CALLING YOU UP

[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]

I'm just wondering too; how significantly are peoples' attitudes influenced by the patriotic connotations of this issue? If the question had been phrased "how many of you guys would be willing to be conscripted into a job where you would compensated minimally, be forced to put your life on hold for several years, and shot at", would the opinions be different?

To put it bluntly, I don't think that many people rationally consider that side of the question. Largely as a result of the reforms caused by the American defeat in Vietnam, it abandoned the policy of conscription relatively recently. The new "all-volunteer" armed forces therefore benefit greatly from a climate in which it is considered good and just to fight in the name of America, and cowardly and meek to oppose it. In your haste to be patriots, you may have forgotten what it means to evaluate the motives of your own government--they, like any other human enterprise, are not above mistakes, and often, not even above deceit.

If my government simply told me to go to war, I'd be suspicious. Probably to the point of not reporting to my assigned post, unless they provided a very, very good reason to do so (and I don't find threats of military "justice" too compelling, if there's any way to circumvent it). If they asked me, the same sort of very good explanation would be required for me to enlist. If I were to volunteer, it wouldn't be because of patriotism--I like Canada as much as anyone else; but I don't think that that justifies anything. Joining of my own accord would signal that something very important required my particular skills, and that it would be a most productive use of my time to do so. This is unlikely, because our (in my opinion, generally well-executed) foreign policy has not dictated a need for conscription for several decades, and will not do so in the forseeable future.

Originally Posted by Yov

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

1. Osirak (Well, that was an aerial attack, not a strict "invasion".)
2. 1956 Suez Crisis (Unless you consider prior border skirmishes involving both Israel and pro-Egyptian militias to be veritable Egyptian attacks on Israel--and that's really stretching it.)
3. 1967 Six-Day War (Where Israel attacked Egyptian bomber aircraft on the ground in a pre-emptive strike, followed by conventional ground combat.)

Edit: So I was slow to the "Submit Post" button....

[Max Lobovsky]

Perhaps Yov phrased his question a bet badly, but the actual meaning he was trying to convey is entirely valid. Up until even 20-25 years ago, Israel's very existence was at stake in these conflicts. Being outnumbered and outgunned, Israel took the only action available to it, premeptive attacks.

As for the Osirak reactor, I'm sure all of us are thankful that a nation that has used chemical weapons in war (and on its own people) did not have the oppurtunity to create nuclear weapons.

[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.

[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.

[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).

[JVN]

Before this gets any more ugly--
Any chance I can convince you guys to take this elsewhere?

A quick google search revealed to me a large number of political discussion/debate/flamewar forums. Maybe one of those would work.

www.politicalcrossfire.com seems interesting...

Maybe it's time to "take it outside".

John

EDIT:
Or... you can just start an AIM chat called "FIRST Political Debaters of the World Unite" and talk in real-time.
/EDIT

[JoeXIII'007]

I'd only fight for this country if there was no way of escaping death. However, I'd love to serve my country by being an engineer, building the tanks, vehicles, jets, and other machinery that today's government is (in my opinion) taking for granted. Just imagine today's army if it lacked those things.

-Joe

[greencactus3]

weeell in my opinion fighting against fighting isnt the best plan period. apparently it doesnt fix everything too. so yea. not that its easy but if the us didnt "intimidate" others with different beliefs by means of a massive army/nave/af/ etc whatnot, ehh.. yea. peace

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by JoeXIII'007

However, I'd love to serve my country by being an engineer, building the tanks, vehicles, jets, and other machinery that today's government is (in my opinion) taking for granted.

I agree with you 110%. I'm currently on co-op with a defense company which is participating in the Future Combat Systems program. The stuff we work on is very exciting. I also have a great sense of pride about the number of US military lives will be saved by the technology we create.

[Bharat Nain]

Originally Posted by JVN

Before this gets any more ugly--
Any chance I can convince you guys to take this elsewhere?

A quick google search revealed to me a large number of political discussion/debate/flamewar forums. Maybe one of those would work.

www.politicalcrossfire.com seems interesting...

Maybe it's time to "take it outside".

John

EDIT:
Or... you can just start an AIM chat called "FIRST Political Debaters of the World Unite" and talk in real-time.
/EDIT

I second that. There are several other political forums out there, you might have more fun debating about such topics over there.

[Bill Gold]

Originally Posted by Bharat Nain

I second that. There are several other political forums out there, you might have more fun debating about such topics over there.

Let it go. It's chit-chat. If we can talk about unimportant stuff like Foreign Music, iPods, Facebook.com, modding XBOX cases, The Sims, and all sorts of other threads in Chit-Chat, then we should be able to talk politics without people telling us “this isn’t the place to be talking about it.” Politics actually has an impact on our lives and how we’re going to be living for the rest of our lives.

Originally Posted by Max Lobovsky

As for the Osirak reactor, I'm sure all of us are thankful that a nation that has used chemical weapons in war (and on its own people) did not have the oppurtunity to create nuclear weapons.

[Not to imply that you didn’t already know this, but I’ll post in case people who didn’t were reading this thread.]

Chemical weapons that the United States Government sold to Iraq in the 1980's in the hopes they'd use them against our mutual enemy Iran. We knew Saddam was a nut back then, and we still decided that the enemy of our enemy was our friend, like the CIA trained Osama bin Laden, and how we propped up Noriega in Panama, before we illegally went in there and pulled him out.

Let’s keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of Iraq by force (our recent invasion), but allow North Korea and Pakistan to develop and mass-produce nuclear weapons of their own without a fight. Pakistan is extremely unstable, and North Korea is a possible threat, each much more of a scary situation than Iraq since the end of the gulf war. Not to mention we haven’t found hide nor hare in terms of nuclear weapons in Iraq over the past year and a half.

[Kel D]

I'm ready to serve my country. I'm in AFROTC right now and I hope to get a comission when I am done with my education and work with planes and hopefully be a pilot.

[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