[jonathan lall]

This question really is loaded, and is being interpreted differently by different people. I personally wouldn't join up but then again my country is a middle power that doesn't believe in preventative war (back to this point in a sec). As a result, hostility toward it is lower in the general populace of "hostile states" than it is in that of some of our closest allies. And because no state hates us as a whole, when you couple that with our foreign policy, to "fight for my country" becomes rather blurry for Canadians. So much so that joining the Canadian Army could send one off to any number of humanitarian missions (which may include all-out fighting) that are disagreeable.

The point I try to make is that people should only participate in fights they think are just, no matter what fight they may be. If you think invading Iraq was a just means to defend your country against a clear and present threat, then I disagree with you but I respect that, because at least you have the personal justification to go fight.

In today's state of affairs though, the United States, Israel, and Britain are three countries that form a minority that is still willing violate the sovereignty of other countries through invasion, act unilaterally, and participate in preventative war. Some people have suggested that they would fight only to defend their country. But weren't the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq defending a country? To "fight for my country" can mean so many different things. The Unites States and Canada are not going to be invaded, and it is for this reason that this phrase has so many implicit and unclear meanings. The last time the US was attacked by a state with a warmaking intention was Pearl Harbour. To say I'd "fight for my country" to me implies I'd participate in a war which is universally and objectively in my entire country's (and therefore my) best interests. The war in Iraq as you all know was more like "fight for my government."