• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    421 year ago

    Before World War I and World War II, many thought things would not escalate until we realised it was far too late. The British intelligence thought the assassination of Franz Ferdinand would only be contained regionally instead of escalating to a world war.

    Most wars are class wars and most issues are class issues. But most people are not class conscious. The base tribalism is instead drummed up to distract us from the real root cause. We’re seeing the rise of the far right in many countries such as in Europe, US and India. Most of the rise of the right is due to influx of migrants, who are displaced by neocolonial foreign policies of corporate backed governments and capitalism-induced global warming.

  • Dizzy Devil Ducky
    link
    fedilink
    English
    101 year ago

    I mean, if another world war happened, I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’ll at least be willing to do civilian duty to help the war effort in my country since I can’t join the military due to medical reasons, unless they get desperate and start taking everyone regardless of health issues. I definitely ain’t doing it out of patriotism or nationalism, but just to make my final years feel like they ment something when we inevitably launch the nukes.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    281 year ago

    Millennial here. Can confirm, I’ll be staying home and doing my own thing. One live isn’t worth more then another and I’m not going to war. If you’re going to put me in jail because I refuse, then maybe I need to find a different country to live in.

    • volvoxvsmarla
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      then maybe I need to find a different country to live in

      I was born and raised in Germany and never changed my foreign citizenship, it was always on the bucket list. My husband immigrated in 2019, and since 2022 I am freaking out at the thought that we would change citizenship. Being a foreign citizen sucks sometimes, but in case of war it is extremely beneficial. Avoid drafting at home, avoid drafting where you live.

      So, moving in case of a war would be more than beneficial, you just got to do it early on, before they close borders. We had friends dropping everything and packing just their cat and passports the same night Russia attacked Ukraine.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      6
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If you run against a war with Russia then the war will catch you eventually. Are you planning to live the rest of your days in an obscure South American nation?

      • Pons_Aelius
        link
        fedilink
        111 year ago

        As opposed to to your life ending in a few short months on a battlefield?

        Sure. Why not.

        It doesn’t have to be Sth America. US men dodging the draft were given political asylum in Canada or Sweden during the Vietnam war and an estimated 60-100,000 fled the US.

        So it is actually:

        Decades in another modern western nation or weeks/months on a battle field?

        Easy choice.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          31 year ago

          I asked it in question form because I was legitimately curious. Where do you plan to go while the world you leave behind devolves into an authoritarian hell? What other “modern western nation” would be left if Russia and/or China expands all the way across Europe as well as onto US Shores?

          You don’t have a second life to flee to if the west fails to defend itself.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I asked a legitimate question. I want to rationalize running away against a threat like that, I would never sell my soul to the military complex for anything other than necessity, but it absolutely doesn’t make sense other than for selfish shortsighted cowardice.

              • Herbal Gamer
                link
                fedilink
                51 year ago

                Nah fuck ya’ll Ima sign up if we have an enemy worth fighting for the first time in my life.

                Yet you say things like this.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 year ago

                  Yes, because as I explained, running away against a threat like that doesn’t make any sense. Did the sentence structure confuse you?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        81 year ago

        Well in times of desperation they probably don’t care. If it’s real bad it’s not “can you hold a gun?” it’s “can you take a bullet?”

        Anyway, just do a Ted Nugent. Take as many drugs as you can and shit yourself.

    • Kusuriya
      link
      fedilink
      161 year ago

      On the very off chance they restarted the draft, there are tons of reasons the Pentagon would fight conscription, make sure you know asylum procedures or have the stuff ready to immigrate. Run don’t try to just ignore the draft.

      They, the last time they did the draft, didn’t just throw normies into jail, they grabbed them then kicked them over to the military and then if you ran away and got brought back after being AWOL they just deployed you and let happen what happened, regulars frequently discovered that these sorts had… uhh… “accidents” at a more frequent rate.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    91 year ago

    I mean I’m pretty anti-war, but assuming my country isn’t the aggressor then I would probably enlist, epseicallly since given my skills (and age) I wouldn’t be on the front lines anyway.

    • Sippy Cup
      link
      fedilink
      81 year ago

      Alright everybody get in line behind this guy! He’s first in line to feed the machine

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          This makes you sound like a suicidal fascist. I know that wasn’t your intention but I’d just like to point out that’s the second best kind, after dead ones.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      351 year ago

      If you live in a America or Russia chances are 90% that your country is the aggressor.

      You’re just gonna hear stories about heroically defending “defending” Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan while mass bombing civilians.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        131 year ago

        Cool, good thing I’m not American then.

        Ans also realistically ww3 would start with American and other allies defending Taiwan from invasion.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          81 year ago

          I dont think China wants to make the first move. America is starting to create an uprising in the middle east right now by keeping israel’s genocide going which could be an actual catalyst. When America is busy elsewhere China will likely try to annex Taiwan.

          • Crass Spektakel
            link
            fedilink
            41 year ago

            You mean the Genocide where the Number of Palestinians has increased five fold over the last 80 years?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              121 year ago

              This is fantastic stuff.
              So if we’re talking about the broader picture, i.e. Hamas being a product of Israeli policy, then we must talk only about what has gone on since Oct 7th. But if we want to talk specifically about the genocide on the Palestinians in Gaza that’s been happening since Oct 7th, we must instead focus on the 80 years before that date.
              Fantastic stuff.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                41 year ago

                Yup. Kinda like how if we focus on genocide, which let me be clear I think is a perfectly reasonable issue to be a single issue voter over, we’re accused of being a single issue voter. But if we list other things too just to get the point across then we’re entitled children who are just angry we didn’t get everything we wanted.

                Fantastic stuff indeed.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  4
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  If the single issue is something as monumental as genocide, or climate change then I don’t think the accusation of being a single issue voter is one that needs any defense. Yes, I’m voting on this single issue, because it’s that important to me. It’s not parking tickets, immigration quotas or marginal welfare claims, it’s THE FUCKING FUTURE OF THE HUMAN RACE.
                  It’s not idealistic or naive in any way to be insistent on topics like these. The opposite is true: it’s jaded and cynical to treat them as merely political.

            • sar1n
              link
              fedilink
              61 year ago

              What’s the math here? 1 bombed Palestinian becomes 5?

              • Crass Spektakel
                link
                fedilink
                21 year ago

                They count the pieces individually as war victims. And if a seperated foot doesn’t hold a gun then he is obviously a civilian foot.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              4
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The number of Jews in concentration camps increased thousands fold during WW2. This must mean they were having babies like hamsters in there right?

              If you don’t understand what “forced migration” is where israel ethnically cleanses Palestinians from Palestine into the Gaza area, close your Wikipedia page. You are not fit to interpret numbers

              Currently the south of Gaza has a massive population increase. Palestinians must be having a lot of babies there according to you. It can’t be that there is forced migration going on from the North to the South right?

  • Kairos
    link
    fedilink
    161 year ago

    Hey if anyone’s a lawyer or knows what they’re talking about what’s the current consensus or constitutionality of conscription in the US? I think it’s illegal under the 13th amendment (which literally bans servitude AKA forced service) and the only court case I could find had the opinion of “well everyone else does it!”

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      211 year ago

      If I remember my constitutional law classes correctly, conscription was canned after a series of Supreme Court cases where conscientious objectors successfully argued that under the 1st amendment they could not be made to serve. Since “religion” is very loosely defined in the US, pretty much anyone can claim that conscription violates their free exercise of a peace-loving religion.

      • Kairos
        link
        fedilink
        111 year ago

        Hm thanks.

        Can you expand on what “canned” means?

        • NielsBohron
          link
          fedilink
          English
          14
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          IANAL, but in this context, it means “disposed of,” or “abolished,” probably based on some usage involving “throwing [something] in the trash can,” just like one might say something was “binned” in the UK.

          It can also mean “fired (from a job),” as in “Donny showed up to work drunk, so he got canned.”

