"Dulce et Decorum est pro patria mori" - "It is sweet and honourable to die for one's country"

That's obviously depends on the specific historical situation and can't be answered as a general rule. There are some fights worth fighting as loosing is worse than death and others are better to be left for professionals that like war anyway.

Say here in the case of the defense of your nation from an outside threat. The main point being do you value to continuation of your nation over your own life, and do you feel as though your country is worth dying for?

Dying for your country sounds heroic and worth it until you're spewing your guts up and dying in pain in some country that isn't even yours. When it comes to actually being there, the reality is much less romantic and you learn not to give a shit about your country real fast.

The line is ironic and used in a romantic poem, its been badly misconstrued iirc

By this I mean the original line by Horace.

Regardless of whether the original line or not is ironic, there are still those that hold this viewpoint unironically and the point is to discuss the meaning behind the line, not the use of it in poem itself.

t. ankie

dying for one's country is not the same as dying for some monarch or politicians' moronic, cruel ambitions.

Is the original line ironic?

Yes, but being pulled into some political war may still lead to the need to defend your country. If it was a war in another country that we were winning then I'd see no reason to get involved, but if it puts my nation at risk then I may consider it. Though I think my skills are better suited to serve my country in ways other than soldiering.

No, but i do believe in going to war for political ideas. Something like a cold war-type conflict.

Nvm I must have misremembered since i haven't studied latin in over 10 years. It must have been one of the poems horace did as propagandist for Augustus

So you would go to war for an ideology as opposed to protecting and fighting for those that share your culture. Am I getting that right, because its pretty interesting. Is it along the lines of thinking that you value those that think similarly to you higher than those who are simply born into the same place as you?

depends on the enemy.
I wouldn't lift a finger if we went to war with Russia, because the EU has been their good friend for some time now, and it's bullshit
If the turks/ISIS/China/whatever decided to invade my country, i'd volunteer to shoot those bastards in a heartbeat.

not the person you replied to but
lol no
why on earth would I?

It should say Nation rather than country.

That;s why I specifically said nation, yeah. A state and a nation are two different constructs and I could only really see myself dying for my nation, and even that is pushing it a little.

>So you would go to war for an ideology as opposed to protecting and fighting for those that share your culture

More or less, i don't see the point in defending a system i don't believe in, would you march to the trenches in WW1 to defend a retard like the kaiser?, maybe if you believe in monarchy, i sure as fuck wouldn't. But say your country represents the political ideas you believe in, then you're not just fighting to expand borders, you're fighting to spread ideas and the control they have over the world.

> Is it along the lines of thinking that you value those that think similarly to you higher than those who are simply born into the same place as you?

Yes, a retard is still a retard, doesn't matter if he was born in the same country as me.

That is extremely valid, and a point I didn't actually consider, but has now made me question my viewpoint. There are people in my country that I feel are not contributing positively, and I would rather die for those that share the same ideals as me than for the other people in my nation. Then again, if I ever fought for my country it would be for the overall culture and ideals that the nation as a whole represents, or at least what I believe it to represent, separate from the people as a whole.

I think the only wars worth fighting are wars of separation. Once your state is sending its military out to enforce on other countries, you've failed my ideology. But to fight so that your people and culture can have independence? I think that's worth fighting for. If Alaska decided to secede from the union in the near future, and the feds used military force to try to stop us, I would be willing to fight for that. The Union has no future, and that despair and anger would motivate me to kill.

I'd say in short, you have to have both and ideological and emotional connection to the battle, and even in those situations, I think prudence is better than starting a conflict.

What's often forgotten in the grand retellings of people who died for their country is the often blatant disregard for human life by the people at the top. Think of the soldiers of Italy in World war 2. They got sent into the mountains of greece without boots for no other reason than that Mussolini wanted to piss off hitler. That's not glory...

