Call of Duty

[LiciniusII]

I'm taking a class at school where we discuss the many taboo topics around the world, and the most recent one was about:

If your country was invaded (lets just say you live in the USA) by an agressor enemy (everyone can acknowledge that they are the bad guys)... and the USA called upon you to fight against the enemy.. would you?

Now, in my class we have many Iranian and Korean folk and the vast majority said they would not. The resoning behind this is because they have family and friends back in thier ancestrial country that is attacking the USA (many people saying this in my class were born here in the USA, thier parents immigrants).. because who would want to shoot thier grandmother, uncle or relatives?

The Opposition, mostly Whites said that YOU live in the USA and were born here... You enjoyed all the benefits of living in America both socially and economically and you have a moral and patriotic duty to defend such freedoms.. this is your home, and after all what the USA did for you it is now time to pay back all those benefits that it has given you... why else would you be living in America and not your acestrial home? Its because your parents wanted YOU to have that better life here in America, and if you and your other fellow immigrants (or those that refuse to fight because they have relatives in the country invading/attacking us) refuse to fight... then who will fight? The white people that don't have relatives in those countries?

Let the Debate begin

[Tostig]

The concept of an immigrant fighting for their adopted country is an odd one. A friend of mine and I were discussing it and it turns out that even though his family is Iranian he'd be willing to fight when I wouldn't. But then again I'm not living in America.

You enjoyed all the benefits of living in America both socially and economically and you have a moral and patriotic duty to defend such freedoms

Even Kant, with all his duty loving, recognised that it was perfectly acceptable to commit radical evil and that the consequences of doing so could be better than if you followed the "correct" maxim. That said the idea of anyone thrusting a duty upon me is repugnant, especially when the reason for doing so is to preserve "freedom".

[Lusted]

Well the whole concept of the good guys and who are the bad guys is relative, so is a moot point. Now i myself find the whole idea of countries and nationalities strange, that somehow because you were born within a certain area of land means that you are part of one country, yet you could have been born in another country and be part of that. I consider myself human, and feel that the day when countries become less important, and humanity becomes one nation, is a day that cannot come soon enough. The fact that i am british is pure chance, i could have been born in Nigeria, or Thailand, or Russia etc. So no i would not fight for my country, as i am a pacifist.

[Aristophanes]

Well the whole concept of the good guys and who are the bad guys is relative, so is a moot point. Now i myself find the whole idea of countries and nationalities strange, that somehow because you were born within a certain area of land means that you are part of one country, yet you could have been born in another country and be part of that. I consider myself human, and feel that the day when countries become less important, and humanity becomes one nation, is a day that cannot come soon enough. The fact that i am british is pure chance, i could have been born in Nigeria, or Thailand, or Russia etc. So no i would not fight for my country, as i am a pacifist.

Is there any basis for pacifism other than solipsistic, narcissistic self-indulgent pseudo-intellectual affectation? I merely ask.

[Tostig]

Because you don't like the idea of killing your fellow man and believe that there are better ways to sort out problems than murder? I sincerely doubt that Gandhi, Desmond Tutu and Jesus were "solipsistic, narcissistic self-indulgent" and "pseudo-intellectual"s. Then again the Quakers, Buddists and Amish are self evidently "solipsistic, narcissistic self-indulgent" and "pseudo-intellectual"s.

[Aristophanes]

Because you don't like the idea of killing your fellow man and believe that there are better ways to sort out problems than murder? I sincerely doubt that Gandhi, Desmond Tutu and Jesus were "solipsistic, narcissistic self-indulgent" and "pseudo-intellectual"s. Then again the Quakers, Buddists and Amish are self evidently "solipsistic, narcissistic self-indulgent" and "pseudo-intellectual"s.

The whole problem is that 'you don't like idea of killing your fellow man' is often synonymous with 'letting your fellow man die'; therefore, a self-indulgent and morally egregious mentality.

[Tostig]

Occasionally yes, however there is a difference between "I will not use violence to stop x" and "I will allow x." To quote Gandhi:

I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.

To call all non-violent means of bringing about change self serving and ethically bad is as wrong as can be. The end of the aparthied regime in South Africa, Racial equality in America and Indian independance were hardly self-indulgent acts by those who bought them about. To automatically equate a non-violent alternative with isolationism in any form is funamentally flawed thinking.

[Honeohvovohaestse]

Well the whole concept of the good guys and who are the bad guys is relative, so is a moot point. Absolutely, we may view Japan during the 2nd War world as the horrible enemy, but without their aggression western nations would still have holdings in the the far east. So good and bad = like or dislike, it's moot.

Also, saying it's the USA, it probably means we ****** the attackers off. lol Unless it was a totally defensive fight I am sitting out.

[Lusted]

That is the inherent problem with pacifism, it will not work all the time. Sometimes you do need to fight, but it ust always be the last choice when all non-violent methods have failed.

"violence is the last resort of the desperate"

Non-violence can work in many situations where the other side uses violence, just look at what Gandi helped to achieve in India. But sometimes you must fight, but it MUST be the last resort.

[Pallida Mors]

That is the inherent problem with pacifism, it will not work all the time. Sometimes you do need to fight, but it ust always be the last choice when all non-violent methods have failed.

"violence is the last resort of the desperate"

Non-violence can work in many situations where the other side uses violence, just look at what Gandi helped to achieve in India. But sometimes you must fight, but it MUST be the last resort.

I agree.

'Those who seek peace train for war.'

Pacifism only works on those who adhere to a moral clause. I also think it works intra government. The ethnic cleansing that takes place in places like Sudan and Zaire doesnt stop because those they kill cant fight back. The killing continues because they want to wipe out another tribe. After time and enough world outrage at the violence occurs then the civilized bring war to the aggressors. This is the way of things. I imagine it will always be. Pacifism only works on the civilized. Gandhi would have been killed way before his time had he lived in the Sudan.

