886
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 88 points 6 months ago

That's an... incredibly naive view of reality.

[-] absentbird@lemm.ee 48 points 6 months ago

Yeah, everyone knows you can only prevent war by fighting in wars. War is peace.

[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 22 points 6 months ago

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum.

[-] absentbird@lemm.ee 19 points 6 months ago

Ah yes, the famous quote from fourth century Rome. How did that work out for them? I seem to remember a continuous series of wars leading to the utter collapse of western Rome before the end of that century. It also inspired the name of the Parabellum pistol (AKA Lugar) manufactured in Germany for both worlds wars. The quote doesn't have the best track record.

I prefer si vis pacem para pacem.

[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago

I seem to remember a continuous series of wars leading to the utter collapse of western Rome before the end of that century.

Wars they were utterly unprepared for, yes.

I prefer si vis pacem para pacem.

Cool. You're prepared for peace. You get into a dispute with your neighbor. Your neighbor is prepared for war. How does this end?

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 7 points 6 months ago

One can find the application to this quote pretty much everywhere, everywhen, even in small personal situations, so once it spread it stuck and outlived the Rome itself because it does correspond to what we sometimes think and do. In soviet times (another dead empire) there were a couple of the same-meaning proverbs, like 'alarmed, thus got armed (in time)' I used when I prepared for things like exams, job interviews, long camping trips and stuff, and I'm pretty sure your culture has them too.

I believe that Einstein was very optimistic and said that too early, or dreamed of the future when wars over beliefs, ego or profits aren't a usual occurence. But we as humanity haven't arrived there yet. One of the ways this can occur is if we would see the war not worth it for a long time, to get used to it, and Europe mostly got this by now within itself, but not against external threats. As, so it happens, there are still rogue actors who can start their shitty crusade on their border. And if we won't be so europocentric, the Middle East and Africa and Asia has a lot of war axes dug out for their peers, there are hot and cold conflicts going on even if they aren't covered in what news sources we can read.

Star Trek: TNG's first season has a little mention of how we humans came here, through unimaginable wars and atrocities, before we aknowledged that our ways are wrong. I hope, we would be better and won't see WW3 (or WW4 with sticks and stones as Albert said) play out before we reach something akin to their fantastic future. We may need to come to the parity and agree to tone it all down, and have a century of peace, before we even get into the mentality characters have in this show.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Hupf@feddit.de 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Einstein, Tucholsky, Gandhi and Jesus all seem to be very naive blokes indeed.

[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago

Jesus was crucified and spawned one of the most vile institutions in human history.

Gandhi thought Britain should surrender to the Nazis.

Very naive blokes indeed.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ummthatguy@lemmy.world 87 points 6 months ago

Largely, we've not been defending ourselves, but rather, maintaining our interests and investments. Who wants to stand behind that other than the misinformed?

[-] Zehzin@lemmy.world 36 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

People who want to do raping and murdering and be praised for it? Though they could just be cops for that.

[-] ummthatguy@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago

There are still those that believe they're fulfilling some patriotic duty, but that only feeds back into my original statement. The "bad apples" only serve to highlight part of the problem. Culling and replanting the "orchard" is a magnitude of order more difficult.

[-] 800XL@lemmy.world 67 points 6 months ago

You can refuse to serve and then they institute the draft. Then you dodge the draft and get elected President.

[-] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 18 points 6 months ago

Only if you're parents are wealthy...

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Zoldyck@lemmy.world 59 points 6 months ago
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 28 points 6 months ago
[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 62 points 6 months ago

It would have to be global otherwise someone realizes "hey I'm the only one with an army" and marches it into whatever they claim as theirs.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 33 points 6 months ago

You have discovered the essential flaw in the plan yes

Engineering a world without war sounds like a great idea. Just disarming and hoping everyone else will do the same isn't it.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] absentbird@lemm.ee 11 points 6 months ago

I think you're misinterpreting the quote. It's saying that the pioneers of a warless world (global context) will be the ones who refuse service in current wars. It's about how a refusal of war is integral to the mindset of a peaceful world. He isn't advocating for asymmetrical disarmament, but for a global movement for peace lead by conscientious objectors.

[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago

I think you’re misinterpreting the quote. It’s saying that the pioneers of a warless world (global context) will be the ones who refuse service in current wars.

Oh, cool, if only more citizens of the Allies during WW2 had refused military service, what shining examples of morality they would be to lead the world into an era of peace.

load more comments (14 replies)
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I would suggest that just people in just a handful of countries doing it would be enough. Unfortunately, those handful are the ones causing all the trouble in the world right now.

[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 16 points 6 months ago

I think you would have to couple the pacifist attitude with physical destruction of the majority of weapons to see results. So long as the weapons exist someone is going to plot to use them.

[-] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 16 points 6 months ago

Honestly, even that wouldn't work. The genie's out of the bottle so to speak. You could destroy all weapons today and they'd be rebuilt tomorrow.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Donkter@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

Ahhh, that sounds nice to hear, if only it was that easy.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Roflmasterbigpimp@lemmy.world 52 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Yeah, Until some Ork shoots you for fun while you pass them on your bike, in an occupied zone that was once your hometown. Sometimes you HAVE to make a stand to stop wars of aggression.

[-] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I see no problem here: I refused to serve in the military and did my service in a hospital instead. The Ukraine war did make me reconsider my attitude towards the necessity of a draft army.

