Most users on here are American so I assume your perspective on this natter is widely different from the European, let alone, the Swedish one. That is why I am curious what your perspectives regarding this question are. Scenario If your country was attacked by a foreign country, would you be willing to fight fir your country (this includes joining any section of the army)? Would you expect everyone else to follow you and go to war as well? Note that this time it is not about sending troops to a foreign land, but about foreign troops invading your country. For me it is a no. I would not be prepared to "die for my country" *cough* *cough* government *cough* If they want war they can do it themselves. On the other hand, I would be prepared to defend my hometown/municpal in an independence war. Secession is sweet.
I was on a nuclear missile armed submarine during part of the Cold War and so for me the answer is yes in both going to war if necessary and fighting to defend my nation. But then I am from a generation that believed in "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Or in other words I am no nation-hating leftist and no Birkenstock wearing, cloves smoking, Prius driving, legacy trust fund liberal spoiled so rotten by soft living that he or she has got to have snowflake style safe spaces and BELIEVE in the concept of micro-aggressions as a reality.
Yes, to OPs question; impassionately if I didn't believe in the cause and passionately if I did. You're a soldier at heart
I have huge respect for people who join the army. Huge. However, my "anti-warism" is not based on some dreadlock, joint smoking kumbaya ideology, but rather on the belief that government is evil by default. I do believe in self-defense. I would rather see a nation where every cutizen is armed with "light" weapons and know how to use these than a nation where the government has monopoly on weapons, only allowing heavy, advanced military weapons which only a limited number of people can use. It seems obvious that the previous would be a more effective defense force than the latter.
Yes to your question. I did note your scenario you objected to involved your Swedish government being invaded but also included wanting war. Invaded countries rarely wish to be invaded. You wouldn't help your country during an invasion because you blame your government for being invaded? News flash, if every countryman has that attitude your bound to be invaded. Why would the government stop an invasion if they also shared your views? Find another entity to blame and you can wash your hands of the whole mess. Temporary solace before death? I would suggest there's something a little off in your mindset.
The answer to the OP for me is yes. Having said that, I wouldn't confuse "die for my country" with "die defending government". Most of us who would act similarly, and fully agree with your distaste in government, would actually be defending our fellow citizens and the foundation of our government, not what governments are or have become.
No but there would be much greater incentives to invade other undefended "areas". Cmon your gonna have to think harder than that. You think invasions only occur because there's a border?
It would not be beneficial at all for, say, NC to invade PA or for Miami to Invade NYC. If there is a common external threat, provinces can unite to defeat the enemy much like the independent states of America did against the Brits. Generally people identify more with their regions/state/hometown/province than they do with their nation. "Nation" is a relatively new concept.
Sorry, but no. It started off in the 1700's and the unification of nations never came without blood shed. Still today, most people identify with their province more than they do with their nation - "I am a Texan", "I am Catalan", "I am Sicilian" etc etc.
You stated people do not relate to nationhood because it's a relatively new concept. I opined it is much older than any living human being therefor your premise is faulty. Bottom line is you would defend your neighborhood because you have feelings for it yet not your country of fellow countrymen. Must be a European thing. I wouldn't want to see any enemy force invade any part of my country. Well maybe if it was California we could start defense at the Rockies.
I would not die for my country. I would be willing to kill for my country, though. Or to quote the version of Patton portrayed by George C. Scott: "I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country. "
A mother shouldn't have to make that choice....oops I just outed myself as someone who believes in traditional sex roles! Forgive me twitter, for I have sinned...
No, no country is worth dying for. My main responsibility is to stay alive for my family, not die in vain for faux patriotism. - - - Updated - - - Haha so you're not American?
I am a war veteran, a volunteer wearing the uniform of a 'foreign' nation. I might have died for someone else's country. I was young and I didn't understand what war was all about at the time. Would I have willingly died for that country? No, not willingly. Would I die for my own country today, willingly? No.
Well I dont want to die for my country but does volunteering for and Joining the Marines during Nam count ? I was willing to fight at least
