Would You Die For Your Country?

How so?

 

How many attacks on the U.S. do you think would have happened if the U.S. had not gone into Afghanistan?

 

Where's the shame in surrendering if you belive you're doing the right thing?

Where is the honor in allowing someone to trample the rights of others?

Consider what would have happened if Europe had decided to simply surrender to Hitler rather than fight him. The first concentration camps were opened years before anyone got invaded. Such policies would likely have continued in any conquered nations as well.

There are times when you have to fight, and times when you should avoid fighting.

However, ultimately you can only avoid fighting in one of two ways. First, both sides have to agree to and honor any negotiations (this was tried with Hitler, but he eventually broke his treaties). Second, you can simply surrender to someone who will not honor their agreements.

I find the second alternative to be cowardly, because it says that you recognize that a person is not willing to negotiate in good faith, and is obviously doing something you oppose (or you would have nothing to negotiate about), but you cannot stand up for what you think is right.

Kimball Kinnison

 

"Nonviolence and cowardice are contradictory terms. Nonviolence is the
greatest virtue, cowardice the greatest vice. Nonviolence springs from
love, cowardice from hate. Nonviolence always suffers, cowardice would
always inflict suffering. Perfect nonviolence is the highest bravery.
Nonviolent conduct is never demoralizing, cowardice always is."

 

If you want non-violence, then you might as well surrender to anyone who asks you to.

Let me use a kindergarden example here.

Tommy and Billy are in the same class. Tommy brings a toy truck for play time. Billy sees the truck and demands it from Tommy. Taking the non-violent approach, Tommy gives Billy the truck.

The next day, Tommy brings a toy car for play time. Billy sees the car and demands it from Tommy. Again, Tommy gives Billy the car.

Finally, Tommy gets fed up with giving up his toys, and speaks to the teacher. The teacher, promoting non-violence, tries to negotiate between the two. THey agree that Tommy will share his toys with Billy during play time.

The next day, Tommy brings a toy horse. During play time, Billy insists that Tommy has to share the horse, and so he does. Billy then refuses to return the toy.

What is the non-violent course of action to take there? Should Tommy continue to give up his toys to Billy? Should Tommy simply stop trying to bring any toys for play time? How is either of those fair to Tommy? Should the teacher force Billy to give the toys back? How (as forcing him or punishing him could be called forms of violence)?

Unless Billy is willing to actually keep his agreements when negotiating, eventually some form of violence or force will be required against him, or else Tommy's rights will be violated (which is in itself a form of violence).

Kimball Kinnison

 

Sure, let's bring up world war two. Let's talk about the millions of germans who died for their country. Now, the funny thing is, by your argument, they were doing the right thing.
And as for the 'Billy and Tommy' thing, I doubt that 'Tommy' would resort to violence to get some toy back. 'Billy' would have to be taught that what he's doing is wrong.

And as for JediFlyer's comment, how can you prove the attacks were from Afghanistan anyway? It would be better to educate the world about why terrorism is wrong instead of just freaking out and attacking the first country within missile range.

 

Sure, let's bring up world war two. Let's talk about the millions of germans who died for their country. Now, the funny thing is, by your argument, they were doing the right thing.

I never said that fighting for your country was always the right thing to do. I was simply refuting your position that There are ways to stop people without killing them, you know. It's called negotiation. I wouldn't let it get that far.

There are occasions where negotiation and other non-violent actions will not work (hence the WWII example, where negotiation and appeasement failed because Hitler would not honor his agreements). At that point, force is the only option left.

And as for the 'Billy and Tommy' thing, I doubt that 'Tommy' would resort to violence to get some toy back. 'Billy' would have to be taught that what he's doing is wrong.

And how would you do that? Simply telling Billy wouldn't necessarily work. That assumes that he cares whether it is right or wrong. Punish him? That would most likely involve some form of violence (even if non-physical).

Again, you can only resolve things in a non-violent manner in one of two cases, 1) you are willing to surrender, or 2) both sides are willing to honor their negotiations and agreements.

Incidentally, if you look up the definition of violence, you would find that simply using force does not make something violent. It must be "Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing (emphasis added)" or "Abusive or unjust exercise of power."