Conclusion 1: I would emigrate and work against my country of origin in a heartbeat if they started a war of aggression (hello Russians) - unchanged from before

Conclusion 2: I would support with my medical and other skills those defending a non-aggressive country I live in

Conclusion 3: I might fight, given no other choice. But I would try everything else first, and I would probably not be good at it (fighting) at all.

[-] Somethingcheezie@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago

There was a conscientious objector from WW2 that became a medic and eventually won the medal of honour.

Soldiers need medics and no one can say they are cowards or anything negative.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacksaw_Ridge

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 40 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 40 points 6 months ago

Imagine if the World stopped fighting at the end of WWII and the U.S. stopped making any other atomic weapons. Imagine a global "Peace Treaty".

Imagine if each country spent their military $$ on water, food, housing, and free medical care for their citizens.

Fuck them all!!

The World could've been an amazing village of humans living together as friends and have the freedom to roam the globe without the need for a passport.

One World!

Fuck every military leader and/or political leader that has screwed over the people of the World.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] angstylittlecatboy@reddthat.com 33 points 6 months ago

Easy to say when you're American, Russian, or Chinese.

Not so easy when you're Palestinian, Ukrainian, or Taiwanese.

[-] RippleEffect@lemm.ee 7 points 6 months ago

Honestly not sure how easy it is to actually stay out of the military when there's compelled service in any country. Draft evasion often carries significant risk.

I appreciate the sentiment, but results will vary.

[-] masquenox@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

Honestly not sure how easy it is to actually stay out of the military when there’s compelled service in any country.

Don't know about other countries, but in Apartheid-South Africa it was a very difficult thing if you were male, white and not rich. When I was a kid in small-town South Africa there was a conscientious objector living on our street. He was disabled - they had beaten him to such an extent that he was brain-damaged.

For the rich it was pretty easy - just ask Elon.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world 18 points 6 months ago

Send my ass to prison. Fuck going to the military

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] lars@lemmy.sdf.org 15 points 6 months ago

Einstein… sounds like a Hamas name, right?

[-] buzz86us@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

If there is a draft for some oil resource war then I'm out of the US.. We have all the tools to replace it I'm not fighting for some mega corp's right to exploit the environment

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] NIB@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

People dont have as much agency as he thinks. And game theory(a relatively new concept for his era) dictates that the one who convinces/forces more of their people to fight, is the one who wins.

Let's say that your entire country, every single person, refuses to go to war. And the country next door has a mere 100 people who are willing(or otherwise) to go to war. Now your country is part of their country and those 100 people are in charge.

In a world where noone wants to fight, those who are willing(or forced) to fight, rule everyone else.

And to bring this concept into the modern era, it is near impossible to post antiwar posts in Russia, because of state control of the internet and the cultivated perception that everyone who is antiwar, is antirussian and a traitor. This is literally the law there.

Yet in the liberal western states, you are free to do that. So what is the result of this difference? People in the West are less willing to go to war. Now you might think that is a good thing but ultimately this benefits Russia, who is then free to take over their smaller neighbours. This is just interference, marketing for Russia's war machine, even if it doesnt feel like that.

[-] masquenox@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

People in the West are less willing to go to war.

The fact that the west was, and still is, the most prolific war mongerers of the post-Enlightenment era blows your hypothesis out of the water as soon as it tries to float.

[-] NIB@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The fact that the west was, and still is, the most prolific war mongerers of the post-Enlightenment era blows your hypothesis out of the water as soon as it tries to float.

How about we talk about the last 30 years then. What wars have europeans participated recently? Yugoslav wars? Afghanistan? Iraq?

Yugoslav wars were about ethnic cleansing between different ethnic groups who wanted to go their own ways. Afghanistan was because of 9/11, the taliban refusing to offer Bin Laden and the american thirst for revenge. Iraq was extremely controversial in Europe, pretty much every state opposed it, even if some european governments supported it, the majority of their people opposed it(huge protests).

Even the US, the imperium, which is usually doing imperial things, havent been doing much imperialism recently, after Afghanistan. And because of Afghanistan and Iraq, meaningless and immoral wars for most people, the US has trouble recruiting military personnel nowadays. Thats how democracies work, eventually the truth rises to the top.

The Ukraine war is one of the most clear cut wars since the Iraq invasion. And the West has the opportunity to be on the right side for once. Let me remind you that historically neutral countries like Sweden, joined NATO and countries like Germany are quickly re-arming for the first time in almost 100 years.

Because till recently, Europe was "let's all hold hands together", living in their own dream bubble about how war is not only bad but also insane. Putin reminded them that "sanity" is not a requirement for governance.

If the West is so war mongering, why did the West not spend more on military in the last 20 years? Why did the West wait till the Ukraine invasion to start pumping untoled trillions into the military industrial complex?

The only event with bigger impact on military spending was the collapse of USSR. For decades, Europe(and even the US) was taking advantage of the peace dividend. That doesnt sound too war mongery to me. And suddently, with just 1 Ukraine invasion, the West doubled and trippled its military budget.

So is the West war mongering or is Russia that caused an insane re-armament because of the Ukraine invasion?

And in before "nato expansion", blah blah. Sovereign countries have the right to join any alliance they want. Nato didnt invade those countries and force them to join, those countries literally "blackmailed" to join. Poland threatened to get nukes if they werent allowed into NATO.

If Mexico joins an alliance with China, would you approve an invasion of Mexico by the US? I wouldnt.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 27 May 2024
886 points (100.0% liked)

Political Memes

5498 readers
1783 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS