this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2023
161 points (95.0% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

3530 readers
97 users here now

Rules:

  1. Posts must abide by lemmy.world terms and conditions
  2. No spam or soliciting for money.
  3. No racism or other bigotry allowed.
  4. Obviously nothing illegal.

If you see these please report them.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 40 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In isolation, sure, but in context, 'war bad' types are generally not agitating for the invader to stop, but for the defender to stop.

[–] Akagigahara@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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

[–] creditCrazy@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

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