America's one-eyed view of war:

[lostinlove228 0]

Depends what they mean by "loyalty". Obviously we're not talking about spies and terrorists here.

The basic test is, "if there's a war between the US and your home country, which side do you fight for"?

Fight for what you believe in.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Depends what they mean by "loyalty". Obviously we're not talking about spies and terrorists here.

The basic test is, "if there's a war between the US and your home country, which side do you fight for"?

Fight for what you believe in.

Essentially yes.

[Ban Hammer 14,280]

Depends what they mean by "loyalty". Obviously we're not talking about spies and terrorists here.

The basic test is, "if there's a war between the US and your home country, which side do you fight for"?

Fight for what you believe in.

Essentially yes.

even if fighting for what you believe in puts you at odds with the country you live in, in your example the usa?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Depends what they mean by "loyalty". Obviously we're not talking about spies and terrorists here.

The basic test is, "if there's a war between the US and your home country, which side do you fight for"?

Fight for what you believe in.

Essentially yes.

even if fighting for what you believe in puts you at odds with the country you live in, in your example the usa?

That's why I fault the question on 'recognisable context'. The US and UK may be making questionable policy decisions as regards balancing the need for effective national security while protecting civil liberties, but neither of them are repressive totalitarian regimes.

This is one of those ethical dilemma's that you can only deal with when you face it - and depends greatly on the specifics of the situation you are faced with. Who can say with any degree of certainty what will happen?

[Ban Hammer 14,280]

Depends what they mean by "loyalty". Obviously we're not talking about spies and terrorists here.

The basic test is, "if there's a war between the US and your home country, which side do you fight for"?

Fight for what you believe in.

Essentially yes.

even if fighting for what you believe in puts you at odds with the country you live in, in your example the usa?

That's why I fault the question on 'recognisable context'. The US and UK may be making questionable policy decisions as regards balancing the need for effective national security while protecting civil liberties, but neither of them are repressive totalitarian regimes.

This is one of those ethical dilemma's that you can only deal with when you face it - and depends greatly on the specifics of the situation you are faced with. Who can say with any degree of certainty what will happen?

that was a question requiring a yes or no answer, not a long dodge.........

so your answer to the question would be?

[mawilson 2,133]

that was a question requiring a yes or no answer, not a long dodge.........

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Depends what they mean by "loyalty". Obviously we're not talking about spies and terrorists here.

The basic test is, "if there's a war between the US and your home country, which side do you fight for"?

Fight for what you believe in.

Essentially yes.

even if fighting for what you believe in puts you at odds with the country you live in, in your example the usa?

That's why I fault the question on 'recognisable context'. The US and UK may be making questionable policy decisions as regards balancing the need for effective national security while protecting civil liberties, but neither of them are repressive totalitarian regimes.

This is one of those ethical dilemma's that you can only deal with when you face it - and depends greatly on the specifics of the situation you are faced with. Who can say with any degree of certainty what will happen?

that was a question requiring a yes or no answer, not a long dodge.........

so your answer to the question would be?

The only answer you can reasonably give to that question with the limited information available:

perhaps

Though I'm guessing that probably isn't enough for you...

Just wondering if you can say with 1000% assurance that there would be no instances whatsoever in which you would take up arms against your own country.

Doesn't the military oath of allegiance make reference to enemies "foreign and domestic"?

Edited August 21, 2006 by erekose

[Ban Hammer 14,280]

The only answer you can reasonably give to that question with the limited information available:

perhaps

Though I'm guessing that probably isn't enough for you...

Just wondering if you can say with 1000% assurance that there would be no instances whatsoever in which you would take up arms against your own country.

Doesn't the military oath of allegiance make reference to enemies "foreign and domestic"?

someone get the nail gun, he's being difficult to nail down. and you wonder why people remark about your inability to take a stance on an issue? and yes the military has that line in the oath too

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The only answer you can reasonably give to that question with the limited information available:

perhaps

Though I'm guessing that probably isn't enough for you...

Just wondering if you can say with 1000% assurance that there would be no instances whatsoever in which you would take up arms against your own country.

Doesn't the military oath of allegiance make reference to enemies "foreign and domestic"?

someone get the nail gun, he's being difficult to nail down. and you wonder why people remark about your inability to take a stance on an issue? and yes the military has that line in the oath too

The question is nonsensical - as you cannot say for sure that there would be a situation that would require you to take up arms against your own country.

Do you understand this?

[Ban Hammer 14,280]

The only answer you can reasonably give to that question with the limited information available:

perhaps

Though I'm guessing that probably isn't enough for you...

Just wondering if you can say with 1000% assurance that there would be no instances whatsoever in which you would take up arms against your own country.

Doesn't the military oath of allegiance make reference to enemies "foreign and domestic"?

someone get the nail gun, he's being difficult to nail down. and you wonder why people remark about your inability to take a stance on an issue? and yes the military has that line in the oath too

The question is nonsensical - as you cannot say for sure that there would be a situation that would require you to take up arms against your own country.

Do you understand this?

oh sure, erekose, i'm certain there will be an insurrection any time now

it was a simple question about which side a person would take if they were in the usa. instead you want to examine every freaking detail about it. it's apparently only nonsensical when you get done what if'ing it to death.

[vartan 0]

The answer is easy .. its ...US

[dalegg 143]

AHA! I found it.

Here's an interesting Fox News clip that doesn't slant toward Israel's view:

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

oh sure, erekose, i'm certain there will be an insurrection any time now

Its as reasonable a possibility as the hypothetical situation posed by the question. Is it not?

it was a simple question about which side a person would take if they were in the usa. instead you want to examine every freaking detail about it. it's apparently only nonsensical when you get done what if'ing it to death.

Then as we're playing with semantics - how about Yes (in certain circumstances)?

[Ban Hammer 14,280]

oh sure, erekose, i'm certain there will be an insurrection any time now

Its as reasonable a possibility as the hypothetical situation posed by the question. Is it not?

it was a simple question about which side a person would take if they were in the usa. instead you want to examine every freaking detail about it. it's apparently only nonsensical when you get done what if'ing it to death.

Then as we're playing with semantics - how about Yes (in certain circumstances)?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

oh sure, erekose, i'm certain there will be an insurrection any time now

Its as reasonable a possibility as the hypothetical situation posed by the question. Is it not?

it was a simple question about which side a person would take if they were in the usa. instead you want to examine every freaking detail about it. it's apparently only nonsensical when you get done what if'ing it to death.

Then as we're playing with semantics - how about Yes (in certain circumstances)?

Now I know you can do better than that... Although probably not.