Hypthetically Speaking: Should you defend your Country??

Venomous · Post by **Venomous** » 2006-06-12 08:33pm

I am not suggesting that every should join the army.

Suppose you country is being invaded by another country for the purpose of conquer. To dominate your lands and make you its subserviants.

All your citizens take up arms to defend your right to exist and live free on your homeland. However, certain others refuse to fight for their freedom. Should they be entitled to the same rights and freedoms if they refuse to defend it???

Discuss....

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2006-06-12 08:52pm

If it's not mandatory, there isn't any reason to ostracize them for refusing.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2006-06-12 08:54pm

Damn it, I phrased that horribly.

Okay, let's try again.

Taking up arms to defend your country means risking your life. Some people don't want to risk their life. What reason is there to discriminate against them for making that decision, if it's not required of them?

Venomous · Post by **Venomous** » 2006-06-12 09:05pm

So should we rely on government to make it mandatory during a threat to our country? or if not... should we just all surrender?

Btw... I am not baiting or anything... I am just asking questions ... this discussion could lead anywhere.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2006-06-12 09:17pm

Venomous wrote:So should we rely on government to make it mandatory during a threat to our country? or if not... should we just all surrender?

...

Nice either/or fallacy.

Venomous · Post by **Venomous** » 2006-06-12 09:29pm

Its just my first thought to your response. I just wonder how citizens would feel if their neighbors were not willing to stand up and fight for the freedom, yet demand the priveledges of that freedom later. It would cause resentment wouldn't it?

Noble Ire · Post by **Noble Ire** » 2006-06-12 09:59pm

Venomous wrote:Its just my first thought to your response. I just wonder how citizens would feel if their neighbors were not willing to stand up and fight for the freedom, yet demand the priveledges of that freedom later. It would cause resentment wouldn't it?

The let them be resented. Morally, if one wants to benefit by living in a country, they should be willing to sacrifice and perhaps even die in the effort to defend it. However, some simply will not do so, be it because they object to the method of defense somehow, are inhibited by some obligation or limitation, are too cowardly to risk their necks, or simply can't be bothered. The people who do fight may not like the people who do not, but if for whatever reason, the government doesn't require them to do so, they shouldn't expel them for not volunteering.

Noble Ire · Post by **Noble Ire** » 2006-06-12 10:00pm

Ghetto Edit: Then let them be resented.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-06-12 10:00pm

Venomous wrote:Its just my first thought to your response. I just wonder how citizens would feel if their neighbors were not willing to stand up and fight for the freedom, yet demand the priveledges of that freedom later. It would cause resentment wouldn't it?

Name one society which has experienced 100% military mobilization in all of human history.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2006-06-12 10:07pm

Venomous wrote:Its just my first thought to your response. I just wonder how citizens would feel if their neighbors were not willing to stand up and fight for the freedom, yet demand the priveledges of that freedom later. It would cause resentment wouldn't it?

I’d hope that those fighting for ‘freedom’ would recognise that ‘freedom’ inevitably involves other people making decisions you might not agree with.

BloodAngel · Post by **BloodAngel** » 2006-06-12 11:16pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Venomous wrote:Its just my first thought to your response. I just wonder how citizens would feel if their neighbors were not willing to stand up and fight for the freedom, yet demand the priveledges of that freedom later. It would cause resentment wouldn't it?
Name one society which has experienced 100% military mobilization in all of human history.

Sparta?

Hawkwings · Post by **Hawkwings** » 2006-06-12 11:20pm

At first, I thought that too, but I seriously doubt that EVERY SINGLE PERSON in Sparta could have dropped everything and defended the city. A large percentage, sure. Far more than probably any other society, but not 100%.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2006-06-13 12:22am

The male citizens of Sparta were it's military force, but even then, they were supported by a large slave underclass.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2006-06-13 12:23am

I would fight, but I wouldn't hold it against the people who didn't. Fighting a war, whether here or abroad, requires a certain kind of person. As long as they don't collaborate or decide they are unable to fight after being involved in doing so, I wouldn't be irritated with people saving themselves and their families rather than stand and fight. There will be alot of people standing and fighting and it would almost be a good idea for most people to try and stay in their homes and lives as much as possible, even during an invasion.

