As title, if you have post or link any useful resource you have
Ask them to do so themselves, voluntarily.
If they refuse, the argument stands.
If they accept, you won’t convince this person.
War is horrific. If we deem a military is necessary to a peaceful society to protect from threats both domestic and foreign, then we should have a draft of ALL able adults, not just the poor and underprivileged. Rich folks, political folks, and otherwise connected individuals should be subject to be put on the front lines right next to the rest of us. What that means is we might rethink, as a nation, any military action. An all volunteer military would be the next most preferable one that is paid equal or greater to the national average income with full lifetime benefits including healthcare for the whole body including mind, teeth, eyes, etc., pension, free education including masters and doctorate level education, housing, as well as meeting other basic needs of life.
Anything less than that should be unacceptable.
Its a tough one. A pro draft stance I have only seen with the extremes. Usually with the right its nationalism related, real x should be eager beavers when their time comes to serve. On the left its hey the sons of the leaders and the leaders themselves should have representation in the ware zones. I sorta get the last one as we have an all “volunteer” force that has benefits for signup akin to if you coutry had somewhat decent social safety nets along with training and decent pay. So it has no real draw for the well to do. Thing is that when there was a draft the kept their cowardly progency out with things like bone spurs or such. So they had docs make up medical excuses while they called the ones who were plucked to go die suckers and losers.
I’m not part of the typical group that gets drafted (presumably young men) but my argument has always been that my country doesn’t own me, I’m not its property. If I want to fight for/serve my country I will, but IMO it has no right to just use me at will like a resource.
This especially goes for times like these, when everything is unaffordable, nobody can get a house, you can barely see a doctor, the police don’t even bother solving most low-level crime and the rich are lining their pockets with our money. The system is not upholding its end of the social contract at all, so why should it expect any extraordinary measures from us?
The 13th amendment protects us from forced labor. No matter what the supreme court might bring up bullshit about how other countries do it.
Hey Dipshit’s, maybe needless wars wouldn’t start if it wasn’t fucking possible to force people to fight in them.
Unless as punishment.
The founding fathers thought that standing armies make any leader a tyrant.
Show them some videos of people getting blown up by FPV drones. If that doesn’t get them to think, nothing will.
OP, nobody in that thread yesterday was saying it was a good thing. When a country gets invaded, your responses are always going to be a matter of lesser evils. Apologies for Godwin’s-Law-ing this off the bat, but it wasn’t great that the Allies drafted hundreds of thousands of people and invaded Nazi Germany. It was still better than every other option.
Godwin’s law itself always confused me. Of course comparisons with nazi Germany are overused, but it’s literally only 80 years ago. The fact that it could happen such a short time ago means that many of the same dangers, same lessons learned are very likely still completely applicable today. The human behaviors that led to Nazi Germany are still there, in/outgroup thinking, fear of foreigners/others, etc etc etc
So yeah I don’t think “Godwin’s law” existing as a concept should stop valid comparisons.
It doesn’t! It’s just a comment on how overused the comparisons are on the internet. To quote Godwin himself:
Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler to think a bit harder about the Holocaust.
Even though op’s post history clearly points to the angle they’re trying to get across, I’ll answer for ya.
You educate the Russians. They’re living in a closed room and are being force fed bullshit so Ukraine looks like the bad guys. Once they’re educated and realize what the hell is going on, there will be some uproar to them being drafted and forced to fight Ukraine who has done nothing wrong. Maybe then, they’ll stand up to Putin and take his fucking ass out and this shit can be over. At that point maybe Russia can turn it around and become a productive member of society.
perhaps should start by taking your own advice, stepping out of your echo chamber, and educating yourself on what’s going on https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/who-caused-the-ukraine-war
I think it’s more fruitful to look at who benefits from the Ukrainian war.
Life for the average Ukrainian will not be radically different under Russian rule. Most of them will get up, go to work the same job they always have and funnel as much money as possible to those who already have it.
