this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2023
160 points (94.9% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
4204 readers
64 users here now
Militaria shitposting central! Post memes, tasteless jokes, and sexual cravings for military equipment and/or nuclear self-destruction!
Rules:
- Posts must abide by lemmy.world terms and conditions
- No spam or soliciting for money.
- No racism or other bigotry allowed.
- Obviously nothing illegal.
If you see these please report them.
Related communities:
For the other, slightly less political NCD, !noncredibledefense@sh.itjust.works
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Personally, I think "war bad" is a perfectly defensible position.
In isolation, sure, but in context, 'war bad' types are generally not agitating for the invader to stop, but for the defender to stop.
IMO, it's often not even "war bad" but "fighting bad". Thus wanting the defender not to defend because that would be just as bad as attacking.
I consider myself a pacifist, so I prefer peaceful and diplomatic ways before going to war. But if you are attacked, you have the right, if not the duty, to defend yourself and your citizens.
Edit: changed citizen to cititens
Reading your edit not gave me the mental image of a country being attacked and their military just surrounds and protects one singular confused random citizen
I'm more "aggression bad. robust self defense good".
We tend to think of the aggressor when we say war is bad. It makes sense, they're the ones who initiate the conflict and make the war exist.
Defending yourself in a war though is, well, defensible. Being anti war can never be an absolutist position. Otherwise, those who are fine with war only need threaten war to get what they want. Do you truly live in peace if it's because you give the aggressor everything they want? I'd argue no.
Sure, but #3 sure as hell isnt...