What's new

would you fight for your country?

Welcome to our Japan community!

A discussion forum for all Things Japanese. Join Today! It is fast, simple, and FREE!

thatsme

先輩
Joined
11 Feb 2007
Messages
104
Reaction score
5
We tend to blame the government, which of course it's pretty normal.
I keep wondering many things, here is another one.
Would anyone of us do anything different if you were voted to be the leader of a country?
From this side, is pretty easy to blame the government, but would I be able to stop this nonsence?
I really wonder!!!!
 

karlyboo

後輩
Joined
14 Nov 2007
Messages
147
Reaction score
13
We tend to blame the government, which of course it's pretty normal.
I keep wondering many things, here is another one.
Would anyone of us do anything different if you were voted to be the leader of a country?
From this side, is pretty easy to blame the government, but would I be able to stop this nonsence?
I really wonder!!!!

In my case probably wipe away the whole damn lot and replace it with something resembling the Roman Republic where all state decisions are made by specialist elected assemblies and on majority vote with no central leader/figurehead except in times of crisis when a leader with executive power is voted into office for a fixed six month term and some essential state positions which are shared by a dependency of two individuals, each with power of veto over the other.

It managed to last 450 years quite nicely :) The only bits we'd need to alter would be the inclusion of universal suffrage and the outlawing of slavery.

The Republic of Karlyboo. Bring a bottle.
 

nice gaijin

Resident Realist
Moderator
Donor
Joined
8 Aug 2005
Messages
6,359
Reaction score
1,883
We tend to blame the government, which of course it's pretty normal.
I keep wondering many things, here is another one.
Would anyone of us do anything different if you were voted to be the leader of a country?
From this side, is pretty easy to blame the government, but would I be able to stop this nonsence?
I really wonder!!!!
I'm unsure if this is was a response to my post, but in case it was...

it's not that I'm blaming the government, and the documentary does an excellent job of presenting the facts with little bias. The fact is that war is very profitable, and the people that benefit from it have an interest in keeping the party going. There hasn't been a war on American soil since in 150 years, the absence of a real threat has led to the complacency of the people and the need for manufactured threats to justify military action. There is protest, but there's a lot more at stake than "peace" or "freedom." Companies that have military contracts manufacture their products and weapons in the US. Americans make those weapons, and they are the constituents for the congressmen and senators that make the laws and declare wars. Those legislators have to listen to the people that vote for them; if they make a decision that leads to Lockheed Martin laying off 20,000 employees, they'll hear about it when they go back to their districts. As long as the war is fought on foreign soil, out of sight of the general public (they learned to restrict media coverage after Vietnam), the public will be kept in the dark, and the outcry to end the violence will never outweigh the interests served by our militarism. Not until American citizens fully understand the atrocities of living in a war zone will the cries for peace outnumber the cries for blood.

Understanding how this system works, I could not imagine volunteering to be a part of it. If I were in a position to change things there is much I would do, but my political philosophy is so radical, I would never get to have such power.
 

thatsme

先輩
Joined
11 Feb 2007
Messages
104
Reaction score
5
I'm unsure if this is was a response to my post, but in case it was...
it's not that I'm blaming the government, and the documentary does an excellent job of presenting the facts with little bias. The fact is that war is very profitable, and the people that benefit from it have an interest in keeping the party going. There hasn't been a war on American soil since in 150 years, the absence of a real threat has led to the complacency of the people and the need for manufactured threats to justify military action. There is protest, but there's a lot more at stake than "peace" or "freedom." Companies that have military contracts manufacture their products and weapons in the US. Americans make those weapons, and they are the constituents for the congressmen and senators that make the laws and declare wars. Those legislators have to listen to the people that vote for them; if they make a decision that leads to Lockheed Martin laying off 20,000 employees, they'll hear about it when they go back to their districts. As long as the war is fought on foreign soil, out of sight of the general public (they learned to restrict media coverage after Vietnam), the public will be kept in the dark, and the outcry to end the violence will never outweigh the interests served by our militarism. Not until American citizens fully understand the atrocities of living in a war zone will the cries for peace outnumber the cries for blood.
Understanding how this system works, I could not imagine volunteering to be a part of it. If I were in a position to change things there is much I would do, but my political philosophy is so radical, I would never get to have such power.

And if you did have the chance to have that kind of power, you would have been killed instantly.
So I can see your point
 

EvilCowSlayer

後輩
Joined
4 Sep 2007
Messages
110
Reaction score
3
Clarification: My opinions in my previous post assumed that you meant a war on American soil.

No way would I fight for anything the US is doing overseas right now.
 
Joined
11 Sep 2007
Messages
370
Reaction score
9
I wouldn't fight for this country because with so many lies and cover ups, you never know which side is good.
 

Iron Chef

Villain
Joined
26 Feb 2003
Messages
2,284
Reaction score
78
And the funny thing is... a lot of the people who say they wouldn't fight for their country because of so-and-so CAN SAY AND DO SO because of the freedom and liberties they and their generation now enjoy that others in the past have fought to secure for them.
 

nice gaijin

Resident Realist
Moderator
Donor
Joined
8 Aug 2005
Messages
6,359
Reaction score
1,883
And the funny thing is... a lot of the people who say they wouldn't fight for their country because of so-and-so CAN SAY AND DO SO because of the freedom and liberties they and their generation now enjoy that others in the past have fought to secure for them.
The operating words being "in the past." If only it were so simple as to fight to defend the homeland and those values that we all enjoy and hold in such high regard. I have a very high opinion of veterans and those who have served in the armed forces, and I used to think it would be a great experience to try for myself. But caring about my country and appreciating the rights afforded to me does not equate to turning a blind eye to the deceit that puts us overseas in the first place. The war our servicemen fight is a thankless one; In 50 years, our grandchildren aren't going to look at "Desert Freedom" and say "grandpappy was defending our freedom, fighting 'them' over there so we wouldn't have to fight them here!"
 

thatsme

先輩
Joined
11 Feb 2007
Messages
104
Reaction score
5
I can only speculate that human nature is easily brainwashable to do anything.
I am not taking anything away from our predecessor who have fought and died in the different wars.
My point is We are easily made beileve that wars are jusitfiable, the major justification is they fought for our freedom.
If I was born at that time, I would have probably beileved that, and probably died for the country.
Every era have fought for different bielef, no one is wrong.
But many people who are still alive might have regretted to have fought their wars.
 

Pachipro

JREF Resident Alien
Rest in Peace
Joined
19 Jan 2005
Messages
1,831
Reaction score
229
As was mentioned above, war is profit and it is the same people who start these wars and sell arms to both sides as has been going on for hundreds of years. America and England are just great at it these days. They create a bogyman (Saddam, Khadaffi, Castro), spread lies (WMD, etc), the press, being on their side, prints and reports it and the gullible public who does no research on their own believes it!

Is it any wonder that all the militaries of the world recruit teenagers? It is because they are the most easily brainwashed and trainable. A 30 year old may be just as physically fit and able, not to mention smarter, but they are wise and mature and thus not as easily brainwashed and can sometimes see through the lies they are being fed. A teenager not so. They will swallow hook, line, and sinker what they are being fed and will go out and fight to the death for these lies. I know because I was one of them and believed everything my "wise and learned" leaders taught me when I was 17 about the evil Vietnamese. Today I know better and that it was all a farce to keep the military industrial complex in full swing. What a fool I was. Which is why I am ineligible for military service because of my age. Not to fight, but even for desk work. They know older people are more wiser.

Today I believe nothing, know they are lying, and have found more proof than not that it was, is, and always will be a lie. War is for profit and nothing else. Nothing!

Would I fight today in Iraq if called or even for desk work? Not on your life. However, I would fight to the death to keep my freedom (what's left of it), my home and family.
karlyboo said:
In my case probably wipe away the whole damn lot and replace it with something resembling the Roman Republic where all state decisions are made by specialist elected assemblies and on majority vote with no central leader/figurehead except in times of crisis when a leader with executive power is voted into office for a fixed six month term and some essential state positions which are shared by a dependency of two individuals, each with power of veto over the other.
Sounds to me like you are speaking of the original American government as the US was really designed as a Constitutional Representative Republic and not a Democracy as many believe and say. A Democracy, in effect, is just mob rule.

America fought a war with England to escape the tyranny of King George and when they defeated the "mother land" they set up a constitution and a Representative Republic to ensure that people could actually live free (as God intended) without fear and never again be ruled by a dictatorship. Today, sadly we have a new dictator with a new King George who, thanks to the Patriot Act, have taken away most of our rights in the name of fighting terrorism (the new bogyman).

That is the main reason why we have the 2nd ammendment granting the citizens the right to keep and bear arms so that a dictatorship and it's military may never again oppose the will of the people. Why do you think that the US is the only country where this is a right? To stop tyranny thats why.

A representative system was set up so that the local citizens could elect a representative from the community to go to Washington to work for them and vote the way they, the people, wanted and believed. The rep would serve a limited short term and then another would be selected. It wasn't ment to be a full time job with a pension and such.

It didn't take long for the elite of England and their offspring to infiltrate the US government and gradually, over the last 200 years, begin to take some of that power back and away from the people so that it is only the wealthy and the elite who now run our government and George Washington et al are probably turning over in their graves at what has become of this country, our constitution and our rights. It is so bad that the Supreme Court will hear in March of this year weather it is actually constitutional for the citizenry to keep and bear arms. If we lose this one we are finished as a country and I'm sure many around the world do hope we lose this all important right. Read here (Please, no arguments on gun control in this thread)

The elites have succeeded over the past 25-30 years of getting "their people" into the supreme court and we may just lose this one. It is said that the major obstcle to a quicker One World Government is the US constitution and it's 2nd ammendment. And for all those Americans who naively believe that the NRA (National Rifle Association) will protect their rights are sadly misled and mistaken as they are now part of the elite and have made far too many concessions to the elite.

Iron Chef said:
And the funny thing is... a lot of the people who say they wouldn't fight for their country because of so-and-so CAN SAY AND DO SO because of the freedom and liberties they and their generation now enjoy that others in the past have fought to secure for them.
Soon that will be a thing of the past as a new Executive Order passed in July can now land me in jail or the forfeiture of all my property as a threat to the government for what I have printed here and believe about our "efforts" in Iraq. Reading between the lines, and listening to lawyers on this "vague" EO it is sad but true. It can be considered an "act threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic and political reform in Iraq..." Freedom of Speech, our First and most basic Ammendment Right, is sadly being taken away from us by King George. Freedom of the Press? That's already gone.
 
Joined
11 Sep 2007
Messages
370
Reaction score
9
And the funny thing is... a lot of the people who say they wouldn't fight for their country because of so-and-so CAN SAY AND DO SO because of the freedom and liberties they and their generation now enjoy that others in the past have fought to secure for them.
The system isn't as clean is it used to. How many of America's past presidents would be proud of Bush. It isn't just about the president. Face it, the American government and the whole system is dirty. So you can fight if you want but I have my own reasons and beliefs.
 

yumeitsumo

Sempai
Joined
18 Dec 2007
Messages
521
Reaction score
10
No, I would not "Die" for my country. I might fight. But not die. I don't love american enough to do so. It's ok here. (We're free yeah,) but I still feel weird living here.
 

Haruspex

先輩
Joined
30 Aug 2007
Messages
2,324
Reaction score
96
Hmm, I agree with Pachipro, one must fight for his own independence. As for the politicians:
Personally I don't hate any of them, no, in this regard im quite pragmatic. They let people die, and I don't really mind if people make them fall and die. They chose to take the risk.
And I can say this without any hate. Politicians are people who worked hard to be in their position, and even though many of them are bastards, I can understand how they think, Im selfish too, and so I have no right to blame them. The same can be said about 80% of the population.

No, I would not "Die" for my country. I might fight. But not die. I don't love american enough to do so. It's ok here. (We're free yeah,) but I still feel weird living here.
How would you accomplish fighting, yet not risking death?
 
Last edited:
Joined
17 May 2007
Messages
633
Reaction score
16
And the funny thing is... a lot of the people who say they wouldn't fight for their country because of so-and-so CAN SAY AND DO SO because of the freedom and liberties they and their generation now enjoy that others in the past have fought to secure for them.

respect, i totally agree..
i stopped participating in this thread because i was astonished to see the number of people who are not even attached to their countries...
if some one takes his life for granted as free and just...where all his/her rights are reserved..wouldn't he/she fight to preserve this country for coming generations??
it is self centered and selfish just to think of one's self and disregard the entire population, brethren citizens, society as whole...
well that is the quality of people individualism makes...every one harvests what he plants...
 

Mavrek

先輩
Joined
23 Dec 2007
Messages
107
Reaction score
2
I would surely fight to defend my country till the last drop of my blood .I can die for the honor of my country .
 

Tokis-Phoenix

先輩
Joined
23 Sep 2005
Messages
1,275
Reaction score
73
respect, i totally agree..
i stopped participating in this thread because i was astonished to see the number of people who are not even attached to their countries...
if some one takes his life for granted as free and just...where all his/her rights are reserved..wouldn't he/she fight to preserve this country for coming generations??
it is self centered and selfish just to think of one's self and disregard the entire population, brethren citizens, society as whole...
well that is the quality of people individualism makes...every one harvests what he plants...



Well there's a war going on Iraq right now, our governments told us that Iraq was a threat and that unless we went to war with them then we'd be attacked- however this all turned out to be lies and people that went over to fight in Iraq for these reasons are now stuck over there against their will and betrayed by their government.

Not that many people in America or England want to "fight for their country" unless it is an extreme situation because we were all lied to about many things about the war in Iraq and now many people quite understandably are quite distrustful of their governments over matters of war. Why should they want to fight for a country that lies to them and gets them killed? Why should they want to fight for a country which is paying less and less care towards them and is abusing their rights? You tell me?

The whole "it is self centered and selfish just to think of one's self and disregard the entire population, brethren citizens, society as whole" is an emotional blackmail that our governments used as propaganda to trick people into being obliged to fight wars for the government which turned out to be anything but honorable, considerate or morally good.


I would surely fight to defend my country till the last drop of my blood .I can die for the honor of my country .



Honor? The least thing Pakistan needs is more war, i'm sure whoever killed president Bhutto thought what they were doing was honorable...
President Bhutto was one of the best people in Pakistan, she fought for peace in a peaceful way, she would not want war.
Ideals of honor are transparent in the real picture of war- when people are having their brains blown out, soldiers are raping women, children are left as orphans begging on the streets etc- you tell me that is all worth it for "honor"?

During world war 2 when the Japanese become involved in the war, for them it was a matter of pride and honor and this was the driving force in recruiting soldiers. Many evils were committed in the name of honor. But it doesn't matter how honorable your personal values may be when your military or governments isn't etc- i am not saying this is the straightforward case with Pakistan, but my point is that even the most seemingly correct countries which hold human rights in high regard aren't always honest with their reasons for going to war and its all to easy to go off fighting someone else's battle for "honor" when in fact what your government is secretely doing is anything but honorable; that is how we feel about our country.
 
Joined
17 May 2007
Messages
633
Reaction score
16
before you reply to me tokis pheonix san
read my post # 3

you can see that it replies to what ever you told me

in your case of aggression against other countries it is just right to choose not fight with a mislead war which is built on lies and which is a blood thirsty war to fulfill the dreams of the "new conservatives"

but in the case of a righteous defensive war against the invaders o0f my country just in case of the Israeli invasion to Lebanon i would proudly die for my country..
Honor is an aspect i guess many Japanese still understand even after the extinction of the samurai.
Honor is something that still is not changed in our mid-eastern nation...
 

karlyboo

後輩
Joined
14 Nov 2007
Messages
147
Reaction score
13
respect, i totally agree..
i stopped participating in this thread because i was astonished to see the number of people who are not even attached to their countries...
if some one takes his life for granted as free and just...where all his/her rights are reserved..wouldn't he/she fight to preserve this country for coming generations??
it is self centered and selfish just to think of one's self and disregard the entire population, brethren citizens, society as whole...
well that is the quality of people individualism makes...every one harvests what he plants...

Whilst I understand the particular circumstance you're coming from, it's exceedingly blind to equate the people of a country as being the state which we would be fighting for IMO. It is also erroneous to assume that one's state also represents the views and freedoms which they wish to promote. You're also assuming that to fight for one's country means only a circumstance where one's country is under direct threat.

If what you were saying were true no country would ever have a revolution against an oppressive regime since to overthrow the state would be in equivalence to attacking the people.

I appreciate you're coming from the particular example of expelling from Lebanon an Israeli occupation force and that's fine, you've got to understand however that 'fighting for your country' covers a much, much larger range of potential actions outside of that specific.

And the funny thing is... a lot of the people who say they wouldn't fight for their country because of so-and-so CAN SAY AND DO SO because of the freedom and liberties they and their generation now enjoy that others in the past have fought to secure for them.

And the funny thing is that, if a nation were truly under threat, the state would almost certainly introduce a draft against able-bodied citizens and their freedom to live free would be instantly nullified in service of the state, because if you turn it down you get court-martialled and then executed as a 'deserter'.

Yay freedom!
 
Joined
17 May 2007
Messages
633
Reaction score
16
Whilst I understand the particular circumstance you're coming from, it's exceedingly blind to equate the people of a country as being the state which we would be fighting for IMO. It is also erroneous to assume that one's state also represents the views and freedoms which they wish to promote. You're also assuming that to fight for one's country means only a circumstance where one's country is under direct threat.
If what you were saying were true no country would ever have a revolution against an oppressive regime since to overthrow the state would be in equivalence to attacking the people.
I appreciate you're coming from the particular example of expelling from Lebanon an Israeli occupation force and that's fine, you've got to understand however that 'fighting for your country' covers a much, much larger range of potential actions outside of that specific.
And the funny thing is that, if a nation were truly under threat, the state would almost certainly introduce a draft against able-bodied citizens and their freedom to live free would be instantly nullified in service of the state, because if you turn it down you get court-martialled and then executed as a 'deserter'.
Yay freedom!

karly boo san again i didn't generalize every one in my post..
i didn't state all cases..
my reply is in post #3
you can get the greater picture of my point of view there...
 

karlyboo

後輩
Joined
14 Nov 2007
Messages
147
Reaction score
13
karly boo san again i didn't generalize every one in my post..
i didn't state all cases..
my reply is in post #3
you can get the greater picture of my point of view there...

...which you just embelished with further details. Those details are what people are reacting to. If you don't think something then don't post it, it's not everyone else's fault for simply replying to what you say.
 
Joined
17 May 2007
Messages
633
Reaction score
16
...which you just embelished with further details. Those details are what people are reacting to. If you don't think something then don't post it, it's not everyone else's fault for simply replying to what you say.

the people replying to me are replying on part of what i had to say....not the entire thought i have represented here...
if some one wants to reply to me than he shall do it when he knows exactly what is it i am saying..and what is the thought that i am trying to deliver...

now don't you think that is more fair bro.
 
Top Bottom