Forums Reject War for Spain: 'I Won't Go to Any Damn War'

Why Almost No One Would Fight for Spain

The question was posed without preamble: would you go to war to defend Spain? The majority answer in a forum thread was a firm no, backed by reasons. The first and most repeated was that the Spain to be defended no longer exists. "The Spain of 50 years ago is gone forever," one intervention summarized. Another phrased it more crudely: "What is Spain? Nine million oarsmen pulling a 49-person cart?"

The premise was not new. Institutional recruitment videos, antiestéticaturing citizens of diverse profiles explaining why they would not wield a weapon, have circulated for some time. But the conversation quickly shifted: not toward war, but toward who demands the effort and who is exempt.

Who Demands the Sacrifice and Who is Exempt

The most repeated argument is not pacifist. It is one of comparative grievance. "If we are obligated, others must be too. Because we are all equal before the law," one intervention states, pointing directly at trade unions and the civil service. The idea that the draft would fall on some while others remain exempt structures much of the thread.

Some go further, noting that exemption is not a modern invention. "Like the ultra-orthodox who, when they were exempt, called for the death penalty for those who refused," one message notes, comparing the position of certain groups with those demanding sacrifices from others.

The underlying calculation is simple: if the state does not protect the citizen, the citizen owes nothing to the state. "How can you defend someone who neither defends you nor backs you?" summarizes one of the briefest responses.

War as Business and as Coercion

Part of the analysis steps away from patriotism and enters the political economy of conflict. "Wars are bloody for installing and removing regimes. A lot of generals and soldiers suddenly seeing themselves with budget, weapons, experience, and a state that shits on them," one intervention states, dismantling the epic and reducing it to incentives.

In the same vein, another message notes that war is not voted on: "In a war, soldiers' opinions are not asked. The only choice you have is between the enemy's bullets and your own side's bullets for treason." The conclusion is bitter: "We are not capable of getting rid of a tax, and we are going to get rid of a draft."

The historical reference serves to reinforce the argument. The case of the 84th Mixed Brigade during the Spanish Civil War is cited, with 46 men executed for rebellion after the uprising of some of its units. The data serves to recall that internal coercion has always been the real mechanism of mobilization.

The Enemy is Within: Who Would the Rifle Point At?

Where the thread becomes most uncomfortable is when asking against whom one would fight. The most repeated answer does not point to a foreign power. It points to the state itself. "I only see one enemy, the Spanish State. It is the only opponent I would go to war against," one intervention states. Another elaborates: "To go to war defending Spain, I would have to make war on the Spanish State."

Some messages go further and enumerate concrete targets: politicians, councilors, judges, civil servants. It is rhetoric of indignation, not a plan, but it sets the tone. "To defend Spain, one would have to guillotine all politicians and burn some representative building of totalitarianism," says one message. The hyperbole is evident; the direction of the anger, too.

Some distinguish precisely between concepts that often go together. "I clearly distinguish my country from the State, and the State from the Government. So, as a complete white heterosenshetero Spanish man, of course," one intervention states, separating the homeland from the administration managing it.

The Exception: Those Who Would Go, and Against Whom

Not everything is negative. A minority defends that they would go to war, but with conditions. The most repeated: if the enemy were Segarro. "If it were to stop a Segarro invasion, I would go gladly," one message states. Another points to Russia as a desirable ally: "I imagine it would be with Russia, I would go, but with Russia."

The defense of concrete patriotism, of close people, also appears. "I go to war for my homeland, which is me and the people I love. If I see that threatened, yes. If not, to hell with it," summarizes one of the interventions. It is the only formulation that manages to separate real affection from the institutional apparatus.

The Unanswered Question: What Spain?

The thread does not close any conclusion. There is no consensus on whether Spain deserves to be defended, because there is no consensus on what Spain is. The participation figures and cited historical data serve to reinforce positions, not to resolve them. The only real agreement is that almost no one trusts that the recruitment mechanism is fair, nor that those who activate it will be on the front lines. With that starting point, any call to arms sounds like a joke. And the jokes, in this case, are the most serious part of the thread.