Of course depending on a defensive war, but often times you’re not fighting for the state, but your loved ones. Like on a smaller scale nearly everyone would defend the people close to them from harm, for example trying to stop a rapist from abusing your wife/sister/daughter of course not limited to women. Rape can be used against men as well.
In a defensive war the goal of states sovereignty and you defending your loved ones can align.
but often times you’re not fighting for the state, but your loved ones.
If I’m part of a state’s army, I’m fighting for the militaristic goals of that state. That state only has an interest in my “loved ones” insofar as it’s the population they require to achieve their political aims. My loved ones aren’t benefactors of the state. That’s just state propagana.
Your rape example has little in common from militaristic conflict that it’s simply a non-sequitur.
In a defensive war the goal of states sovereignty and you defending your loved ones can align.
I think you misunderstand what wars are to a state: In war, two or more states fight for their interest by destroying an opponents people and resources by destroying their own people an resources. I’m not a resource that’s willing to be used up.
What if the state attacking is doing so for the purpose of murdering you and your family and everyone who remotely looks like you or shares your culture?
Arbitrarily drawing the line at your feet for what form of group is acceptable doesn’t change that your self-defense militia would in fact be akin to “a state” in the context of what is being discussed.
Still very far from ideal to kill soliders of the invading army, cuz they’re also people with lives and aren’t always willing in their choice, or worse case, indoctorinated.
There truly are monsters whom love wars and killing and enter the army exactly because, but those are almost certainly a minority
Edit: I’m not exactly sure why, but it seems like my comment is being read as if in opposition rather than in addition. I’m not saying “don’t kill”, I’m saying “shame it did come to that”, where it did come to that because of military as a concept. Military as a reaction to other militaries only exists as a need to other militaries existing as well. So if there was no military to exist in the first place, there would simply be no need for one as a reaction either
I wouldn’t phrase it as ‘deserve’, but yeah, obviously. Pacifism is as bad of a failure when it doesn’t prevent those whom bring harm from doing so. I have no issue with them dying since it did come to that point. But I still, personally, believe that I can get to grieve for them nonetheless. It’s not contradictory as I see it.
(I’m more than open to a discussion and even invite for someone to correct me if I’m wrong, not in the sense of “I challange” as much as “I want to improve”)
I get it’s not what I would like to happen in general that a soldier invades another country. Still, they have to die in order to avoid being occupied. It’s a different debate on which is worse and depends a lot on the occupying country and the recipient, generally occupation bad tho.
I think every army that had to defend their home country would have preferred doing other things, and until 2022 i honestly tought that invasions were a thing of the past, at least in Europe. Russia showed otherwise, now i think that being capable of defending yourself is important. You dont have to have a ginormous army like the US but you have to be enough of a threat that somebody would think twice before attacking.
I live in Australia and until 2024 I thought we don’t need an army, we’re so far from any threats. But now I think we need to build drone bombers so we can drone strike some IDF bases.
You’re right, all war is bad. War sucks and it should never have to happen. Even wars fought for good reasons are still terrible and it would be a better world if they never had to be fought at all.
The part you’re missing is that war is not the military. They’re different things. Militaries fight wars, that doesn’t mean that wars will magically stop happening to everyone who gets rid of their military. It would be wonderful to live in a world where militaries aren’t needed, but instead we live in a world where many countries live under the constant threat of invasion.
The Canadian military maintains a constant presence in Latvia, because if we didn’t, Russia would walk in there tomorrow and take over. My wife just finished a tour. The Latvians don’t resent the presence of our military, they love us. Everywhere she went, barring some very specific exceptions, people were glad to see them. They felt happy, reassured by their visible presence. People from the other side of the world who had upended their lives to spend six months away from family and loved ones defending their tiny little country from the threat of brutal autocratic rule.
No one wants these things to be necessary, but they are, whether we like it or not. We would not be living in a better world right now if, in 1939, the whole world had just rolled over and let the Nazis walk in without a fight, would we?
War is always nasty, cruel, and terrible for the people involved, even if it is a just fight. Killing people is nothing to celebrate and there is nothing honorable about it
I agree with you. The rest of this comment may seem to imply otherwise, but two things can be true at the same time.
There is celebration to be had in not being genocided by successfully overcoming an invading force though. There is celebration to be had when you’ve eliminated a threat to your family’s lives.
If someone wants to play stupid games, let them win stupid prizes. I don’t agree with murder, but killing in self-defense, even at scale, is reasonable. I would even go as far as to say it is good to live a longer, safer life. As far as “good” and “bad” are just projections of human’s fear of discomfort and suffering, and desire for pleasure and comfort.
It is good to live, it is bad to die. If soldiers didn’t want to die, they wouldn’t go to war. They made their choices. Its a weird use of free-will in my opinion, but its an option.
Even when a war is necessary to prevent a worse outcome, it is still bad
Well yeah, but if that’s the only kind of war that a military is planning on fighting, IMO it’s a bit much to call it “evil”.
As militaries are a tool of states to protect their sovereign power: That’s not what militaries do, though.
I don’t want to die for a state. Even if that state is being challenged in it’s sovereignity.
Of course depending on a defensive war, but often times you’re not fighting for the state, but your loved ones. Like on a smaller scale nearly everyone would defend the people close to them from harm, for example trying to stop a rapist from abusing your wife/sister/daughter of course not limited to women. Rape can be used against men as well.
