Lacking context and only having numbers you can’t clearly see the track record of the Chinese and the Soviet Union being much better than that of the US in the amount of wars they partook in. So I also urge you delve deeper in these conflicts, (outside of wikipedia obviously, this stuff is more complicated than a page of that biased crap can or is willing to show)
That is also ignoring the more peaceful socialist countries of Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, and yes the DPRK too. They are more peaceful than the US ever was, just because they have controversial self defense measures doesn’t discredit them.
So stop saying things that only apply to capitalist countries that use similar rhetoric of “protection” to plunder poorer countries. If they wanted to give their people this “protection”, they’d try to stay inside their borders and not make the Soviet Union need to chip in help to revolutionary movements the US doesn’t like.
that’s admirable, (if you sideline the fact that US isn’t a terribly high bar to overcome in terms of non-involvement in military conflict) but that’s not my point
just because one’s goals happen to be “good” or “bad” doesn’t change the fact that mandatory military service is a violation of human rights; the precursor, justification, consequences, economic system, surrounding rhetoric are not relevant, because we’re discussing the semantics of “violation of human rights”, not whether its consequences lead to more or less peaceful outcomes
Huh, I’ll look into it more on why one might consider mandatory military service to always be a violation of human rights as that is an interesting position seeing how despite any and all material conditions you take it as static. It’s a very interesting position, as you said it’s mostly around the semantics of what human rights constitute as. And you may be correct.
i’m just glad that this is a very concrete stance that definitely will not and never has been bent to absurdity to justify wars 🤗
Lacking context and only having numbers you can’t clearly see the track record of the Chinese and the Soviet Union being much better than that of the US in the amount of wars they partook in. So I also urge you delve deeper in these conflicts, (outside of wikipedia obviously, this stuff is more complicated than a page of that biased crap can or is willing to show)
Check everything past the civil war:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_wars_and_battles#Chinese_Civil_War_(Second_phase,_1945–1949)
A list of the Soviet Unions involvments (inherently biased against it, since it’s wikipedia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia#Soviet_Union_(1922–1991)
And then in comparison, the United States…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States#20th-century_wars
That is also ignoring the more peaceful socialist countries of Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, and yes the DPRK too. They are more peaceful than the US ever was, just because they have controversial self defense measures doesn’t discredit them.
So stop saying things that only apply to capitalist countries that use similar rhetoric of “protection” to plunder poorer countries. If they wanted to give their people this “protection”, they’d try to stay inside their borders and not make the Soviet Union need to chip in help to revolutionary movements the US doesn’t like.
that’s admirable, (if you sideline the fact that US isn’t a terribly high bar to overcome in terms of non-involvement in military conflict) but that’s not my point
just because one’s goals happen to be “good” or “bad” doesn’t change the fact that mandatory military service is a violation of human rights; the precursor, justification, consequences, economic system, surrounding rhetoric are not relevant, because we’re discussing the semantics of “violation of human rights”, not whether its consequences lead to more or less peaceful outcomes
Huh, I’ll look into it more on why one might consider mandatory military service to always be a violation of human rights as that is an interesting position seeing how despite any and all material conditions you take it as static. It’s a very interesting position, as you said it’s mostly around the semantics of what human rights constitute as. And you may be correct.