SilentStrikerWould you accept the draft if your country decided to reinstate it?
TabbsTheBat (they/them)We already have military conscription here in lithuania, along with the voluntary service
I did get conscripted to it (and didn’t have to do it, on account of failing my medical exams), but prior to that, my opinion on military service was more or less that I wouldn’t join the military if the call was for some war in the middle east, but if russia ever started throwing more than illegal planes and spy drones over the border and something had to be done about it, then I would’ve been more likely to, I suppose ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
stoySwede here, we had conscription when I came of age, so I was called to muster.
I went, and promptly failed the first test, the hearing test, I got a pass and didn’t have to do it.
At the time I was glad, I was scared, I didn’t want to do it, these days I think it would have been a valuable experience.
Anyway, I believe Sweden is worth fighting for, should we come under attack, I would get in touch with the civil defense and do my part.
What happens if one refuses conscription in Sweden?
Not sure about today, a few years after I mustered conscription was stopped, then for 15 years or so, we had no conscription, but a few years ago it was reinstated.
If you were selected back when most men was conscripted, you had the option to pick a weapon free service, you still had to serve, but in the civilian world, say like a firefighter or similar. Complete refusal would eventually lead to prison time.
When I mustered, they were completely open with the fact that if you didn’t want to do it, it would be taken into account, and mostly respected, depending on the circumstances.
They didn’t really want people who didn’t want to be there.
As a Finn, it’s good to hear that you got our back.
It was a sad day for us when Sweden switched from a conscription army to the much smaller version it is today.
Interesting tidbit, it was explained to us in the military as a move made because you felt safe with us as the defending wall between you and the eastern aggressor.
Now as part of NATO, I hope you’ll come to our aid none the less.
Oh, it was an absolute shit decision to get rid of conscription here.
We don’t have the resources to provide enough benefits to attract enough people to join the military on their own, so conscription is the only realistic way forward.
I am a strong believer helping our neighbors if they come under attack, even if the government won’t, and I know I am not alone with that viewpoint.
I did participate in my mandatory military conscription. Was excited for it. Learned some habits that I’m sure have helped me since. Alternative would’ve been jail, which sounded like an overall bad idea.
There are pacifist roles (medics, firefighters, …) for those that don’t want to handle a gun.
Switzerland: my dad had to go to prison for a limited time for refusing military service and had to do an alternative service as well.
I was able to opt-out military in a normal way (just filling a form) and do the alternative service without going to jail, as this was changed in the time between
But the alternative service are 1.5x times the days you have to serve
I mean, Finland does have conscription, but I was exempt from it for peacetime for medical reasons and if that hadn’t been an option I probably would’ve done civil service instead. In both cases I’d technically still be subject to draft in wartime, though probably wouldn’t be put into a combat role.
That being said, I don’t know if I would seek to flee abroad if the draft did go into action. Putting my life on the line to defend the neoliberal world order against an only somewhat worse (Russian) world order is not an enticing prospect, and my faith in the Finnish and European system becoming anything but neoliberal is at an all time low.
talthe USA has it (but dormant as it was last used in the 60s) now, instead part of an automatic register.
The US doesn’t — and has never had — mandatory peacetime service of the “one serves six months or a year or something like that to be trained in military stuff during peacetime”, but if one is male, one does need to register so that in the event of a war where people are called up, one does need to serve then.
It also means that the US has to train people from scratch in a war where it needs them, so has a relatively-long time until it can greatly ramp up its forces if it needed them.
Gladly too old for it.
If I were young now, I would try very hard to avoid it.
WiddershinsSenior year I told a recruiter my medical history and they never called again. I still have that medical history and I’m not 18 anymore. If they raise the age of the draft I’ll drag out that old chestnut. If things get so bad they still want me to serve I’d probably stop taking the medicine I have to take as a result of my past and let them deal with the mess. I won’t be my problem I’ll be their problem.
recruiters wont want to deal with someone that needs a waiver, its time consuming and you likely wont even get a approved medically. common ones are eczema, psorasis and ASTHMA that are almost guaranteed not to be waived.
Oh one more thing about Sweden.
We have a concept called Totalförsvar, Absolute Defense, which means that everyone living in Sweden between the ages of 16 and 70 may be required to serve regardless of gender.
Foreign citizen may even be included depending on the situation.
This also include service after say, a nuclear accident, you may required to help with the cleanup, refusal can be punished with up to four years of prison time.
Cătă 🇷🇴🇺🇦🇲🇩🇪🇺I think I would, unfortunately. There's no choice. I'm Romanian and I know plenty of history to know what happened to our military in the last two WWs, but if there's a demand, then I would go for it.
Peoplle in my country all say that "oh, I wouldn't join, which corrupt politician do you see me to defend? I'd rather move out of my country" etc. (You usually hear this from the most right wing people out there).
The reality is that you're not fighting for the asses of the corrupts only. You're also fighting for the relative freedom that you have, the safety of your land, so that your dear ones don't have to be forced to learn another language or subject to a culture they don't want etc.
And no, if there will be any mission involving America, I don't think there will be a draft. They're usually just sending a bunch of people in the conflict, mostly sitting on the side and that's it. It's mostly Russia that I'm afraid of.
apotheotic (she/her)Hell fucking no. Consequences be damned.
They can already call me back as it is: I swore an oath to the Queen and the King inherited it. No need to draft me, I’m already on the list.
Germany had conscription until 2011, men turning 18 were required to be mustered until then, and, if qualified, had to go through a basic military training for a couple of months. Even when qualified for military service, you could pick an alternative in lieu of military service, which was some kind of social service, like helping in an old people’s home or hospital, amongst other things.
The law for conscription in Germany is also dormant, not abolished, so it could be re-activated any time… and I for one would welcome it being reinstated, also for women. Working with people and doing something that is important for society at that age was a grounding experience that me and my fellow Xennials wouldn’t want to have missed, even though we were not too keen on the whole thing back when we were 18. There was a palpable delta in maturity between those that went through military or social service and those who went to study right away, especially in those that studied go into some bullshit job, like business administration.
I would only agree to the law being re-activated if there was a compulsory civil service for people after being retired as well though. People become lonely and egotistical when they get old, and I believe that getting people to contribute to society for a year or so (not full-time) after they have focused on themselves and their careers for decades is urgently needed. Might cure the electoral behavior a bit as well (old people tend to lean more to the right).
I’d want to see this in the netherlands as well. Don’t care for the old folk’s part, but some kind of conscription, be it military or otherwise, would be good for the country.
In short: I’d refuse, oppose it and campaign against it.
I owe politians nothing. The rethoric about patriotism, duty and all the other arguments commonly used to carry forward pro-draft, pro-defense, pro-rearmament, etc, are hollow.
There are bad actors in this world but politians still confuse public office with unbridled authority and people allow for it like sheep.
Draft as been talked about in my country (Portugal) a few years back, by people that never served as military, from a “conservative” sector of society, using arguments gravitating about ingraining “values” about patriotism, discipline and sacrifice to the younger generations.
Translation: you are to be braiwashed, forced to obey, never question and die where and when ordered.
I risk most will defend their home and family at the risk of cost of their health and life if a bad actor arises. But that in no way leads to the logic for need of a standing army.
Peace is peace. Armed peace is a veiled threat.
I risk most will defend their home and family at the risk of cost of their health and life if a bad actor arises. But that in no way leads to the logic for need of a standing army.
You say “…if a bad actor arises.” But we already have those bad actors at our doorstep, they don’t need to arise. I don’t think we would be able to defend against Russia if we didn’t have standing armies. A quickly mounted militia is no match for a standing army, so I would say there is a pressing need and logic for a standing army.
Admittedly, Portugal is at the other end of Europe and not really threatened by Russia, but arguing against standing armies in general because it would be other nations fighting for you is a bad argument imo.
But I actually agree. Armed peace is a veiled threat. A threat against Russia (and other hostile nations) to leave the European Nations and democracy in peace.
Many people in the world will disagree with that view.
