Seriously thoughtful Unbelievable! (not allowed to show the flag)

[Spoon Man]

Moejoe, I never did have those things taught to me as child. My parents were as socialist as they come (my father dodged the draft and whatnot, not making him socialist but it doesn't hurt) and neither of them supported this country.

I stand for the flag, not despite the history of our country, but because out of that bad (maybe despite the bad) has come and still may come, some good things. I don't believe in blind nationalism, if we were to start adopting policies which I was wholly against (and yes, I do have a definitive line for this) I would leave and not speak well by it any longer. There are also people who I hold great respect for that have bled and died for the people in this country, and I see the flag as representing them. Aye, it is emotional, but it is what I believe.
Yes, it is just a piece of cloth, and there have been many atrocities committed in its name, but there have also been many acts of good will. I will not look back on the history of this country and gaze only at the good, but I will not condemn the future of the people in this country because of the bad either. A country is not its leaders or their beliefs, it is the people within it.
Yes, our country was founded on a set of ideas, ideals, and beliefs that, for the most part, I think were right and should be worked towards. We'll probably never reach the country that anyone saw or had in mind, but in falling short will we have failed at becoming something better than what was had before? I would like to think yes, but I can't say for certain.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by astra

Yes, that is why BNP is gaining more and more votes in London area. Area where 45% of all ethnic minorities live and it is nearly one third (29%) of the population.
Different mentalities cannot co-exist with each other in daily life. People who claim otherwise are delusional.

The BNP use the same reasoning as you to separate communities and inhibit sharing of culture and integration. London's ethnic mix has always been a point of pride in that city for many. When unemployment comes along and the fear starts rising, the BNP, like their forerunners the National Front, exploit those fears to gain support. They are a violent, sickening group that use images of WWII soldiers to milk the teat of nationalism and xenophobia, whilst at the same time acting exactly like the fascists those soldiers fought against (and ignoring the Polish, Indian and other ethnic groups who fought that fascism at the same time).

People mix all the time, they can't help themselves, it's called lust...and sometimes even love. There is no separation in a bedroom under the sheets, no matter what them c**nts in the BNP would have you believe (white race my arse).

[omk3]

What Moejoe said.
And the fact that BNP is getting some votes is only evidence that there will always be some misinformed, lazy, yes stupid people who will always prefer to blame others for whatever problem they are facing, instead of looking for the real causes and working towards real solutions. It is NOT evidence that different cultures can't coexist.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Spoon Man

Moejoe, I never did have those things taught to me as child. My parents were as socialist as they come (my father dodged the draft and whatnot, not making him socialist but it doesn't hurt) and neither of them supported this country.

I stand for the flag, not despite the history of our country, but because out of that bad (maybe despite the bad) has come and still may come, some good things. I don't believe in blind nationalism, if we were to start adopting policies which I was wholly against (and yes, I do have a definitive line for this) I would leave and not speak well by it any longer. There are also people who I hold great respect for that have bled and died for the people in this country, and I see the flag as representing them. Aye, it is emotional, but it is what I believe.
Yes, it is just a piece of cloth, and there have been many atrocities committed in its name, but there have also been many acts of good will. I will not look back on the history of this country and gaze only at the good, but I will not condemn the future of the people in this country because of the bad either. A country is not its leaders or their beliefs, it is the people within it.
Yes, our country was founded on a set of ideas, ideals, and beliefs that, for the most part, I think were right and should be worked towards. We'll probably never reach the country that anyone saw or had in mind, but in falling short will we have failed at becoming something better than what was had before? I would like to think yes, but I can't say for certain.

I would say your father by dodging the draft was supporting a notion far greater than country. The notion of being a human being. I have nothing but admiration for those who refuse to take up arms and kill unquestioningly (and lets face it, if you're in 'service' that's what you do. You serve at a master's whim without question.)

But again, you're not really giving any answers here. More hyperbole about people dying and bleeding for the same romantic notion that you can neither explain nor truly defend without descending into fantasies and second-guesses about the who and the whys of the past. You say that your country was founded upon a set of ideals, which ideals? The ones popularised in your schoolrooms, where you pledge allegiance or the true historical facts about taxation and slavery? It's all a form of propaganda that you have bought into. A fairytale that you choose to believe and which, if all the flags were gone tomorrow, you would still believe because it has become so ingrained (even beyond your own logic, faulty as it may be).

