thier is a saying, "when the going gets tough,.... then the tough get going!" i suspect we would do what is necesary. hard times usually brings out the best in people. its called adaptation. though none of us wants to go thier, sometimes thier is no choice. but lets hope it never gets to that.
Nothing to be curious about really. Just multiply what we did there defending England or Russia by 1000 or more times. It would be alot easyer as we wouldn't have to go far. Homefront battle is a prefered situation to most military advantages. The only question would be could the general public stomach the horrer of war? Personally I think if they saw what happens in war. In their own front yards, to their own blood, it would only stur them into a killing frenzy. Kind of like hitting a hornets nest with a stick. You may get the first lick but it would not be wise to hang around after doing it!
I am quite certain youll find no more impassioned warriors anywhere on the planet. The soil of this country is steeped in the blood of many thousands who have been put to that same question in the past.The bloodiest by far of which was American vs American in our Civil War. You may yet question whether we Americans still are capable of that same passion after years of spoiled gluttony. I myself was unsure until I saw the reaction to the Sept. 11 attack on US civilians on our own land.I ASSURE you American resolve to defend herself has never been greater. Some of you may revel in our recent bloody nose,but if you question our resolve to defend this country that the great majority of us love,... You may see us murder each other in the streets of our cities over trivial issues, but against a common enemy intent on taking from us our way of life, I am certain we would stop killing each other long enough to turn our aggression to a common cause. Peace brothers
Its just that modern war doesnt go like that. It only needs one man carrying suitcase nuke in NY, Washinton etc. There actually is no way to fight against enemy which is not from certain country. Peace is only way to fight back. Fighting fire with fire will get only results like in Israel even worse.
Bit aside. I never really understood patriotism or nationalism. If someone attacked finland I most likely would just try to get hell out of here. I dont think any piece of land is worth killing someone I have nothing against. People just like me. Not any worse in any case. Why should I shoot them? If they were smart enough to do the same, to do the logic thing and say heck i dont fight your wars. There wouldnt be any wars anyway. They would be forced by their government. Kill or be killed by their system. I really try to avoid that in my case. Before things get hot I would like to make sure I get myself and my close ones somewhere out from that madness. If im not that lycky I guess I would be among first ones to be put against wall and shot. These people are called cowards. Those who kill will be called heroes. Its funny how roles of murderer and victim reverse in war. If you dont kill you are punished. If you kill you are rewarded. (People get nice little tin stars or crosses from killing eachoter and they are proud. Thats sick and utterly stupid. I wonder how someone can take that real.) Huh. Damn those politicians are smart. They just sit in their offices and play their games. Hitler was quite exception actually getting hurt by his little game.
illo wrote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I don't think any piece of land is worth killing someone I have nothing against." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's not about a piece of land, but about room where people with more or less common values came together. And those values, at least in my country, if not in most other democratic constitutional states, are worth being defended. You say you simply would leave the country. Well, I always thought you are amongst those watching the news on a regular base. Have you forgotten that it's not that easy for everyone to get out of the country? Have you forgotten Bosnia e.g.? Can't you remember what happened to many of those who tried to get out of the fighting and how most of them ended up? First of all you'd need a country to allow you to enter freely - difficult enough. Then you need a way to get there, also quite difficult in wartimes. And don't forget that there would be more than enough people who are just not able to get away, such like old ones, disabled ones, families with babies etc etc. Not that easy, if you take into account that it might be winter, and you got no more gas in your car or it has been shot up, or the infrastructure is down / battleground (you know, it's wartime). And guess what kind of states those would be who might let you enter. Only states which have some value for human rights and the capacity to absorb refugees. So in the end, if you have success, you would leave your country behind, as it is not worth being defended in your view, but you could only do so because and only AS