wisdom of people such as Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and many other spiritual teachers who dreamed of a better world and were willing to give their lives to attempt to bring it about.


Again, your ideas are great, they are just more than a little idealistic.

Again, what's the problem with being idealistic? Pragmatism is not only boring, but a breeding groud for mediocrity.


Germany made a bid for world power and tried to systematically annihalate Jews. Maybe it could have been prevented, but it wasn't. If we lived in 1942, it would be cruel to say "well, it should have been prevented" and ignore the plight of the Europeans. No, we needed to act. Maybe when Hitler started acting up, we could have gone in there and tried to force him out. But I bet even that couldn't have been done without deadly force.

Or possibly we couldn't have beggard Germany for WWI. I don't have all the answers. I wish I did. Life would be much simpler. In respose to WWII I would point to Gandhi and India, I would point to Martin Luther King, Jr., and the struggle for equal rights in the US. Progress is made, but it takes time and is harder. Even within the context of WWII, there are records of successful nonviolent resistance movements. When the Gestapo attempted to arrest all the Jews in Denmark, they were smuggled out of the country within 48 hours. Bulgaria had bouts of spontaneous civil disobedience that prevented Nazi officers from shipping Jews out of that country.

Of course it's a paradigm change and that takes time and effort and sheer amounts of will. It's not that pacifism doesn't work, it's that no one ever tries it. When they do, it may not be safe, it may not be quick, but it is usually effective.


So now that I've been all over the place, that's my $.20. Heh. Again, I really do wish we lived in a world without war, it's just not realistic.

Certainly it isn't if we don't demand it from ourselves. I can't argue with that.

Well, no matter what one's priorities (and guess what, if America attacked Germany one day...maybe I'd be there ;) ), it must be everyone's own decision, and I need to respect if others don't want to fight.

That's perfectly true. I respect other's decision not to fight, but I'm talking in terms of the nation is under SEVERE threat. That's how I interpreted the thread title. In harshest realities, I meant those who skip or avoid registering for the draft, or those during Nam who didn't show up. That's just cowardice. I myself don't like war or fighting, but back me into a corner.....

If America attacked Germany, good luck. But, I won't be there because that's just stupid. (Unless there is a totally valid reason).

I guess the whole point I'm making is that it's totally circumstantial, only during severe threat. But what I said in my first post holds true.

In harshest realities, I meant those who skip or avoid registering for the draft, or those during Nam who didn't show up. That's just cowardice.
And here is where we fundamentally and absolutely disagree.
Not only for Vietnam (which hardly had anything to do with the US fighting for its existence), but even if in a completely justified war we'd only need one more person - you can't make that person fight, nor can you judge that person for his/her decision.

And here is where we fundamentally and absolutely disagree.
Not only for Vietnam (which hardly had anything to do with the US fighting for its existence), but even if in a completely justified war we'd only need one more person - you can't make that person fight, nor can you judge that person for his/her decision.

I guess you are right. I don't agree with Nam personally either. Just saying that in general, that sort of stuff really, REALLY just sickens me. I use A LOT of examples.

I would fight for my country; if it came down to it, yes, I would die for my country.

I would willingly give my life for the United States of America. I would also be willing to die for my immediate family, or any of my other relatives.

~ Romandeos.

"Go tell the Spartans, thou that passest by,
That faithful to their precepts here we lie."
-Epitaph to the 300 Spartans under King Leonidas who died at the battle of Thermopylae against a 20-1 force of invading Persians under Xerxes.

Concerning martial valor, merit lies more in dying for one's master than in striking down the enemy. This can be understood by the devotion of Sato Tsugunobu.

The Way of the Warrior is fulfilled in death. When it comes to either/or, there is only the quick choice of death. It is not particularly difficult. Be determined and advance. To say that dying wothout reaching one's aim is to die a dog's death is the frivoulous way of sophisticates. When pressed with the choice of life or death, it is not necessary to gain one's aim.
We all want to live. And in large aprt we make our logic according to what we like. But not having attained our aim and continuing to live is cowardice. This is a thin dangerous line. To die without gaining one's aim is a dog's death and fanaticism. but there is no shame in this. This is the substance of the Way of the Samurai. If by setting one's heart right every morning and evening, one is able to live as though his body was already dead, he gains freedom in the Way. His whole life will be without blame, and he will succeed in his calling.
-Hagakure, Yamamoto Tsunetomo

*Historical note: Sato Tsugunobu was a warrior who was mortally wounded when he intercepted arroms aimed at his master, Yoshitsune (1159-89).

I would not die for the abstract concept of a "country," as understood independently of those things of moral value which should be protected - sentient lifeforms.

I hope I have the strength to die (and to live) to uphold my moral principles, but that is another matter.

