4 ms·
The only message that this position would send is that wars of conquest are acceptable and the EU will sit idly by while war rages around them. You’re basicall
by nkrisc 3y ago
The only message that this position would send is that wars of conquest are acceptable and the EU will sit idly by while war rages around them.
You’re basically describing the start of WWII.
- pastacacioepepe 3y ago> The only message that this position would send is that wars of conquest are acceptable If the only thing that makes a war bad in your eyes is the goal of conquest, than that seems rather hypocritical in my eyes. Whether land is taken or not, what really makes a country independent is who governs it. Who cares about land, it's just soil and it's not worth human lives. At least the citizens of eastern UA had referenda to decide if they wanted to be with Russia. I don't think we granted Iraqis or Afghans the same privilege. > You’re basically describing the start of WWII. This is such an absurd statement I won't waste my time debating it.
- helpfulContrib 3y ago[dead]
- helpfulContrib 3y ago[dead]
- lenkite 3y agoThe US has already effectively conquered parts of Syria and is busy looting oil from the oil fields. The world stands idly by. Israel is busy reducing Gaza to rubble. The world stands idly by.
- zarzavat 3y agoIt’s reasonable to act to prevent one’s neighbour from being conquered, without having an obligation to be world police. Europe has a strong memory of what happens when you don’t act to protect your neighbours from aggressors: those aggressors soon come for you too.