Die for your Country!

Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by Prof.Bruttenholm, Feb 27, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Prof.Bruttenholm

    Prof.Bruttenholm Well-Known Member

    Dulce Et Decorum Est -- Wilfred Owen


    Before I say my position, which should be obvious, understand my lineage, I am the descendant of Hannibal Hamlin, Robert E. Lee and Eleanor Roosevelt.
    My uncles served in the armed forces, though none of them died in combat and many of my family members have served.
    Because they were fools who believed that dying for one's country is right.
    A lie pushed on by those who don't need to fight, by old men willing to watch young men die for them.

    “Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

    -Hermann Goering

    “War is fear cloaked in courage.”
    -Gen William C. Westmoreland

    “There was never a good war or a bad peace."
    -Benjamin Franklin

    “I cannot believe that war is the best solution. No one won the last war and no one will win the next.”
    -Eleanor Roosevelt

    “I find war detestable but those who praise it without participating in it even more so”
    -Romain Rolland
  2. Tobes

    Tobes Well-Known Member

    Why is it wrong to believe that? Of course wars are ultimately fought by men in big round rooms, but during a war it's the civilians that are in danger. And isn't that willingness a good thing, even if the mindset is wrong?

    If the slogan was 'fight for your countrymen' instead of 'fight for your country' would that help?
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 27, 2011
  3. The Scream

    The Scream Well-Known Member

  4. The Scream

    The Scream Well-Known Member

    i believe humanity took a wrong turn long time ago... inventing killing machines...

    if people would live for themselves and only for themselves and hope the best for those they care about... no group forming...

    i think wars are mainly because of groups and the people being left out...

    and we humans still haven't learned from the past obviously, as group forming still continues in politics... like EU...

    it unites sure, but it also leaves some countries out...
    turkey for example, probably because it's a muslim country...

    and there you have another reason for a possible war, why let so many join and leave one out?
    then don't let anyone join...

    im for a world without borders...

    i would die for someone i love, but i wouldn't fight for someone i love... shouldn't that be enough?
    if someones life has to be taken, then i'd rather let mine be taken, then me having to take someone elses life...
  5. cult logic

    cult logic Staff Alumni

    The only thing I don't understand is why when someone is killed fighting for their country it is generally considered a heroic and courageous thing, but when someone's dies fighting for a gang or something it is considered foolish and contemptible.

    Despite it's essentially the same exact thing just on different scales.
  6. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    You're being somewhat contradictory. The EU is working towards a continent without borders, which is a start. It is far more inclusive than its predecessors, the individual nations of Europe. We can't go from widely scattered groups to a completely mixed world immediately, there need to be steps in between.
  7. The Scream

    The Scream Well-Known Member

    they are working for a continent without borders, true... but it's like they already are a group and are very picky about expanding their union... Wilders guy here in the netherlands doesn't want turkey to be part of it cause it's muslim country and he doesn't like muslims...

    he uses the eu as yet another tool for his propaganda... and using an union as a tool for propaganda is like freaking awesome and smart, you're already on a good level with your fellow union mates, all you have to do is come up with some points to convince your friends and tada, whole union against one...

    i don't know if little unions are eventually gonna bring more peace into this world...
  8. jxdama

    jxdama Staff Member Safety & Support

    sometimes evil must be defeated.
  9. Lovecraft

    Lovecraft Well-Known Member

    Study armed conflict for a single week and you will quickly see both armies are evil in war. War crimes are dime a dozen from both sides of any conflict.
  10. Prof.Bruttenholm

    Prof.Bruttenholm Well-Known Member

    During WW2 many German citizens and soldiers worked to assassinate Hitler, 13 total attempts were made on his life, as you know all failed.
    Despite these attempts, after the war, several people who were in the German military (even those involved in the attacks on Hitlers life) were prosecuted, jailed or executed.
    War Crimes simply give you someone to blame so you can tell the citizens of your nation "We got the bad guy".

    Muslims, Christians, Jews, these religions do not define an individual, it is simply the radicals and those who use religion as a weapon who are the enemy of those who truly desire peace.
  11. Lovecraft

    Lovecraft Well-Known Member

    Romeo Dallaire, in his duty as a General for the UN forces in Rwanda during the genocide, protected many thousands of Tutsis from the massacres carries out against them.

    In doing so he disobeyed a direct order from his superiors. He's about the only military man around that was lucky enough to get to have his cake and eat in too in terms of making the ethical choice and not getting put in a military prison for life.
  12. Prof.Bruttenholm

    Prof.Bruttenholm Well-Known Member

    That brings up another valid point, Africa.
    If you haven't watched the news or read a newspaper in the last...ever, then you wouldn't know that Africa is basically in internal struggle that makes the American Civil War look like a roller derby.
    Many former military men are gathering young boys and men and forming rag tag militia groups, some to protect their homes, others to take other peoples homes.
    In the Congo, rape is used as a weapon. In areas where diamonds are mined, to prevent thievery and limit those who mine for diamonds so that another group can mine, body parts are chopped off; arms, legs, ears, noses, etc.
  13. foreverforgotten

    foreverforgotten Well-Known Member

    no delet button! >:
  14. Prof.Bruttenholm

    Prof.Bruttenholm Well-Known Member

    hm? what do you need?
  15. redarrow

    redarrow Member

    Whilst I completely agree that war is a terrible reflection of humanity, I dislike the implication that Servicemen/women are "fools".

