Dying For Your Country

[MilitiaSniper 0]

Not counting wars like WWI and WWII.

But when one dies on foreign soil.

How can this this be counted as dying for your country?

Take Vietnam and Korea.

You where drafted!

If you agree or disagree... you have no choice.

So did these brave soldiers die for their country?

Or die for some political Bull$#it?

I thought about this last night after releasing,

"OFF the WALL Team" last mission.

But it was getting late.

And of course I gotta have my beauty sleep.

(Just between you and me..? It doesn't work!)

Anyways I thought I would ask.

Sincerely, MilitiaSniper

[kerosene 0]

I think it depends, im not trying to offend anyone but when I hear americans talk about "defending their country" in reference to invading a nation that couldnt possibly threaten them, I just think yeah, whatever.

Also, when people talk about it like its a glourious thing, they should think about people who gave their sight, or their ability to walk or suffered wounds that will affect them for the rest of their lives.

Ultimatley the side you fight for, and for most people their idea of who the good guys and bad guys are is determined by where youre born, in modern times its mostly political I think, unless you believe in "my country right or wrong." Which can take you to some fu***d places.

[MilitiaSniper 0]

Also, when people talk about it like its a glourious thing, they should think about people who gave their sight, or their ability to walk or suffered wounds that will affect them for the rest of their lives.

I agree!

But I'm not just talking about my country. (U.S.A.)

I'm talking about any country.

Sincerely, MilitiaSniper

[nephilim 0]

dying for country??

i´d die for a cheese burtio right now :P

nah to be honest

it really depends on teh situation..

[kerosene 0]

Broadly, at least for Western nations , theres a lot of peacekeeping more than war now, so I guess technically thats not dying for your country, although perhaps for its interests. European soldiers who died in colonial wars in most cases were fighting for the benefit of their nations elite, rather than of the country as a whole, but those people had dififerent values so they may have seen it as dying for their country and plenty of people probably still do.

However you could die in a foreign country protecting your own citizens, what then?

[Radnik 18]

... i think it`s not that simple matters as it looks on first,

it`s rather is it Dying For Your Country or Dying For People who lead the country, one bad example is Bosnia, people was thinking they are fighting for their countries

[Mr_Tea 0]

The brave soldiers of the Israeli Defence Forces are dying for their country. That you can bet of.

[Ares1978 0]

99% of the time, when somebody, who will never have to pick up a gun himself, is talking about defending the/a country, he is in fact talking about defending the political bullshit. The trick is to recognize it when you hear it.

How do you define "country"? The borders? The people? The culture? The current Asshole In Chief? All of them, minus none? The politicians are talking about defending their source of income, and unfortunately you are defending all of them by defending one. But come on, how many here would refuse to defend the rest of your country just because you don't like the politicians?

You can also defend another country. Or your own by defending another one. That's what happened in Korea and Vietnam.

One thing is certain: Defensive warfare doesn't require that you stay within your own borders. Like in a self defence situation, you don't have to just block the punches, you can also hit back.

[kerosene 0]

Vietanm and to a lesser extent Korea were fought for U.S interests and ideology, the domino theory never came true and the gulf of tonkin incident was staged. They werent true examples of defending a country by proxy any more than U.S interventions in latin america was.

Should'nt the failure to stop the whole of Vietnam becoming a Communist dictatorship have led to more serious reprecussions for the cold war if the domino theory was valid? China flooded Noth Korea with troops after the U.S ignored warnings not to deploy troops to close to their border, yet the Chinese and Russians ultimatley werent willing to openly support North Korea in the way the West was willing to support South Korea.

[The Real Armstrong 0]

EDIT: Whoopsy, think I misunderstood the meaning of the thread.

[Ares1978 0]

Vietanm and to a lesser extent Korea were fought for U.S interests and ideology, the domino theory never came true and the gulf of tonkin incident was staged.  They werent true examples of defending a country by proxy any more than U.S interventions in latin america was.  

Should'nt the failure to stop the whole of Vietnam becoming a Communist dictatorship have led to more serious reprecussions for the cold war if the domino theory was valid?  China flooded Noth Korea with troops after the U.S ignored warnings not to deploy troops to close to their border, yet the Chinese and Russians ultimatley werent willing to openly support North Korea in the way the West was willing to support South Korea.

Unfortunately, the domino theory was never exactly proven wrong either. In both Korea and Vietnam, the communists were hit so hard that they never gained the momentum to tip the next domino brick over. Their victory was essentially a Pyrrhic victory. What happened in Vietnam after the war made sure it couldn't happen.

Still, I'd choose the US ideology over communism any day. The lesser of two evils and all that.

[billybob2002 0]

Are you not suppose to make the other person die for their country...