It just so happens that under Russian rule, Russian rulers will be making profit instead of Ukrainian rulers. The people actually fighting the wars never benefit and the ones who benefit never fight.
Its irrelevant whether or not life would be different under Russian rule. Russia choose to invade a sovereign nation. The fact that ukrainians are still fighting to this day shows they want to be independent.
The fact that ukrainians are still fighting to this day shows they want to be independent.
This is a post about conscription, where people who do not want to fight are forced to
It’s pretty obvious that the only country that benefits from the war is the US. Don’t take my word for it though, RAND wrote a whole study explaining how in detail https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html
It’s also absolutely phenomenal that people think Russia needs Ukraine to make profit when it’s already the largest country in the world with plenty of undeveloped resources. If you think countries benefit from having to fight a war, then you might wan to learn a bit of history.
Then why would Russia attack Ukraine? Especially since they had already agreed to let go of their nukes and not join NATO. Just let them be then.
If you bother reading the paper I linked, it explains it in great detail. But if you don’t believe RAND, then here’s the head of NATO explaining it in black and white
The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn’t sign that.
The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that.
So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm
The sheer intellectual dishonesty of pretending that this was about anything other than NATO expanding to Russia’s border even when top NATO officials openly admit this to be the case is truly astonishing.
You seem to misunderstand your own sources. What you cited only proves how utterly insane Russia’s conditions were / are. Of course NATO won’t let Pootin blackmail them into giving up their stations etc.
Russia and brainwashed tankies like yourself always seem to reject the notion that former Soviet nations are actually sovereign and might have an interest in increasing their defensive strength in light of, wait for it, HISTORY.
Nah I understand my own sources just fine. Meanwhile, anybody with a functioning brain can understand that countries overrun but US propaganda and reliant on US military protection are in no way sovereign. Figures that radlib like you wouldn’t even understand what sovereignty means.
Haha sorry I’ll save your link to read later
I actually showed that article about a year ago to a co-worker of mine. LMAO
It just so happens that under Russian rule, Russian rulers will be making profit instead of Ukrainian rulers.
I think we’re missing a couple of nuances here, no? Although it’s a stretch to call them nuance. The way Ukrainian rulers have been making money has been through privatization. And because there’s so much privatization we need to look at who owns Ukraine’s economy. It’s only escalated since Russia invaded, with national assets being sold off to foreign private sectors so cheaply that one has to wonder why they did it when the gains are a drop in the bucket compared to the direct aid they’ve been getting from Western public sectors.
If Ukraine emerges from this conflict with its own sovereignty, it’ll be sovereignty over a flag, a presidential palace and a state framework that protects foreign companies’ investments from hungry Ukrainians.
The country is dead. They sold their infrastructure to blackrock and other investment firms. They are now taking out loans to buy weapons which won’t do shit against Russia. The country is gutted by capital. Zelensky himself has at least two mansions in other countries including one in Miami. He will either get killed Diem-style (backstabbed by the US/CIA) or flee. It’s also possible Azov nazis kill him.
That’s only because Russia has already privatized and sold off all of its national assets to oligarchs after the fall of the USSR.
that doesn’t make sense in the context of the post you replied to
The reason the US has a special hate-on for Putin is precisely because he kicked the Western shock therapists out of the country. He stanched the tide of privatization.
Russia invaded Ukraine. All anyone besides tankies and trolls need to know.
Dude we couped Ukraine in 2014 and got them to kill tens of thousands of civilians in the 2 independent republics. We were supporting Ukranian nationalism, which is aligned with naziism for quite a while. Decades. Euromaiden happened because of us. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10014.html
That’s right history started in 2022, nothing happened before that. You are very intelligent.
Thank you for the compliment, if you keep reading outside your safe space and opinion articles, you’ll get there too!
if only you would take your own advice there buddy, but we both know you won’t
Take the L bro, you earned it
says the bro who has no concept of history without a hint of irony
LOL, the only people who would say this to Yogthos are those speaking from ignorance. The dude is like a machine when it comes to reading and sharing articles from all over the place. I’ve never seen anyone else read the news so widely.
