I was just wondering how many of you guy would be willing to go and fight for you nation today or tomorrow.

Not to get Bill Clinton on you, but that depends on your definition of fighting for my country.

If some army is marching down Harbison Boulevard (the main drag near my house), pass me a shotgun and let’s dance.

Once you leave the country, however, things get fuzzy. I have always been against taking a fight to someone, unless taking it to them is the only way to keep them from bringing it to us.

So yeah, I’ll fight for my country–as long as the fight is needed. Butt-kickings should only be handed out when other methods won’t work.

i would be ready to go anytime. This summer i almost joined the air force but was already going to college so i decided to wait to see how i like college. I might join the national guard this summer or go fully into the air force

I’d do it immediately, though I am female and wouldn’t be able to. But if they did indeed go through that hoax draft where they take men and women as soon as they were 18, I’d go. Though I’d be scared slightly, I’d still go and just try to stay alive for my family back home. And my team!!!

I personally could never do what those involved in warfare efforts could do (shooting at others being my main concern)… However, I would be willing to help in ways which may incorporate the improvement of technology and charity to those harmed by said warfare.

If someone is invading our borders, sure

If the President of the United States decides he doesn’t like some crackpot off in the middle of nowhere, hell no.

If another country is invading us, I would be willing to physically fight for our country (if I couldn’t be of better use in any other position).

I have already, and will always continue to fight for the courses of action that I think our country should employ. This means that I will fight against overextending our troops throughout the world, as well as fighting against other policies that not only are counterproductive to our country’s progress, but were obviously not adequately thought out.

This question is completely loaded. The tone behind it implies that anyone who doesn’t believe our country did the right thing by not securing the nation of Afghanistan, and then invading Iraq and doesn’t want to support this either illegal or unjust invasion of Iraq isn’t patriotic. People who blindly follow the government and never question anything absolutely do not have a monopoly on patriotism. I can defend the country just as well as a Republican, and neither of us wants to do it more than the other.

I’ll get off this soapbox now…

I am would be honored to defend my rights and the rights of others. I know what has been lost to have these rights given to me and i would be willing to do the same.

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.


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

I think Bethesda is nice. :slight_smile:
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. :slight_smile:


Ahhh i seee

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.”

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. :slight_smile:
  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…

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.

  1. Osirak
    (Well, that was an aerial attack, not a strict “invasion”.) 1. 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.) 1. 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…

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.

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.

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 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.