LONG as there is some other state in your range which is civilized, based on human rights and freedom in some way. Now, if that state would get attacked also, you would just leave again and go somewhere else, as "it's just a piece of land which is not worth killing someone I have nothing against (=being defended)." Sure, pieces of land are not worth killing men for, and it has happened way too often in history. If it would be just about pieces of land, I would agree to burn up all our military equipment. But if my country would get attacked, it would be more than an attack on some piece of land, it would be an attack on those values we took a long time to come up with after many lifes from many nations have been lost. And I highly doubt that I would just turn away while someone is taking out this country. Note btw: Cases in history when a democratic state attacked another democratic state, while both have the same high values of civil rights/human rights and freedom, are almost non-existent. War most often occurs only if at least one of the participating regimes is based on totalitism/nationalism. That's why an attack on my country would most likely be an attack on our values, too. If all states would be stable and democratic with similar values there would be more peace in this world. That's also why I wouldn't have too many problems with seeing the US / a democratic pro-western regime in Iraq making money with the barrels than some little Hitler. cu heartc
I don't consider saving people on "our side" worth of killing people "on their side". I don't see any difference in these people. I don't think you got my point. I would more like to be killed than kill someone against my will. That has nothing to do with defending democracy etc. I see no system so adorable that it would righten killing for me. Only my own causes can do it. I kill in name of nothing but myself. I fight my own wars, not wars of anyone else. This is just my personal choice. I can make this choice in ANY system. Results will just be different. And yes I KNOW world generally doesnt work this way. Ofcourse its plain clear to me that use of force is always the final law which controls people. If people dont defend theirselves there is always that idiot who makes use of it. Im not entirely stupid. I just see different things important for me than maybe you do. And I dont say anyone should agree with me.
Heartc, If my ability in crafting my thoughts were half as eloquent as yours, that is exactly what I would have said. Its not about the land, its about the collective ideals... and the fact that I believe in them so strongly that I am willing to kill to secure for my children those same freedoms and opportunities that those ideals afforded me. I love my fellow man, and would suffer horribly in my dreams at night of any lives I took in the defense of a Nation holding those same ideals as uncomprimisable. Peace brothers I truely believe that the Human situation is on a path towards lasting Global peace rather than 1 of anihilation. Have hope, teach your children well @ illo I respect your peacefull heart and the fact that you have no wish to kill in defense of yourself. I can assume I hope from this that you have no children? Understand that the only reason I would be willing to kill is in defending against an enemy that has proclaimed itself a threat to my children. I have buried 2 of my children in my life due to illness and I love the 2 remaining sons I have soo much...you understand I hope
And by killing this person you take away his changes for everything. Cause grief and misery for his family and close ones. Its very hard choice and I would like to avoid it as long as possible. Yes that would be the decisive factor. I think it goes so by nature. We wouldn't be here otherwise, would we? There is no disagreement. You made point quite clear. You have your children. I dont have anything comparable.
"STFU!" "FU!" "YOU FUCKING #*&$%@!" oh boy! i get to close this thread! hmmm..? "page 1 [2]" lets see.. <click> "" "i understand!" "" "peace brothers!" damn, there goes my fun!
@ illo again The above response was to a question on an Americans reaction to an attack on America herself. from Tabano... "I'm pretty curious on the way american people shall defend the country if being threatened like England was, or Russia was in a possible large-scale war. Just curious. "
Yup, thats quite hypothetical. I don't see any reason why people there wouldnt defend like people in every other nations do. All depends on factor of threat. In russia war was much life/death issue even for civilians + Totalitarist system had strong ideals. Prisoners would most likely be killed and it reduced amount of individual surrenders. In contrast we can take situation in axis attack in france. Civilians knew their life wasnt at stake so there basically was only military opposition and even that wasnt very fanatic. When situation seemed hopeless soldiers were willing to surrender. (Why to die for nothing if you can live after war?)
I don't doubt you willingness to fight, but I think it's pretty ironical if you say the most preferred situation for an army to fight is on home ground, somehow I don't believe that madjak... of course you would defend your home land, but no more than Belgians would defend their land. Let's compare these two countries: Belgium, been known since ages and eternities, long before Julias Caesar mentioned the Belgae in his "De Bello Gallorum" (or what's the name again), we've been ruled by pretty much anyone you can come up with, even the Austrians... We were always the underdog, but nevertheless we fought against any ruler! We've fought against everyone that was posing a threat to our soil. We've almost stopped Caesar's advance, we've kicked France's ass, we've halted the Germans partially, we've been at war for ages and ages... there was always a feeling of being Belgian... and then there was independance, and now we're all officially Belgian, citizen of the kingdom Belgium. But the "concordia" has dropped, there's more "discordia" sad... that's what war is "good" for: bringing people together, bringing the best out in people, great progress always is being made during a war (scientifically I mean). The United States has never had a war on it's home ground (not Hawaii or so), since it's declaration of independence as far as I know... well they haven't had a war on home ground for about 200yrs anyway, that's why they were so welfaring in the beginning of the 20th century, Europe has known war for millenia, and right now we're almost at peace... greetze, Zembla
Home court has many advantages simple and true. It is why we won our freedom in the first place. Simple farmers against a war machine. One of the most powerful in the world at the time. Nothing ironic about it that I can see. I just know my backyard better than others is all. Pro's and con's either way I understand.
That's the point and that's the difference because I am curious about seeing the US in a pure defensive situation. England has a very long story as long as Russia, the two nations I mentioned earlier (note I say nations not countries) and the US have a about 230 years history. I think years of identity as nation has its weight and boost morale in defence. Why do you think in this respect? Bye, see you in the FH skies! Tabano JG52
OMG, you're so god damn wrong here, I cannot believe some ppl still think so. Your words here are the very same Hitler used to tell the Germans. War brings out the WORST in people, that's for sure. Look around the world and see how low ppl can get. Due to the fact alone that one man kills another, the whole idea about "bringing the best out in people" is negated. War is the lowest action mankind can take. cu heartc
You don't think that the Intelligence agencies services and offices have failed when it comes down to a war on your home ground? You think it's better to have a war on your home ground? greetze, Zembla
Jesus Heartc, How fast can you reply to a post without thinking about what he actually said and if there isn't another he coudl've meant it! I'm not saying war is good, I'm not saying that, all I'm saying is war makes people motivated, makes people realise the seriousness of a situation and therefore brings out the best in their performances. Only in performance, of course there are people that freak out during a war, I never said war was great. And comparing me to Hitler really isn't going to do any good but piss me off! You have your view, but there's no point in trying to make clear that my view is wrong because you're so devoted to your own view! Sjesus that sucks! greetze, Zembla
Sorry, it's not my fault that you fail to express what you meant. You didn't say "brings the best out in their performances". Actually, you devided it up into: "Great progress is always being made during war (scientiffically)" "Brings ppl together" "Brings out the best in people" So, that's what you said, not me. If you didn't mean it like Hitler, great, but that's not what you wrote and in context with your rather patriotic sounding posting one can easily understand it different from what you meant. And don't get pissed of that easily, man. History is there to learn from and if one idea has been proved wrong, major personalities/happenings where that became obvious are just the best way to point it out. Nothing personal. cu heartc
Usully war does very nasty things to people. Normal married men become rapists and murderers when there are no rules. Look whole war at east in WW2 especially last months of war in 1945 in east germany. IIRC over 100.000 rapes were reported mothly. Look how soldiers have killed civilians en mass out of simple frustration in about any war there has been. Whole villages slaughtered without orders from above. Just look Vietnam or Soviet-Afghan. Gererally without heavy control on forces. If soldiers are really free to act as they will. There are always ones who will steal, kill and rape all they get. Some people will love the power they get by holding Assault Rifle. They would rarely feel so powerful in civilian life. I think it can drive many of us mad. Ofcourse war will bring people together. AGAINST someone. We and them. Same with ideals...they are very collective. Be it racist ideal (our better race versus theirs) or political ideals. (our democracy vs their communism).
