• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Would you die for your country?

Would you die for your country?

  • Yes

    Votes: 44 73.3%
  • No

    Votes: 16 26.7%

  • Total voters
    60
A country is a piece of land in which you pay taxes to live in. I voted no.

I would fight and die for:
~myself
~friends and family
~freedom and liberty

A poll was done recently in the UK - only 36% would die for their country here. Whenever it mentions dying for freedom the numbers quickly rose up to 71%. A country is only a piece of land after all.
 
GarzaUK said:
A country is a piece of land in which you pay taxes to live in. I voted no.

I would fight and die for:
~myself
~friends and family
~freedom and liberty

A poll was done recently in the UK - only 36% would die for their country here. Whenever it mentions dying for freedom the numbers quickly rose up to 71%. A country is only a piece of land after all.

Perhaps it is a matter of semantics. When I hear the word "America" or "country" I think of a geographical location, but in my mind I see people and a culture. Apparently some of you are different. But then I always knew I was wierd, so that's okay.
 
Youve Got To Be Kidding! said:
**** AMERICA. I would not die for this piece of **** country unless someone ****ing took the choice away from me. This country is not worth ****. Nor is it worth dying for.

...The words of a liberal I'm sure.
 
Youve Got To Be Kidding! said:
**** AMERICA. I would not die for this piece of **** country unless someone ****ing took the choice away from me. This country is not worth ****. Nor is it worth dying for.

One more angered youth looking to vent his misdirected rage at something. These kind of people usually find a home in a gang, KKK, Nazi Party, Fundamental Islam......the list goes on.
 
Hell no. I'd rather stay alive and get rid of the bastards.
 
Osama bin Laden once said that Americans would perish because they loved life, and Islam would conquer because it loved death. (Paraphrased). I have thought about all those terrorist suicide bombers, the Japanese Kamikazee pilots, the thugs who flew the planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Could we get normal, sane American boys to do that? No way.

Our guys and gals will put it all on the line, take enormous risks for others or for causes they believe in, will even throw themselves on a grenade or step in front of a bullet to protect a buddy or a loved one. But I think they rejoice in life and always have it in the back of their minds that they just might get lucky and survive and I think most fight to live.

So I think many do offer their lives for the behalf of others, but I'm with Vergiss. When you know you're the good guys and there's no doubt who is the bad guys, better them than us.
 
GarzaUK said:
A country is a piece of land in which you pay taxes to live in. I voted no.

I would fight and die for:
~myself
~friends and family
~freedom and liberty

A poll was done recently in the UK - only 36% would die for their country here. Whenever it mentions dying for freedom the numbers quickly rose up to 71%. A country is only a piece of land after all.

with a culture and history as rich as the UK's, i think thats sad that only 36% would die to preserve it. remember, you wouldnt have the freedom and liberty that you would die for if you lived somewhere else.
 
As a former Marine I would have to say YES.
 
What would be a reason to die for America? America the free is no longer. If you say it is you are extremely uneducated. On top of that you want to talk about the culture, Absolutely pathetic, completely apathetic, moraly devoid. The ones who died in the name of freedom where martyrs and died free men. You arent free nor will you die free.
 
FiremanRyan said:
with a culture and history as rich as the UK's, i think thats sad that only 36% would die to preserve it. remember, you wouldnt have the freedom and liberty that you would die for if you lived somewhere else.


I find it pathetic and very enlightening of the mentality across the ocean.
 
Youve Got To Be Kidding! said:
What would be a reason to die for America? America the free is no longer. If you say it is you are extremely uneducated. On top of that you want to talk about the culture, Absolutely pathetic, completely apathetic, moraly devoid. The ones who died in the name of freedom where martyrs and died free men. You arent free nor will you die free.


Who's slave are you?
 
if the UK was in danger of being physically invaded- id sign up now and die on the spot for my country (taking about 50 of the enemy with me- note I would prefer to fight and live though....)

RANKED STUDENT FROM THIS POINT ON!!! YEAH!!
 
Youve Got To Be Kidding! said:
What would be a reason to die for America? America the free is no longer. If you say it is you are extremely uneducated. On top of that you want to talk about the culture, Absolutely pathetic, completely apathetic, moraly devoid. The ones who died in the name of freedom where martyrs and died free men. You arent free nor will you die free.

To be able to say something like that about our country clearly indicates that you're pretty darn free...
 
