At this time of rememberance, can anyone here put their hand on their heart and say....

... they would give their life for their country, family and friends?

 

Family and friends yeah

Thats why i give total respect to all in the forces for fighting for the country

 

Yes

But in a Swiss clinic, not brutally slaughtered in some Afghan shithole. That would smart a bit.

 

Country? </p>

</p>

Family and friends implies country too I guess.</p>

 

Family....

If it meant the only way I could save my family was to fight for the country, I'd do it....

Saying that, I'd fight any fecker for my Kin....

 

Family and friends.... don't know about country now. "country" doesn't care about us!

 

Country and friends then.</p>

</p>

 

No!!!

Does that make me a coward?....

 

Yep

 

Not at all.</p>

I'd hoped my question implied 'foreign aggression' as in the two world wars, and therefore defence of your family was implicit from defence of your country.</p>

I'm sure everyone would defend their family to the death, but the men and women that gave their lives during the wars felt (or at least I believe they felt) that they were defending their whole way of life. </p>

My old man fought hand to hand at Tobruk and in Palestine, before any of his kids were born, he always maintained that he went to war to defend everyone in Britain from Johnny Foreigner; as I'm sure alot of his generation did.</p>

Just curious if the same spirit exists. But then, I suppose you never know until you're actually threatened.</p>

 

Not an easy question to answer Addio because nobody in the armed forces joins up with the plan of giving their life for their country. Those in the two world wars didn't sign up to kill themselves and neither did those who have died in iraq or afghanistan. They sign up with the intent of doing their job and coming home alive

 

But did people actually have much of a choice back then? Did they all go to war to save the country or did a large percentage of them go to war because they were told they had to?

 

I'd not give this country the steam off my píss.

Family/friends is a different matter - but I'd sooner go to prison than shed a drop of blood for England, or Great Britain, or whatever you want to call it.

 

That's right enough. We don't practice suicide bombing in our armed forces and we go to war optimistic that we'll come back. </p>

I was just wondering how many still feel strongly enough to risk it all to defend our way of life?</p>

 

I guess outside of the propaganda you could choose to do what you wanted. There was alot of adverse stigma attached to being a pacifist and objector and the scenes that were made public after the first war would surely have put many off from being involved in the second; but that does not appear to have been the case.</p>

Is the sense of national protection still there?</p>

 

Ok then using that theory/way of thinking then no I wouldn't sign up to go to iraq or somewhere because it is quite honestly a pointless risk in my opinion. They are no risk to our way of life etc. If it was a case of someone was invading us and we were under serious threat and the armed forces were struggling then I think I would have a go

 

My Father was a Army man, he fought and I suspect had the same ideas as your dad did, which was very commendable. We have a lot to thank our Fathers for, that is without doubt.

My feelings lay a lot closer to home. Not right sure what that makes me as a person, but that's how it is....

 

RE:Family yes, friends and country no

 

I don't think the same sense is still there but I also think that is more to do with the fact that 70/80 years ago (and more) the army was basically a few tanks and guns and it was a case of all hands on deck. These days to be honest the general public simply arent needed to fight a war, the military has so many weapons and methods of attack that if push came to shove they could wipe out any country almost instantly if they needed to.

In all honesty could any country really invade britain without being stopped?