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          7
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          During the Vietnam era, several people used the 1st Amendment to avoid getting drafted. To quote Wikipedia, “United States v. Seeger, 1965, ruled that a person can claim conscientious objector status based on religious study and conviction that has a similar position in that person’s life to the belief in God, without a concrete belief in God.[4] United States v. Welsh, five years later, ruled that a conscientious objector need have no religious belief at all.” Widespread opposition to the draft during the Vietnam era led to official termination of the draft system in 1973. Since 1980, adult males are again required to register for military service in case their country enters a state of war. But there is no real punishment for failing to sign up, and the country hasn’t officially been at war since 1945.

          Edit: sorry I can’t get the quote to work and it’s late at night here. This’ll have to do.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      31 year ago

      Yet, young us men still have to sign up for ‘selective service’ when they turn 18.

      Gillette sent me a free razor as a reward, at least.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      51 year ago

      Yeah I think there’s enough precedent at this point that it wouldn’t just be a flip a switch and make it happen. I mean, they would make a new switch. Couple of quick shuffles, some policy. The thing is, even if it was cut and dry and clear in current law, The ability to compel the general public is essentially non-existent. What happens when 50% of the population refuses to answer the call? Hell what happens when 10% of the population refuses to answer the call? We can’t even incarcerate 0.1% of the population more at the moment. Do you compel the banks to stop working with them? Void their social security numbers? How would you even have enough people to enforce any punishments against them?

      On the flip side, what do you do when the homeland is invaded? What happens if China decides that we’re looking kind of weak in the middle of a civil war. It’s one thing to be conscripted to fight a war for other people trying to stabilize a geopolitical climate, but what happens when they’re knocking on your door? Do you just accept them openly and hope that they will let you keep your things?

      • Kairos
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        The US has something like 0.6% of the country as military troops anyway (both active and reserve). That’s over 2M people.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          3
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Hard to tell which part of my questions you’re answering.

          But on one hand you wouldn’t be able to use them to compel the other people to come into the military because they’d already be in use.

          On the other hand if China was actually serious about invading, those numbers are utterly insignificant. Hell, if they feel at the same percentage for their military, It would probably be bigger than our damn population.

          • Kairos
            link
            fedilink
            31 year ago

            I meant that the US has a huge standing army despite the constitution not wanting that. Even in the event of a large geopolitical war they’d probably not even need extra persons.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              41 year ago

              They do, but 99 out of 100 of them would be completely useless against any form of coordinated insurgency.

              Arming yourself is pretty effective against a single person trying to get you, or even against a local security force that really doesn’t want to die for their job. Look at Uvalde. If that was a military off it would have been over in seconds.

              The actual number of people that take the time to do target practicing and can hit a moving target, The number of people that can properly maintain a firearm, It’s nowhere near the number that are actually armed.

              And to be honest it probably wouldn’t be a D-Day style invasion. They’d probably work their way into government. Spread a bunch of propaganda around. Sew discontent, feed infighting. Attack education, gerrymander and otherwise rig the votes, Dismantle the branches of government and place their own agents to take over laws and legal rulings. By the time real boots were hitting the ground would be so entrenched in internal combat we wouldn’t know it hit us.

  • Deceptichum
    link
    fedilink
    931 year ago

    If they hand you a gun and tell you to march off to die in a foreign land, turn the gun around on your killer.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      131 year ago

      That’s when they implement meat grinder tactics. You get trained, but no weapons. The weapons are deployed ahead of you on the front line; better get one quick before you die! Turn around and your own side shoots you first. People go in, meat comes out, and so the handle turns.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      88
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      LOL, the support of Ukraine is happening exactly so we don’t get WW3 and won’t have to send our soldiers to fight.

      Anyone who thinks Ukraine is Russia’s ultimate goal is extremely naive.

      It wasn’t Crimea, it wasn’t Georgia, it wasn’t Chechnya. It won’t stop until

      Here’s a quick summary of what it is about: https://youtu.be/M6tsp4mFix8

      This is a book published in 1997 which Putin was following and largely until full invasion of Ukraine everything was going smoothly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          Where do you think the “WW3” in this meme came from?

          The only thing you hear about WW3 is from Russian propaganda. Because I guess we will have Russia, Iran and North Korea vs rest of the world war.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        321 year ago

        Ffs. Russia is not going to fight NATO. Why’d they attack Georgia in 2008? Answer: To prevent them from joining NATO. Why’d they attack Ukraine? Answer: to prevent them from joining NATO. Russia is not dumb enough to fight anything that can throw nukes, that’s why they’re preventing the NATO umbrella from covering (what they consider to be) their sphere of influence.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          And in the process, more of their neighbors have now joined NATO or are supporting NATO with newfound effort.