In that case, picking up a weapon to defend yourself is not violence, simply the use of force. Picking up a weapon to defend someone else is also not violence. Picking up that same weapon for the purpose of violating another's rights is violence.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Zethlin_Maximus, that was quite..uh, well, racist for you to say something like that about people from the Third World. I mean, they're not taking 'all our jobs', after all, aren't we the ones taking doctors from India etc?

To a bleeding heart "liberal" (an oxymoron if ever there was) a truth like that is racist, because, quite frankly, you spend too much time wearing those rose tinted glasses that I've heard so much about. The trouble is that views like yours are making this country a soft touch, where people like myself are forgotten whilst you drool all over the hard done by little foreign peasants hot of the back of the lorry. If anything, the "liberal" is a worse enemy to the English poor than even the government.

And if you doubt me about all the economic migrants queuing up to smuggle themselves into the country, then just go to the Channel Tunnel (the French side) and see for yourself.

 

And as for JediFlyer's comment, how can you prove the attacks were from Afghanistan anyway?


Maybe because bin Laden said he did it.


[/i]It would be better to educate the world about why terrorism is wrong [/i]

Oh yes, let's educate them. And how exactly do you plan to educate them? By spreading American culture even deeper into their societies?


instead of just freaking out and attacking the first country within missile range.

That would have been Canada, not Afghanistan.

 

I would not die for my country. The thought of death scares me terribly.

 

i would not fight for the country that i have a passport from. i would fight though for my country where i was born. death is not an option!
saor alba!!!!!! free scotland!!!!!

 

That kind of personal remark or comparison is not appropriate.

 

On the contrary, KK, comparisons to Enoch Powell aren't only entirely appropriate, they are absolutely, positively essential.

Let me refresh your memory.

Zethlin_Maximus:

"the middle-classes are fast making England into a doormat for the entire Third World to wipe their feet on. We the English are fast becoming the minority in our very own country, and England will soon become "a foriegn land". Live with it, you'll feel better about it when some East European, Asian or African is taking your job, your house and your welfare"

Now read Powell's speech here.

Zethlin_Maximus:

"[You] are making this country a soft touch, where people like myself are forgotten whilst you drool all over the hard done by little foreign peasants hot of the back of the lorry

Enoch Powell:

"to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend...they found themselves made strangers in their own country"

Not totally dissimilar, you would agree.

 

That's it. Am I the only person here who cares about the lives of other people? Zethlin_Maximus, I hope you have to arrive illegaly in a country one day, and have to enjoy the 'benefits' of being an immigrant. With any luck, you'll experience the narrow-mindedness of people like yourself firsthand.

Kimball, that wasn't my comment. I never said that the Germans 'fought' for their counryr, I said they 'died'. Re-read it, and you'll see what I mean. Then answer my question properly.

JediFlyer, Osama Bin Laden is not the be-all and end-all to explain the evils in the world, nor is America the font of all knowledge. People have to learn for themselves how terrorism is destroying their countries and their culture, and maybe (shock horror) America isn't the one to do that.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going out to do something about the state the world is in instead of moaning about it in an online forum. Thank you.

 

Thanks for that link. I knew all too well about Enoch Powell and his speeches. Very interesting. I even saved it. I agreed with most of what he said, except for this:

The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination between one citizen and another

What a load of bull ****. There is discrimination between the classes. The worst offender is the middle-class against the working-class. Now if there is a weapon with which to cut the working-class's throat, then the middle-class will find and use it. And in my and many other people's opinion, that weapon is the economic migrant.

1) Why won't the government give the English poor proper training for a proper career? They say it's because "there's not enough money". Why is that? Maybe, just maybe, the country's funds are being eaten up by the freeloaders coming across the Channel.

2) Why wouldn't the government give my father Unemployment Benefit when he lost his business? Maybe it's because they're giving it to the economic migrant.

3) Why wouldn't they give me Disability Benefit for my disability that I suffer from? They say that they don't have enough money. I wonder where it's going to? I wonder?

4) Why is there not enough money to keep the infrastructure going in this country? Too many people and too much of the country's money going towards people who shouldn't be here in the first place.

The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary, fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children. I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking - not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.

Darned tootin'! The guy was dead on there. This country isn't worth living in anymore.

But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.

They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. They now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by act of Parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.

