upvote

points

by layer812 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby frodowtf212 hours ago|
next
[-]
Military service in the west is not for defence. Irak, Iran, Syria, Vietnam...
reply
upvoteby layer811 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The German constitution explicitly prohibits starting wars: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.h...
reply
upvoteby wartywhoa2310 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It's about time to finally grok that all world's military is only there to wage wars at the whim of the 0.001% under the guise of being defence-only, and that constitutions worth less than toilet paper these days.
reply
upvoteby RandomLensman10 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
What's an example of the German constitution being "worth less than toilet paper these days"?
reply
upvoteby wartywhoa239 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
There's none yet until there suddenly is.
reply
upvoteby layer810 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
So what's your proposed solution? Not have a military and just roll over when someone decides to attack you?
reply
upvoteby wartywhoa239 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
My proposed solution is understanding what this scene means:

In front of a blood-stained chessboard littered with mutilated chess pieces finely dine two royal couples - black and white - cheering their endgame.

reply
upvoteby layer88 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
How does that solve any problem?
reply
upvoteby 8 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby cindyllm7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
[dead]
reply
upvoteby signatoremo8 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Defense doesn't mean not to start a war. Think about how Vietnam justified their invasion of Cambodia in 1978, or how China started the war with Vietnam the following year, or how Turkey entered Syria, how Pakistan fought the Taliban recently, and of course what Russia did in Ukraine, 2014 and 2022.

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.

reply
upvoteby watwut12 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Germany was one of the least militarized countries after WWII. They were kind of scared of themselves.
reply
upvoteby aleph_minus_one11 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Rather: the "victorious" countries of the Second World war were afraid of a re-militarization of Germany. On the other hand, they wanted to re-militarize the Western part of Germany just a little bit so that West Germany could become part of the NATO.
reply
upvoteby samus11 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Quite the contrary; up until the end of the Cold War both German states were highly militarized. They were quite happy to be able to roll back a lot of it after the reunification though.
reply
upvoteby RandomLensman12 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Germany participated how there?
reply
upvoteby einpoklum11 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Germany participated in the NATO military campaign/occupation of Afghanistan, including ground forces, naval activities and special operations units. Its seems a total of 150,000 German soldiers (and police officers?) were deployed overall (not at the same time of course); of them, 62 were killed and 249 wounded:

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramstein_Air_Base

reply
upvoteby samus11 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
To put the number of 150000 total deployes soldiers into perspective, the Bundeswehr contingent in the end had a ceiling of 5350 troops.
reply
upvoteby RandomLensman11 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Iran, Iraq, Syria, Vietnam? Hosting US forces in Germany is participating?
reply
upvoteby dogemaster202611 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
It is for the defense of the American national interests and friend nations:

- 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

reply
upvoteby pfannkuchen11 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
That is basically redefining the word defense, though.

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”.

reply
upvoteby dogemaster202640 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
If they keep saying “DEATH TO PFANNKUCHEN” it is not smart for you not to beat them up first.

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.

reply
upvoteby aleph_minus_one11 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> That is basically redefining the word defense, though.

I guess that dogemaster2026 wanted to express this in a little bit more indirect way. :-)

reply
upvoteby SZJX13 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Yeah, by such definitions any country is justified to wage a war and always find a way to claim it’s for self-defense (which is indeed how most causus belli have worked throughout the history – they always claim to have the moral high ground when launching the war). This is also how essentially in every country it’s called the Department of Defense (unless you’re Trump) but that means nothing as they start wars all the same. Not a trace of any rules, accountability or restraints still remains under such a framing.
reply
upvoteby dogemaster202611 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Correct. The strongest always wins.

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.

reply
upvoteby vasac11 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
So while many of the reasons are questionable (understatement of the year), let’s focus on the last one. After America lost the war in Vietnam, what happened to those neighboring nations? Did they suffer from Vietnamese communists? The only Vietnamese intervention was in Cambodia, and hardly anyone thinks that wasn’t the right thing to do.
reply
upvoteby dogemaster202611 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The OP said it was not for “defence.” I am arguing the reasons were for the defense of American interests. That is objectively true.
reply
upvoteby vasac10 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The OP probably thought of defense in the narrow sense as "the action of defending against or resisting an attack", and not in the broader sense defined as "we’re going to travel halfway around the world to kill a million people because that’s who we are". A common mistake.
reply
upvoteby t-311 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
That depends greatly on which interests you allow to be defined as "American". The vast majority of American people would have preferred not to be involved in most of our foreign adventures. The rich and powerful thought differently. Is our citizenship determined by the size of our bank accounts?
reply
upvoteby dogemaster202632 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
This is factually incorrect. Here are the estimates for the rates of support for each conflict at the beginning of the conflict:

- 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-...

reply
upvoteby swat5357 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Invading other countries to take their resources and kill civilians is not defence.

With your logic, Russia is also acting in a defensive manner.

reply
upvoteby AlexeyBelov40 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
They meant "defense of interests", not "defense of the country" (as in a geographical entity).
reply
upvoteby calf8 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Rights are morally absolute, and the cynical insistence that they must be traded off is both fallacious and intellectually hypocritical. You want certain weaker rights, then just admit it, don't be disingenuous about it.
reply