A standing army is a lumbersome beast. It requires supplies for both machines and soldiers, space, infrastructure.
A loosely organized resistance can severely hinder or even cripple such a force with assimetric warfare.
People fighting for a belief fight with resolution.
Many people in the world will disagree with that view.
I mean, yeah sure, but a lot of people in the world would also agree with me. Neither of those things make a point though.
A standing army is a lumbersome beast. It requires supplies for both machines and soldiers, space, infrastructure. A loosely organized resistance can severely hinder or even cripple such a force with assimetric warfare.
It may be more cost-effective, but definitely not human-life-effective. I guess it depends on what you value more. Money and and materials or human life? Because I can guarantee asymmetric warfare costs a lot of lives. I mean just ask the Vietnamese if they would rather have had an army capable of fighting the US. Or the Iraqi. Or ask the Ukrainians if they prefer their army fighting Russia or having to fight civilian asymmetric warfare. You don’t want to have a civilian fighting force against a foe that has invested in a modern military with Anti Air, tanks, missiles, drones, trained personnel.
I personally prefer paying the price of war in money and materials than in the lives of my fellow citizens.
People fighting for a belief fight with resolution.
I don’t disagree but are you implying that this is not true for a standing army?
Plus whoever organises these resistances will end up as an Organisation akin to an army anyway. So you just end up with what you didn’t want but only weaker and less able to defend against an attacker.
It can be risked, with a fair degree of confidence, considering what is transpiring from the ongoing wars that what is considered conventional warfare is changing at a tremendous speed.
Air superiority, conventional artilery, mobile armour, highly sophisticated and expensive weapons systems are being rendered useless, powerless or at least less than superior, by cheaper, often disposable solutions.
This entire combat landscape change, in my view, is the early warning of a deeper trend where human resources will be much more valuable than machinery and conventional armies are a liability, not an asset.
Small, highly mobile, capable of underground, covert operation groups - guerrilla warfare - will be a game changer.
I agree that warfare is changing fast. But I don’t think the changes so far support your Idea of guerilla-warfare being better than having a standing army.
Staying with the example of Ukraine (which I believe is the best example of the type of war we would be having here in Europe), I don’t see how guerrilla warfare would be better than how they are fighting the war right now (With a standing army). But maybe you could showcase how that would be the case?
Small, highly mobile, capable of underground, covert operation groups - guerrilla warfare - will be a game changer.
I also don’t quite understand how this would even work without a standing army. Who trains these covert operation groups? Because you can’t start training them when you are attacked, at that point it’s way too late. So you need an Organisation that trains them, in which case we just end up with a standing army again.
A standing army is mostly cannon fodder. The common soldier does not have skills or competences to make an individual difference in combat situation, regardless of how much training they had. Even less if that soldier was drafted, in contrast to a volunteer, which was the original premise that led the conversation here.
One thing is to maintain a small contingent of professional, trained, military personnel, to bolster civilian organizations in case of catastrophe, act as first line of defense in case of armed conflict, either from outside threat or inside, act in conflict areas as stabilizing presence, etc.
A completely different thing is to maintain an overwhelming force, technically on permanent standy-by, capable of presenting a threat towards another country.
A professional, organized, highly skilled, flexible, volunteer, force can churn out in a very short time window cannon fodder, from drafted personel, or train well prepared small units to be involved in assymetric warfare.
Returning to the Russia/Ukraine example: Russia is making use of their historical doctrine of flooding the battle field with bodies, after their original “blitzkrieg” idea failed. Ukraine is moving towards highly specialized units, capable of attacking and moving, to quite successfully, ruinning the offensive of the invader, after expending their regulat troops on the first wave.
I’m a little confused as to what your definition of a standing army is?
Because this:
Returning to the Russia/Ukraine example: Russia is making use of their historical doctrine of flooding the battle field with bodies, >after their original “blitzkrieg” idea failed. Ukraine is moving towards highly specialized units, capable of attacking and moving, to >quite successfully, ruinning the offensive of the invader, after expending their regulat troops on the first wave.
and this:
A professional, organized, highly skilled, flexible, volunteer, force can churn out in a very short time window cannon fodder, from >drafted personel, or train well prepared small units to be involved in assymetric warfare.
is a standing army. Highly specialized units have been part of standing armies for long time now. Those Ukrainian Units you are describing are part of a standing army. Mostly conscripted by the way. You don’t get these professional units without having a standing army.
