Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
That stance is pure idealism. Yeah sure, it’d be great not to spend the money or emit CO2 just to make sure we don’t get invaded*, but since that is a risk, and you can’t just kumbaya it away.
Then, since having a military is at minima a defensive imperative, how is wanting to be a defender anything close to bad? Granted, some armies are pure ideological cancer, but that does not define what an army is, and it’s not a global issue.
To get straight to the moral dichotomy of our time, how can you say that the English army who defended itself against the Wehrmacht were the same as the Wehrmacht? I’m not trying to corner you or being disingenuous, I don’t get how you can say that all armies are somewhat the same
(this doesn’t apply to the US military which is pure bloat)
Hot take: Wehrmacht fought a defensive war. Everyone fights a defensive war.
Wehrmacht tried to defend and secure the future of Arian race, they defended themselves against a perceived threat of Jews overrunning them.
English, while fighting fiercely against Germans, still militarily held their colony in India, protecting the interests of the crown.
Israeli army is now committing genocide, repeatedly and casually doing war crimes - in the name of protection, of course.
Every army, given the chance, will claim defensive interest in the war that’s to come. That’s why biggest war aggressor countries have Ministries of Defence, not Ministries of Offence.
There are all kinds of institutions out there that can help mediate demilitarization. Yet leaders of many countries don’t want that, and we should force them to do so - primarily through the inside democratic pressure, whenever possible.
That stance is pure idealism. Yeah sure, it’d be great not to spend the money or emit CO2 just to make sure we don’t get invaded*, but since that is a risk, and you can’t just kumbaya it away.
Then, since having a military is at minima a defensive imperative, how is wanting to be a defender anything close to bad? Granted, some armies are pure ideological cancer, but that does not define what an army is, and it’s not a global issue.
To get straight to the moral dichotomy of our time, how can you say that the English army who defended itself against the Wehrmacht were the same as the Wehrmacht? I’m not trying to corner you or being disingenuous, I don’t get how you can say that all armies are somewhat the same
Hot take: Wehrmacht fought a defensive war. Everyone fights a defensive war.
Wehrmacht tried to defend and secure the future of Arian race, they defended themselves against a perceived threat of Jews overrunning them.
English, while fighting fiercely against Germans, still militarily held their colony in India, protecting the interests of the crown.
Israeli army is now committing genocide, repeatedly and casually doing war crimes - in the name of protection, of course.
Every army, given the chance, will claim defensive interest in the war that’s to come. That’s why biggest war aggressor countries have Ministries of Defence, not Ministries of Offence.
There are all kinds of institutions out there that can help mediate demilitarization. Yet leaders of many countries don’t want that, and we should force them to do so - primarily through the inside democratic pressure, whenever possible.
To add to this, we renamed our department of war to the department of defense.