• PugJesus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      1 year ago

      In isolation, sure, but in context, ‘war bad’ types are generally not agitating for the invader to stop, but for the defender to stop.

      • Akagigahara@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        IMO, it’s often not even “war bad” but “fighting bad”. Thus wanting the defender not to defend because that would be just as bad as attacking.

        I consider myself a pacifist, so I prefer peaceful and diplomatic ways before going to war. But if you are attacked, you have the right, if not the duty, to defend yourself and your citizens.

        Edit: changed citizen to cititens

        • credit crazy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          Reading your edit not gave me the mental image of a country being attacked and their military just surrounds and protects one singular confused random citizen

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      We tend to think of the aggressor when we say war is bad. It makes sense, they’re the ones who initiate the conflict and make the war exist.

      Defending yourself in a war though is, well, defensible. Being anti war can never be an absolutist position. Otherwise, those who are fine with war only need threaten war to get what they want. Do you truly live in peace if it’s because you give the aggressor everything they want? I’d argue no.