Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Kill for your country?
In the event you were drafted to serve during wartime in your nation's military, would you be willing to kill for your country, yes or no? State your reasons why or why not.
In other words, if your answer to the above question is "yes", please explain the ideals, values, intentions, etc., that your country would appeal to you for which you would be willing to risk your one and only life; your one and only immortal soul.
In other words, are the values, ideals, intentions for which your country stands worth killing for? Yes or no? Explain. (They should ask this question on every final English exam to every would be high school graduate. I wonder why they don't).
"They should ask this question on every final English exam to every would be high school graduate. I wonder why they don't"
English classes are about the use of the language, and not for philosophical debate 
"In the event you were drafted to serve during wartime in your nation's military, would you be willing to kill for your country, yes or no?"
No, because I would not be drafted for a few reasons. One, I believe I am too old to be conscripted, and two, I have medical conditions excluding me from service, furthermore, I am an academic and believe they do not conscript such people in my country.
There are also many jobs in the armed services that do not involve killing, such as communication, doctor's, mechanics, etc. Drafting does not necessarily mean that you are being sent to the front lines to die.
my govt is starting to become tyrannical, so I doubt I'd sign up and be sent to shoot my own countrymen for pointing out the govt sucks.
Against a foreign power, during a civil war or both?
Against a foreign power, yes. Because I love this country, and if shooting a foreigner means keeping it free then so be it.
During a civil war, depends on who the military is backing.
Not enough information.
For any of the wars my country has been involved with after WWII? No.
I signed up at age 17, I put my signature on the dotted line.
However my country has changed since then.
If asked again to sign I doubt I would unless a dramatic change happens again.
Civil war? Let me put it this way... if this nation has a civil war I wont join the military. This is easily answered by a civil war from the left would be crushed with ease, and a civil war from the right means my government no longer represented me anymore so why should I help them kill people?
oh yeah and I forgot that now I would be forced to shower with people sexually attracted to my body, but I can't shower with people I find sexually attractive. until this discrimination is resolved I will refuse to enlist
I've seen pictures of you Yell, you have nothing to worry about.
"Because I love this country, and if shooting a foreigner means keeping it free then so be it."
This comment is the traditional, expected response to such a question. It assumes 1. that the country is "free" and 2. killing foreigners would keep that country "free" and 3. that keeping the country "free" is an acceptable justification for killing "foreigners" who if allowed to live would otherwise render the country not "free".
BiefstukFriet, might I ask: 1. is your country free? Prove it. 2. how would killing foreigners keep your "free" country "free"? 3. how do you justify killing foreigners who would otherwise render your country not "free"?
Dear Mr. Wornstrum,
"Would?" and "Could?" are different questions. Pwnt! By saying "they wouldn't" or "I couldn't" you have not answered the question of would you. Don't make me feed you to my panda. Seriously. They don't eat people. It'd be a lot of work.
Anyone not willing to kill is a pansy who doesn't deserve any freedom. The fact is, if nobody was willing to defend themselves and their peoples, we'd all be slaves.
The problem is massive numbers of ignorant trash in democratic republics electing morally deplorable scum into office who subsequently get better men than them killed without good -- or even bad -- reason. Our current problem is that most of you air-headed babies don't deserve protection. =O Protection to what, elect more powerful slavemasters who get our soldiers killed for things that aren't our business?
> xeno syndicated wrote:
> BiefstukFriet, might I ask: 1. is your country free? Prove it. 2. how would killing foreigners keep your "free" country "free"? 3. how do you justify killing foreigners who would otherwise render your country not "free"?
Doesn't this only prove the flaw in the question, in that the question is so general, especially with the generalization of "killing foreigners?"
> [TI] ARFeh zee Frenchie wrote:
> I've seen pictures of you Yell, you have nothing to worry about.<
actually I've been hit on several times.
> The Yell wrote:
> > [TI] ARFeh zee Frenchie wrote:
> I've seen pictures of you Yell, you have nothing to worry about.<
actually I've been hit on several times.
Being hit on the head with a baseball bat in an alley doesn't count.
> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:
> Doesn't this only prove the flaw in the question, in that the question is so general, especially with the generalization of "killing foreigners?"
In that he is trying to create a contradiction in that he says that the country is not free, and that an invader could very well be trying to "liberate" that nation.
V.Kemp, I know it didn't answer the question directly, but I would not be conscripted nor could I even enlist if I wanted to (rejected on medical grounds). A question of "would you" can be answered with "I couldn't anyway". I do not jump to emotionally fuelled "I will kill anyone that is against me" mentality that you hold, and only when each circumstance is analyzed can you come to a true answer. I am not patriotic, but I like my country, but doesn't mean that I must "guard" it (there are plenty of people that wish to kill others that can protect my country, and I can certainly uphold the values that we need to "defend" without picking up a gun and murdering someone).
The concept that you are fighting for freedom is an over generalisation, as Zarf pointed out, in that it isn't about fighting for freedom, but more the values in which that country holds. The values could include freedom, but it is not necessarily exclusive to that value. I also do not need to enlist or kill someone to uphold the values of my country. Also in the face of invasion of "slavers" there is always the option of guerrila warfare.
Oh, I just mean that there's a big difference between different foreigners. There's obviously a big difference between saying "Fighting the Iranians will help preserve my freedom" and "Fighting the Canadians will help preserve my freedom." Xeno is asking people to justify that fighting an enemy will preserve one's freedom, yet there is no specification as to who that enemy is. Without that, this is really just random posturing. There are clearly examples on both sides where enemies existed which, if not fought, would result in lost freedoms (the Nazis), and enemies who, if not fought, would probably not matter. But once you generalize this to all foreigners, it's a useless argument.
I actually wasn't referring to "freedoms" as generalized in this context at all... though I guess I could see where you're coming from (this is a very quick post, so I'm not actually reading in depth right now).
My bad...
"A question of "would you" can be answered with "I couldn't anyway"."
This is false. Fail.
To answer Xeno's question--which is a general and philosophical one obviously above some people's heads--I believe that freedom and justice are worth fighting for, killing for, and dying for. I would rather die in rebellion than be a slave to a tyrant without the consent of the governed. This doesn't necessarily answer your question specifically as to what I think/how I feel about killing for my country in particular, because I really couldn't say. Sad thought, that.
""A question of "would you" can be answered with "I couldn't anyway"."
This is false. Fail."
On what grounds? If the OP wishes to make a philosophical statement, he can do so without creating a scenario that is A, too broad, and B, doesn't involve "joining" a particular group.
His question "In the event you were drafted to serve during wartime in your nation's military, would you be willing to kill for your country, yes or no?" clearly has 2 parts, one being the initiator of a decision. I reject the initiator because it does not apply to me (you are trying to take a question and say that an answer based on reality is wrong because I should be thinking hypothetically? Hypothetically, IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!). If you want me to seperate myself from the situation, then I would say no because I will call on my alien mothership to create forcefields to protect my country (and before you get all high and mighty, let me point out that I was attempting to take the argument to absurd proportions to make a point. If you want the question to be answered correctly, it needs to be relevant to every individual, in which it to me, it is not).
If you want to go down the path of a philosophical debate however, the responsibilities of the protection of a state's values fall on the government of the people. If a citizen is expected to be forced/coerced into picking up arms for its protection, then it shows poor planning and protection by the government. That is not my responsibility. I have said this before, but the protection of one's values does not necessarily require armed conflict, and citizens being forced/coerced into picking up arms is counter-productive to values like "freedom" and "justice" (since the question's wording suggests that the individual was selected/forced to serve).
You don't have to spam just because you're a coward who won't address the questions as he sees them. You can qualify your responses as you feel necessary. I did, shit-talking my country[men] in the process.
The protection of one's values does not necessarily require armed conflict. But neither does it necessarily not require armed conflict.
The question is broad: It doesn't confine you to certain conditions/values and demand you pick. Essentially it's asking what values/conditions, if anything/ever, justifies/doesn't justify it.
This, obviously, does not involve your medical condition in any way.