GarzaUK said:
A country is a piece of land in which you pay taxes to live in. I voted no.

I would fight and die for:
~myself
~friends and family
~freedom and liberty

A poll was done recently in the UK - only 36% would die for their country here. Whenever it mentions dying for freedom the numbers quickly rose up to 71%. A country is only a piece of land after all.

I came onto this post to make exactly this point but lo and behold, another Brit made it before I had the chance to.

Do you think it is possible that we Brits are simply unpatriotic? I do have to say that I would die for more people than just my friends and family, I might consider dying for many people on this earth, and only a few of them live in Britain. Basically the oppressed masses yearning to be free, and neither Britain or the U.S. have many these, although perhaps more than we might like to think, but certainly not the majority.

Oh and I know some of you ideologues might say that I support the invasion in Iraq, but I would of supported some action against Iraq, miltitarily if neccessary in the 80's when he was a major ally of the U.S. and Britain in the region and busy gassing Kurds and committing other unspeakable atrocities.
 
"Oh and I know some of you ideologues might say that I support the invasion in Iraq, but I would of supported some action against Iraq, miltitarily if neccessary in the 80's when he was a major ally of the U.S. and Britain in the region and busy gassing Kurds and committing other unspeakable atrocities."

I agree, however, presently we have that luxury. At the time though, Iran was the bigger threat and we allowed ourselves to appease a lesser evil. America does have a habit of doing this. But, such is diplomacy and picking battles.
 
Support for Iraq had little to do with Iran and everything to do with the 2nd largest oil reserves in the region. And I find the lesser of two evils logic to be appalling. Was America incapable of denouncing (at least) both Iran and Iraq.

And your right, America do have a habit of propping up tyrants and dictators who brutalise their own population, all in the name of 'stability' (making sure profits from the nations resources flow to the west). I still don't think that makes it right, in fact it makes it worse, and you seem awfully flippant about it.
 
Youve Got To Be Kidding! said:
What would be a reason to die for America? America the free is no longer. If you say it is you are extremely uneducated. On top of that you want to talk about the culture, Absolutely pathetic, completely apathetic, moraly devoid. The ones who died in the name of freedom where martyrs and died free men. You arent free nor will you die free.

Seeing as I must be uneducated, how would you define freedom and morality? Perhaps i missed the lesson on the "real" meanings of freedom and morality when i was in school being un-educated.

Oh and I would absolutely be willing to die for America. I may be an idealist but I whole heartedly believe in my country and what it stands for.
 
It has nothing to do with being "flippant" about it nor do I glorify it. It's just a matter of fact. If I was the President (in a perfect world), I would point the finger all over the place and I'd be striking missles everywhere. I would also state the "uncomfortable" truths about the Middle Eastern and European situation that our Presidents always seem to over look. President Bush has said some, but nowhere near enough. This is why I would not be elected. I'd cause to much trouble. With me, appeasement would be a thing of the past. Appeasement keeps the peace, but it also condemns people under said governments.

Stopping short at the tired "It's all about oil" angle also does not give the situation justice. We used Iraq to fight Iran. Oil flowing from that region affects the entire world and the stability between the two can also be argued.
 
Last edited:
Just because the argument is tired does not make it any less true, look at what the U.S. State Dept. has been saying about the middle east since WWII and while Iraq were useful in fighting Iran, they would have warred anyway, we just tried to tip the balance in Iraqs favour, doesn't make it right. And your still being flippant;) But your right about being unelectable if you brought up these situations, you'd get no funding.
 
freethought6t9 said:
Support for Iraq had little to do with Iran and everything to do with the 2nd largest oil reserves in the region. And I find the lesser of two evils logic to be appalling. Was America incapable of denouncing (at least) both Iran and Iraq.

And your right, America do have a habit of propping up tyrants and dictators who brutalise their own population, all in the name of 'stability' (making sure profits from the nations resources flow to the west). I still don't think that makes it right, in fact it makes it worse, and you seem awfully flippant about it.

Considering that the UN, most of the Arab states of the region and the western powers sided with Iraq, and it was Iraq who expressed their willingness to negotiate peace while Iran who continued isolating itself from the world during their islamic revolution, I'd have to say your view of this is a bit narrow.
 
freethought6t9 said:
Just because the argument is tired does not make it any less true, look at what the U.S. State Dept. has been saying about the middle east since WWII and while Iraq were useful in fighting Iran, they would have warred anyway, we just tried to tip the balance in Iraqs favour, doesn't make it right. And your still being flippant;) But your right about being unelectable if you brought up these situations, you'd get no funding.