I don’t think you know what the term radlib means. It’s kind of sad. But I do know that when one country advances into another country, and expands territory, that’s an aggressive fact. You can try to justify it however you want, I know you’re trying hard, but it’s just not convincing. Seizing the Crimea and then expanding more recently, those are the actions of a country that wants more power and more territory and more control. That’s not the kind of country that I respect.
And if you want to point out that the US does shady stuff too, you’re absolutely right. But that doesn’t make Russia’s actions reasonable.
This is the sort of understanding of the world young children have before their brains fully develop.
Said a clown spouting text book Russian propaganda
I hope you get paid for this lol
Is Russian propaganda in the room with your right now?
I’ve read the contents of your link and I can see how one would fall for these arguments. But I can already point to a couple flaws:
It doesn’t matter who did what before, Russia had a choice. A choice of resolving their issue in a nonviolent manner through diplomacy, espionage, subterfuge and trade. Instead they chose violence. Thus it doesn’t matter that they had no inkling of wanting to conquer Ukraine (or specifically Putin) or not.
Second, they absolutely did try to install puppets and Russia-friendly governments before. They succeeded sometimes, somewhat. And the last time those puppets had to flee to Russia of all places to escape the wrath of Ukrainian people.
Third, this didn’t start on February 22, 2022, but in 2014, when Russia decided to occupy Crimea. So they didn’t just do it once, but on two occasions. Except the West somehow glossed over the first time on the heels of the Winter Olympics.
Seems like there are a couple of flaws in your own narrative there.
It doesn’t matter who did what before, Russia had a choice. A choice of resolving their issue in a nonviolent manner through diplomacy, espionage, subterfuge and trade.
Russia did exercise this choice for whole eight years. That’s what Minsk agreements were about, and now prominent western officials have come out and admitted on record that the goal of the agreements was in fact to give more time for Ukraine to arm itself.
Instead they chose violence. Thus it doesn’t matter that they had no inkling of wanting to conquer Ukraine (or specifically Putin) or not.
Stoltenberg openly admits that it was in fact NATO that chose violence and refused to negotiate https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm
Second, they absolutely did try to install puppets and Russia-friendly governments before. They succeeded sometimes, somewhat. And the last time those puppets had to flee to Russia of all places to escape the wrath of Ukrainian people.
Last I checked, it was the US that overthrew the democratically elected government and installed puppets. Which is also not exactly the first time that US has done this around the world.
Third, this didn’t start on February 22, 2022, but in 2014, when Russia decided to occupy Crimea. So they didn’t just do it once, but on two occasions. Except the West somehow glossed over the first time on the heels of the Winter Olympics.
Oh you mean when Russia annex Crimea in response to US running a color revolution. I love how you just ignore that little detail there.
I really have to wonder if people like you genuinely believe what you say. It’s absolutely incredible if that’s the case.
What you linked does not support the statement that NATO choose violence by not negotiating.
It very clearly does. NATO kept pushing towards Russia for decades after USSR dissolved. Russia tried to find a peaceful compromise with NATO this whole time. Yet, here you are pretending that it’s actually Russia that won’t compromise.
Can you quote the part that you believe supports your statements? The bit I think you are referencing doesn’t support your statement at all.
I already did in this very thread. If you think the bit I referenced doesn’t support what I said it’s clear that no productive conversation is possible here.
Stoltenberg openly admits that it was in fact NATO that chose violence and refused to negotiate https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm
I’m not going to read the whole minutes. Can you quote please what you are referring to?
Last I checked, it was the US that overthrew the democratically elected government and installed puppets. Which is also not exactly the first time that US has done this around the world.
This seems to be whataboutism. Do you have any evidence for the US causing the euromaidan and subsequent revolution? Seems to me like the people were fed up with the shit that ol’ Viktor was peddling.
Oh you mean when Russia annex Crimea in response to US running a color revolution.
