You are absolutely correct about my living in the aggressor and not the victim state.
That was certainly the case regarding Vietnam, and all the invasions that the USofA has done. As well as the proxy wars, sold to our citizens because of our proclaimed concern for “freedom” around the world. The USofA — its government and its main industry, weapons manufacturing— does not care about “freedom” in Ukraine or anywhere else.
I would have refused to cooperate in any of the military adventures the USofA has carried out since Vietnam. It remains a moral difficulty for me to know that my work, through my taxes, has helped finance them. It’s why I scream against it as much as I can wherever I can.
I would have supported my sons in every way possible to not cooperate.
The war-selling slogan here is always "support our troops". Its intent is to cut off any questioning of what it is that the troops are doing—in whose action the real evil lies. I believe some version of it exists in every country—it is how they keep young men trained and ready to slaughter each other and make the bystanders wave flags.
If I were in Russia now, I would refuse. Prison or whatever else would be absolutely horrifying but favorable to me than going along with the madness, to kill or die for their ideals—ultimately to uphold the wealth of the richest - who are always the winners in all wars. Perhaps where you and I differ is that I am opposed to the very idea of violent solutions - war.
You say you “agree with your thesis, except ones about this war ;).”
In my seven decades on the planet, watching the different manifestations of the War Racket that have crossed the world stage, I see this statement always being repeated.
This one is different. The war to end all wars is an ongoing meme. It is always followed by – well, if we allow this to happen then this and this will happen. Usually by that point in the debate, every single country in modern history resorts to the Hitler-meme. Paint the other side black, yours white.
It is a lie in all human affairs, but during wars it overflows with deception.
“Or you suppose that aggressor that did it like 5 time in the last decade will stop?”
You could be talking about the USofA.
We will not stop. Most people here, through their passivity, go right along. Sure, a certain number of people protest, as they did in Russia, but the machine just rolls on.
“Concept of Peace never worked with the humanity, even Gandhi, that everyone loves so much didn't work actually ;)”.
I hold that pacifism hasn’t really ever been tried—so it is a false argument to say it doesn’t work!
War has been tried over and over and over again – proven to not work (except to make the rich wealthier.) Along with racism and sexism, war-ism needs to be eliminated from our ways of dealing with others.
To me my pacifism is an activism! I do not intend to remain passive! (That is the realm of the vast populations who go along with the latest call to war.) I am working — for peace.
Certainly not “everyone loves” Ghandi. Supporters of war disdain and try to discredit him. Those who so love him (and Martin Luther King) love him for his moral strength.
The distortions created to make war morally acceptable are not acceptable to me.
I have never really been in the situation of being in the attacked victim nation.
When 9/11 happened the USofA certainly wallowed in playing the victim.
The president claiming that it was because “they hated our freedom”.
The targets—World Trade (finance), Pentagon (military), and White House (missed target) showed much deeper truths about the biggest empire on the planet, and how it oppressed people everywhere.
This was then used as an excuse to do what they wanted to do all along – even though it was completely unrelated — invade Iraq.
Important point: I not only "denied dying for the more powerful side" — I refused killing!!
The rhetoric of war loves to play with the heroism — the I-would-die-for-freedom paradigms — and pushes the I-will-kill into the background.
I think language is of utmost importance. What gets said when conflicts arise makes all the difference. Once the emotions are fully stirred up reason goes out the door. This is true of all human relationships.
The USofA always paints whomever we are about to invade is the most dramatic evil colors. Things like the lies about “weapons of mass destruction” to go to Iraq and kill a million people. All sides do it.
Always, the regular people are the victims (as the rhetoric loves to say “women and children”) while the boys fight with fervor, passion.
Every army commits atrocities during war. It can be no other way when men — fired up with nationalism and testosterone and religion, etc — are trained to be killers — and then are unleashed upon each other.
To get the motivation for battle going it then villainizes the other side so that it will become easier to kill them. They usually need to amp up the propaganda to get the soldiers “revenge” emotion fired up.
“I'm pretty young and want to live long live on this planet, and I want it to be a better place to live.”
I wish you — and the world — all that!
“So to do it, we sometimes need to fight and die. Otherwise everything good in this world would be already lost.”
The rhetoric of “need to fight and die” only serves one emotional response—it looks at the situation from a heroic romantic perspective. It quite notably skips the “need-to-kill” part—which would require stepping outside the emotion and consider the morality of these actions (outside the black/white good/bad us/them that wars inspire both sides to fall for.)
I am trying to envision your situation.Are you in a place where you personally will need to fight? — or are your passionate words of fighting for the young men in areas of danger? Are you trained to fight a military?
I hope for the positive things that you can accomplish by not dying/killing but staying alive and actively working for solutions other than violence. Not easy.
Peace.