This is the definition of a standing army as per wikipedia:
“A standing army is a permanent, often professional, army. It is composed of full-time soldiers who may be either career soldiers or conscripts. It differs from army reserves, who are enrolled for the long term, but activated only during wars or natural disasters, and temporary armies, which are raised from the civilian population only during a war or threat of war, and disbanded once the war or threat is over. Standing armies tend to be better equipped, better trained, and better prepared for emergencies, defensive deterrence, and particularly, wars.”
I’m hypothetically in favor of abolishing war machines as well, but this can only be achieved if workers organize internationally to overthrow their and every other state everywhere in the world simultaneously. States are literally war machines funded by taxes; everything else they do is done to the extent it helps pacify the people who’d otherwise organize themselves and rise against borders, conscription and being governed rather than governing ourselves. I also understand that fighting against states will probably be comparable to a war in terms of bloodiness and chaos, and will have to repeat whenever a new gang appears and tries to become a state.
A state is a necessary organism within a country. What is unnecessary is the ease with which polititians move into a space where they think themselves as untouchable, unaccountable and unquestionable.
To occupy a position of responsability is exactly that: a position of responsability. This implies the appointing must be short, highly supervised and the actions must be transparent and easily auditable. It is not a life long appointment, with unchecked and unlimited reach and power, as we see commonly done today.
The very notion of state must change. The state is the sum of all individuals contained within a country’s borders. They all must enjoy the same rights and protections in and from the law and be capable of actively intervene on the governance of the nation, with a government assigned to do the general management.
To use a quote I find very much enlightning: people should no fear their governments; governments should fear their people.
I don’t think collective agreements to de-arm internationally would need every state to be overthrown. It just needs more democracies, more stability and the insight that everyone profits from long-term peace. But the level of cooperation needed would just be unmatched. Its much easier for one actor to arm and then every neighbor needs to follow suit
I strongly agree about an unmatched level of cooperation being urgently needed for feats like slowing down climate change, but disagree that states are the type of organization required to even imagine it. Every state in history is exactly that, an armed actor, a gang who has militarily forced its way through enough territory to do protection racket over entire peoples. Gangs might introduce democratic elements (parliament, constitution) for efficiency and to calm down those people whom they don’t yet have the potential to repress. Gangs might recruit local population to sustain their numbers or provide skills and knowledge. Gangs might provide a few socially welcome policies in the territories they control, as long as they’re in charge of the provision and haven’t found a way to survive while avoiding them altogether. Gangs might call a truce and maintain it for many years while they’re fighting a bigger, more powerful gang. Some gangs have sold away a part of their weapons and instead rely on protection from neighbor gangs with more impressive arsenals. They’re still gangs, self-sustaining machines of violence, organized armed actors deontologically doomed to set the world on fire, precisely because if one armed actor decides to do good, other armed actors will eat him alive.
Thats a really negative interpretation of what a state is. I think many people benefit from the state having a monopoly on violence in democratic countries with strong protection for minorities. If the state didn’t exist the minorities would have to protect themselves. If there was no state groups would emerge instantly and minorities and the disabled would be at threat for the despotism of the masses. I’m happy there is the police I can call when someone is infringing on my rights or that there is a system of courts. But this is more of a philosophical argument than anything else
The existing protections for minorities, if we trace them to Stonewall and the Civil rights movement, are won by minorities organizing self-defense and causing enough ruckus when discriminated that the state starts worrying about its monopoly on violence. Then, when the state, against the discrimination by which the minorities have successfully organized, has a cultural and economic hegemony, the won rights slowly “trickle down” to some (but not all) of its allies, but are quickly rolled back at a whim when their leadership changes if there’s no functioning self-defense remaining and widely supported.
