[unclebucknasty]

It's easy to mock when it's caricaturized. And, so is the ”War is peace" position when taken to the extremes by perma-hawks, who've never seen a problem that couldn't be solved with an explosion.

As often, the solution lies in the middle. We do need strength as deterrent, but over-focus on this leads to an infinitely escalating need for more strength.

But let's be clear: war is illegitimate. That we have not found a better way to resolve conflict does not legitimize it. Killing people with whom you disagree at-scale is insane on its face.

[AnimalMuppet]

War in self-defense is perfectly legitimate. If someone is attacking you, you have the right to fight back.

Note well: I am not saying that all claims of "we're fighting in self-defense" are legitimate.

[unclebucknasty]

War as policy and self-defense are two different things.

And, of course, the self-defense bit wouldn't be necessary if not for war.

Most of the push-back I've gotten on my comment that war is illegitimate is essentially some form of, "yes, but war happens". This is circular.

My point was not to deny the current reality of war or the need to reckon with it. It's that if "war is peace" is accepted as the unchallengeable law, then we will naturally have more war.

It's not the only way. It's just the current way.

[pdimitar]

That's exactly why a country-that-shall-not-be-named does its best to frame itself as the victim, 24/7, even though it's a provable reality that they started the conflict.

Everybody knows that nobody looks favorable at aggressors but they still want land / resources / whatever so they wage an information war to make themselves look better.