I'd prefer not to kill some bloke just like me, who has kids and family, no matter what country he's from or what his leaders are proposing. I'd die for the direct saving of my kids in a hostile situation, but not for anyone else - certainly not for the political concept of 'freedom'. I don't go along with the idea that a life is only valuable based on someone else's perception of the 'values' of the nation state it exists in.
Chat Forum
[closed]
Would you go? Would you die for your country?
-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
this is such a difficult question, yes, and no, the world has shrunk immensly since the great wars, back then i suppose without hesitation as it was clear as black and white is
Today however with all modern marvels media and such like im not so sure i,d like to know whom is pulling the strngs
Ive never encountered war but have encountered a few people in my life who have, even come accross someone as a youngster who returned from combat and found him on a bed with both wrists slit and me standing in a pool of his blood, he survived, i never knew then what happened (was just to juvenile) but know it must be a terrible thing, i recall that image crystal clear
so the answer to the OP is i dont know and hope to never find outPosted 1 year ago # -
Not a cat in hell's chance. a) I'm colourblind so useless in a combat situation (yes, I know that's balls but it's the stance of the armed forces so who am I to argue) and b) thankfully I do a job that is vital to the war effort back in Blighty.
I wouldn't hesitate to shoot someone in a homeland invasion situation though.Posted 1 year ago # -
Yes; But I'd be in intelligence or designing new weapons of mass d...
Posted 1 year ago # -
dekadanse
I think it is fairly clear that WW2 was a war of defence for the UK - even if you don't think defending our parters was the right thing to do I am fairly sure without Britons fighting Germany would have overrun the UK, the usa probably would not have entered the European war and many more would have died.
Lessor of two evils.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I'd say yes, but be in the 98% that would shoot, but not to kill or hit..
Posted 1 year ago # -
iDave - very well put, that sums up how I feel too.
Far too many internet warriors on here.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Isn't it extraordinary that it's almost a hundred years ago that WW1 started, and also that the ordinary man in the street/trench did not have the right to vote back then. In many ways that conflict had more in common with the Napoleonic era than today: It was normal for one of the big European superpowers (France, Prussia or Austria) just to march in to someone elses country, just for the hell of it and the ordinary soldier was just expected to stand still on the battlefield and be shot to pieces. The cowards of that conflict were the respective governments who failed to get together in 1915 to call a halt to the carnage.
Attitudes to war had definately changed by 1939; except for a wee Austian gent with a daft moustache.
I would have fought for my country against Hitler, back then (except I,m half German!).
Can't envisage a modern conflict where I would do simerlarly.Posted 1 year ago # -
Ive never encountered war but have encountered a few people in my life who have, even come across someone as a youngster who returned from combat and found him on a bed with both wrists slit and me standing in a pool of his blood
If you just look at the Falklands War which, with no disrespect to those who fought and died in it, was far from being the most dirty and horrific war ever fought, the long term consequences are truly staggering.
A "mere" 255 British personnel died in that conflict, but by 2002 an estimated 264 Falklands veterans had committed suicide.
Falkland veterans claim suicide toll
And Argentina is catching up. 649 Argentines died in that conflict, and to date, approximately 500 Argentine veterans have committed suicide - the number continues to increase unabated.
I believe jahwomble on here might have been an eventual victim of a past conflict.
Wars are nasty businesses which don't fit in very comfortably with what is natural human behaviour. Despite what some, including Hollywood, have in the past, been so keen to convince us.
It's just a shame that we still have world leaders such as Bush and Blair who still get euphoric at the thought of going to war. It is no coincident that the most outspoken world leader against rushing to war in Iraq was Jacques Chirac. Because despite being a dodgy crook, Jacques Chirac had experienced the full horrors of war when he served in the Algerian war.
I shall always remember when Jacques Chirac responded to Bush's comment just before the the Iraq war that "the game's over", with "it's not a game and it isn't over". Chirac also asked Blair at a EU summit in Brussels how he could look at his son Leo in the eye if he was the leader responsible for starting a war with Iraq. Chirac failed to understand that callous low-lifes like Bush and Blair don't care about other people's children.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I don't know - I cannot possibly put myself in that situation. When I was young enough to be conscripted, I was totally opposed to war and had the mind of a conscientious objector. Now, I'm older, well, I'm too old.
Wars should be fought like this - and the people should force it!
Posted 1 year ago # -
headfirst - Member
Far too many internet warriors on here.
I would interested in knowing who you think the "internet warriors" are.
From what I can see, most people appear to be saying that they would prepared to defend their country against a foreign aggressor. That falls very much into line with what is generally the historical reaction in such a situation.
Although many have expressed the opinion that they are not entirely sure how they would react in reality.
Hardly "internet warrior" talk.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I'd be a conscientious objector for sure. I'm not saying I would have had a solution to the problems in 1914 and 1945 but all I know is war is not it.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I think I'd fight in defence of my country, but I'll be buggered if I'm fighting in defence of somebody elses country or on behalf of a bunch of selfserving politicians who see "gains" (whatever they may be) to be had by going to war with somebody else.
