Dying For Your Country

[sanctuary 19]

I would love to learn the definition of "dying for your country" ?

Does it means dying for your politicians decisions ? your governement ? for the guys elected by only a part of your countrymates and so that are simply "representing" a part of your countrymates thoughts ?

If not, what is this definition for you ? the notion of country is so vague from a guy to another that i would like to be sure to understand the words from some of you.

[brgnorway 0]

Would I die for my country? Probably - or maybe hopefully, allthough I'm not sure the decision would be entirely my own! I've never looked at myself as a very courageous person although I've done some rather scary (in my opinion) stuff. Would I break down when it mattered and run away? Possibly, but I don't know! Hopefully it won't happen in the near future!

Most people talk about the "glorious way of the ultimate sacrifice" . It's silly at worst and pretentious at best! People talk about morals and courage when the most natural - as in instinctive - thing to do is to run away! And that's proven!

To be freightened and scared silly is the normal thing - to be the opposite is for the weird - but perhaps brave people. I've worked as a bouncer and I've seen tough guys much taler and larger than myself become scared and incapable of doing their job. I've been scared many times myself but I didn't fail in my job at least. But I can't help it that I somehow I feel I'd fail if I had to give my life for something!

[iNeo 0]

Die for my country? Over my dead body! I'd kill for drink though!

Would I die for my country? Probably - or maybe hopefully

Hypocrite.

[brgnorway 0]

Die for my country? Over my dead body! I'd kill for drink though!

Would I die for my country? Probably - or maybe hopefully

Hypocrite.

Joke!

I did my military service!

I'd join up as I'm obliged to if hard times were to hit my nation again. However, let's say I was ordered to storm the enemy and run into the certian death, then I'm not sure I'd do it!

[Gollum1 0]

I did my military service!

I'd join up as I'm obliged to if hard times were to hit my nation again. However, let's say I was ordered to storm the enemy and run into the certian death, then I'm not sure I'd do it!

I think discussing what one would do in each different combat and war situations just muddles the issue up. IMO the question 'would you die for your country?' that is being discussed here is a bit hyperbole, what it fundamentally asks is 'do you value your country more or less than your own life?', that is the real question. Note that the question itself doesn't mention war.

Just my opinion, I don't think the thread starter had that in mind but that's my interpretation of it, the question can be interpreted in many ways of course...

[iNeo 0]

By the way I'm with Gollum1,

nation: people, land, culture.

[bonko the sane 2]

Dying For Your Country? No

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ] .........do you value your country more or less than your own life?

Certainly not! How is it possible to value ones country/nation more than oneself? Do you value your nation higher than your family?

[MilitiaSniper 0]

I would die for my country if...

I was fighting to perserve what my country holds sacred.

What I hold sacred!

(Foreign and domestic!)

Freedom!

Without losing our Consitutional Rights!

YOU..! may disagree with my statements.

But my, "Founding Fathers" fought and died for this Nation's future.

For what they believed and hold dear to them.

They did it for me!

And I WILL NOT..! allow that to go in vain!

Now going over to some country and dying???

It would depend... if I was fighting to give freedom,

to people who suffer under tyranny.

BUT! take the case of Iraq!

Those people aren't trying fight for their own country.

(The ones who want freedom.)

Those people were happy to see the coalition force roll in.

But they won't get off their @$$es! to do anything keep it!

Look everybody has different opinion on this matter.

But respect each others opinions.

EVEN..! if you disagree.

Different people.

Different cultures!

Sincerely, MilitiaSniper

[Llauma 0]

I would never die for my country. I would die for own my beliefs, but never others. Dying because your country believes you have to is just stupid. So all the people who have died for their country have been either stupid or infact dying for their own believes which happened to be the same as their countrys.

In my oppinion patriotism and religion are the most devastating things people have come up with. I'm not saying that God is bad, I'm just saying that religion is. Religion turns pure evil when God is forgotten and it happens more than often.

Patriotism is as needed as urban gangs who would kill others to preserve their honor and reputation. They're pretty much the same things but patriotism is on a larger scale which makes it even worse. Nothing good has ever come out of patriotism.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Nothing good has ever come out of patriotism.

The end of colonialism and other large empires

[Gollum1 0]

Quote[/b] ] .........do you value your country more or less than your own life?

Certainly not!

I'm just asking the question, not trying to judge you or anything, I'm a bit undecided myself.

Quote[/b] ]How is it possible to value ones country/nation more than oneself?

You may disagree with it, but you must agree that it is certainly possible to value your country/ideals more than yourself, history is full of people who have sacrificed themselves for the 'greater good', wether that would be the defence of their country, way of life etc.

Quote[/b] ]Do you value your nation higher than your family?

That is actually an interesting question, I instinctively answer no because of the strong emotional ties and the debt of caring for me I owe my parents and so on, but rationally I also owe my nation and state a great deal for providing this safe society and way of life, education etc. etc. I must admit I don't have an answer for that, at least not now.

edit:

Nothing good has ever come out of patriotism.

Patriotism is love of and willingness to sacrifice for your country, this doesn't have to mean waging war against other countries. Nationalism is the ugly side of patriotism, one of the most divisive forces in history, considering your nation above all others. Patriotism doesn't have to be aggressive.

[Llauma 0]

Nothing good has ever come out of patriotism.

The end of colonialism and other large empires

You could say that patriotism was the thing that led to colonialism and large empires. One strong country decided to expand the borders at any cost for the welfare and honor of their country. To get all the people to want to fight a war on the other side of the world for the good of your country you need patriotism. Sure colonialism was put to an end by patriotism but give that patriotism some time and it will grow into colonialism. Just look at what the former colonies in USA turned up as. The nation has become much bigger and they have soldiers in every corner of the world.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Nothing good has ever come out of patriotism.

The end of colonialism and other large empires

You could say that patriotism was the thing that led to colonialism and large empires.

No, you can not say that. It was greed, and nothing else. Patriotism is, amongst other things, the hindsigh to fight your own government if it becomes a threat to your country.

For example, if I had around in the 60s/70s, I would have openly fought against the military dictatorship in Greece. Similarly, if I had been around in 1941, I would have been one of the first to enlist and rush to the Albanian border to stop the Italians.

I think you are confusing Patriotism with some other concepts:

Quote[/b] ]Patriotism and related concepts

Patriotism is sometimes associated with ethnocentrism, i.e. the belief in the inherent superiority of one's own people, however this may be defined. However, in the case of ethnocentrism, the people in question need not form a nation, but can be a smaller or larger unit. Moreover, the term ethnocentrism is generally used negatively, whereas the term patriotism is quite often used positively.

It is also sometimes problematic to distinguish between patriotism and nationalism, as some people tend to use nationalist as a near-synonym for patriot. However, nationalism (but not patriotism) also has a particular meaning, expressing a desire among a people to form an independent nation.

The word chauvinism denotes a narrow-minded and thoughtless but impassioned dedication to a particular cause, and thus is always used negatively. The cause can be of any kind (hence the widespread use of the phrase male chauvinism), but the term can also refer to national chauvinism; that is, a negative characterization of patriotism.

Lastly, the word jingoism is similar to patriotism, but it can only be used negatively, to denote a variety of patriotism deemed to be aggressive and thoughtless.

You still haven't answered me - using Patriotism to destroy those empires. Is this good or bad?

[Llauma 0]

.

Destroying empires is a good thing when it leads to more freedom and democrazy for the people. So in this case patriotism led to a good thing but I still claim that patriotism with its inseparable concepts was to the main tool for forming the empire. People were proud of the huge empire their country had turned into and they would defend it no matter what.

Would you have fought the dictatorship to defend the values of your country or for your freedom and your democratic rights? I would propably have fought along your side but it wouldn't be out of patriotism.

There are alot of different words similar to patriotism used when patriotism goes really bad.. You are free to stay patriotic as you seem to narrow it down to a thin line with adding words for sides of patriotism that doesn't really fit into your glorified view of it.

Maybe I'm wrong about the true meening of patriotism but patriotism is always followed by the concepts you gave as an example etc. so putting tags on them is just for the looks.

We are a little different I guess.. I don't feel any special pride for what my country does or stands for. I feel more shame that I have opportunities others lack instead of feeling pride for how good 'my' country really is. I will feel pride the day I've done a real effort to change that. You might call me an utopian but I can't content with less.

[xawery 0]

I have yet to see patriotism that is devoid of any form of ethnocentrism or bias. I'm with Llauma on this one - I am only willing to die for my own ideals, and if those coincide with the so-called national ideals, so much the better.

It's just a difference in motives. I think all who have contributed to this thread would fight, should their country come under attack. Some might do it as a consequence of a knee-jerk reaction: "beloved country under attack - must fight". I would do it because my livelihood and my loved ones were threatened, as well as the way of life I adhere to.

All in all, I feel this discussion is rather trite - unless one is principally opposed to warfare, I think everyone would defend their country when attacked, for whatever reason. Fighting carries the risk of dying, so yes, everyone willing to fight for his country is simultaneously (although implicitly) willing to die for it.

I cannot help but wonder about the sanity of the human race when I see people answer the question "would you be willing to die for your country if the chance of dying was 100%?" positively. What kind of idiocy is that? Do you think your death will make a difference? You're insignificant in the face of conventional warfare. I guess you'd also be willing to run into MG fire if your CO would order you to, "for your country?" God, you'd fit right in at Passchendaele.

We're straying wildly off-topic here though - MilitiaSniper wondered whether dying on foreign soil counted as dying for one's country, disregarding total wars such as WWI and II. In my opinion one can only be said to have "died for one's country" when defending it after an act of aggression. Fighting on foreign soil may be a part of that, once the aggressor is pushed back onto his own soil for example. That's why I think coalition soldiers in Iraq are (sadly) not dying for their country, but for the whim of ideologues and opportunists (i.e. politicians). How can one NOT feel bitter about that?

In reply to Gollum's post:

Quote[/b] ]These laws and the whole government are subject to change by the decision makers and have been created by them in the first place, so I think simplifying 'the state' to 'decision makers' works quite well.

That's right, but the decision makers are drawn from the nation, elected by the nation, and are rotated periodically. While the state is not the nation, the nation is the state. I can understand your simplification for the sake of ease and conciseness, but I disagree with such a discrete seperation of the concepts state and nation.

Quote[/b] ]On the contrary, in practice is where the difference is the most obvious.

For an extreme example, the state in democratic countries has the power to declare war without consulting the nation first. If George W. Bush would declare war against Canada this instant out of spite, I bet there would be a difference between the will of the state and the nation. The president who declares war could have run for office on the very platform of being a pacifist, his image reflecting the nation as he is elected. He can then make decisions completely complying with the democratic process during his term which run totally against the nation's will and why they elected him. He can end the state of being a reflection of the nation, and isn't this often what states do? Politicians not fulfilling their promises is quite a common gripe.

You use the supposedly most advanced democracy in the world as your example. In my opinion the amount of executive privilege the president and his administration enjoy in the US undermines the above claim. Furthermore, one cannot limit "the state" to just the government. What about the parliament? The government will have trouble initiating a war if the parliament opposes it, especially in a multi-party democracy which usually requires coalitions to form a government. That's also why I consider a two-party system to be less than optimally democratic.

Quote[/b] ]Still in response to your quote above, how can you not make a distinction between a state and nation? Continuing that logic, going against the state's decisions in a democratic system would without exception also mean betraying your nation. That would mean that the state represents the nation fully and does every decision according to their will, which is how it works in theory. Not in practice like you said, in practice the nation and state are very separate with different goals.

It's the middle of the night here so let me know if I missed something in your posts and completely misunderstood you due to my sleepy stupor.

I think we might have been talking past each other a bit, admittedly due to my inconsistent usage of terms. While I acknowledge that there is an obvious difference between the state and the nation, I do not agree that there is a clear delineation of the two. That line is quite porous with overlaps between the two simply because "the state is not the nation, but the nation is the state".