It’s very important not to disband the self-defense after any concession, and to organize it even, especially, when achieved peacefully. I’m from an Eastern European country where LGBT people don’t currently have self-defense, instead trusting the police and NGOs who started promising them protection because European integration requires that. Their promise is an utter lie; there are hundreds of attacks by boneheads (who are not the masses, but rather an extension of the state’s arm of violence) every year and the police does next to nothing, with the NGOs urging the attacked people and their friends to limit themselves to petitioning their representatives, who also do nothing.
What I’m trying to say is, the minorities have to protect themselves whether the state exists or not, and where the state exists, the defense has largely to be targeted against the state discrimination, the police violence, and the religious and press propaganda supported by the state. Once a group is able to protect themselves and their friends, it starts being respected by the majority of the people, so the despotism of the masses is not a threat, unlike the states, who have illegalized and then starved or otherwise killed minorities en masse numerous times. There are states where the situation is at the moment better, but that’s in such contrast to what states in general have done in the past that I can’t help but realize that the protections are temporary and under threat of a rollback at any moment.
This seems to be more of a gripe with your government honestly. I was speaking about countries with strong protection for minorities. I still think its better to have some protection than to have to fend for yourself again the masses. I definitely reject anarchy from an ideological standpoint. I get the appeal but don’t think things would be better for most people. I have gripes with many things regarding politics but I still stand behind that for the number of people we have the state is also needed from an organizational standpoint to apply rules for all, even if that not always happens perfectly. Orderly society wouldn’t exist in the same way without it
I understand your position, despite disagreeing with it, as it was once mine as well. Would you mind answering two questions on a related, but different topic, closer to OP? First, when a more authoritarian party comes to rule in your country, are you confident they’ll keep conscription more-or-less volunteer, or will one of the first things they do, besides stripping minority rights, be making refusal punishable, canceling alternative service options, widening the recruitment age range and making most people with disabilities not “serious” enough serve as well? Second, since the war on Europe has been ongoing for twelve years, why wait until your country is invaded, and not go here to help defend so that it doesn’t get to the point when your state or a neighboring state of yours is invaded?
For Question 1: I believe there is the possibility for them to try. Technically our constitution says that you’re able to be refuse service (I’m german). But they could certainly try to move against the law. In this position if things got really bad I’d probably try to leave my country.
For Question 2: I would not wait for my country to be invaded. I would not go to a foreign country by myself without like being drafted and sent by my country. I certainly stated before that I would defend my country, and if I served the EU and NATO. But before the 2022 with the Russian attack barely anyone knew or talked about Ukraine. In that regard I do wish to help them with more military aid but I’m not willing to fight myself for Ukraine. If a war from Russia with NATO were to happen I would at least have my country and the entire alliance behind me making strong war efforts to fend of Russia, whereas now the aid is in part slowly and reluctantly sent. I’m not as willing to risk my life for Ukraine as I am for my country or even the EU directly. I certainly think arming to be able to defend makes sense but I don’t think Russia will go immediately attack NATO once the war with Ukraine ends and in a direct confrontation I don’t think Russia would outperform NATO, as economically Russia is no match. I don’t know where I’m going or if I lost my red thread. I don’t want to die but I’m willing to put up a fight and take a risk if I feel threatened enough. The fact is european leaders keep saying “the fate of ukraine is the fate of europe”. I don’t believe that to be fully true. When the war started washington offered to evacuate Zelensky, not send arms. Europe is on the side of Ukraine, but a partial Ukrainian loss will not mean the end for the EU and our collective freedom, even if it was a dark overcast. Many expected Ukraine to fall in the early days of the war. So I guess I can say I would do the task to serve if I was drafted as a duty, I would maybe serve in peace time and fight when demanded of me or serve to rather fight than die as civilian casualty if my side had a legit reason to fight and was not the aggressor or fighting a random war overseas. But I’m not willing to go to a foreign country to volunteer as the brutality of war is very much apparent for me. Even if the fate of Ukraine matters for Europe, the EU will not automatically crumble with it and a partial loss for Ukraine is more problematic for Ukraine than for the EU.
