That's mostly because transport companies have to pay to ship you back if you get turned away at the border, so they will want to see your permission to enter your destination country before you leave. I've traveled internationally a fair bit and I've never had to show my passport to government officials when leaving the US.

I can drive to Canada with my driver license.

I mean, really not trying to frame this in any way, but asylum seekers do it all the time.

It is trivial for any country that is not land-locked. You just have to sail to international waters. What is difficult is to stay there.

It's about time to finally grok that all world's military is only there to wage wars at the whim of the 0.001% under the guise of being defence-only, and that constitutions worth less than toilet paper these days.

Rather: the "victorious" countries of the Second World war were afraid of a re-militarization of Germany. On the other hand, they wanted to re-militarize the Western part of Germany just a little bit so that West Germany could become part of the NATO.

Quite the contrary; up until the end of the Cold War both German states were highly militarized. They were quite happy to be able to roll back a lot of it after the reunification though.

Germany participated in the NATO military campaign/occupation of Afghanistan, including ground forces, naval activities and special operations units. Its seems a total of 150,000 German soldiers (and police officers?) were deployed overall (not at the same time of course); of them, 62 were killed and 249 wounded:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Armed_Forces_casualties...

Germany was also directly involved in the NATO campaign against (former) Yugoslavia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia

and finally, Germany hosts large contigents of US forces, including air forces likely involved in the current illegal war against Iran.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramstein_Air_Base

That is basically redefining the word defense, though.

I can’t be like “it was self defense” if I beat somebody up because they are getting too big at the gym and they could beat me up later if I don’t beat them up first.

That doesn’t mean such a thing is never ever justified, in international relations, it just ain’t “defense”.

So while many of the reasons are questionable (understatement of the year), let’s focus on the last one. After America lost the war in Vietnam, what happened to those neighboring nations? Did they suffer from Vietnamese communists? The only Vietnamese intervention was in Cambodia, and hardly anyone thinks that wasn’t the right thing to do.

Yeah, by such definitions any country is justified to wage a war and always find a way to claim it’s for self-defense (which is indeed how most causus belli have worked throughout the history – they always claim to have the moral high ground when launching the war). This is also how essentially in every country it’s called the Department of Defense (unless you’re Trump) but that means nothing as they start wars all the same. Not a trace of any rules, accountability or restraints still remains under such a framing.

> The constitution made it impossible to make a less sexist law

with the right level of public exposure citizens would surely have been able to put enough pressure on the government to make this happen. But instead zelensky kept repeating the talking points that we should not be concerned about the war because the risk had not changed since 2014. Near-zero effort was made to evacuate ukrainians living near the russian border or those who would be in the way of russian troops. The intelligence had been there for at least six months before the war began

> and the government was already struggling with making a law at all

what do you mean?

[flagged]

Only if you ignore free will. Feels unlikely that women will suddenly abandon monogamy and forced procreation à la the draft is probably very unpopular especially given that women would be a majority. Not that they’re wrong to disagree, but there are more conditions here than the biology of procreation.

The modern answer would be immigration, and that’s gender-agnostic.

in a scenario where your country is on the verge of war, where will those women procreate? I imagine that those who can will leave the country ASAP

why?

honestly i am happy for the russian and ukranian young men and women i meet here in NL each day. Glad for them they can dodge the draft. most simply drove out, some had more hastle than others.

war is shit on all sides and thinking one or the other suffers less because you dont like their colours is very short sighted.... i think we had enough time by now to realise it.

and dont call it cowardice if someone doesnt want to fight for a bunch of 'rich pricks' playin with their money while normal people get to die in the streets. It has never been good or normal and should never be.

How about Russians from abroad, do they often go back to Russia?

You started with bringing Ukraine up under an article about Germany, so how is your comment any less a whataboutism than mine?

Why is it only *forced for men? Does that sound equal and civil to you? note we are not living in middle ages and there is no world war.

How does this relate to my comment?

Territory is not something physical that just exists. It's an idea, no matter whether a human or any other animal feels the need to enforce it.

Then they should remove the law this weekend. Apparently it is bureaucracy without purpose after all?