Did anyone from the West ever conquer anything that belonged to Russia? Russia answered with violence for nothing. Notice how there’s a string of attacks on territories that weren’t actually Russia’s in recent history.
I love how you just ignore that little detail there.
I really have to wonder if people like you genuinely believe what you say. It’s absolutely incredible if that’s the case.
Classic distraction scheme. Attacking the person instead of the point. Not even sure why I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and engaged with you.
He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that. So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.
Here you go ^
This seems to be whataboutism. Do you have any evidence for the US causing the euromaidan and subsequent revolution? Seems to me like the people were fed up with the shit that ol’ Viktor was peddling.
here’s a detailed explanation with lots of mainstream sources for you https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-credible-evidence-that-Ukraines-2014-revolution-was-due-to-a-CIA-coup
If you think that US overthrowing a neutral government in Ukraine to put in a far right regime that allowed NATO to start building out offensive capabilities on Russia’s border is not relevant to Russia pushing back NATO, really don’t know what else to tell you.
Did anyone from the West ever conquer anything that belonged to Russia? Russia answered with violence for nothing. Notice how there’s a string of attacks on territories that weren’t actually Russia’s in recent history.
Ukraine descended into a civil war after a US backed coup. The fighting between the right wing western backed government and Donbas started right after it. You seem to be utterly ignorant on the history of the conflict.
Classic distraction scheme. Attacking the person instead of the point. Not even sure why I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and engaged with you.
Except I addressed your “point” which is sheer nonsense.
summed up: well i dont read shit so you’re gonna have to spoonfeed it to me so i can spit it out in your face without even tasting it
dude, Russia complained to the UN and obviously NATO and the US many many many many many many times. You’re being brainwashed by US media, which is 100% ALL controlled by the CIA. For basics, you should simply look at what Russia’s foreign diplomats are saying. They speak clearly and don’t bullshit. Weigh what the two sides say. Simply put, the US just makes up childish stories with no factual basis behind them and Russia gives long factual history lessons.
I agree with you on previous points, but you must know for a fact that Russia has a whole department for rewriting history in their favour that didn’t fall with the Soviet Union.
That makes your long factual history lessons claim ridiculous, besides relying on historical Russia to justify current carnage is ridiculous.
NATO driven by the US definitively pokes at several beehives, and once those beehives lose diplomatically (because given the pressure we do it definitely is a loss on the world stage not an agreement) they start stinging.
Russia has an history of brutal governments when it comes to warfare, and in Ukraine they show they still don’t refrain from uncontrolled barbarism. It’s a bed the West helped do, but comes from an expansionist desire of both Russia and the US.
PS: I’m focusing on the US which has more impact world wide, but we just need to see France in West Africa to see the former empires are still doing their old thing under the table. Bunch of power hungry minorities making live miserable for a larger humanity is something we have everywhere.
It doesn’t matter who did what before
this didn’t start on February 22, 2022, but in 2014
History starts and stops exactly when it best suits my argument
@InternetUser2012 I am Russian. Believe me when I say: most of us perfectly know what’s going on.
We’re just scared. That’s it.
I would be too. Stay safe.
@drq @InternetUser2012 @index
Yes, we’re scared. Of foreign jerks toppling our government again even though they established it here originally. And doing it repeatedly. And they did it in other countries. I’m with Ukrainians. But only with those who fight against NATO and not with it.
Being drafted (which is forced labour where you additionally have a high chance of being killed or wounded) is always not okay, not just when it is done to invade another country.
Disclosure: I’m Israeli, I’m anti war and anti occupation. I was drafted more than 20 years ago (it’s sort of mandatory here).
I think you paint it in a too much simple colours. In the war between israel and Gaza now, both armies fight for what they believe is the safety of their home, and in both armies there are high numbers if drafted (by force people). Also, in both sides, there is a level of truth that without the auctions of their army their home will be at risk. So you end up in a situation where there is an army that you don’t fully agree with and you serve in it since the alternative is even worse.
