You're defending one side of the position when I just said I can see both sides thinking they are right being a tennable position to hold. I don't disagre with your view, the same way I can see someone who is opposed to war being opposed to the usage.
The "other side" isn't being opposed to war. The other side is actively starting wars by invading its neighbors or trying to take their territory.
Anduril has played a critical role in defending Ukraine, but it has not created weapons used to invade Russia or any other country.
> the same way I can see someone who is opposed to war being opposed to the usage.
Why wouldn't this person be opposed to the invading army instead? I could foresee a possible future where Aduril has done horrible things in future decades, but up through 2024, I see a lot of good done and not much to condemn.
You seem to not see a possibility for opposing companies like Anduril using names from fiction and also not liking other military companies from other opposing countries but such a position is valid.
I don't know what a specific war has to do with this. I really don't think you're interpreting what I'm saying correctly so I'll leave this be, because you seem to just want to figure out if I'm with you or against you where I was just making a neutral argument.
It would have been more productive to actually explain in concrete terms what wrongdoing you believed Anduril was involved in rather than trying to guess at my perception or understanding of your comments.