Quote[/b] ]I apologize, it's a habit I've picked up from another forum, just meant to be a bit humorous.

Your post formatting is a bit messed up by the way...

I assumed humour was your intention, but I'm just not comfortable with someone attaching my signature to something I did not exactly say, though the essence may be the same. And yeah, my formatting was shite:P

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Destroying empires is a good thing when it leads to more freedom and democrazy for the people.

Glad you see it that way. Thus you agree that Patriotism does have its positive uses

Quote[/b] ]So in this case patriotism led to a good thing but I still claim that patriotism with its inseparable concepts was to the main tool for forming the empire. People were proud of the huge empire their country had turned into and they would defend it no matter what.

In medieval times, you had no choice. You were a subject of your King. I still think it was not patriotism or nationalism, but simple greed by the powers that were that led to the creation of the empires. Who were the benefactors of those empires anyway? No one but the kings.

Quote[/b] ]Would you have fought the dictatorship to defend the values of your country or for your freedom and your democratic rights?

Country values mostly. Greeks and fascism don't go together too well, I would hate to see Greece associated with it. As for my own rights, if I was living in Greece, yeah sure, that too. But as I'm not, it would be for my family's freedom and rights, and my country's ideal.

Quote[/b] ]There are alot of different words similar to patriotism used when patriotism goes really bad.. You are free to stay patriotic as you seem to narrow it down to a thin line with adding words for sides of patriotism that doesn't really fit into your glorified view of it.

It's not my "glorified" view of it. It's the dictionary definition along with my own experience that chose to mostly follow the wikipedia article on it. There's Patriotism, sure, but there's also Nationalism, Fascism, Chauvinism etc.

Quote[/b] ]Maybe I'm wrong about the true meening of patriotism but patriotism is always followed by the concepts you gave as an example etc.

No? The students slaughtered in 1973 were true patriots, standing up against the regime, refusing to accept the illegal government's authority. Most of these students (many of which I know through my number) remain positively left-wing (some of them are commies ) but at the same time they are fiercely patriotic, without falling into the nationalistic/chauvinistic trap.

Quote[/b] ]We are a little different I guess.. I don't feel any special pride for what my country does or stands for. I feel more shame that I have opportunities others lack instead of feeling pride for how good 'my' country really is.

It's not about how good Greece is. She has given me much pride, through history, through her natural beauty, through our fantastic football achievements But in the end of the day, I am not blind. I know it's not the "best" country (the whole concept of "best" country is rubbish anyway), especially for a foreigner it can be a lot to take in, I am not oblivious of the fact that we're one of the poorest nations in the EU, whilst also being one of the most expensive

But in the end of the day, that doesn't matter. There is no competition out there where you have to excell others. You simply have to work hard to excell yourselves, and the rest will come with time.

Quote[/b] ]I will feel pride the day I've done a real effort to change that. You might call me an utopian but I can't content with less.

No, I'd call you a patriot

[MilitiaSniper 0]

If it wasn't for Patriotism and my Founding Fathers.

I would be under British law.

I wouldn't have the freedoms I have today.

No offense to British people here on the forums.

I like England very much.

I'm just glad my fore fathers stood up and said, "No more!"

Without patriotism.

Your country maybe under different law/s.

Sincerely, MilitiaSniper

[denoir 0]

I wouldn't have the freedoms I have today.

Would you mind specifying what freedoms that the loyal subjects of her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II don't have that you do?

What rights do you think that you have that say Canadians (who are still a part of the commonwealth) don't?

[Jinef 2]

Quote[/b] ]The prostitute who services young soldiers and marines is also doing service for her country.

Nah, she's just a slapper.

Oh and to clarify things a bit, the rebels who fought for indepence from the British empire in the new found land were unorganised and lost most engagments to the veterans of the British military when fighting on their own.

The engagements were won mainly by the French military under advice from the indigenous people (native Americans). As soon as we got defeated from the Americas and retreated you all thought you were heroes, said fuck off to the French and put all the native Americans into cages around the country where they were treated like fucking shit.