It boils down to the fact that your political leaders are not having your well-being at the top of their priorities. I believe that your discussion with that someone should be about that. Not about do/don’t draft but how to promote a world where there will be no need for drafting.
(I believe that the same goes to Ukrain and Russia war).
without the auctions of their army their home will be at risk
Without Hamas’s recent actions, the home of the Palestinians would be at risk?
I think you gotta recheck your math on that one
And of course the same thing applies to Israel; without the IDF and settlers’ actions in Palestine, there wouldn’t have been an October 7th in the first place.
Simply reverse the picture of what you said you’ll see we are saying the same thing. From Hammas /Palestinians perspective Israel and the settlements are the same and their agenda is to drive away all Palestinians (and to be fair, some of the MKs here say that openly, even before October 7th). From Israel perspective, Hammas’s declared agenda is to kill Israel/all the Jews (I mean, it is in their charter). From both perspective, there is a good drive to join the army in order to protect their loved ones.
(I mean, it is in their charter)
pretty sure it’s no longer in their charter.
Also why do you keep calling it an army. Gaza doesn’t have an army.
This is a militant group, with actual guns and drones or explosive and uniform (that they don’t always wear), not a bunch of kids with sticks. This either an army or a terror organisation.
Hamas’s new charter (2017l is sort of accepting Israel (I don’t recall the exact wording, but something along the lines of “if all/most Palestinians accept it”). But the 1988 (in particular article 7, but also 28) charter was never cancelled and the 2017 was never officially approved
First paragraph: https://www.reuters.com/article/world/leading-hamas-official-says-no-softened-stance-toward-israel-idUSKBN1862O4/
Funny story, I was mistaken for an Israeli patriot today, just because of my accent and what I was wearing. I was reassured, if you like, that the world is not going to ostracise Israel and Israel will keep existing. That was the gist of it anyhow. Of course I have no doubt israel will keep existing, what with all the support of the world’s hegemons. What worries me is that Israel will keep existing in its current form: a fascist, genocidal ethnostate. Describing the only armed resistance against occupation permitted by Israel to take hold, as an ‘army’, creates a false sense of equivalence between Hamas’s militants and the IDF with all its powerful tech. To describe what’s been going on in Gaza for the past 10 months as a war between two armies simply defending their own people is, well stunning, when faced with all the evidence of the IDF’s targeted mass killings of Palestinian civilian lives, as well as their callous disregard for Israeli lives (eg Hannibal directive).
First, as I said before, I’m against the war, against the occupation, and in favor of two states solution (ideally, a democratic one Jewish-palestinian state should exist, but this is not going to happen).
Now, I’m sorry, if you ignore the hostages, and the fact that October 7th happened as an offensive act by Hammas, you are painting only a partial picture.
Hamas had 10m to stop the the offensive by Israel, release the hostages. It was that easy 8 months ago, even 5 month ago. Today, I’m not sure. If you ignore this card in hamas’s hands then you are again, painting a partial picture.
And as I said countless times in this thread, directing our anger at the armed forces, rather than politicians (on both sides) only aggravate the war.
I am angry at the politicians in the US etc for their continued support of the mass slaughter and starvation of Palestinians in Gaza.
I’m also angry at the Israeli head of state and political machine, who controls the IDF. When I say ‘the IDF’ I mean of course the military arm of the state of Israel. The Likud charta explicitly states the aim of one Israel ‘from the sea to the river’ - oh, the irony!
What Hamas has done on Oct 7, even if all stories are to be believed, pales in comparison to what Israel has done to innocent Palestinians - schools, universities, hospitals, aid workers, journalists, etc -before and since. And it was clearly provoked by years of being occupied in an open-air prison. So I’m sorry if I’m not interested in the ‘we’re only defending our own’ shtick.
A two-state solution is only possible if Israel withdraws, stops occupying Palestine and allows it to exercise full sovereignty of its borders, governancet, and defence.
0·4 months agoHammas’s declared agenda is to kill Israel/all the Jews (I mean, it is in their charter).
So you can quote/point out the specific part where that is? I would love to read it.