Realistically these days, if another world war comes to Britain, we'll be lucky if we have more than a couple of minutes warning before the nukes hit and it'll then be over very, very quickly.
"lest we forget"
Amen to that...
Posted 1 year ago # -
I think I'd fight in defence of my country, but I'll be buggered if I'm fighting in defence of somebody elses country or on behalf of a bunch of selfserving politicians who see "gains" (whatever they may be) to be had by going to war with somebody else.
I share the same sentiment. If it was to defend my country I would like to think I would have the courage to fight. I do however feel sorry for todays armed forces. They are deployed seemingly on the whim of idiot politicians. War should only ever be seen as a last result, otherwise it is just brave young men being sent to die by stupid old men trying to prove some sort of political point.
For the record though I do think our forces are fighting a foe that definitely needs to be tackled in Afghanistan.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Let's not get into all the rights and wrongs of war, eh people?
Not today.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Yep i would, no hesitation. I love this country and proud to be British! And i am sure everybody on here would really if it meant protecting there wives and children!
Posted 1 year ago # -
No. Conscientious objector here as well.
And i have done my time in the forces, fortunately not involved in any conflicts, but i have been armed with live ammunition and really struggled because i wasn't sure if i would have the balls to fire on another human.
War is not the answer.Posted 1 year ago # -
I think that even though people/soldiers go to war to fight for their country (or any other ideal), they usually end up fighting for each other.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Joined when I was 17 left 5 years later tried to rejoin @ 35 and was told I was to old! thank god.
Bring back NS
Posted 1 year ago # -
Mr Woppit, well I guess I have fought (as in, had street battles with) fascists in this country - seem to have had all too many run-ins with the NF and BNP over the last 30 or so years, and the truth is they're hardly the master race if confronted by a few determined folk. But no, I wouldn't join my 'masters' under the flag of empire to fight whoever they tell me to fight, just because it's in their interests to crank up a cynical anti-fascist stance at certain points in history. Like I said, the British ruling class were quite happy for the Nazis to run amock in the 30s while they did a Nelson.
TJ - looks like we're feted to disagree about most things, even though we are never diametrically opposed. If you really believe that WW2 was 'democracy vs tyranny' pure and simple, then you're not the rapier wit I took you to be. Look beneath the surface, TJ, and read your history books better. And with that I go to bed while I'm still capable of reading the Beano.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I am very ashamed of this country at the moment and so the only reason to fight for it would be in respect of people who have lost their lives in doing so.
james.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I'd be a conscientious objector for sure. I'm not saying I would have had a solution to the problems in 1914 and 1945 but all I know is war is not it.
Me too. Although I doubt I'd actually have the courage to turn around and so "no, I don't believe this is the answer" if I was called up...
..too much of a coward.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I'd be a conscientious objector for sure. I'm not saying I would have had a solution to the problems in 1914 and 1945 but all I know is war is not it.
An alternative to war in 1945 would have been great, I think the problem was that the Nazis wouldn't take no for an answer.
Personally, if I was an eligible age in 1945, I firmly believe I would have volunteered to serve my country.
Posted 1 year ago # -
1939
Posted 1 year ago # -
That's what I meant, 1939 - 1945.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I signed up at 18 and came out at 39. I spent many happy years slotting terrorists and other assorted mit mots for Queen and Country. However two decades of loud bangs,beddycopters and wearing green pants have rendered me totally f*****g barking (ptsd and incipient Schizophrenia to the fore). So, no not again.
Posted 1 year ago # -
No way. War is wrong on all counts.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Interestingly, those MPs who served (Healey, Benn, Heath, Neave etc etc) were those who were the most anti-war of the lot.
As we now have a generation who didn't fight in real situations or do National Service, it's a bit more theoretical. And we have people who are perfectly happy to take us to war** based on poor information and a desire to please their allies, rather than slightly more authentic politicians who would exhaust every possible alternative before reluctantly bowing to the inevitable.
Put it this way, if someone who had actually served told me that war was, sadly, completely unavoidable, I might listen and feel more like agreeing to be conscripted. Paddy Ashdown, regardless of what you think of him politically, has credibility in this area in a way that Cameron & Clegg could never have.
**Yes, I do mean you, Tony Blair.
Posted 1 year ago # -
no
Posted 1 year ago # -
I'm the first bloke in my family* not to join up in the best part of two centuries. Mind you, I'm short-sighted & colour-blind - and so all-but-useless... although as a nurse, I suppose I could serve in a medical capacity.
1939: I hope that I could have lived up to the example set by that generation - what alternative was there? Ruthless b'stard he may have been, but when you hear Churchill growl that we will defend this island, whatever the cost, you very much believe him. By contrast, Bliar will be famous for being a lying ****.
(*My great-grandfather was a Lt Colonel in the Royal Engineers and half-German...).
Posted 1 year ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