I will never, and I fully understand, why an adult chooses these fictions over reality. It's much easier to understand the world when it's black and white, when the rules are simple. Us and them. North vs South. God vs the Devil. Freedom vs Whatever Country the US has armed and his now invading this week. These are what flags and nationalism does best. Nationalism, patriotism, takes the complex events of human history and human social interactions and reduces it all to pithy, bite-size chunks of belief-o's that you can eat at breakfast without a second thought. What good would soldiers be if they couldn't be easily controlled by this propaganda? If they couldn't be riled up into killing machines by these fairy tales they're told? It's about control, and you have none when you give into these notions. The freedoms you think you're defending are the ones you give away when you salute a flag.

[Halk]

Interesting... I can now strongly agree and disagree with Moejoe!

While I heartily agree that blindly following what the 'nation' says is, indeed, not a good thing, I have to hope he's joking about not taking up arms.

People who refused to fight in WWII should have been rounded up and put on a boat headed for France. Fighting for your country is a very simple way of explaining what was actually happening.

Adolf Hitler had risen to power at the top of a wave of Populism and Nationalism. (Incidentally the very same type of populism that's going on against bankers, politicians in the UK and B.P. in the US.) It is very easy to select a group of people and blame them for the problems. However... had people not fought against Nazi Germany then they'd simply have been free to create the society they wanted to create. I personally don't think it's acceptable to stand by while my neighbours are dragged out of their houses and executed. Indeed it's fairly likely that my grandparents would have been killed since that generation of both sides of my family was quite involved in the Masons.

Having said all that, it does raise some rather large questions... just exactly is a cause worth dying for, and what isn't? Clearly Nazi Germany had to be stopped. I would hope that most people are sane enough to agree with that. What about removing the heads of oppressive regimes by invasion? A much more grey area. I think it's clear there's a lot of questions to be answered that couldn't possibly be covered in this thread, so I won't continue with that.

Going back to flags though, and Moejoe's gross oversimplification of saluting a flag... I'll attempt to explain it.

The flag is intended to represent the nation. The nation is the collection of people (or collection of families, of communities or collection of towns, cities, etc) who have joined together for a common purpose. There is nothing wrong with that at all. Joining together for a common purpose is exactly the cause of civilisation, and the reason we have language, literature, "extelligence" etc. It all becomes grey again when not everybody agrees on everything. We're straight back to the same issues as the paragraph above! But certainly it's nothing anywhere near as simple as Moejoe puts it.

Edit : Dodging the draft is nothing at all to do with socialism.

[omk3]

Fighting against an invasion is different than joining the army. A fight against an invasion is a fight for your freedom and your human rights, not for your country, though it makes an nice slogan.

And when you say that the nation is the collection of people for a common purpose, what purpose is that exactly? Because being free to make their own choices in life and living peacefully and comfortably in relative harmony with others is what most people basically want out of life, and that's the same all over the world.

[Halk]

Originally Posted by omk3

Fighting against an invasion is different than joining the army. A fight against an invasion is a fight for your freedom and your human rights, not for your country, though it makes an nice slogan.

It's a fight for your country. There's certainly other things involved, but it is a fight to preserve your country against the invader.

And when you say that the nation is the collection of people for a common purpose, what purpose is that exactly? Because being free to make their own choices in life and living peacefully and comfortably in relative harmony with others is what most people basically want out of life, and that's the same all over the world.

Lots of purposes, like I said it's not possible to answer the questions in this thread - they are the same questions that religion, ethics, philosophy, politics, economics all try to answer in a different way.

But here's somthing... the freedom you're talking about is exactly defined by anarchy, the complete lack of government/council/society/group control. Because as soon as we do something collectively, and at least one person doesn't agree with it then someone's freedom has gone.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Halk

Interesting... I can now strongly agree and disagree with Moejoe!

While I heartily agree that blindly following what the 'nation' says is, indeed, not a good thing, I have to hope he's joking about not taking up arms.