BTW, people did get drafted in WWI and WWII. Furthemore, more people were drafted in WWII than Vietnam.

[Ares1978 0]

Are you not suppose to make the other person die for their country...

Indeed. I find it perversely amusing that people keep talking about dying for their country. Is "killing for your country" any less noble?

[DracoPaladore 0]

Quote[/b] ] If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace

Behind the wagon that we flung him in,

And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,

His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;

If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood

Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,

Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud

Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues, –

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest

To children ardent for some desperate glory,

The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est

Pro patria mori.

I beleive on what is "Defence" or "dying" for you country wholly depends on the each person.

[Winters 1]

As Gen. Patton said:

"Let the other poor bastard die for his country"

[Akira 0]

Whether you were drafted or sent there doesn't matter. You died for your country since your country sent you there is that not correct?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

You die for what you believe in! Otherwise you dont die for it but you die because of it.

[Akira 0]

If you want to talk semantics and ideology then yes, you are correct.

But your country sent you there FOR its own politcal purposes. You died FOR your countries political aims. You died BECAUSE some asshole shot you, blew you up, etc etc.

[sanctuary 19]

If you want to talk semantics and ideology then yes, you are correct.

But your country sent you there FOR its own politcal purposes. You died FOR your countries political aims. You died BECAUSE some asshole shot you, blew you up, etc etc.

No, in that case, you die for your governement if you are forced by it to fight in a war you don't agree.

The countries didn't sent anyone

[Akira 0]

Unfortunately, the government is the country. It is the elected (usually) body for running the country, it makes decisions for the country, and performs diplomacy (usually) for the country. It is the representative for the country and there for is the country. As can be evidence by many wars. The German government wasn't just targeted in WW2. The whole country was because the government represents the country, even if not the whole country.

EDIT: Either way, you are dying for an intangible item. A belief or an entity.

[kerosene 0]

Its only really been since the end of WW1 that the perception of war as a "glourious adventure" has really started to be dented by reality, so I guess looking at it as dying for/becuase of your government may be the most appropriate view, since politicians seem to be the biggest war junkies of all - at least in the 20th century.

I mean I support the American ideals of democracy and freedom over the ideals of communism since reality tends to make communism a lot more unworkable, but the problem is people like Henry Kissinger who decide its acceptable to drop 20 tonnes of bombs on every square mile of a country their nations not even at war with.

In a democracy, it could be argued that your country sent you, not the government, since the government is elected to carry out the will of the people. (can anyone spot a flaw in that argument )

Ultimatley it comes down to individual belief, you cant tell someone something they consider to be a basic truth, like the rightness of a war is bullshit and expect them to see it differently. Its a view that would be shaped by your background and probably by actual experiences of war.

[bardamu 0]

Oftenly those who talk about dying for your own country and things like that are mostly politicians or army high officers like generals:those who won't go to the front line and have 1/1000000 chance to effectively "die for their country".

The guys who will die for their country(those on the battlefield,basic soldiers) are mainly trying to stay alive,i suppose they don't have time to think about beautiful concepts like these.

Just my 2c...

[Gollum1 0]

Are you not suppose to make the other person die for their country...

Indeed. I find it perversely amusing that people keep talking about dying for their country. Is "killing for your country" any less noble?

Hehe, very true, for example the phrase "our brave servicemen fighting and dying for their country" isn't very symmetrical, what about the more logical "killing and dying"?

It isn't used, because it sounds too distasteful, altough it is entirely true. Just use 'killing and dying' and admit that killing the opponent is a part of war, I'll respect that, but apparently it is terribly embarrassing to admit that your soldiers are killers.

The hypocrisy is evident...

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]He lost an arm in Iraq; the Army wants money

Spc. Robert Loria is stuck at Fort Hood, Texas

By Dianna Cahn

Times Herald-Record

dcahn@th-record.com

Middletown – He lost his arm serving his country in Iraq.

Now this wounded soldier is being discharged from his company in Fort Hood, Texas, without enough gas money to get home. In fact, the Army says 27-year-old Spc. Robert Loria owes it close to $2,000, and confiscated his last paycheck.

"There's people in my unit right now – one of my team leaders [who was] over in Iraq with me, is doing everything he can to help me .... but it's looking bleak," Loria said by telephone from Fort Hood yesterday. "It's coming up on Christmas and I have no way of getting home."

Loria's expected discharge yesterday came a day after the public got a rare view of disgruntled soldiers in Kuwait peppering Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with questions about their lack of adequate armor in Iraq.

Like many soldiers wounded in Iraq, Loria's injuries were caused by a roadside bombing. It happened in February when his team from the 588th Battalion's Bravo Company was going to help evacuate an area in Baqubah, a town 40 miles north of Baghdad. A bomb had just ripped off another soldier's arm. Loria's Humvee drove into an ambush.

When the second bomb exploded, it tore Loria's left hand and forearm off, split his femur in two and shot shrapnel through the left side of his body. Months later, he was still recuperating at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., and just beginning to adjust to life without a hand, when he was released back to Fort Hood.

AFTER SEVERAL MORE MONTHS, the Army is releasing Loria. But "clearing Fort Hood," as the troops say, takes paperwork. Lots of it.

Loria thought he'd done it all, and was getting ready to collect $4,486 in final Army pay.

Then he was hit with another bomb. The Army had another tally – of money it says Loria owed to his government.

A Separation Pay Worksheet given to Loria showed the numbers: $2,408.33 for 10 months of family separation pay that the Army erroneously paid Loria after he'd returned stateside, as a patient at Walter Reed; $2,204.25 that Loria received for travel expenses from Fort Hood back to Walter Reed for a follow-up visit, after the travel paperwork submitted by Loria never reached the correct desk. And $310 for missing items on his returned equipment inventory list.

"There was stuff lost in transportation, others damaged in the accident," Loria said of the day he lost his hand. "When it went up the chain of command, the military denied coverage."

Including taxes, the amount Loria owed totaled $6,255.50. The last line on the worksheet subtracted that total from his final Army payout and found $1,768.81 "due us."

"It's nerve-racking," Loria said. "After everything I have done, it's almost like I am being abandoned, like, you did your job for us and now you are no use. That's how it feels."

AT HOME in Middletown, yesterday, Loria's wife, Christine, was beside herself.

"They want us to sacrifice more," she said, her voice quavering. "My husband has already sacrificed more than he should have to."

For weeks now, Christine has been telling her 3-year-old son, Jonathan, that Robbie, who is not his birth father, will be coming home any day now.

But the Army has delayed Loria's release at least five times already, she said, leaving a little boy confused and angry.

"Rob was supposed to be here on Saturday," she said. "Now [Jonathan] is mad at me. How do you explain something you yourself don't understand?"

Christine said the Department of Veterans Affairs has been helpful in giving Loria guidance about how to get his life back on track, offering vocation rehabilitation to "teach them to go back out in the world with the limitations they have."

But the Army brass has been unreceptive, she said.

The Lorias also contacted the offices of U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-Saugerties. Hinchey's office responded.

"There's enough to go on here to call the Army on it and see if it can get worked out," said Hinchey aide Dan Ahouse. "We are expressing to the Pentagon that based on what we see here, we don't see that Mr. Loria is being treated the way we think our veterans returning from Iraq should be treated."

Army officials at Fort Hood could not be reached for comment yesterday.

"I don't want this to happen to another family," Christine Loria said. "Him being blown up was supposed to be the worst thing, but it wasn't. That the military doesn't care was the worst."

The end of her rope

Christine Loria was at the end of her rope earlier this week when she called her wounded husband's commanders at Fort Hood, Texas, and gave them a piece of her mind.

The Army was discharging her husband, Robert, after he lost his arm and suffered other severe injuries in Iraq, without even gas money to drive his car home.

"I am up here and he's there. That's 1,800 miles away," she said. "I had to call his chain of command and scream at them."

Their reaction she said, was "very mature."

"If he feels that way, why is his wife talking for him? Why doesn't he come talk to us himself?" she remembers them asking her.

"Because on some level, he still respects you," she answered. "I don't have that problem."

Dianna Cahn

Who to call to help

Outraged about Army Spc. Robert Loria's plight? Speak your mind. Below are contact numbers for federal legislators and defense officials.

U.S. Senate: Hillary Clinton: 202-224-4451; Charles Schumer: 212-486-4430

U.S. House of Representatives: Maurice Hinchey: 845-344-3211; Sue Kelly: 845-897-5200

Secretary of Defense: Donald Rumsfeld: 703-692-7100

Fort Hood: Major General James D. Thurman: 254-288-2255 or Fort Hood operator at 254-287-1110; Public Information Officer Jim Whitmeyer: 254-287-0103

I put this in Iraq Thread, but also put it here as I thought it brought up an interesting point. Does the country owe him something? Something more than $6000? If dying and being wounded for your country are such high ideals then why are not the people that do it among the most highly compensated?

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

It may sound harsh, but the truth is, noone asked him to sacrifice himself for his country. The United States are a volunteer's army. If you volunteer for the army, you have to expect to be involved in fighting sooner or later and to die. However, you weren't forced to join up, you did it yourself. So deal with the consequences.

Someone doing his national service, however, doesn't have much choice - he is needed and thus "used" by his country. In this case, the country does owe him a lot.