SWPIGWANG · Post by **SWPIGWANG** » 2006-06-13 12:30am

Freedom includes the right to not devote one's life to something one does not believe in. Nations exists for individuals. Individuals do not exist for nations. Sometimes if might even makes more sense to not fight oppression when it causes greater harm. I will not hold their unwillingness to fight against them if they have good reason.

Junghalli · Post by **Junghalli** » 2006-06-13 01:20am

Besides, just because you don't fight doesn't mean you aren't contributing to the war effort. Somebody has to staff the factories and farms and generally hold up the logistical side of things. A modern army needs a huge amount of people behind the lines to keep it running; I think it's something like 20+ workers and support for every frontline soldier.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2006-06-13 01:27am

Junghalli wrote:Besides, just because you don't fight doesn't mean you aren't contributing to the war effort. Somebody has to staff the factories and farms and generally hold up the logistical side of things. A modern army needs a huge amount of people behind the lines to keep it running; I think it's something like 20+ workers and support for every frontline soldier.

Quite so. I don't feel like going off and getting shot, but I'd certainly be willing to work to manufacture supplies for the war.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-06-13 01:36am

I'm not exactly physically fit for being a grunt, however, I could take any other military assignment any given day. In an all-out war with an invader, I would. However, I would not say all citizens should be obliged to fight. If it gets serious to genocide, however, most of the population would mobilize itself anyway.

There, you have it.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2006-06-13 01:46am

I'd consider joining up if I didn't have to fight. Mainly because I have a neuromuscular problem and I'd probably piss myself if someone shot at me.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-06-13 09:04am

If I couldn't get into the armed forces, I'd work another way to help the war effort. I was having a similar discussion the other night with my old man where someone said that unless you fought in the forces, you weren't helping the war effort. Which I'm sure you'll all agree is bullshit, unless the military is a fully autonomous part of society now.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2006-06-13 09:15am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:If I couldn't get into the armed forces, I'd work another way to help the war effort. I was having a similar discussion the other night with my old man where someone said that unless you fought in the forces, you weren't helping the war effort. Which I'm sure you'll all agree is bullshit, unless the military is a fully autonomous part of society now.

If that blokes right I can’t help but wonder how all the miners, steel workers and the rest tricked the government into classifying their professions as so important to the war effort that they wouldn’t be called up.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2006-06-13 09:15am

edit. I meant during WWII obviously.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-06-13 09:18am

Which I'm sure you'll all agree is bullshit

It is. A person who is a worker, the hands and workforce of the war, is as much a veteran as the one who fights with the rifle the other guy made.
On a side note, did the U.S. or Britain (picking major WWII participants for comparison issues) ever give out medals to "heroes of labour" or "heroes of the homefront"? Because in USSR/Russia we have "veterans of labour" and specific medals "For heroic labour during Great Patriotic War 1941-1945". Is it common practice to give out medals for war labour?

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2006-06-13 09:43am

Stas Bush wrote:
Which I'm sure you'll all agree is bullshit
It is. A person who is a worker, the hands and workforce of the war, is as much a veteran as the one who fights with the rifle the other guy made.
On a side note, did the U.S. or Britain (picking major WWII participants for comparison issues) ever give out medals to "heroes of labour" or "heroes of the homefront"? Because in USSR/Russia we have "veterans of labour" and specific medals "For heroic labour during Great Patriotic War 1941-1945". Is it common practice to give out medals for war labour?

iirc not even members of the merchant navy got honoured.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-06-13 09:49am

iirc not even members of the merchant navy got honoured.

Really? Weird. My grandmother was a "hero of labour", she had all fancy medals from the war, and many of her colleagues, too. She was an arms factory worker during the war. I guess honouring the home front workers is a USSR specific then.