People who refused to fight in WWII should have been rounded up and put on a boat headed for France. Fighting for your country is a very simple way of explaining what was actually happening.

Adolf Hitler had risen to power at the top of a wave of Populism and Nationalism. (Incidentally the very same type of populism that's going on against bankers, politicians in the UK and B.P. in the US.) It is very easy to select a group of people and blame them for the problems. However... had people not fought against Nazi Germany then they'd simply have been free to create the society they wanted to create. I personally don't think it's acceptable to stand by while my neighbours are dragged out of their houses and executed. Indeed it's fairly likely that my grandparents would have been killed since that generation of both sides of my family was quite involved in the Masons.

Having said all that, it does raise some rather large questions... just exactly is a cause worth dying for, and what isn't? Clearly Nazi Germany had to be stopped. I would hope that most people are sane enough to agree with that. What about removing the heads of oppressive regimes by invasion? A much more grey area. I think it's clear there's a lot of questions to be answered that couldn't possibly be covered in this thread, so I won't continue with that.

Going back to flags though, and Moejoe's gross oversimplification of saluting a flag... I'll attempt to explain it.

The flag is intended to represent the nation. The nation is the collection of people (or collection of families, of communities or collection of towns, cities, etc) who have joined together for a common purpose. There is nothing wrong with that at all. Joining together for a common purpose is exactly the cause of civilisation, and the reason we have language, literature, "extelligence" etc. It all becomes grey again when not everybody agrees on everything. We're straight back to the same issues as the paragraph above! But certainly it's nothing anywhere near as simple as Moejoe puts it.

Interesting that you bring up the (as far as I can see it) only war that has been a true war in modern history. And that was a war in which we were not the oppressors but were the oppressed (along with most of Europe). That was a war in many cases of defence and necessity, not a modern war in which we blindly storm into the countries of other people on the back of lies. Still, saying all that, if you don't want to kill other people, you shouldn't be forced to. There were plenty of conscientious objectors during WWII and those who did not take part (violence is not something that should be bullied into a person, no matter the reason). America itself waited and agonisingly long time and had to be attacked before it offered the citizens of Europe any help, despite the continual pleas of the British and French governments.

As a point of interest the soldiers in each progressive war from WWI onwards have been taught to kill more accurately and efficiently. In WWI the majority of soldiers would purposefully aim high, so as not to kill the enemy (killing is not natural to the human being, not as natural as the arms manufacturers want us to believe). In each successive war, Western training methods advanced to remove this human trait of not wanting to kill, until we come to today, where a modern soldier will in most cases fire on a 'combatant' without a second thought.


Also I sense a hint of that oft used stereotype of the French during WWII when you say 'put on a boat to France.' That stereotype that says the French surrendered without a fight, which is absolute nonsense if you read any history about the conflict and the part the French (as both an occupied territory, an ally and through Vichy as an enemy) played in WWII.

I'll play my simplification card now, if I may, and state my philosophy before bowing out of this thread. It is not a philosophy of country or nation, not of race, creed or religion, but of human beings in the struggle against the forces that would make them less than human beings. I do not salute my philosophy in the mornings and it does not ride at half mast during dark times. It is always there. Light in the darkness. Darkness when there is light. A simple statement by which I live and which allows others to live just as freely.

Always the oppressed, never the oppressor.

Whatever the fight may be, under whichever flag, upon whatever soil, my allegiance is always with those under the thumb, not those who press down from above.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Halk

It's a fight for your country. There's certainly other things involved, but it is a fight to preserve your country against the invader.

When it comes to war, should you automatically fight for your own country; or should you weigh up the pros and cons and then pick a side?

[omk3]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Whatever the fight may be, under whichever flag, upon whatever soil, my allegiance is always with those under the thumb, not those who press down from above.

The problem with that is that often when the oppressed fight back successfully, they become the oppressor instead. And often both sides are oppressors and oppressed at the same time. Most oppressing is done in the name of some arbitrary ideal like country or religion. I really wish people would leave other people alone.

Halk, I know the ideal of anarchy is extremely difficult, maybe impossible to achieve. I'm not saying there shouldn't be rules or laws. But if the need for different countries arises from the fact that different people want different laws, then we should all be free to choose the country with the laws we prefer, and not have things like heritage, pride, ancestry, religion, colour or whatever get in the way.

I always find it funny (in a not funny way) that people can get along in their everyday life just fine, really like each other, be friends, be good neighbours, and then have a major disagreement about politics or religion and start hating, even killing each other. For me, this means these things are there only to divide us.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by omk3

The problem with that is that often when the oppressed fight back successfully, they become the oppressor instead. And often both sides are oppressors and oppressed at the same time. Most oppressing is done in the name of some arbitrary ideal like country or religion. I really wish people would leave other people alone.

Halk, I know the ideal of anarchy is extremely difficult, maybe impossible to achieve. I'm not saying there shouldn't be rules or laws. But if the need for different countries arises from the fact that different people want different laws, then we should all be free to choose the country with the laws we prefer, and not have things like heritage, pride, ancestry, religion, colour or whatever get in the way.

I always find it funny (in a not funny way) that people can get along in their everyday life just fine, really like each other, be friends, be good neighbours, and then have a major disagreement about politics or religion and start hating, even killing each other. For me, this means these things are there only to divide us.

The problem is the Animal Farm problem all over. The oppressed becomes the oppressor, and it's why I favour non-hierarchical systems (Anarchist systems, leaning towards anarcho syndicalist). Even MR gives me some concerns because of its hierarchical structure and power levels - which I don't think work and I don't pay attention to in any case (sorry greenies, just the way I am).

Anarchism can and will work, if the misunderstanding spread by the media is curtailed. Anarchism is not a free-for all, it's a freedom to all solution and should not be confused with either chaos or libertarianism, which is not freedom to all but rather a f**k-you-all solution. In any case, something has to take over when Capitalism finally fails (which looks like it'll be soon, hurrah!).

[recluse]

ROFL!

[Halk]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Whatever the fight may be, under whichever flag, upon whatever soil, my allegiance is always with those under the thumb, not those who press down from above.

That is something I can agree with.

As far as WW2, it's an example I picked because I felt it was far and above the conflict where most people would feel it was necessary to become involved. As far as the boat to France, I meant it simply as the nearest Nazi held place to GB.

Sparrow - You have defined the very essence of the problem. I could, with very strong conviction, argue against either a yes or a no answer... and indeed against a maybe!

omk3 - That's a very interesting proposal. I think I might end up on a very small island as the only person in my country...

Perhaps this will help explain things.

As a UK subject would you join the war effort if...

1. Nazi Germany invades the UK
2. Nazi Germany invades France
3. Nazi Germany invades Poland
4. Nazi Germany declares that it is starting to train troops and stockpile arms to invade the UK
5. Nazi Germany declares that it is starting to train troops and stockpile arms to invade the France
6. Nazi Germany declares that it is starting to train troops and stockpile arms to invade Poland
7. Nazi Germany declares that it is starting to train troops and stockpile arms to annex a small part of Poland

I hope it's not too much of an assumption to say that we would all join the war effort for 1, but that by 7 most of us would not.

My point is that if we don't do number 7 because 80% of the population object... then do we do 4 when 50% object? Can we do 2 when 5% object?

If we go to war when 5% object then why is it fair for members of my family to die, but members of another family who disagree with the war not to die. Surely everybody must sacrifice, and put themselves at risk of death for it to be fair.

If we force people to fight when they object to it then are we not monsters on the same level as the Nazis? Or is exiling and deporting them, and directly putting them into Nazi hands an equally cruel or even worse act?

If we don't go to war because 15% object and 85% want to, then how is that fair on the 85%? Won't they then argue that war is inevitable and more loss of life will occur because of waiting? Or would they argue that by not going to war we are permitting the Nazis to murder at will across Poland, France, etc.

It's one of those philosophical/moral dilemas with no right answer that everybody agrees with. If we don't stand together and form some sort of government then we'll be killed/stolen from etc one by one. If we do group together then we need to make some form of compromise.

My point, if it is at all clear, is that there are no simple answers.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by recluse

ROFL!

Well done. All caps too. You forgot the smiley though. Here's one you may use it later when you've thought of something to say.

[astra]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Well done

Are you pacifist?