Thanks for a detailed response. It feels weird that in a globalized world an attack on a people isn’t felt by others as an attack on someone they know, with whom they or their friends directly talk online, whose loss would personally affect their projects and friend circles. I admit I also don’t know many names from African countries, for example, or from Palestine, or even from some EU regions. Inequality of recognition and, as a consequence, a lack of personally felt solidarity, is definitely a weakness of the world-system we live in; well, not for the system itself but for the invaded peoples.
I feel strong solidarity, just not to the extent for where I would put my own life on the line is the sad reality. I’m not eager to fight and risk life in war I guess but would do so if I felt it was my duty. You know you wouldn’t cry really if you heard some stranger die as if your own relatives were affected from. The world would be a lot better if we cared more about the suffering we cause on others in the world inadvertently. Like how often do the news talk about war and suffering in Sudan compared to other more economically important regions (straight of hormus)
Please identify your country.
I think it really depends on the foreign policy of the country you live in. I would argue most European countries are unlikely to start offensive wars but would rather be defending against Russia for example. European countries are especially weary of offensive wars after what the US and UK pulled in order to make them join the Iraq War.
In this light, yes, I do believe it is the right choice to bolster our armies in Europe. I wanted to join myself but it seems my shoulder is too fucked for that.
But it is also a risk, since it could always happen that right wing extremists, like the afd in Germany, could come into power and then you’re stuck working for a military at the behest of fascists.
I believe we have to take that risk in order to protect European democracy. We just need to also do everything in our power to not let the fascists win elections in Europe.
I mean military service is limited time. And in germany you can always refuse to do military service so if the AfD came to power you could just refuse.
Yes, true enough. I suppose any penalties would be well worth it in order not to be serving the likes of afd.
Pan0wski
HuudaHarkitenI’m quite glad to see that most of the answers are positive here. It used to be the other way around, of course this thread is not representative of the whole Europe, but anyways..
I’m a Finn, so I went. My plan was to do the minimum and get the hell out of there. But after 6 weeks I liked the guys in my group, I actually enjoyed having to actually do something different for a change, not just sit at the computer or go to band practice/gigs. So when the 8 week starting period ended and it became time to choose what you want to “specialize” in, I checked the boxes for NCO and officer training. Didn’t get to go for the officer training but got to go to be a NCO. I was in the artillery. My job was to figure out where we were and which direction we were pointing. So I learned a lot of stuff about maps, that was fun because I love maps. I also learned how to take the position and direction from the moon and stars, that was fun because I love stars and space shit. I learned a bunch of other skills as well. If I were a dictator, I’d force everyone to go, at least for 5-6 months. You learn skills that you might not need, sure, but you also learn stuff that you didn’t know you needed.
Over the years I’ve heard people say “I wouldn’t go because my country is not worth fighting for.” I would understand that if you are from russia or some such place. But so many Germans have said it to me and I’m just baffled by that. Like okay, I get it, the government is shit. But in a war, you are not defending just the government, you are defending your family, friends, your house, the park you walk through, the way you live, the way your neighbor lives. Are those not worth defending? I’m fine if you are a pacifist and wont take up arms, thats fine. But if you say your country is not worth defending and you live in Europe, thats just ridiculous.
I’m a misanthrope and I hate most people, but if someone tries to come to my yard and start some shit, I’m gonna go fight, out of spite, if not for anything else. I want to hate people in my own terms, I want to tell people to fuck off in Finnish in Finland. Not in russia.
the government is shit
I hear that kind of response from Americans regarding the draft (well… Trump is in office, a pedophile president) so hence why they will rather be in prison rather than being killed in action on foreign soil. Especially when talking about Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan & possibly Iran next, most of the wars are instigated by their own government.
Seems like I didn’t finish my thought there, I was in the middle of only my second cup of morning coffee, sorry for being a bit unclear!
But yes, I would include the US in “russia or some such place.” I would argue that the US has not fought a defensive war since 1945. So I would exclude them from the “defending your country” thing. If you join the US armed forces, you are not going to defend your country, if anything, you are making the world more dangerous for your fellow countrymenwomen.
So if you are a American, I probably agree with any and all reasons to not join the military. But thats also why I included the bit about “if you are European” in my original post.
I’m not sure about Finland, but often or not it involves the MIC (sotateollinen kompleksi) in which is the relationship between defense companies and the government, in a business sense - they profit from war via the arms trade as weapons are used in wars made by those companies. Is it the same in Finland?
Yes, another good reason for not dying for the benefit of the US corporate world.
Does Finland have a MIC or not really?
We do. Patria and Sako probably the biggest ones.
We do have Patria and sako, patria mainly produces versatile armoured vehicles to be used as apcs/mounted with weapon systems they also produce mortar systems and some other things, Sako produces small arms
Well, I have a lot of thoughts about your text. I’ve been a conscript in the German military around 2007. It was a fascist infested environment back then, it is worse today. A lot of officers openly revered the Wehrmacht, one officer candidate called another conscript “you jewish pig” and so on and so forth. So, there’s that. But the most thoughis I had about “fighting for something”, so let’s go through it:
you are defending your family, friends
OK, so I fight at the front while maybe they are bombed at home. I’d rather use my skills to take the Balkan route the other way around with them to safety
your house
I don’t have a house, probably never will own one, cannot afford. I would be defending the house of my landlord who owns 6 houses. I don’t see the need.
the park you walk through
It is a nice park, but the playgrounds for my children are broken, as “we don’t have the money to fix them”. Yeah, right, maybe ask my landlord about where that money is. The austerity kills everything beautiful in the cities, but apparently “there’s no alternative”. So in five years time the park is not worth defending anymore.
the way you live
You mean slaving in a soulless office for scraps, that will never buy me a home (see above), while politicians tell me “you need to work more for your country, oh, btw, we cannot afford social security and healthcare anymore ¯\_(ツ)_/¯”
the way your neighbor lives
Not gonna defend that asshole. He wants to ban gay marriage, deport brown people and thinks renewable energy will, idk, kill him or something.
I mean, yeah, it’s oc very cynical, but that is the gist of it.
OK, so I fight at the front while maybe they are bombed at home. I’d rather use my skills to take the Balkan route the other way around with them to safety
When the Ukraine war started, I made a plans. If russia would have attacked us, I made a plan for my (now ex) German girlfriend to join my parents and for them to go to my sisters house in the north west of the country and from there over to Sweden, from there possibly back to Germany or just stay in Sweden. I would have gone to the front lines while they do that.
I don’t have a house, probably never will own one, cannot afford. I would be defending the house of my landlord who owns 6 houses. I don’t see the need.
So instead of paying rent, you’d rather have your house bombed to the ground? Seems a bit weird but okay..
It is a nice park, but the playgrounds for my children are broken, as “we don’t have the money to fix them”. Yeah, right, maybe ask my landlord about where that money is. The austerity kills everything beautiful in the cities, but apparently “there’s no alternative”. So in five years time the park is not worth defending anymore.
So the better option is to let a russian tank roll over the remains of the park and maybe set up a air defense system there?
You mean slaving in a soulless office for scraps, that will never buy me a home (see above), while politicians tell me “you need to work more for your country, oh, btw, we cannot afford social security and healthcare anymore ¯_(ツ)_/¯” All the while my kids go crazy with all the pressure and constant crisis around them.
“Things are bad now so I’m fine with them getting horribly bad. I work in a horrible job so I’m okay if bombs start raining on peoples houses.”
Not gonna defend that asshole. He wants to ban gay marriage, deport brown people and thinks renewable energy will, idk, kill him or something.
“My neighbor is a bigoted arsehole, so I’m fine with the whole neighborhood being razed to the ground”
Might be cynical but that’s how I hear what you are saying.
“I am not willing to fight and die for the stuff I don’t find that good and rather flee”
is very different from
“I find it better if everything and everybody burns”
like you interpreted what I wrote.
Well that’s what it sounds like to me. You’d rather let the pan fire get out of hand, run outside and hope the fire department gets there in time, rather than covering the pot with a fire blanket or a lid.