    Throughout known history human beings have always been killing each other, it's nothing new, and it's not going to change... war is always a complex subject, and whilst I agree that it is governed by an older generation of politicians (most of which have never experienced war first hand),
    I don't understand why this would make the brave men/women choosing (or drafted) to become directly involved in the conflict itself fools, there is no black and white in war, both sides are always cupable for attrocities, but I know current and ex-serving members of HM Armed Forces all of whom serve professionally regardless of their political beliefs, they simply follow the orders of a Government that we as the general public vote in to represent us.

    Of course this does not apply for nations with corrupt and autocratic leadership whereby her military slaughter and imprison the people if they protest, but within most MEDC's this is not this is not the case at all (I certainly know that UK/US Armed Forces regularly conduct peacekeeping missions and give humanitarian aid), even if fundamentally their job is to fight.

    Additionally I don't believe that most of these people whom join the forces do so because of the influence old fashioned: "Die for yor Country!", "Fight for queen and country!" propaganda, they do so out of necessity (National Service/drafts) or mainly because other aspects of the career appeal to them, they recognise the risk and accept the responsibility.

    We will never have a borderless and "united world" like some idealists may believe, every fibre of human nature goes against that, and the people of the world will never agree to one government, religion or way of life,
    and when you remember that neither side will ever be "right" or "wrong", to follow orders and serve your own country in this way is a pure act, to die for your country (and your country's citizens) is not a meaningless sacrifice, nor is it one made by fools, it is however terribly sad that it has to happen at all.

    I still live in hope of peace and harmony, but nonetheless support our servicemen/women.
  16. Prof.Bruttenholm

    Prof.Bruttenholm Well-Known Member

    I have considered joining the armed forces, however, if I were to join I would demand that I be put into the military reconstruction faction, to help aid countries, towns, cities and nations after disasters and war times.

    Death is death and murder is murder, it is black and white.
    Killing each other, regardless of the reason is always foolish.
    If I had to kill in war, make me a sniper, make me see the faces of every person I kill so I have to live with their faces in my mind and burned into my soul for eternity.

    And I would call myself a fool for being a paid murderer for my country.
  17. johnnysays

    johnnysays Well-Known Member

    The way I look at it is that a soldiers job is to follow orders. If a soldier follows his or her orders, they're a good soldier just like an engineer that builds a bridge well is a good engineer. A soldiers job is not to protest or second guess a superior or decline a order. Soldiers become soldiers KNOWING that they must follow orders. It's part of the sacrifice.

    So when we have something like iraq and the bad evidence we based the war on, you cannot blame the soldiers because it's not their job to judge the prewar knowledge. Their job is to carry out the orders they've given. The only people who can really be blamed are the few leaders who pushed for the war on bad information. At best, they're just the fall guys, however. This is because information will never be 100%. This is true unless you can prove evil intent on the part of the leaders, which I don't think is hte case with the iraq war unless you can prove it. In the case of the iraq war, it turned out that the leaked information was coming from someone who later admitted to lying. His reason? He wanted to topple Saddam's regime. His reason doesn't matter, it was still a lie and it was still wrong. NOnetheless, my point that no information will ever be 100% still stands. This is especially true with matters of war! Read on!

    A nation goes to war in defense of the common good even if the information is not certain because: a) losing is not an option b) sometimes you have to make quick choices in times of war, so you make those choices knowing full well they could be wrong. This makes more sense when you give it context. Usually people who are anti-war, or just flat out against all wars of any kind, they will remove context and make an argument out of pure fiction. But the fact of hte matter is that war happens in context. And in context only do these points make any sense. Losing isn't an option because self-preservation is hte name of the game. And in war we just dont' have enough time to apply strict law and order. In the heat of battle it's guns and bombs and the law and order will have to come afterwards. When there's a chance that the guy on the other side could cause severe trouble, you cannot sit on the intelligence. You must act. Only with benefit of hindsight, 20/20, can we say authoritatively whether it was right or wrong.

    I myself do not believe in the ethics of a draft. I believe if someone does not want to fight that they should be allowed to be a coward. I do not believe in forcing anybody to do something that they do not believe is the right thing to do. I draw a line between those who do nothing to protect themselves and others from an attack and those who directly attack their own people. I have no sympathy for people who directly attack us or our friends. I have very little sympathy for someone who sits and does nothing as their friends and even themselves are attacked, but since some people believe in this kind of doctrine for whatever reason cowardness or not I cannot force my views on them about it. Believe it or not, but some people would sit as their nation burns. Fortanately, most people won't. This is hte saving grace. So despite that it's cowardly and strange for them to do it, we cannot force people to fight!
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 10, 2011
  18. mulberrypie

    mulberrypie Well-Known Member

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.