CALLING YOU UP

[Wetzel]

I plan to join the Navy when I have two years left on my BSN. Pay for the rest of school, then get some very good experience early on and a great benefit system after I get out.


Wetzel

[Ryan Albright]

Originally Posted by Wetzel

I plan to join the Navy when I have two years left on my BSN. Pay for the rest of school, then get some very good experience early on and a great benefit system after I get out.


Wetzel

I work with a two retired navy captains, and they say the navy was amazing as long as yo u dont get stuck down in the engine room or as a cook

[Wetzel]

Originally Posted by Ryan Albright

I work with a two retired navy captains, and they say the navy was amazing as long as you dont get stuck down in the engine room or as a cook

I think Bethesda is nice.
I am well aware of how the Navy works. My dad is an academy grad and was active for 10 years, still in the reserve. The access to things like the PX and MWR facilities is great.

Wetzel

[Ryan Albright]

Originally Posted by Wetzel

I think Bethesda is nice.
I am well aware of how the Navy works. My dad is an academy grad and was active for 10 years, still in the reserve. The access to things like the PX and MWR facilities is great.

Wetzel

Ahhh i seee

[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."

[Yov]

remind me when Israel invaded a country that didn't attack it first again?

[jonathan lall]

Originally Posted by Yov

remind me when Israel invaded a country that didn't attack it first again?

Interesting you should ask that question as Isreal is a pioneer of both preemption and prevention.*

In 1989, Israel launched an aerial attack upon the newly-built Osiraq reactor in Iraq, which they saw as a possible strategic threat down the road due to its possible ability to make weapons-grade plutonium as a by-product of enriched uranium fission. The reactor was crippled easily by Israeli bombs dropped by a squadron that stealthily moved through Iraqi airspace. So ended a chapter in Iraq’s nuclear programme, and so began an era of preventative warfare in international law with this new precedent.

In the Six Day War, Isrealli forces attacked opposing Arab forces who were builiding up on their own sides of Israelli territory. This was an excellent (and quite obviously justified) excercise of preemption. Because of this precedent set, had Iraq attacked American forces as they built up preparing to invade, it would have been completely legal.


* Preemption refers to forcing the initiation of an imminent conflict in order to gain some advantage, whereas prevention involves dealing with prospective conflicts or threats before they show any direct signs of occurrence. I'm a Political Science major.

[Yov]

1. attacking a nuclear reactor is not invading a country, and If it hadn't been destroyed american forces might be slightly more "extra crispy", not to mention a nuclear bomb's use against Israel suring the gulf war when the iraqis fired missles at Israel because of America.

2. you may have heard that Israel attacked arab forces building up on their own border, what yo may not know is that that border is on an elevated area, where sharpshooters would regularly shoot at Israeli citizens, they didn't attack ythe border, but they sure as hell shot through it...

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Yov

1. attacking a nuclear reactor is not invading a country, and If it hadn't been destroyed american forces might be slightly more "extra crispy", not to mention a nuclear bomb's use against Israel suring the gulf war when the iraqis fired missles at Israel because of America.

That sounds like an appeal to consequences, with a little hindsight bias thrown in.... Much as I don't like the thought of tactical nuclear weapons being used on Israel, I realize that the Iraqis were seeking parity with other nations in the area, who did have nuclear weapons programs (i.e. Iran and Israel). The Iraqis may well have used that same reasoning when they feared an armed conflict with one of their neighbours--after all, nobody likes their troops to be "extra crispy"--hence a nuclear deterrent in the tradition of the Cold War arms race.

Originally Posted by Yov

2. you may have heard that Israel attacked arab forces building up on their own border, what yo may not know is that that border is on an elevated area, where sharpshooters would regularly shoot at Israeli citizens, they didn't attack ythe border, but they sure as hell shot through it...

This is a bit of a grey area, but there is a difference between Egypt's tacit approval of these skirmishes, and Egypt's actual support for them. It's a stretch to say that Egypt proper attacked Israel.

[Yov]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

This is a bit of a grey area, but there is a difference between Egypt's tacit approval of these skirmishes, and Egypt's actual support for them. It's a stretch to say that Egypt proper attacked Israel.

I was talking about syria, dunno what you mean...
as for the rest of this whole conversation thing, i'm stopping it here, caus if there's one thing i can't stand it's 1000 word posts...

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Yov

I was talking about syria, dunno what you mean...

I see, you were referring to 1967 (and the Golan Heights), and I was referring to 1956 (and the Suez).

[jonathan lall]

Originally Posted by Yov

1. attacking a nuclear reactor is not invading a country, and If it hadn't been destroyed american forces might be slightly more "extra crispy", not to mention a nuclear bomb's use against Israel suring the gulf war when the iraqis fired missles at Israel because of America.

I never suggested otherwise. You asked me to remind you when Israel attacked another country without being attacked first, and I did so. Still, to suggest Iraq would have used nukes (at least against US forces) demonstrates a lack of understanding of international relations. Furthermore, to justify this attack in the way you just did is reminiscient of Bush pointing out that at least "the world is better off" even though our basis for going to war was mistaken. If you'd like an example of invasive sovereignty incursions made by Israel you need only look at the Golan Heights.

That being said, I believe the two examples I gave of Isreal attacking others were justified. That doesn't mean they aren't examples of prevention and preemption.

[JulieB]

Wow very shocking how many of you are ready to go if need.

Although I'm a female im ready if the time calls for me.

The reason of this thread I was shock of the people in the US who do not seem to care about the Flag, fallen soldiers, present soldiers or their country

[Cory]

Originally Posted by JulieB

The reason of this thread I was shock of the people in the US who do not seem to care about the Flag, fallen soldiers, present soldiers or their country

You were shocked at that, or the number of people who would not fight "for" their country in a situation such as Iraq?

I am a very, very strong critic of the war in Iraq, but even so, I have the HIGHEST respect for our soldiers who are over there fighting for whatever reasons.

Cory