[Cluny the Scourge]

A non-pacifistic Christian is a fake who doesn't even understand his own religion. These modern Christians are supposed to ask themselves 'What would Jesus do?'. If the US government drafted Jesus, put him in uniform, gave him an M-16 and said 'Kill those Iranians', what do you suppose he'd do? He'd refuse and be court-martialled for it. If executed it would be by firing squad - a lot quicker and more humane than Crucifixion, but he wouldn't mind that anyway.

It allows suffering and fellow-men to die - but if you're Christian you believe that THIS WORLD is less IMPORTANT than that - that there's an afterlife and that those martyrs will go to heaven, while those who slay them will not unless they find redemption.

Non-resistance to evil IS Christianity. Will these blood-thirsty Bible-thumping dumb-asses who want to wipe out America's enemies get their heads around that simple concept, that Jesus' intention was to REFORM Judaism? - 'You have heard that it hath been said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth', but I say unto you that ye resist not evil, but whomsoever shall strike thee upon thy right cheek turn to him the other also'.

Any other version of Christianity that actually encourages going to war and killing your nation's enemies is a regression to pre-Christian Old Testament concepts.

And this is one of the reasons why Christianity sucks. I am not a Christian. I don't believe in this gibberish. THIS WORLD is the important one, because it's the one right IN FRONT OF US, and yes, I WOULD go to war. In fact, I'd go to war against a non-aggressor nation, just for the sheer bad-assed sport of it.

[shenmueguru]

A non-pacifistic Christian is a fake who doesn't even understand his own religion. These modern Christians are supposed to ask themselves 'What would Jesus do?'. If the US government drafted Jesus, put him in uniform, gave him an M-16 and said 'Kill those Iranians', what do you suppose he'd do? He'd refuse and be court-martialled for it. If executed it would be by firing squad - a lot quicker and more humane than Crucifixion, but he wouldn't mind that anyway.

That's what I was thinking about...I'd seriously be opposed to the thought that Jesus would blast away anyone. As it is said, if you hunt someone down and kill them, that's murder. Only accidental murder isn't a sin. So, I'd say the killing that goes on over there is "hunting down" so I definately would not fight.

[Removed_user_012521]

But what does it mean to belong to a country? You are only part of a country because you were born in the land it claims as part of its territory, and yet somehow being born there and not somewhere else makes you better then people born elsewhere. The whole idea of countries, of belonging to something because you are born in it, is silly, as why should that matter. Humans can make the choice for themselves, i consider myself human, not british. I think of myself as having no nationality, as the whole countries system encourages pride, and thinking you are better than other people. It is pure chance where we are born, so why should it make any difference to what we think, or what values we hold?

It has nothing to do with Birth, but Loyalty. A man who's family has been American for countless generations is no more an American than the immigrant who just became a citizen. You are not an American, however, if you put countries above America. You can't be both and be a true American.

That's what I was thinking about...I'd seriously be opposed to the thought that Jesus would blast away anyone. As it is said, if you hunt someone down and kill them, that's murder. Only accidental murder isn't a sin. So, I'd say the killing that goes on over there is "hunting down" so I definately would not fight.

Mind you, Jesus had no country, he was loyal to his Father and God, but us mere mortals do have a country, a livelihood, and when someone threatans it we fight back.

[Cluny the Scourge]

Mind you, Jesus had no country, he was loyal to his Father and God, but us mere mortals do have a country, a livelihood, and when someone threatans it we fight back.

Of course Jesus had a country. He was a Nazarene and his homeland was occupied by a foreign power. Others wanted to resist by force. He did not.

Personally, I would have kicked Roman ASS. I would have collected pila-heads from my victims and worn them around my neck as trophies.

[SovietDoom]

If I was threatened by death due to their invasion, then yes.

If I wasn't, I would probably just be a revolutionary and organize rebellions.

[Lusted]

Im an atheist for your imformation Cluny, i am not religious in the slightest.

[Removed_user_012521]

Those who do not fight for theyre country do not belong to it. For these Korean and Iranian folk in your class, they are not Americans.

A non-pacifistic Christian is a fake who doesn't even understand his own religion.

The bible says love your enemy but it does not curse soldiers. The Church understands the needs for Soldiers, and soldiers do not commit a sin if they kill during a fight, cold blood is something else.

[Lusted]

But what does it mean to belong to a country? You are only part of a country because you were born in the land it claims as part of its territory, and yet somehow being born there and not somewhere else makes you better then people born elsewhere. The whole idea of countries, of belonging to something because you are born in it, is silly, as why should that matter. Humans can make the choice for themselves, i consider myself human, not british. I think of myself as having no nationality, as the whole countries system encourages pride, and thinking you are better than other people. It is pure chance where we are born, so why should it make any difference to what we think, or what values we hold?

[Lusted]

I don't have a country, why should i? Why should i be loyal to something i do not agree with? The whole patriotic "my country is better than yours" mentality is one of the reasons i do not like the concept of countries, as it encourages rivalry, and in some cases discrimination and hatred.

[Yorkshireman]

I don't have a country, why should i? Why should i be loyal to something i do not agree with? The whole patriotic "my country is better than yours" mentality is one of the reasons i do not like the concept of countries, as it encourages rivalry, and in some cases discrimination and hatred.

I'm not knocking your view though you must admit it's obviously very much a minority one. The fact is though that if Britain, however unlikely, was in danger, there would be people fighting on your behalf so that you could remain free enough to hold those views.