In a defensive war the goal of states sovereignty and you defending your loved ones can align.
If I’m part of a state’s army, I’m fighting for the militaristic goals of that state. That state only has an interest in my “loved ones” insofar as it’s the population they require to achieve their political aims. My loved ones aren’t benefactors of the state. That’s just state propagana.
Your rape example has little in common from militaristic conflict that it’s simply a non-sequitur.
I think you misunderstand what wars are to a state: In war, two or more states fight for their interest by destroying an opponents people and resources by destroying their own people an resources. I’m not a resource that’s willing to be used up.
What if the state attacking is doing so for the purpose of murdering you and your family and everyone who remotely looks like you or shares your culture?
That still doesn’t mean that I’d be ready to die for another state.
So you prefer to roll over and get genocided?
Not what I said.
I’d flee or if there’s any reasonable chance to survive, I’d join some self-defense militia. But I wouldn’t die for a state.
Arbitrarily drawing the line at your feet for what form of group is acceptable doesn’t change that your self-defense militia would in fact be akin to “a state” in the context of what is being discussed.
it were a state, I wouldn’t have a say in whether or not I will help in defending that state.
So if your land gets taken over, you’ll go somewhere else and take someone else’s land?
Is that hou you view refugees? As “taking someone else’s land”?
Ok, Mr Musk. /s
Still very far from ideal to kill soliders of the invading army, cuz they’re also people with lives and aren’t always willing in their choice, or worse case, indoctorinated. There truly are monsters whom love wars and killing and enter the army exactly because, but those are almost certainly a minority
Edit: I’m not exactly sure why, but it seems like my comment is being read as if in opposition rather than in addition. I’m not saying “don’t kill”, I’m saying “shame it did come to that”, where it did come to that because of military as a concept. Military as a reaction to other militaries only exists as a need to other militaries existing as well. So if there was no military to exist in the first place, there would simply be no need for one as a reaction either
Sure it’s not ideal but I won’t cry for any dead Russian soldiers. You walked across that border, you deserve to die.
I wouldn’t phrase it as ‘deserve’, but yeah, obviously. Pacifism is as bad of a failure when it doesn’t prevent those whom bring harm from doing so. I have no issue with them dying since it did come to that point. But I still, personally, believe that I can get to grieve for them nonetheless. It’s not contradictory as I see it.
(I’m more than open to a discussion and even invite for someone to correct me if I’m wrong, not in the sense of “I challange” as much as “I want to improve”)
Idk. If you’re coming to kill me fuck you. I don’t really care about your justification.
“Ooh, but I was indoctrinated, it wasn’t my fault” No. You are coming to kill me so fuck you.
I get it’s not what I would like to happen in general that a soldier invades another country. Still, they have to die in order to avoid being occupied. It’s a different debate on which is worse and depends a lot on the occupying country and the recipient, generally occupation bad tho.
I think every army that had to defend their home country would have preferred doing other things, and until 2022 i honestly tought that invasions were a thing of the past, at least in Europe. Russia showed otherwise, now i think that being capable of defending yourself is important. You dont have to have a ginormous army like the US but you have to be enough of a threat that somebody would think twice before attacking.
I live in Australia and until 2024 I thought we don’t need an army, we’re so far from any threats. But now I think we need to build drone bombers so we can drone strike some IDF bases.
You’re right, all war is bad. War sucks and it should never have to happen. Even wars fought for good reasons are still terrible and it would be a better world if they never had to be fought at all.
The part you’re missing is that war is not the military. They’re different things. Militaries fight wars, that doesn’t mean that wars will magically stop happening to everyone who gets rid of their military. It would be wonderful to live in a world where militaries aren’t needed, but instead we live in a world where many countries live under the constant threat of invasion.
The Canadian military maintains a constant presence in Latvia, because if we didn’t, Russia would walk in there tomorrow and take over. My wife just finished a tour. The Latvians don’t resent the presence of our military, they love us. Everywhere she went, barring some very specific exceptions, people were glad to see them. They felt happy, reassured by their visible presence. People from the other side of the world who had upended their lives to spend six months away from family and loved ones defending their tiny little country from the threat of brutal autocratic rule.
No one wants these things to be necessary, but they are, whether we like it or not. We would not be living in a better world right now if, in 1939, the whole world had just rolled over and let the Nazis walk in without a fight, would we?
Pacifism is so logically inconsistent.
Do elaborate.
War is always nasty, cruel, and terrible for the people involved, even if it is a just fight. Killing people is nothing to celebrate and there is nothing honorable about it
I agree with you. The rest of this comment may seem to imply otherwise, but two things can be true at the same time.
There is celebration to be had in not being genocided by successfully overcoming an invading force though. There is celebration to be had when you’ve eliminated a threat to your family’s lives.
If someone wants to play stupid games, let them win stupid prizes. I don’t agree with murder, but killing in self-defense, even at scale, is reasonable. I would even go as far as to say it is good to live a longer, safer life. As far as “good” and “bad” are just projections of human’s fear of discomfort and suffering, and desire for pleasure and comfort.
It is good to live, it is bad to die. If soldiers didn’t want to die, they wouldn’t go to war. They made their choices. Its a weird use of free-will in my opinion, but its an option.