Each person is unique. A brief spark in the darkness and no other spark will ever burn that way again. Belief in God or even an afterlife is not necessary to appreciate the extreme uniqueness of human life. Because of that uniqueness, I can find no situation in which I would say, "It is good to extinguish that spark." The fundamental uniqueness of human life is paramount and, although it may seem like a paradox, I can not find reason to destroy a human life, even to save another.

This position is indeed paradoxical.

If life is sacred then it is wrong to abandon those who are being killed, whatever moral philosophy one can conjure to justify such purist negligence.

Certainly, it would be immoral to restrain the victims of murderous individuals, institutions, and systems from defending themselves violently if that is the only tenable option. If oppressed populations must liberate themselves violently, so be it; the objective is liberation, not non-violence, which will always be absent on the side of the oppressors anyway.

I would not die for the abstract concept of a "country," as understood independently of those things of moral value which should be protected - sentient lifeforms.

I hope I have the strength to die (and to live) to uphold my moral principles, but that is another matter.

To hate injustice and to stand on righteousness is a difficult thing. Furthermore, to think that being righteous is the best one can do and to do one's utmost to be righteous, will, on the contrary, bring many mistakes.The Way is of a higher place then righteousness. This is very difficult to discover, but it is the highest wisdom. when seen from this standpoint, things like righteousness are rather shallow. If one does not understand this on his own, it cannot be known. There is a method of getting to this Way, however, even if one cannot discover it by himself. This is found in consultation with others. Even a person who has not attained this Way sees others from the side. It is like the saying from the game of go: "He who sees from the side ahs eight eyes." The saying, "Thought by thought we see our own mistakes," also means that the highest Way is in discussion with others. Listening to the old stories and reading books are for the purpose of sloughing off one's own discrimination and attaching oneself to that of the ancients.

Calculating people are contemptible. The reason for this is that calculation deals with loss and gain, and the loss and gain mind never stops. Death is considered loss and life is considered gain. Thus, death is something that such a person does not care for, and he is contemptible.
Furthermore, scholars and their like are men who with wit and speech hide their own true cowardice and greed. People often misjudge this.

When Yamamoto Gorozaemon went to the priest Tetsugyu in Edo wanting to hear something about Buddhism, Tetsugyu said, "Buddhism gets rid of the discriminating mind. It is nothing more than this. I can give you an illustration in terms of the warrior. The Chinese character for 'cowardice' is made by adding the character of 'meaning' to the character radical for 'mind.' Now, "meaning" is "discrimination," and when a man attaches discrimination to his true mind, he becomes a coward. In the Way of the Samurai, can a man be courageous when discrimination arises? I suppose you can get the idea from this."
-Hagakure, Yamamoto Tsunetomo

The question is not, "Would I die for my country?" The question is, "Would my country die for me?"



No. That doesn't make sense...

It makes more sense than you realize.

A country would probably not give up for a single person. But any country that would NOT give up its sovereignty if new governance truly meant a better life for its citizens is a country that needs to be put down anyway.

Would I die for the country I choose for myself? If it came down to it, yes.

Would I die for what the country I was born in has become? (I speak English and live on the San Andreas Fault; you have one guess where.) No.

Obviously no, only idiots kill and die for such an abstract idea as a country.

All human are born free and equal. The Earth is free, and all human are equal. There is no point in killing other human because you think differently.

In a perfect world, there shouldn't be governments nor wars.
In our imperfect world, it is much better to stay alive in whatever fashion possible, if you have a cause or an ideal that needs to be spread, then what good would you be if you are dead?

Nope ... well ... maybe if my country died for me first.

You pantywaists. :p

The number of people saying they'd be unwilling to die for their country has me very worried about our chances of winning World War III. I hope to God you're not representative of the general population.

My answer is yes. Yes, I'd die for my country of birth (Canada) as well as my adopted country (USA). Hell, if circumstances were right, I might be persuaded to sacrifice myself for the land of my ancestors too (UK). I truly believe in those old lines, "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori." To give one's life for one's country is truly one of the most noble acts known to man. (Heh, can you tell I'm a real patriot? I loves me my country.)

And on a more-or-less related topic, I think that pacifism is one of the dumbest ideas ever dreamed up. What good is pacifism when you're only giving evil men an incentive to continue in their ways? There's a pretty neat essay (you will be quizzed on this) about the subject here (http://www.themartialist.com/pacifism.htm)

Not how I see it.

Not for the maple leaf over the stars, or the pale over the stripes, or the jack.

But for the leaf over the swastika or the hammer and sickle of stalin, then yes.

You pantywaists. :p

The number of people saying they'd be unwilling to die for their country has me very worried about our chances of winning World War III. I hope to God you're not representative of the general population.

My answer is yes. Yes, I'd die for my country of birth (Canada) as well as my adopted country (USA). Hell, if circumstances were right, I might be persuaded to sacrifice myself for the land of my ancestors too (UK). I truly believe in those old lines, "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori." To give one's life for one's country is truly one of the most noble acts known to man. (Heh, can you tell I'm a real patriot? I loves me my country.)