Do you know why the Mary Rose sank? It sank because Henry VIII over loaded it with troops, making it unstable. As a consequence, it tipped over and sank to the bottom of the Solent. You know, England's only a very small country. Put too many people in the country and it too will cease to function properly because of the lack of resources (jobs, land for homes and businesses, overloaded infrastructure etc.).

So then, you would call the old woman a racist deviant, would you, and all those immigrants who were busting her windows and harassing her were "unfortunate victims"? That's just the attitude I would expect from a snivelling weasel of a "liberal".

The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the wor

 

Another link for you to enjoy: British National Party

And I'm not entirely surprised by you trying to insult me with the "snivelling weasel of a liberal" comment. What you fail to understand is that coming from you, I take that insult as a golden compliment.



I believe that the notion of selective nationality, the idea of isolationalism and the traditionalist mindset are cancers of ill-will and thinly veiled racism. I believe that people the world over are born equal and that everyone deserves an oppurtunity to succeed, whether they happen to be born in one nation or another. And while I'm not advocating the opening of all borders, I believe we have a duty to trat those who come to our country with respect and compassion.

And I also don't believe that pinning society's ills on cheap, poorly-thought out scapegoats does us any good whatsoever. I believe the attitude you hold is outdated and utterly abhorrent; it's Canute-ism of the first order in the face of globalisation driven by greed and selfishness. Yes, there are issues in Britain. Yes, it's a minefield, and yes, it's a contentious matter.

I also believe that if you detest this great nation of ours so much, you should leave. Go on, get out. Sod off. Get lost. Pack your bags and go. Leave. Exit. Migrate.

And don't send a postcard.

 

JediFlyer, Osama Bin Laden is not the be-all and end-all to explain the evils in the world, nor is America the font of all knowledge. People have to learn for themselves how terrorism is destroying their countries and their culture, and maybe (shock horror) America isn't the one to do that.

Of course bin Laden is not the be-all and end-all of evil in this world, but he is a good symbol that I can use to express my views in a consise way.

Also, people just don't learn in the space of a few weeks, months, or even years that terrorism is destroying their countries and culture as well as killing innocent people around the world, and I don't intend to standby and watch it reek it's havoc while these countries and cultures are taking their own sweet time realizing terrorism get them no where.

 

Kimball, that wasn't my comment. I never said that the Germans 'fought' for their counryr, I said they 'died'. Re-read it, and you'll see what I mean. Then answer my question properly.

There are two different means of dying in a war. The first is if you are a civilian casualty. I don't exactly consider that "dying for your country" because that phrase implies some level of active support for the country in the process. They didn't die for their country. They simply died.

The second means of dying in a war requires action. Usually, this is in the form of military service or employment in some form of support industry (working at valid military targets). This would be where my comments about fighting for your country step in.

Simply dying during a war doesn't mean that you died for your country. That requires that you have actually dedicated yourself to fighting (or supporting the fighting) on the side of your country.

Now, go and reread my comments and you'll see that they do apply.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I believe that the notion of selective nationality, the idea of isolationalism and the traditionalist mindset are cancers of ill-will and thinly veiled racism. I believe that people the world over are born equal and that everyone deserves an oppurtunity to succeed, whether they happen to be born in one nation or another. And while I'm not advocating the opening of all borders, I believe we have a duty to trat those who come to our country with respect and compassion.

Great, I can go to the States to live tomorrow!!! Ooops, I forgot, I can't because they wouldn't have me because their attitudes are even worse than mine!

I believe that people the world over are born equal and that everyone deserves an oppurtunity to succeed

Another great joke! I don't know what country you live in, but it's definitely NOT England! For your information, I've had first hand experience of the barriers that those Naz, er, I mean "middle-class" scum up in Westminster have put in the way of the working-class. And I don't know where you get this "great country" thing from?! Yes, we've had most of the inventions that the world now takes advantage of, but our brain dead industry chiefs (middle-class) and government gave them all up to the Americans! Not too smart, wouldn't you say?

I also believe that if you detest this great nation of ours so much, you should leave. Go on, get out. Sod off. Get lost. Pack your bags and go. Leave. Exit. Migrate.