No it's a tired argument. Its tired because A: its true and we all know it. Nobody argues that we don't have economic interests in the region and B: so does everybody else. So?
 
Oh yeah? I am under no illusions...how is this for flippant....

We have spent half a century backing the wrong players. Oil smeared our vision and we concentrated on the self-destructive Arab states and oil-rich Iran. We insist that Saudi Arabia, a police state that funds Islamic extremism around the world, is our friend. This is wrong and has been a mistake that has been glorified for decades. Our President (As much as I appreciate him) even plays host to its de facto king at his ranch. And we are pledged to protect those bazaars of terror, the Gulf states, with our blood.
The Arab world, rich and poor, is nearly hopeless. With a few, strategically less than important exceptions (Jordan, Kuwait), it has given itself over to the narcotic effects of hatred and blame. Arab civilization cannot compete on a single productive front in the 21st century. And there is nothing we can do about it. If the Arab world will not repair itself, no amount of indulgence will make a difference. We have wasted decades on governments and populations who need us as an enemy to justify their profound failures. The spark in Iraq represents the last chance for the Middle East.
When well-meaning officials, academics or pop singers assure us that Islam is not the problem, they are utterly wrong. Do not be fooled or fall into their state of confusion and Politically Correct blindness. Islam, as promoted by Saudi Arabia and practiced by fanatics elsewhere in the Arab world, is precisely the problem. The military addresses today’s problems; tomorrow’s challenges are already fermenting. Plenty of hope remains for non-Arab, Muslim-majority states to reward their citizens with progress and tolerance. But, instead of wasting further efforts on the Middle East, where the military remains our optimal and almost only tool, we should work vigorously on the borders of the Islamic world, in those cultures where the fundamentalists have not yet been able to destroy all hope of a better future, and where Islam is still a developing faith, not merely a tomb for the living.
So far, we haven’t even gotten the numbers right. Arab populations are a minority within Islam, but their regressive form of religion has been poisoning one non-Arab state after another with an infusion of petrodollars, dogma and anti-Western vitriol. Three non-Arab countries, Indonesia, India and Pakistan, contain nearly half the world’s Muslims. Add those of Central Asia, Turkey, the Philippines, Malaysia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Azerbaijan and that struggling, vilified democracy, Iran, and the Arab states begin to look overvalued. If we want to roll back the inhumane variants of Islam and to promote constructive cooperation and the emergence of rule-of-law, market-driven states, then we should turn our energies to the lands of possibility, rather than wasting further efforts on Arab states utterly opposed to reform. If we really believe that Islam is a great world religion, we need to treat it as such and engage it where it is still developing--on its vibrant frontiers, not in its arthritic Arab homelands.

The success or failure of Iraq will prove once and for all and to everyone if Islam in the Middle East is truly beyond self-repair. Maybe a civil war is exactly what they need.
 
Crispy said:
Seeing as I must be uneducated, how would you define freedom and morality? Perhaps i missed the lesson on the "real" meanings of freedom and morality when i was in school being un-educated.

Oh and I would absolutely be willing to die for America. I may be an idealist but I whole heartedly believe in my country and what it stands for.


What does it stand for?? Your Constitution dont mean ****. Nor does your Bill of Rights. And if you think you got freedom your dead wrong. This country was founded on the belief that you where free. Sicne then congress has done away with your freedoms.

If you think its ok now stick around a few more years.
 
This thread went waaaaaaay off topic.
 
Youve Got To Be Kidding! said:
What does it stand for?? Your Constitution dont mean ****. Nor does your Bill of Rights. And if you think you got freedom your dead wrong. This country was founded on the belief that you where free. Sicne then congress has done away with your freedoms.

If you think its ok now stick around a few more years.

Damn, pal. If absolute freedom is what you are after, there are some anarchist states in Africa that have a lot of negative things to say about their freedoms. Freedom without structure is worthless and if weren't for our people always trying re-interpret our laws and "what our Fore Father's meant" we wouldn't be dealing with questions regarding our freedoms every time decency is pushed further across the line.
 
Back
Top Bottom