“I always side on the defender’s side.”
Thanks for the statement, the additional explanation being unnecessary. I side with neither. We obviously can only differ, therefore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You “side with neither” you say...
At first glance that might be seen as a wise high-ground moral stance.
Unfortunately, it’s a stance and a luxury the planet cannot any longer afford. The word has changed.
You are talking about Neutrality.
The most well-known anti-war nation of the planet, Sweden, somehow managed to implement neutrality for 200 years.
But after Russia’s insane blatant invasion of a European nation the Swedish people concluded that neutrality was a concept of the past. So now, Putin forced to become members of NATO... We have to let that sink in for a minute.
Neutrality is not a tool for peace anymore.
It’s a concept aggressive nations want every non-aggressive nations to implement. That way they can continue to plunder, loot and invade every nation they want, unhindered and unchecked.
The sad reality today is that “Neutrality” has become a weapon of mass destruction.
Being “neutral” ALWAYS help one of two sides these days. It works as a fuel to prolong wars indefinitely.
I’ll end this by stating a well know expression:
“”The only thing needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.””
Typo correction:
Here is the corrected version:
But after Russia’s insane blatant invasion of a European nation the Swedish people concluded that neutrality was a concept of the past.
Thus, Putin forced SWEDEN to become a member of NATO...
We have to let that sink in for a minute.
How did you side with Iraq? Afghanistan? Syria? Libya? Sudan? Somalia? Yemen? With whom did you "side" when we and NATO bombed Serbia, that Kosovo -- still a flashpoint -- was created to be led by the Albanian Muslim majority? How are you siding with Niger?