I don’t disagree with any of that… the only part I was taking issue with was saying “there is a level of truth” that the armed forces of both sides are working for safety of both sides.
If the IDF stopped killing innocent people, it would dramatically increase the level of safety in the future for the loved ones of the soldiers. And likewise for Hamas.
I mean obviously having 0 Israeli military isn’t gonna work; I do get what you’re saying. But put it this way; if Hamas had disappeared entirely on October 6th, everyone on all sides would be a hell of a lot safer today.
Do you see any scenario where the IDF can allow itself to truly stop Innocent people? A soldier is being fired at from a school, should the soldier allow himself to get killed in such situation?
And vice versa, considering what you know about setlers in Israel, do you really think that they will not get even more violent in the west bank if they know that their actions has no cost?
And don’t get me wrong, I wish for Hamas to vanish, and I wish for the IDF to kill only militants (even that definition is not clear), just like you. But I don’t see any realistic scenario (considering the human spirit) that this can happen. Not in the current political situation.
Do you see any scenario where the IDF can allow itself to truly stop Innocent people? A soldier is being fired at from a school, should the soldier allow himself to get killed in such situation?
The whole concept is bankrupt. An IDF soldier is being fired at from a school because he is on Palestinian land, occupying it by force to maintain the land that was stolen from the Palestinians and facilitate the taking of more.
There are degrees. If he’s sniping schoolchildren, then that will inflame the conflict more and promote more October 7ths. If he’s “only” firing back at the school, so “defending” himself… well, it’s “better” I guess, but if you break in my house in the middle of the night and I attack you, you’re not “defending” yourself even if you limit yourself to fighting with me and not hurting my wife.
And vice versa, considering what you know about setlers in Israel, do you really think that they will not get even more violent in the west bank if they know that their actions has no cost?
Their actions don’t seem to have a cost though. Or rather the mechanism of retribution is so indirect and random that I don’t think that Hamas’s counterattacks make all that much difference to their calculus of what they can get away with doing to the Palestinians. I could be wrong, but that’s my impression.
And don’t get me wrong, I wish for Hamas to vanish, and I wish for the IDF to kill only militants (even that definition is not clear), just like you. But I don’t see any realistic scenario (considering the human spirit) that this can happen. Not in the current political situation.
Like I said, even “killing only militants” leaves Israel in the position of the war criminal. They are invading and stealing homes, farms, anything they can find and pushing the Palestinians into a vanishingly small series of refuges which they then invade in turn. Why would “militants” not fight back in that scenario? What should they do instead?
I do agree with your take on how unrealistic peace is in the present climate. It needs to be imposed from outside by force in order to happen, which won’t happen, because the US would need to be actively involved in making that happen and the US likes things more or less as they are (or at least as they were before the counterattack after October 7th got so genocidal that it started causing political issues for leaders in the US).
Personally, I’ve come to the conclusion that anyone who has the capacity and wisdom to know why wars are waged in the first place would never voluntarily fight in one.
It’s reinforced my philosophical idea that wars are just a way for humanity to purge the worst of itself.
Eh. Overseas? Definitely not. If my home is invaded? You bet your ass I’m fighting the invaders.
Issue is that “old people” had to spend their time in the army, sometimes even in a foreign land (Good old time of the colonial war), so kids these day feel so privileged
I mean, we can blame the boomer for a lot of thing, but in the 60’s and sometimes 70’s (In many countries) young men had no option but do a military service which way involved going to fight to keep the colonies.
If someone’s romanticizing war to the point that they’re thinking being drafted isn’t a bad thing then no amount of sources or stats would convince them otherwise. I mean, best case scenario they get randomly yanked away from their life, family, and friends and get to burn barrels of shit in the middle of nowhere. How fun.
I don’t have anything specific, but generally speaking those who idolize war have never seen the horrors of war. Speaking with veterans who have actually seen real combat is a good place to start.
Let’s start with the second part of your question? How do you make someone understand that invading another country is not a good thing?