I was expecting that answer! Brother, "liberals" are so transparent and stupidly predictable! I'm sure you're all clones of one another, you know! But what you don't seem to realise hiding from behind those rose tinted glasses of yours, is that the middle-class have people like me right where they want me...by the short and curlies! Yes, our fat cats really do want their pound of flesh out of the English poor. And why not tell these English hating immigrants to leave, not the natives. Why not ask crap like Abu Hamza to leave the country? Oh, I forgot, he can't do anything wrong because he's a Third World immigrant. Just by saying what you did, telling me to leave, you just prove that Enoch Powell was right all along. The immigrant is displacing the native English, with the very big help of the "liberals", of course.

And sorry to defeat all your bluster, but I don't believe in what the BNP stand for, that of colour discrimination. Nice try, but obviously you didn't read my post properly.

So to answer the question once more, no I wouldn't fight and especially die for this worn out doormat of a country. I think it should be the "liberals", the middle-class and the economic migrant who should get their arses blown off instead.

P.S. Do you know why I put speech marks above the word "liberal"? It's because the term is an oxymoron when referring to people who dictate how fellow citizens should lead their lives (what we should say and how we should act) when it has absolutely NOTHING to do with them, and that the country should be run just to soothe their consciences.

 

No offense, but you guys do realize there's a thread about British politics already, right? No need to turn this into another one.

 

"but it's definitely NOT England! For your information, I've had first hand experience of the barriers that those Naz, er, I mean "middle-class" scum up in Westminster have put in the way of the working-class."

Look pal, I'm really sorry you've been dealt a bum deal. But what I can say? Blaming the immigrants and the middle class is lazy. How about the benefit frauds? How about the tax evader? How about the Channel bootleggers? How about the crminals? How about the mechanics of global finance? How about the mammoth bureaucracies of government? If, as you're so bitterly claiming, that your personal issues are the result of government economic policies, there's a whole host of reasons. Focussing on immigrants is laughable; it's soft; it's uninformed; it's red-top tabloid rabble-rousing.

"And why not tell these English hating immigrants to leave, not the natives. Why not ask crap like Abu Hamza to leave the country?"

As far as I remember, Hamza's here legally. If he breaks the law, deal with im in the confines of the law; prison or extradition - whatever. Until he breaks the law, freedom of speech allows him to live here legally and say whatever he wishes. That's the long and short of it. Personally, I find the idea that an immigrant should be removed from a country for having radical opinions utterly disgusting.

"Oh, I forgot, he can't do anything wrong because he's a Third World immigrant"

Like I said; he came legally, so where he came from makes no difference. If you're trying to say that I have sympathy for people in the third world, you're damn right I do.

"I was expecting that answer! Brother, "liberals" are so transparent and stupidly predictable!

Well, duh, but you've been moaning about how miserable Britain is for ,what, 2 pages now? It's not "predictable" to tell you to leave; it's "logical".

But what you don't seem to realise hiding from behind those rose tinted glasses of yours, is that the middle-class have people like me right where they want me...by the short and curlies!

You know I'd love to hear how exactly, short of you and your dad not receiving various benefits you feel you're entitled to - and that's a government issue. Is the government the ruling class, the fat cats, or the middle class? Your mindless rambling is confusing your message. Please do set me straight.

"Do you know why I put speech marks above the word "liberal"? It's because the term is an oxymoron when referring to people who dictate how fellow citizens should lead their lives (what we should say and how we should act) when it has absolutely NOTHING to do with them"

Can I suggest that if you don't want your opinions and actions commented on, you don't post them on an internet messageboard??

And as I mentioned beforehand, nations are built on and, societies controlled by, rule of law. Nobody can dictate or control or influence or censure or interfere with another citizen's life (what they say and what they do) unless the law is broken. So put down that big fat book of tabloid rhetoric and wise up to the fact that "liberals" are not oppressing the working classes, they're not ruining the country and they're not out to get you. Or your dad.




Anyway, back to the topic - would I die for my country? I guess so. But don't hold me to that.

