186
Palestinian student sues Michigan school over teacher’s reaction to her refusal to stand for Pledge (apnews.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/palestine@lemmy.dbzer0.com
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

You are absolutely right, and I do believe that the vast majority of soldiers worldwide are well-intentioned and doing what they're doing for perceived right reasons. What I'm getting at is that, generally speaking, wars do not actually solve the underlying issues they are purportedly trying to fix. The Nazi ideas are still with us to this day. The North Korean regime is still a threat to its own people and others. Armies should be a deescalating force, building bridges between nations.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    I see your point, however

    Armies should be a deescalating force, building bridges between nations.

    I don't really agree on this, I think that's what diplomacy is for. Armies are for when someone shows up with weapons, trying to kill you and your family, displace you from your home, and take everything that is yours. Armies are the backstop when diplomacy fails and you have no choice but to defend yourself with violence.

    Yes, armies can't defeat an ideology completely (as you say, Nazi ideas are still with us today, and North Korea is still a threat to the South). However, armies did ensure that a bunch of people that would have been purged by the Nazis have instead lived fulfilling lives. Armies did ensure that a lot of Koreans actually don't live under the oppression of the Kim regime. An army is currently preventing Putin from taking Ukraine, displacing Ukrainians, and wiping out Ukrainian culture.

    The last example is perhaps the best, because we can see in real time that Ukraine would obviously prefer not to fight this war. They would have preferred to build bridges and friendship with their neighbouring country. That is the job of diplomats and politicians. The army is there for when that neighbour decides to invade, because they don't want bridges and friendship, but complete control.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    This is correct, armies can do well in defending populations. The issue is that wars tend to cause more of what they are trying to solve/prevent. For example, Nazism rising out of the aftermath of WWI. Authoritarian/aggressive USSR/Russia rising out of the west's reaction to the socialistic revolution of 1917.

    I think that, ideally, armies should be converted to be a positive force of cooperation (for example helping people all across the world with self-sufficient and sustainable local agriculture), instead of an aggressive/destructive one (of course, this can not realistically happen in the current way the world works, but I'm talking theoretically)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    What you're asking for is Star Trek and The Federation. The military(only speaking for the US) isn't equipped or trained for nation building. It is by nature the "big stick" Teddy Roosevelt was referring to. The state department is the diplomatic arm of the US government. They should be the ones forging all those ties and teaching people outside the US how to be self sufficient and sustainable.

    Honestly I wish the US military was more like The Federation. I'd join back up in a heartbeat.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent