If your nation was attacked (physically) tomorrow and you were called to defend it, assuming a physical capacity to do so and a legality of participation (being female or gay would not count against one, for instance), would you heed the call?

The poll is public. Obviously, you can only answer "yes" or "no". Moreover, I ask that each person who responds gives the reason for their choice.

Two notes:

1. The morality of your nation and the morality of the attackers are not considered. One's nation is under attack. Even if one's nation is bad, the question remains as will you defend her?

2. The word "defend" implies actual participation in the active defense of one's nation. Moreover, to make such matters more poignant, it will be assumed that the danger's of one's aspect of defense are equal to that of a soldier, even if one is not actively fighting. That is, if one is assigned to a factory, assume it is under constant attack, just as a platoon on the battle field would be. In essence, there are no "safe" positions and all aspects of defense will be considered equal. Thus there is no choice for "maybe if I could be a factory worker but not a soldier".

1. The morality of your nation and the morality of the attackers are not considered. One's nation is under attack. Even if one's nation is bad, the question remains as will you defend her?

That's a bit tricky. Cue the nazi germany example.

Voodoo Child, Buffalo Roam:

Might both of you give further reasons for your answer?

And yes, Voodoo Child, I am well aware that "Nazi Germany" ideas can muddle the matter. Yet you still choose to defend your country even in such a situation?

Yet you still choose to defend your country even in such a situation?
Sure, beyond those and similar exceptional circumstances.
Why? Mine is a reasonable attempt at a country and worth fighting for. Probably, those attacking it would be dicks.

But if your country was "Nazi Germanyesque", you would not?

No. Probably, I'd actively undermine it.

I chose no because I don't know why or how the nation is under attack.
I wouldn't "heed the call" but I would fight for my life if I had to.

I am a conscientious objector to both combatant and noncombatant military service. My morals do not allow me to deliberately kill someone, nor do they allow me to aid such an effort in a noncombatant position in the military.

So, I would not.

Athelwulf:

Why do you hold such to be moral?

I said yes, but not if it's any of this "preemptive strike"/international police action nonsense. If the U.S. bombs France for no apparent reason and tries to draft me, I'm skipping town...

if my country was attacked in retaliation for assisting american war efforts then no i would not fight for it. if my country was attacked simply because of its resources or strategic value(who knows, maybe they want a forward base for an attack against antarctica) then i would fight for my nations right to sovereignty granted by the statute of westminster.

Athelwulf:

Why do you hold such to be moral?
Why do I hold my position as a conscientious objector to be moral?

Because I see killing as permissible only in the act of self-defense — in the defense of your own life in the face of immediate personal danger.

What about your loved ones? Your children (real or hypothetical)?

I wouldn't ever fight for a non righteous cause...

Even if it was: "defending my nation"...

It's not always that simple...

A man should stand for what's right ... on whatever side it was...

Yes, I'd defend my nation, but only on my homegrounds. What happens in the South or Mid-West doesn't really concern me much -- it's a whole 'nother place and way of life compared to where I live.

- N

No, I have no particular attachment to any country.

Hani:

Upon what foundation do you judge what is righteous?

Avatar:

Why do you not associate yourself with a nation?

Neildo:

What is an attack on the South or Mid-West impacted your region indirectly?

1. The morality of your nation and the morality of the attackers are not considered. One's nation is under attack. Even if one's nation is bad, the question remains as will you defend her?


I answered the poll before reading this. I answered yes but considering this stipulation I would have to not answer at all as it would be impossible to determine if I would or would not.

This stipulation could be applied to 2 separate situations - one being a mistreated prisoner on unfounded charges in a country that kills it's own people and one being a wealthy person in a country where there is no poverty, hunger, or crime. Given your first stipulation it would be impossible to treat either of these to situations differently.

Only if the lives of my close family or friends were at risk or had been, otherwise, I have no reason to "defend" anything. If the new management imposes policies upon the people that I don't agree with, it would be no different than the government I'm living in, so why worry about it?

Avatar:
Why do you not associate yourself with a nation?
Why should I? Nation is subjective concept existing only in the minds of men, imposed to one by his culture and society, it is not objective, it is not really existing, the borders are really just lines drawn on maps.
I'm an inhabitant of this planet and universe, everywhere is my home.

Avatar: Do you pay taxes?

Yes.

Real ones or conceptual ones?

I pay money to the local community I'm residing at so that it can function properly. If I go to live to the UK one day, I'd pay its taxes. I don't see any importance in this.

Yes.

So then you associate yourself with a nation and support it even, you're just not the most loyal citizen. Don't try to say any different, even if you would like it to be that way.

No, I just obey the local laws. I don't care which nation I support.
I could as well support the nation of the invader, if required,
don't see myself as Latvian, Russian, Polish or otherwise, just a human.

Obeying the local laws IS identifying yourself as part of the society(nation) you live in. Do you obey the laws even when they differ from what you would do if there weren't any laws? You pay taxes, so yes. Therefore, if you don't consider yourself belonging to your country, why do you do this?

I don't want to be bothered by taxmen, police, etc., and of course roads have to be repaired, public healthcare insured, etc.
However I don't see how taxes or the reasons I pay them would make me want to defend any particular nation, because that was the question.

I don't want to be bothered by taxmen, police, etc., and of course roads have to be repaired, public healthcare insured, etc.
However I don't see how taxes or the reasons I pay them would make me want to defend any particular nation, because that was the question.

Fine. I just thought you were trying to say that you don't support your country at all.

I voted yes because I believe that I have the right/duty to defend myself, my property, family, friends and neighbors. Of course I write this from the relative comfort of my home if the bullets really started flying I might very well poop my pants and run and hide.:D

I've taken part in a revolution with military police being just a bush cover or a locked door away, three of the people that saved me were shot in an unrelated incident a few weeks later. There was no time to be afraid, but just enough time to plan and do what is neccessary.
I was very young then, just a kid that had found himself in the middle of a boiling pot.

Upon what foundation do you judge what is righteous?

My morals and the common sense...

At that time I should reasonably be able to presume that the NRA's greatest hidden wishes have come true. I would operate in support of the nation: e.g. I would actually enter combat should a service see fit to train me as a medic. This is, of course, presuming in defiance of the first specification of the query:

1. The morality of your nation and the morality of the attackers are not considered. One's nation is under attack. Even if one's nation is bad, the question remains as will you defend her?

The infamous Nuremberg defense is one I reject for other people, and thus could not offer in my own defense. For instance, I hope this current era is as low as conservatives ever go. And I hope it's as cowardly as liberals will ever get. While it's all about how intelligent we are as a collective of citizens, that's a lofty point for another debate. But I fear we're in a slide zone right now. Things could level off, but if they fall much more, it will be a dizzying plummet. The current attempt to sacrifice the people's place in the social contract is disheartening for the specific progress it has made. That my country becomes more and more domineering of its citizens would not be license to abandon it specifically. But there will come a point when the weight of the government's actions against peoples both its own and foreign becomes unacceptable. At that point, in my opinion, I would be falling into a standoff between the Supreme Law of the Land (e.g. whatever becomes of the Constitution) and my identity as a human being.

This is, of course, why liberalism aims after lofty concepts like freedom and satisfaction. But it doesn't necessarily work that way.

In the end, I would probably sever my national identity and find my way toward the brightest-looking center of peace and justice. Wherever I am, though, on that day when the NRA gets to say, "We told you so!" I see no reason to not fight for my neighbors' sakes when the violence comes.

So, I guess in abiding by that first specific point in the topic question, the answer is "no."

Whatever government I find myself under when the suspension of civilized society takes place, it will be judged on its merits. Given the absolute pucky I accept out of my American government and the people who empower it (and I'm a voter, too), it can't be said my standards are exceedingly high.

I'll stand for my neighbors, but reserve the right to oppose the government's manner and policy at any time I deem fit.

Consider the United States: by not participating in the war, I am also helping stop the war. No matter what we think of the nation today, what would we think come the day the U.S. had volunteer manpower to invade wherever and whenever the executive deemed proper?

Imagine if the U.S. had, say, fifteen million troops deployed in nine major wars around the world.

Idealistic, yes. But we don't have that kind of volunteer force. And I can't foresee much in the way of its policies which leads me to believe I would volunteer for much of anything. What short of Klendathu would it take for the U.S. to have a military (or economy) deep enough to support fifteen million people in combat?

Or, I suppose, a will?

It depends on what we mean by "defend", I suppose. Every time I try to find a way to cut through to a simple answer, I find myself distracted by the the complexities of "The Line".

The universe has a sense of justice afterall.

Good to see the progressive element is feeling singularly unprogressed.

It would appear that, by our efforts, we've earned our reprieve.

There's real hope for us now. :)