Hypthetically Speaking: Should you defend your Country??

[Aaron]

iirc not even members of the merchant navy got honoured.

The Canadian Merchant Marine Veterans got honored and recieved medals and veteran status but they had to fight for over 50+ years for it.

[K. A. Pital]

Hmm.. I really wonder why such neglience towards civilians working for the front? Mentality? History? Or, perhaps, the non-critical type of war (i.e. winning the war was not a matter of survival for the entire people)?

[Darth Wong]

Hmm.. I really wonder why such neglience towards civilians working for the front? Mentality? History? Or, perhaps, the non-critical type of war (i.e. winning the war was not a matter of survival for the entire people)?

I thought that most medals were given out for valour, rather than mere contribution. Contribution awards seem like Boy Scout merit badges to me.

[K. A. Pital]

I thought that most medals were given out for valour, rather than mere contribution.

There's valour in labour as well as in combat, when you're in a total war, you know. And it's not "mere contribution", it's essentially the backbone of the war. At least for the Great Patriotic War. They were given out to those people who courageously worked day and night, giving all of their time to the war effort. Also, to be a hero of labour you have to have a specific age of labour (number of years of excellent work) and for a GPW labour medal you need to be working very hard, all your time, for the military industry.

Contribution awards seem like Boy Scout merit badges to me.

No, they aren't. In fact, they're just a reflection of the title (status) of Labour Veteran or Labour Hero, which grant enormous privileges like free housing etc. Or used to grant. I'm not up on the current legislature.

[Aaron]

I thought that most medals were given out for valour, rather than mere contribution. Contribution awards seem like Boy Scout merit badges to me.

There are two types of medals in the Canadian Military, Campaign Medals and medals for valor. Campaign medals are given out for such things as the France and Germany Campaign and the Battle of the Atlantic and the South-West Asia Medal (Afghanistan). Medals for valor are such things like the Victoria Cross and the Distinguished Flying Cross and other such things. I beleive the Merchant Marine Vets got the Battle of the Atlantic Medals, although they may have gotten a custom one. There was a medal given out recently to the "Granny Brigade" in Newfoundland by the Chief of Defence Staff for writing letters to the troops overseas, this organisation had been writing letters everyday going back to the Bosnia tours in 93 and they gave them a medal for it.

[Aaron]

Granny Brigade article, BS or not? Well I'll let you decide for yourself, I will say it is nice to recieve letters from a total stranger when your over seas.

[Ace Pace]

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.

Israel during 1973 was pretty much completly mobilized for the few weeks of combat.

[Plekhanov]

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.

Israel during 1973 was pretty much completly mobilized for the few weeks of combat.

What including all the super, extra, ultra-orthodox types?

[Beowulf]

Hmm.. I really wonder why such neglience towards civilians working for the front? Mentality? History? Or, perhaps, the non-critical type of war (i.e. winning the war was not a matter of survival for the entire people)?

I thought that most medals were given out for valour, rather than mere contribution. Contribution awards seem like Boy Scout merit badges to me.

The US military has 4 types of medals, basically: campaign medals, medals for valor, recognition medals and medals of merit. Campaign medals are basically worthless. They only say, I've been at location X for a sufficient amount of time to qualify. Recognition medals are also basically worthless. Hey, I managed to not fuck up for 3 years, I've got a Good Conduct Medal. Medals of merit are awarded for doing something that's worthy of it. I'm due to recieve an Air Force Achievement Medal for my service with the base honor guard. That's pretty much the least you can do to earn one. Coming up with a brilliant plan that will save the military millions might earn one. Awards for valor are tough to come by, naturally. A Medal of Honor winner is frequently recieving the award posthumously.

[LadyTevar]

I'll answer on behalf of the majority of redneck hillbillies: Invade this! *shotgun blast*

Now, I'm not saying that all the people in this state would pick up a gun and fight. But there's enough veterans, children and grandchildren of veterans, and plain ol' huntin'-shootin' rednecks who'd stand up and fight to kick the invaders out.

The nice part is, they'd be mostly stuck traveling by the marked roads. The average WVian knows at least one place where a small, unmapped road or logging trail would put a sniper in a damn good position to do a lot of damage, and at three closed mines or coke ovens that could be turned into storage or bases.

[Ace Pace]

What including all the super, extra, ultra-orthodox types?

No. Thankfully they make up a small portion of the population and are ridiculed even by orthodox, who atleast have jobs.

[Darth Lucifer]

...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???

The men who fight for our rights and freedom fight for everyone, at least that's what my father, a veteran whose son refused to join the Marines, taught me.

I'm reminded of "Starship Troopers" where 'the veterans took control..." and one had to do Federal Service to become a Citizen as opposed to being a civilian. I'm not sure how I feel about that yet, but your question sounds similar.

[Elfdart]

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?

The British government gave medals to cats who killed large numbers of rats and mice during WW2. I don't know about the government giving awards to workers or managers who aided the war effort over what was expected of them, but the private sector has a way of doing so -which would have led to more money from the taxpayers.

[kheegster]

I would fight for my country if it was under threat, although I think that I would be of better use being sent to do R&D, being a physicist. Even if one has anti-nuclear inclinations, it can hardly be argued that each of the Manhattan Project scientists had far more impact on the war (and the future after the war) than a brigade or even a division of troops.

However, I believe that in this day and age, the existence of any major developed nations is not in question whatsoever. Even the worst terrorist attacks do not threaten the country, however bad the psychological or (at worst) economic damage might be. And I believe that to truly remove terrorism at its roots requires not military action, but diplomacy and propaganda.

To put things in present day context, I would support the war effort in Afghanistan, but not that in Iraq.

[K. A. Pital]

The OP says the country is not merely "attacked" but invaded on a whole scale, with the goal of "subjugate-them-all".

[Darth Raptor]

I'm reminded of "Starship Troopers" where 'the veterans took control..." and one had to do Federal Service to become a Citizen as opposed to being a civilian. I'm not sure how I feel about that yet, but your question sounds similar.

Hah, the biggest problem with the Terran Federation wasn't its suffrage policy. It's not like you had to be Mobile Infantry either. You could sit in front of a console on some moon somewhere for a couple years and that would do the trick too.

[Lagmonster]

The title of the thread is, "Should you defend your country". To which I say, sure. I'll defend it in an argument, I'll defend its economy by working and spending, I'll defend interior security by not hurting my neighbours.

But if you get as far as the OP itself, the question becomes "would you do what the Iraqi insurgents are doing now". To which I say, fuck no. If a military force comes rolling into downtown Ottawa with enough presence to substantially dominate the country, what the living fuck am I going to do? Wound a few dozen guys with a homemade bomb and then get shot in the street by a high powered automatic tank-mounted weapon? That runs contrary to my primary motivation in life, which is life.

Honestly, how many of you are thinking of this as a well-fuelled war effort against the horrible invaders, with dramatic and tense Hollywood battle scenes in which they don't get killed or are safely in comfortable communities miles from the fighting, and how many are coming up with eerie mental parallels to Iraq?

[K. A. Pital]

Honestly, how many of you are thinking of this as a well-fuelled war effort against the horrible invaders

The OP says it's total war. If it's total war, that means total war. Unless the invaders totally dominate my country, I would fight - not for "mindless patriotism" or "have you no fear for your own life?", but out of rage and hatred towards those who destroyed the peace I was living in. And besides, if their goal is to subjugate and enslave the population, there's a good god damn reason to fight. And more, if it's a war of deliberate genocide, then sure as hell I would be fighting, because I would have nothing to lose anyway - my life would automatically equal zero, and be hinged upon the success of my struggle, not the other way round - peacefully greeting the invaders would not save my life, thus the opposite actions must be taken.

[Aaron]

The title of the thread is, "Should you defend your country". To which I say, sure. I'll defend it in an argument, I'll defend its economy by working and spending, I'll defend interior security by not hurting my neighbours.

But if you get as far as the OP itself, the question becomes "would you do what the Iraqi insurgents are doing now". To which I say, fuck no. If a military force comes rolling into downtown Ottawa with enough presence to substantially dominate the country, what the living fuck am I going to do? Wound a few dozen guys with a homemade bomb and then get shot in the street by a high powered automatic tank-mounted weapon? That runs contrary to my primary motivation in life, which is life.

Honestly, how many of you are thinking of this as a well-fuelled war effort against the horrible invaders, with dramatic and tense Hollywood battle scenes in which they don't get killed or are safely in comfortable communities miles from the fighting, and how many are coming up with eerie mental parallels to Iraq?

You don't have to actually fight to contribute, you can arguably do just as much damage by giving aid and comfort to any insurgents that you can.

[Lagmonster]

You don't have to actually fight to contribute, you can arguably do just as much damage by giving aid and comfort to any insurgents that you can.

If I were, say, an Iraqi, I'd hate to be tortured or have my village levelled on suspicion of being a collaborator even if I'd never fired a shot in my life; there's not one ounce of good sense involved in opposing such a juggernaut.

I would reject the scenario as presented; I don't know enough about what's happening, why, and what the consequences are to make a decision I could live with.

[Aaron]

If I were, say, an Iraqi, I'd hate to be tortured or have my village levelled on suspicion of being a collaborator even if I'd never fired a shot in my life; there's not one ounce of good sense involved in opposing such a juggernaut.

I would reject the scenario as presented; I don't know enough about what's happening, why, and what the consequences are to make a decision I could live with.

Fair enough.

[Count Dooku]

If there were a realistic chance of succesfully defeating the enemy, than I'd probably actively contribute to the cause. In a free country, I don't think mandatory enlistment should be practiced. If you don't want your country conquered, you'll defend it.

[Talanth]

Hmm, tricky one. In answer to the origional question I would say that if what I considered as my rights were threatened then I would fight to defend rights or the rights of other people. If it was just my countrys governence that was at stake, with no lives at risk either during the transition or after, then I would more likely see it as a rather odd form of democratic election. IE who has the most soldures.

Generaly my vew on rights and responsabilitys is that if you believe yourself to have a certain right then you have the duty to maintain that right in other people. So if you believe you have the right to own property then you have a duty not to steal other peoples property, and to stop anyone elce steeling other peoples property.

It's not a perfect system but is seems to be a good rough guide.