ex:
overstaying in Thailand results in a on-the-spot fine
China lately has exit checks when traveling to SEA (they try to intercept people traveling to scam centers)
In front of a blood-stained chessboard littered with mutilated chess pieces finely dine two royal couples - black and white - cheering their endgame.
Wars are messy and have always been. Military actions are to be decided by the governments. Those who have resources are more willingly to use it, west or east.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Armed_Forces_casualties...
Germany was also directly involved in the NATO campaign against (former) Yugoslavia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia
and finally, Germany hosts large contigents of US forces, including air forces likely involved in the current illegal war against Iran.
- Iraq: 1) to expel Iraq from Kuwait, and 2) weapons (though this turned out to be mistaken) after the 9/11 attacks
- Iran: we don’t need another nuclear nation
- Syria: destroy terrorists (ISIS), enforce the red line on chemical weapons, and to protect US troops (when we attacked Iran-supported militias)
- Vietnam: to stop the spread of communism and protect neighboring nations
Also it’s not defense. It’s national security what matters.
Prior to WW2, almost every nation called it “ministry of war.” The defense branding is a modern woke framing to appease the masses.
I can’t be like “it was self defense” if I beat somebody up because they are getting too big at the gym and they could beat me up later if I don’t beat them up first.
That doesn’t mean such a thing is never ever justified, in international relations, it just ain’t “defense”.
Why would you let them get strong? Just so they kill you and your family? You don’t seem to care about yourself nor about your family enough.
I guess that dogemaster2026 wanted to express this in a little bit more indirect way. :-)
- Iraq (Gulf War): 75-80%
- Iraq (2003): 65-76%
- Syria: 35-50%
- Vietnam: 65-75%
- Iran: 42%
Alexander Hamilton wrote that governance should involve people with “wisdom to discern” and “virtue to pursue the common good”. The US is not a direct democracy; it is a constitutional republic. The definition of what constitutes American interests is literally whatever the United States federal government says it is.
SOURCES:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
- https://news.gallup.com/poll/8212/only-americans-believe-war...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_domestic_reactions_to_the_2...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_United_States_in...
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/04/01/iran-war-...
With your logic, Russia is also acting in a defensive manner.
The UN acknowledges this conflict to some extent; https://www.ohchr.org/en/conscientious-objection
And as per usual because its harmful to men no one cares.
This is an explanation, not a justification.
with the right level of public exposure citizens would surely have been able to put enough pressure on the government to make this happen. But instead zelensky kept repeating the talking points that we should not be concerned about the war because the risk had not changed since 2014. Near-zero effort was made to evacuate ukrainians living near the russian border or those who would be in the way of russian troops. The intelligence had been there for at least six months before the war began
> and the government was already struggling with making a law at all
what do you mean?
The modern answer would be immigration, and that’s gender-agnostic.
war is shit on all sides and thinking one or the other suffers less because you dont like their colours is very short sighted.... i think we had enough time by now to realise it.
and dont call it cowardice if someone doesnt want to fight for a bunch of 'rich pricks' playin with their money while normal people get to die in the streets. It has never been good or normal and should never be.
To boot, many Russian men have been paid handsomely for their participation in the SMO and get to live nice lives abroad.
It was very unpopular, lead to people fleeing the country, and was pushed out of the public eye as soon as they figured out how to forcefully volunteer people instead.
It wasn't hard to dodge; you could just refuse to take the papers pretending it's not you or get sick the very day or something like that. The system had a number and once it was reached (very quickly) no further action was necessary. The only change so far us that the employers started to follow their military tracking procedure to the letter; before that it was required but not really enforced, but now all the paperwork gets done by the book.
Some people indeed left the country but those are the kind you don't want to have your back anyway.
Forceful volunteering is pure imagination. At most it's intensive persuasion or a new way to get out of jail, but if you don't want to go, nobody will force you.
Around the Moscow elite, no. In the outer provinces, we have ample evidence of forced conscription.
Because the answer is obvious - Ukraine fights war.
Because since mass armies are the case it always was so, and all can men do now is whine on the internet, because they are not going to do anything.
> Does that sound equal and civil to you?
Not really, but however it sounds has no impact of it being the case.
> note we are not living in middle ages
In middle ages most men had no obligation to fight wars.
But it is very easy to see from this all that some people are very vocal about equality when in reality they want privileges.
Yes. Nobody directly enforces the policy papers or the Declaration of Independence. That doesn’t mean they don’t have corporeal value. In part, due to being translated into laws.
The feeling of defending territory is natural and is not words
Only what constitutes the territory to defend has been warped by words.
Human food preferences are also just an idea by this standard.
A hunter gatherer tribe failing to defend its territory could result in its death just the same as not acquiring and eating appropriate food.
The need to defend might be a necessity for survival, but the desire to defend additional territory and resources has existed ever since humans have acquired the power to achieve more than the means of mere survival. Similar to food preferences, which become peculiar if there is plentitude, basic if tight, and sub-par in emergencies: during famines, sometimes people resort to eat grass to sate their feeling of hunger even though digesting it is an energetic net negative.
No it's not without purpose at all. The purpose is to know who could be drafted in a timely manner should the need arise. There's currently 2 major wars - sorry "special military operations" - happening, one of which in Europe.
A certain government involved in one of these simultaneously calls for allies to assist while at the same time openly questioning half a century of military alliances. So maybe this helps to understand why regulations like this make sense - even for people who never lived through a time when there was mandatory military service and take their own security for granted.