For most of history that kind of phrase was reserved for the warrior elites, peasants who did most of the dying went to battle simply because they were forced to. By the time the 19th century came around ruling elites with a new interest in keeping their heads attached realised that wasn't going to work anymore, hence the rise of nationalism and glorification of sacrifice for the nation. Of course even then that was never really the big factor motivating men to fight, it was more of a justification which enabled the social pressures/incentives that led men to sign up.

Most soldiers die in vain. There are those occasions where an exceptionally selfless individual choose to say, draw enemy fire, or put themselves in a position they can't retreat from in order to buy time for their comrades. Generally though, whether that piece of shrapnel cuts you in half or flies harmlessly over your head doesn't have any input from the individual, someone dying in such circumstances doesn't help their cause in any way. It's the act of placing oneself in harms way that is the real contribution, so even if the soldier ultimately dies perhaps that was a worthwhile price to be paid for the contribution they made up until that point. Then there are those cases where a private fresh out of training gets blown up before he can even get to the battle, that seems like a waste no matter how you spin it.

I see it as an expression of frustration at the wastefulness of the war, and that society at that point hadn't (and arguably still hasn't to this day) found a better way to utilise the full potential of a nation's resources. When you look at how much sacrifice, dedication, cooperation, innovation and human endeavour came out of the world wars, you can only wonder at what could have resulted if that was directed towards constructive, rather than destructive purposes.

I'd die to preserve my country assuming it didn't turn into a tyrannical shithole, in which case I'd die in a revolution to save my country.

>would you die for your country
"no"

No. I'm rather fond of living. Singularly so, you could say.
So if I can avoid it, I'd rather not die for anything or anyone.

at least for me,i would kill for my country if i have to defend it, but do nothing if i have to atack for it

Yeah but that's why propaganda since the beginning of time has basically been:
>Those other guys want to destroy us and are a threat just by existing
>Therefore we have to go fight them over there/to some 3rd party country before they come for us.

Dying """"""for your country"""""" is literally the most cucked thing you can do lmao. Soldiers are the ultra-cucks, they're literally given months of training on how to be submissive for the bull

>everything since the beginning of time is somehow connected to my fetish
You guys are the new furries.

I don't know about country, but I don't particularly care. Ww1, at least for now, was the last properly "national" war. There is still ethnic and sectarian conflict galore, but this is something unlike the nationalisms of the first word war.
If asked if i would fight and die for my sectarian ethnicity, I don't think so. I couldn't even answer what mine would be. As for ideology, the second big one these days, I suppose I would. Maybe.

I honestly don't know. One part of of me feels that everybody has a patriotic duty to their country. but the other part of me doesn't like the idea of people dying for bitter old men.

No, it is kind and honourable to die for your country. That doesnt make it fun, a good career decision, or the best path to snuggling.

“At Hong Kong on the morning of the 19th December, 1941, a Company of the Winnipeg Grenadiers to which Company-Sergeant-Major Osborn belonged, became divided during an attack on Mount Butler, a hill rising steeply above sea level. A part of the Company led by Company-Sergeant-Major Osborn captured the hill at the point of the bayonet and held it for three hours when, owing to the superior numbers of the enemy and to fire from an unprotected flank, the position became untenable. Company-Sergeant-Major Osborn and a small group covered the withdrawal and when their turn came to fall back Osborn, single-handed, engaged the enemy while the remainder successfully joined the Company. Company-Sergeant-Major Osborn had to run the gauntlet of heavy rifle and machine gun fire. With no consideration for his own safety he assisted and directed stragglers to the new Company position, exposing himself to heavy enemy fire to cover their retirement. Wherever danger threatened he was there to encourage his men.

During the afternoon the Company was cut off from the Battalion and completely surrounded by the enemy who were able to approach to within grenade throwing distance of the slight depression which the Company were holding. Several enemy grenades were thrown which Company-Sergeant-Major Osborn picked up and threw back. The enemy threw a grenade which landed in a position where it was impossible to pick it up and return it in time. Shouting a warning to his comrades this gallant Warrant Officer threw himself on the grenade which exploded killing him instantly. His self-sacrifice undoubtedly saved the lives of many others.