          If Russia is dumb enough to do that, they’re dumb enough to fight NATO.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                That seemed more like a reminder to Ukraine that they still were. Or perhaps it was something like, if you’re going to choose the EU over us, then we’re taking our naval base.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          141 year ago

          They didn’t plan to join NATO. Ukraine had a single digit percentage interest in NATO before crimea.

          Russia doesn’t want Eastern European countries in NATO, because it makes it much harder to take them over.

          NATO is a defensive alliance, and is no danger to Russia except for their imperialist goals. Best example of it is after Finland joined NATO Russia removed their troops from that border. That’s right Russia now has less troops there than they had when they were imaging Ukraine.

          And one last thing: even if it was true, since when Russia can decide for sovereign nation who they form alliances with? The excuse to invade looks exactly as the same bullshit Nazi Germany invented with Poland (both claiming to save German minorities and also that was actually planning to invade Germany). They are not even original.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            31 year ago

            They didn’t plan to join NATO. Ukraine had a single digit percentage interest in NATO before crimea.

            Moves were being made to join NATO back in 2008, but progress was shelved when pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych was elected. He was driven out of the country, Russia took Crimea, and then NATO seemed like a particularly good idea.

            Russia doesn’t want Eastern European countries in NATO, because it makes it much harder to take them over.

            I would also add that it takes them out of the Russian sphere of influence, which is Russia’s main concern. Why take over a country if they cooperate with you?

            NATO is a defensive alliance, and is no danger to Russia except for their imperialist goals. Best example of it is after Finland joined NATO Russia removed their troops from that border. That’s right Russia now has less troops there than they had when they were imaging Ukraine.

            Well, yes it’s defensive. No NATO country will attack Russia. However, I’d argue that Russia sees it as more than defensive. Each country that joins the alliance is one less country that Russia can dominate de facto. It’s militarily defensive, but that comes after an economic amd political offensive that removes the country from Russia’s influence. Now you might think, well, those countries entered that agreement voluntarily, and I’d say you’re correct, but Russia doesn’t care how it happened. They were taken from Russia as far as Russia is concerned.

            I’d also argue that the troop removal from thr Finnish border may have more to do with needing troops in Ukraine than it would defending St Petersburg from Finland.

            And one last thing: even if it was true, since when Russia can decide for sovereign nation who they form alliances with? The excuse to invade looks exactly as the same bullshit Nazi Germany invented with Poland (both claiming to save German minorities and also that was actually planning to invade Germany). They are not even original.

            Well they did decide in 2008 in Georgia and they just did in Ukraine. Yes, their justification was mostly BS for domestic consumption, but that doesn’t really matter in the end. Other imperialist countries do this, like the US, China, France, etc, but they’re more subtle and you’re in the West’s media bubble, making it really hard to get an impartial source.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          211 year ago

          Question: If Russia has no intention of fighting NATO then why would they give a fuck if Georgia joined NATO? If they were afraid of NATO invasion, as silly as that is, could they not just offer Georgia a similar mutual defense agreement? I cannot imagine any circumstance other than overt greed and expansionism that would require them to invade Georgia.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            2
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Do you think if eastern nations made a “defensive alliance” and included Mexico that the US would be fine with it?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            221 year ago

            Yeah it is all bullshit. All the Eastern European countries that could, joined NATO in speedrun, because they knew Russia will claim them back as soon as it is capable to do so. Ukraine and Belarus decided to maintain good relationships, and look at how it paid back.

            Russia is a cancer and the countries that hate them the most are their closest neighbors, exactly because they know what kind of cunt the Mother Russia is.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            51 year ago

            Because that would remove Georgia from Russia’s sphere of influence. They could no longer de facto dominate Georgia and Georgia would already be armed if a conflict with NATO started.

            They do offer their own pact, called the CSTO, Collective Security Treaty Organization.