Oh and destroying empires is not really patriotism. Patriotism is purely support for one's own nation/country. To be a patriot you do not have to support the state, there is a distinction. You have many lunatics running around with assault rifes in camo face paint in the rural US who would love to see the state burn before their eyes. Yet they claim they are patriots and love their country.

hmm... what else are people grossly misinformed on ... *reads down*

I like Xawery's post. Quite sensible.

Ok back onto the subject of patriotism -

Patriotism - the love of one's own country/nation. Full fucking stop.

It's simple. The British had an empire because they could, same with France and Spain. Not because 'they' loved their country...

How absurd is that? To say that a country does something because it loves it country? No - patriotism applies to individuals/groups.

America now has an empire because it fucking well has enough nukes to blow everything to shit if things don't go it's way. It can have an empire so it will, human nature.

End of discussion for my part. I have real life things.

Quote[/b] ]Disclaimer: All references to big words such as 'patriotism' are defined by the Oxford English Dictionary. It is not subject to being disfigured for one's own purposes by people who can't even spell colour.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Bad day at the office Jinef?

[bn880 5]

No just the usual, Jinef just saves a lot of people from trying to explain the same thing in nicer ways.

oh

[xawery 0]

Bah, nice is for the... errr... nice

[MilitiaSniper 0]

I wouldn't have the freedoms I have today.

Would you mind specifying what freedoms that the loyal subjects of her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II don't have that you do?  

What rights do you think that you have that say Canadians (who are still a part of the commonwealth) don't?

#1 The right to bear arms!

"Those who give up their arms to have liberties.

Shall not have liberties nor rest."

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

#2 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

#3"The People of this Nation, is the Government. Not the officials  that were elected.

(Not to many countries have, the people as the government.)

#4I know my country isn't perfect.

But for me it's great!

The "Bill of Rights," is what this country holds sacred!

And for me..., it's worth dying for to perserve.

I don't have to pay a royalty tax.

Sincerely, MilitiaSniper

     

[Jinef 2]

#1 The right to bear arms!

"Those who give up their arms to have liberties.

Shall not have liberties nor rest."

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You can have access to firearms within the UK if you have a reason for them. Going around and shooting everyone in work or school you don't like because your girlfriend dumped you is not classed as a valid reason, sorry.

Quote[/b] ]

#2 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So basically all you said there is that states can have state laws and you also have federal laws....

Well strangely enough that isn't very special. I live in a county, I need to pay tax to my county council (state tax) and we can have seperate laws also. For example it is against the law for taxis in Cardiff to operate without carrying a bail of hay in the back ... I think they need to update that one.

The UK is also signed up to the European constitution, so in effect we also have a set of rules our goverment has to follow.

Quote[/b] ]

#3"The People of this Nation, is the Government. Not the officials that were elected.

(Not to many countries have, the people as the government.)

Actually the US is much more like a Republic. You do exactly what you say you don't. You elect an official (Most people know him as the President of the United states, quite a famous chap in fact, suprised you haven't heard of him). He then makes the decisions and does what he likes for his term/s. The constitution has the safety buffer of limiting his terms to two as it set up the US to be an acting republic, not a democracy.

Surely if the people made the decisions then you wouldn't have US troops getting severely fucked up in Iraq like they are now, would you?

Hmm.. what next...

Quote[/b] ]

#4I know my country isn't perfect.

But for me it's great!

The "Bill of Rights," is what this country holds sacred!

And for me..., it's worth dying for to perserve.

Crack on mate, I doubt the world will miss you.

Quote[/b] ]

I don't have to pay a royalty tax.

Yes but you have to pay out 250 billion each year for a rididulously large military that can't do anything required of it by it's marvelously incompetent leaders. Plus the monarchy brings in a considerably large amount of tourism.

Quote[/b] ]

Sincerely, MilitiaSniper

How about making that signature a bit more colourful by maybe replacing the rather boring and conformist 'sincerely' with a word like:

injudiciously

absurdly

deliriously

dementedly

nonsensically

ludicrously

tumultuously

absurdly

... just a suggestion.