 

we have earned the right to say whatever we want to about the english, in england and elsewhere. we have died in all your wars, sometimes in greater numbers than you have. we have contributed more inventions per-capita than any country on earth, and the majority of private doctors still practising in england are scots. shall i also mention that the bank of england was formed by a scot? or that scottish banks own the largest banks in britain, or is your bigotry so blind that you only think of your neighbours to the north as burden, one without which your little british empire would have never existed, namely because it was built by scottish engineers, and irish labourers. in return, we only get arrogance from people such as yourself. i'm sorry i didn't realise that we were supposed to feel blessed to be subjects of your german queen, or feel blessed about the centuries of forced immigration brought upon us by english rule. you really should stop whingeing about scots, and worry about something that's actually important. and if we're so very independant of england, we do we still pay taxes to london? why do our passports say UNITED kingdom? and why is tony blair (a scot) still our prime minister, and elizabeth II our monarch? if we are so independant, then why are all of these things that way? i'm not saying that the english are all bad, it's just english people like yourself seem to think that we have no right to say what we wish, forgetting that we still live in the same country!

 

As far as I remember, Hamza's here legally. If he breaks the law, deal with im in the confines of the law; prison or extradition - whatever. Until he breaks the law, freedom of speech allows him to live here legally and say whatever he wishes. That's the long and short of it. Personally, I find the idea that an immigrant should be removed from a country for having radical opinions utterly disgusting.

Illegal or not, why did Hamza come here if he hated us sooo very much? He had the choice to go to any Muslim Arab country in the world, but he chose to go to a country that he hates and despises. Why? Yes, you got it, it's because he's an economic migrant. Why else would he come to a society that he hates?

If Abu Hamza can spout his mouth off because of "freedom of speech", then so can I. Or does that only apply to non-natives of this country? If I should as a native, in your opinion, leave this country (if I could I would), then so should people like Hamza. Don't forget, he had the choice to come here, whereas I was put here by GOD.

And for your information, talking terrorism and threatening terrorism IS TOTALLY ILLEGAL! So why doesn't the government and the "liberals" come down on him as much as they do on people like myself? Is it because of what I call "reverse prejudice"?

TO ALL AMERICANS: Did you know that this country knowingly harbours Arab fundimentalists and terrorists that it freely allows through its open borders?! No kiddin'! Just look up the creep called Abu Hamza and you'll see what I mean! And yes, scummy right here on-this-forum actually says to let him stay here and continue his rants! How many more of them who live here under our roofs are just like him? How many more terrorists and terrorist sympathisers are knowingly being allowed to take the bread out of our mouths? Last time I saw, Hamza had A LOT of followers, ESPECIALLY followers that chanted things like "DEATH TO AMERICA" and who BURN THE AMERICAN FLAG!

Well, duh, but you've been moaning about how miserable Britain is for ,what, 2 pages now? It's not "predictable" to tell you to leave; it's "logical".

No, what is "logical" is to rescue this country from the brink. The ways to do so are as follows:

1) Kick out all those crooked profiteers from Westminster.

2) Send all the economic migrants packing, whilst at the same time giving genuine asylum seekers temporary leave to stay.

3) Make the law more strict as regards to serious crime (bring back the death penalty, life meaning life sentences etc).

4) Put more funds into the police and have them on the streets, rather than having them giving out speeding tickets.

5) Put the funds saved from the millions squandered on economic migrants back into fully training OUR OWN PEOPLE for proper jobs and careers.

6) Come down heavy on cowboy employers.

7) Make class discrimination as illegal as race discrimination is now.

8) Put more funds into building up our industries again.

9) Lower back door taxes (which hits the poor the most) and raise income tax.

10) Give all "liberals" crosses that they can drag around all day, along with one way tickets to any of these Third World countries that they seem to love so much. *sarcasm totally intended!*

Then I'll be willing to fight for this country.

And don't forget scummy, before you start telling me what I can and what I can't say, I've got "freedom of speech".

darth_libido: I'd like to let you know that I'm part Scotish, but that's beside the point. No offence, but I'm sick to death of Scots telling all of us in our very own country that they hate us. You know, the tale of Brave Heart (something that happened hundreds of years ago) gets on my tits after a while. Why is it that Scots feel that they can live here and slag us off, but on the other hand when English people have gone to live in Scotland they've been harassed, beaten-up and had their homes vandalised? A certain amount of hypocrisy there I think.

And as y

 

That is enough. If you want to discuss British politics or policies, go to the British Politics thread. Any further off-topic posts will be edited, deleted, and/or the user will be banned.

Kimball Kinnison

 

All done. I've transferred my message over to the British policies thread. Maybe there they'll be more interested in West hating (especially American hating) international Arab terrorists living in our country.