"You don't have to spam just because you're a coward who won't address the questions as he sees them"
I spam how? and address the question as I see them? I thought I did in the way I saw the question...Furthermore, wouldn't a coward back away from any contention of his answer?
"The question is broad: It doesn't confine you to certain conditions/values and demand you pick. Essentially it's asking what values/conditions, if anything/ever, justifies/doesn't justify it."
It is broad but also confined to one specific example of being drafted to kill? I did say "No" in my first example, and gave my reasons as to why (firstly, wouldn't happen, but then also added another option IF in the event I was), which does answer the question...if that answer isn't satisfactory to you, that is your problem, not mine...
The question of drafting merely confines the question to "are there any circumstances whatsoever in which it would be acceptable?" (presumably morally, philosphically) Such circumstances might be the genocide of your people if they are not protected, for instance.
If that's hard to understand, it's not my problem.
Oh I understand what you are saying. I did however say NO because there are other options (drafting doesn't mean you have to kill). I also stated that it would never happen!
The question attempting to create a black and white scenario with only 2 options becomes pointless. I stated a 3rd option in which I would be serving my country whilst not killing, is that wrong? No. Does it conform to the question? Yes (would you kill for your country? Yes or No?...No because I can serve my country without killing).
I do however realise that this will actually go nowhere...I gave my answer, and now I need to justify my response?
@ All
What I am saying is simply this:
If you are to justify killing (foreigners or otherwise is irrelevant) to preserve your nation's freedom (this is the common justification for killing), the prerequisites to this justification are straightforward:
prerequisite #1: your country is free to begin with
If your country were not a "free country" to begin with, there would be no justification for killing in order to maintain your nation's freedom because there would be no freedom to maintain.
prerequisite #2. those whom you would kill, if not killed, would render your country unfree
In other words, you couldn't say, "Hey! Look at Snoopy over there snoozing on his dog-house. He's endangering our nation's freedom! Kill him! No, the enemy would have to have the capability and intent to invade, occupy, and render your country unfree. Same could be said of a standing army of hundreds of millions surrounding your country. If they were just there hanging out - playing crochet or something - and weren't mobilizing or otherwise showed no intent to invade and occupy your country, killing them would not be justified. Also, all alternatives to killing them would have to have been exhausted: let's say they were mobilizing. If you had a technology that could put them all to sleep rather than kill them, you'd have to try putting them to sleep first.
prerequisite #3. maintaining your country's freedom is itself justification for killing. In other words, you would have to prove that the state of being a free country (however you define it) is itself a worthy enough cause for killing. For example, what if living in an "unfree" weren't so bad after all?
Do soldiers think of these issues before they sign up? When recruiters usher them into the recruitment center, are these issues explained to them? Do their teachers bring up these issues at all in school? Why not?
Remember, though, that your question is attempting to generalize a very specific scenario.
The perfect example of my complaint is World War 2. The German actually very specifically show the flaw in this statement. If we had a 1-10 scale on freedoms within countries, Nazi Germany in about late 1944 would be... maybe a 2, even for the German people. The German people would, by your interpretation, have little reason to fight a conflict.
So what did the German soldiers end up doing? Remember, Germany was fighting two fronts. On the Western front, German soldiers were actually surrendering en masse... theoretically, making a microcosm version of your calculation and determining that it was better to surrender than defend the little freedoms which existed in Germany. On the Eastern front, however, Germans who surrendered knew they would probably die even if surrendering... so from a microcosm perspective, it was more logical for German soldiers to fight as hard as humanly possible against the Soviets, knowing that the Soviets were pretty damn vengeful against the Germans.
That's my fundamental problem with this question. You're asking for people to make a stance on a question which, empirically, must be answered on a case by case basis. Unless you live in either the most or least free country in the world, there will always be someone with more freedoms than you or someone with less freedoms than you... at which point, it would be justified to protect oneself against a relative oppressor, and unjustified to protect against a liberator, all other things being equal.
Soldiers cannot possibly be expected to use this as an analysis before signing up when the country is not at war, primarily because since the possible opponent is unknown, a proper calculation cannot be made.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Kill for your country?
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.