this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
1 points (66.7% liked)
World News
32327 readers
621 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This rhetoric reminds of the German military's questioning when pacifists refused mandatory military service. "You say you're against violence but what if someone threatened your family and you had a gun?" Great intellectual company you're keeping here.
However it’s not rhetoric. It’s cold hard history. Allowing a fascist dictator to invade a sovereign country led to WW2.
How does mandatory military service relate to helping to fund another country from an invading force?
Should the other European nations not fight against the Nazis when they invaded other countries in order to not 'prolong' the war?
I'm comparing rhetorics. Read the post I was replying to and then mine again, please.