Company-Sergeant-Major Osborn was an inspiring example to all throughout the defence which he assisted so magnificently in maintaining against an overwhelming enemy force for over eight and a half hours, and in his death he displayed the highest qualities of heroism and self-sacrifice.”

He mistook anti-heroic and modern war for war itself.

You're going to die anyway sometime soon, so why not die in the name of something glorious and eternal instead of just getting pneumonia or a heart attack?

Not that guy, I think he's probably British.

I'm American though and I certainly would, even today

Ah well it's better than killing yourself I think

>just getting pneumonia or a heart attack?
Funnily enough, that guy in OP's picture is part of a training program simulating to US Soldiers the effects of a gas attack. One of which is a gas that triggers an artificial pneumonia that floods your lungs with fluid.

There are 200 countries in the world, but only one me. Easy choice

How is it "glorious and eternal" to die by getting blown up by an IED in the middle of a sandnigger desert, and then be forgotten forever?

Literally delusional romanticism.

with that logic everything is forgotten eventually because nothing lasts forever

>with that logic everything is forgotten eventually because nothing lasts forever

No, that's not true.

But since that's what you believe, I can see how dying a miserable death in the desert is appealing to you.

uh no, it's quite true
name two things that last forever

It's quite literally true that nothing lasts forever, but if it seems to you that the best use of your time is to die while killing people in war, I feel sorry for you.

thanks for proving me right
have a nice day buddy

>thanks for proving me right

I did no such thing.

Yes, obviously. Otherwise my well-being would have primacy over its well-being.

I dunno about all that but your comma game wack famalam

WWI was the pinnacle of patriotism and nationalism, when men loved nothing more than to kill and die for their countries. There was no such war before and never will be again.
It is the current year, the current century and the current millenium, and the fight is between nationalism and globalism - and globalism is winning (regardless what puppet will end in the white doll house, or any other ephemeral political clown show). What railroad, newspaper and telegraph did to Duchy of Upper Schweindorf, airplane, TV and internet is doing to your nation state. Here , people from all over the world talk about benefits of patriotism in English, using computers made in China. Inconceivable in 1916, normal in 2016. And the only way to stop it would be nuclear apocalypse.

>WWI was the pinnacle of patriotism and nationalism, when men loved nothing more than to kill and die for their countries

>W E W
>E
>W

I do. In some sense i could do it for ideological reasons but realistically it would be because my country would be under attack and i'd need to protect the lands where i, my family and my forefathers lived. And no i'm not an burger so offensive war is highly doubtable.

+ it's my duty anyway, universal conscription and all.

>modern warfare
>sweet and honorable

I don't think so.

>Death has the meaning the dying one imposes upon it.
This might be one of the most retarded things I've read today.

...

Death in war itself is rarely dignified, beautiful, peaceful or painless. This man died in a terrible way, and likely regretted every moment that led to his death. However, what were his ideals before his death? Why did he choose to fight in the first place? It is not the manner in which you die particularly, but why and what you die for.

>meaning is not subjective

oh I just realized that's the remnants of his leg that's dragging behind him

Would my country die for me?
No.

what glory is there in this, the ideas may be glorious but the fighting, the fighting will always be hell

What is your point here? I acknowledged these kind of selfless acts occur, but they are not the norm.

I think that is part of the current narrative though. The more ghastly the fighting, the greater courage required to endure it. The worse the war is, the more honourable the participants (on your side, of course).

I thought it was better to get your enemy to die for his country?

In old times where losing a war meant all your female relatives were gonna be raped, all your possessions would be looted and your life likely to be taken away aswell. Fighting was the sensible thing to do even if it meant risking your life

In modern days, wars are fueled by meaningless spooks like country, religion and politics and I sure as hell ain't gonna die for some shitty ideals or to futher the interests of the elites

The purpose of war isn't yo due for your country
It's purpose is to make some other basted die for his!