And on a more-or-less related topic, I think that pacifism is one of the dumbest ideas ever dreamed up. What good is pacifism when you're only giving evil men an incentive to continue in their ways? There's a pretty neat essay (you will be quizzed on this) about the subject here (http://www.themartialist.com/pacifism.htm)

The Martialist? You must be shrooming.

To be honest, I don't think I'd much of a choice in the matter. The bigger question is, would you be willing to perpetually stand in harm's way and kill for your country? Dying is the easy part. But few mean die for such abstract concepts. It's just sometimes everything happens so fast, there isn't time for such thoughts and men just do what they do.

Thoughts, comments... post away!

I know i would die for my country, but only when the reason we were fighting for was valid. I would join the army if there was a true threat and fight with my life.

But i refuse to fight against anyone or anything that doesn't deserve it.

No, I wouldn't. I am more important than anything else (to myself). Arguments from the other side tend to be emotional jibberjabber.

Although, that is not to say I wouldn't risk my life for my country, depending on what I assess the level of risk to be. Not out of any sense of patriotic duty, but to maintain the quality of life for myself and my loved ones.

There was a time when I would have died for free. Compared to that I guess dying for one's country isn't so crazy an idea.

I would gladly die in the attempt to safeguard my immediate family. I will not die for my country as such, because nationality means nothing to me. I've got only onle life but there are a dozen of countries I could imagine living in.

Or to say it (once again) differently:
Dying for your country is like dying for a cause.
And while you've only got one life, you can pick up 10 new causes at any old street corner!

There was a time when I wouldve said yes readily, But not anymore. Its not that I wouldnt be willing to do it under the right circumstances, but that I wouldnt be willing to do it except for the right reasons. So, it depends.

I'd be willing to risk, not blindly sacrifice, my life for an important principle like freedom, but not for my country.

I must be really frightening then, a Hightech redneck, who intends to join the army...

I'll be killing(maybe) and possibly even dying to protect my brothers in arms, what can you say that compares to that?

They are your brohters just because the get the money from the same boss, we should be all brothers, 'cause we're all humans. You and your "brothers" would die (I hope not) for the interest of some of the citizens of your country, not the whole. You'd die under the orders of a president that avoid cowardly to fight in vietnam. Undestand me, I prefer to go to jail than taking a weapon outside of my country. And for the defense, it depends why are we in war. If we are the offenders and the war goes bad, I don't understand why should I fight for.

I expect my people to die for me, to hell with the reverse of that equation!

Fear prophets and those prepared to die for the truth, for as a rule they make many others die with them, often before them, at times instead of them.

I have allegiance to no-one and nothing but myself. Whilst I'm sure imaginary lines on a map, and corrupt, lying politicians are important enough to die for so far as some people are concerned, I think I'd rather take my chances on my own thanks.

A dead man serves no purpose. And you wouldn't die for your country or for a cause, you'd die to help protect some building, some town or city, or simply to win a battle, which doesn't play much of a role in the large picture (exceptions do exist, yes, but c'mon, what's the probability of that happening?)

It shocks you how many people wouldn't die for their country? Let me put it this way, anyone willing to die doesn't care for life. And as opposed to popular belief, these people are not wild animals or valiant soldiers, they're apathetic, they don't think, they symbolically run onto a battlefield emptying clip after clip without thinking. No no, just as you shouldn't go into a basketball game thinking you'll lose, you should never be prepared to die for anything, because that tends to make you think a bit more rationally.

And once again, you serve no purpose if you've got holes in you, you serve more purpose putting holes in whatever enemy may come into question.

Would I die for my country, not if I could help it. Dying is rather pointless, you're dead a very long time, I'd much rather make someone else die for their country. Although if it came down to it I would die for mine, despite it's flaws it's worth defending.

As a well known General once said "The question isn't whether you would die for your country. Dying for it serves no purpose, the question is, would you KILL for your country?"

Personally, I think either serves no purpose.

My life's too valuable to be wasted by some moron who thinks he needs to wage a war. If he's so eager to go to battle, hand him a rifle and have fun, but leave me out of that bullspit.

In the outset I would not aim to die for my country, ie no strapping of explosive and self detonating.

I would fight to defend my country, I would put my life in danger to protect the values of my country and the people I love.

I volunteered for the Army once but was rejected as they felt I would be incapable of killing another person.

Please, people. "Dying for your country" does not mean dying for political gain or land - not in the sense the OP means it in. (The First World War was a prime example of what NOT to die for)

no......but for my familly and friends i would.

I'd prefer to "let the other poor bastard die for HIS country." (Patton)
Very few military people have died defending the United States since WW II, the exception being the military in Afganistan and possibly some covert operatives that we may never know about.

i would die for my country (canada) but only if i felt it would make any kind of difference, i wouldnt just do it for no reason