            I think that’s why they invaded Georgia, overt greed. To be fair that also plays a role in NATO expansion. NATO won’t accept a country that can’t pull its own weight unless it has some kind of strategic value or economic value. It must be worth defending.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                I never said they did. However they do insist that everyone participate in their “rules based trade system.” What happens to the countries that don’t want to participate or would rather have another trade system? What about countries that don’t want dollar dominance? It doesn’t go well.

                • Crass Spektakel
                  link
                  fedilink
                  51 year ago

                  If you don’t follow the rules of trading then don’t be surprised if no one wants to trade with you. It is not our job to support you playing queen bee.

                  And if you want to do your deals with some Banana Republic Monopoly Money, feel free to do so but be aware you have to pay higher prices as risk compensation if you want to trade with me.

                  People don’t trade With Dollar and Euro because they MUST but because it is the most economical method. Stop believing the Propaganda of Left, Right and Islamo Extremists.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          51 year ago

          If so, those were magnificent own goals. Ukraine wasn’t going to join nato until the little green men showed up, and Sweden and Finland didn’t want to join nato until the full scale invasion. Nato was languishing before all this happened, now they’re re-arming.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            61 year ago

            You’re mostly right, but in the interest of accuracy: Ukraine was making moves to join NATO way back in 2008, (possibly because of Russia’s invasion of Georgia) but plans were put on hold when pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych was president. Once a coup kicked him out of office and Russia seized Crimea, NATO membership became a high priority.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            Unfortunately it’s much easier and faster for Russia to start a war than it is to join NATO. A country can’t join NATO if they’re at war or have border disputes.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              21 year ago

              Good point. But fortunately Russia won’t invade another country as long as it is still occupied in Ukraine, so all neighbouring countries that wish to remain independent should have applied to NATO by now.

              Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were smart to do this years ago, otherwise they would’ve been puppet states like Belarus already, since Putin would love to have a better connection between Kaliningrad and the mainland.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          141 year ago

          Their plan isn’t to fight NATO directly. It’s to instigate domestic political support in foreign countries against entities like NATO and the EU, and push nationalism and isolationism and defeatism into enough people’s heads so that the bigger countries think it isn’t worth fighting Russia to defend another smaller country that is not their own. It’s about killing the idea of article 5 and thus NATO’s reason to exist, so that Russia can confront each country on a bilateral basis where they have the military advantage if no one is coming to their defense.

          This probably wont happen with an assault on a major urban area, but little chunks of unpopulated Finland or Norway. How willing would the American public be to send pilots to die for Lapland? If the major powers blink and don’t feel like committing, Russia continues to escalate, like they’ve been doing for the past 15 years

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            To be fair, Lapland contains Santa Clauses’ workshop.

            Imagine the support the West would give to save Christmas.

            /S

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            That sounds like an extremely long-term plan, plus every action Russia would take in pursuit of this goal would be wildly counterproductive to the long-term, so I kind of doubt its true. For example, NATO just expanded in reaction to the Ukraine invasion.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          Russia is not dumb enough

          I hope you’re right, they’ve been huffing the “NATO will be easy to defeat” propaganda for as long as NATO has existed

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        111 year ago

        I think at first it was the only goal, at least, for some years. They now have established war production that they aren’t just going to stop. The Russians have been sharpening their teeth in Ukraine. If Trump somehow wins the election NATO countries will be on the menu.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          51 year ago

          Seeing downvotes to obvious statements shows how this platform is being dominated by Russian trolls.

          Even this post, you think about it, looks like part of a disinformation campaign, trying to imply that Russian aggression on Ukraine is somehow the West’s fault. Like if they drove their tanks there to just say hello, and Ukraine only waited for it to trap them inside.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    111 year ago

    I’m too old, I’m bipolar, and honestly I’m not scared to shit my pants and/or dress if necessary.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    171 year ago

    You’d be amazed what some good old fashion propaganda will do for you.

    The US was so gung-ho after 9-11 they accidentally attacked the wrong country. I know they didn’t have any problem getting troops or buy-in from the people of all ages. It was pretty disgusting how quickly your average citizen bought into the bull-shit the Bush administration was selling when it was obviously a lie.