This rhetoric reminds of the German military’s questioning when pacifists refused mandatory military service. “You say you’re against violence but what if someone threatened your family and you had a gun?” Great intellectual company you’re keeping here.
This rhetoric reminds of the German military’s questioning when pacifists refused mandatory military service. “You say you’re against violence but what if someone threatened your family and you had a gun?” Great intellectual company you’re keeping here.
How does mandatory military service relate to helping to fund another country from an invading force?
Should the other European nations not fight against the Nazis when they invaded other countries in order to not ‘prolong’ the war?
I’m comparing rhetorics. Read the post I was replying to and then mine again, please.
However it’s not rhetoric. It’s cold hard history. Allowing a fascist dictator to invade a sovereign country led to WW2.