22 replies to this topic

[and then]

Down the centuries when countries have been attacked and they have prevailed in the fight, they have taken land as the spoil.  We have moved on from that practice but only recently.  The U N says no, it is illegal.  But if a sovereign nation is repeatedly attacked by the same nation or nations when does it become necessary to de-facto annex land for the sake of self defense?  Would your answers be different if the nation being repeatedly attacked were your own?  It's a fair question and due a respectful response please.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Is the answer to being attacked to invade the attacking nation?

[catch-me-if-you-can]

Sure, as long as it's agreed upon by all parties involved.

[and then]

Wearer of Hats, on 04 October 2012 - 01:01 AM, said:

Is the answer to being attacked to invade the attacking nation?

This is my question.  As a stand alone event when nations go to war then one is victorious or there is stalemate.  Either way there is eventually a "meeting of the minds". But in some cases it seems that the world finds it acceptable to allow repeated aggressions sans provocation of a national level such as invasion.

[Hilander]

I think if you are continually being attacked by another country you had better have a great military to defend yourself with.  I still don't think you should be able to claim the land or you would have strong countries taking over weaker ones.

[Yamato]

and then, on 04 October 2012 - 12:41 AM, said:

Down the centuries when countries have been attacked and they have prevailed in the fight, they have taken land as the spoil.  We have moved on from that practice but only recently.  The U N says no, it is illegal.  But if a sovereign nation is repeatedly attacked by the same nation or nations when does it become necessary to de-facto annex land for the sake of self defense?  Would your answers be different if the nation being repeatedly attacked were your own?  It's a fair question and due a respectful response please.

The terms you're using need some work if I'm going to be able to answer the question.  I'm not even sure how this topic belongs in the Middle East forum because it doesn't provide examples yet is applicable anywhere.   What is "continual aggression"?    What is "sovereign nation"?   Is Pakistan a sovereign nation?   Is Afghanistan?   Libya?   Yemen?   Sudan?   Iran?   Iraq?   Lebanon?   Syria?   Israel?   What if who is being repeatedly attacked isn't a "sovereign nation"?    Do principles we sometimes apply to nations also apply to people, irrespective of governments and the arbitrary lines governments draw to help figure out how to treat these people different from those people?    Why shouldn't they?

[and then]

Yamato, on 04 October 2012 - 02:59 AM, said:

The terms you're using need some work if I'm going to be able to answer the question.  I'm not even sure how this topic belongs in the Middle East forum because it doesn't provide examples yet is applicable anywhere.   What is "continual aggression"? What is "sovereign nation"?   Is Pakistan a sovereign nation?   Is Afghanistan?   Libya?   Yemen?   Sudan?   Iran?   Iraq?   Lebanon?   Syria?   Israel?   What if who is being repeatedly attacked isn't a "sovereign nation"? Do principles we sometimes apply to nations also apply to people, irrespective of governments and the arbitrary lines governments draw to help figure out how to treat these people different from those people? Why shouldn't they?

I thought the question was reasonably clear.  Of course my example is Israel because today it's the prime example of the behavior I'm talking about but if any other country/nation/sovereign entity- i.e.  recognized as a functioning State, were substituted the answer should apply.  How many times must a country defend itself from the same aggressors and when victorious over them HAVE to allow them to rest, heal, regroup, rearm and do it all over again?  In such a situation does it not make more sense to go all the way and eradicate that nation so thoroughly that it no longer poses a threat?  This has been the common method of stopping such aggressions through history so why not use this model now?  It's a bit like having a neighbor who says I want your backyard for my new pool.  He starts digging and you resort to kicking his rear because when you called the police they said we can't help you.  After the fight you get fined and he starts digging again.  It's ridiculous.  Eventually you either give him your yard or you hurt him so badly that the pool just doesn't seem worth the trouble anymore.  I am fully aware of the arguments about the land and no need to revisit them yet again.  I'm talking about the justification for actually seizing a buffer territory of an enemy when they simply will NOT stop attacking you.

[Yamato]

and then, on 04 October 2012 - 03:20 AM, said:

I thought the question was reasonably clear.  Of course my example is Israel because today it's the prime example of the behavior I'm talking about but if any other country/nation/sovereign entity- i.e.  recognized as a functioning State, were substituted the answer should apply.  How many times must a country defend itself from the same aggressors and when victorious over them HAVE to allow them to rest, heal, regroup, rearm and do it all over again?  In such a situation does it not make more sense to go all the way and eradicate that nation so thoroughly that it no longer poses a threat?  This has been the common method of stopping such aggressions through history so why not use this model now?  It's a bit like having a neighbor who says I want your backyard for my new pool.  He starts digging and you resort to kicking his rear because when you called the police they said we can't help you.  After the fight you get fined and he starts digging again.  It's ridiculous.  Eventually you either give him your yard or you hurt him so badly that the pool just doesn't seem worth the trouble anymore.  I am fully aware of the arguments about the land and no need to revisit them yet again.  I'm talking about the justification for actually seizing a buffer territory of an enemy when they simply will NOT stop attacking you.

I should have known this is just another double standard for "the example" Israel.   You didn't answer any of my questions so I can't answer your ill-composed rhetorical question and I have no interest in reading through anymore Zionist slosh that treats Israel differently than everyone else.

I can lower myself and easily make a rhetorical "threat" out of anything anywhere as a justification for violence, and that's your daily shtick on this board to rabble rouse more death for Israel, but I don't do that because I have no desire to promote violence.  

Air power has made "buffer territory" inconsequential.   If Israel can't defend itself with the military it has against whoever and whatever it is you're talking about, I would call that a money hole not worth investing in for that reason alone.   The US military is analogous.  If the pretense you're begging is that Israel is too small to exist, then maybe it shouldn't.   But I'm not going to entertain your lust for anymore Zionist dirty work than the world has suffered through already and I think that's what this thread is really about and I think that's what all of your discussion here is really about.

[RavenHawk]

and then, on 04 October 2012 - 12:41 AM, said:

Down the centuries when countries have been attacked and they have prevailed in the fight, they have taken land as the spoil.  We have moved on from that practice but only recently.  The U N says no, it is illegal.  But if a sovereign nation is repeatedly attacked by the same nation or nations when does it become necessary to de-facto annex land for the sake of self defense?  Would your answers be different if the nation being repeatedly attacked were your own?  It's a fair question and due a respectful response please.

Until we eradicate the concept of civilization, the need to defend yourself will continue to exist.  This is why the UN does not know what it is talking about and why you can never legislate war.  But when we do away with civilization, we also do away with arts, sciences, and culture.  It is a constant struggle and balance.  Strong nations will always take land from weak ones.  By means of defeating your enemy either in conquest or in defense.  That doesn't make the strong nation evil or immoral.  Returning taken land is entirely up to the victor.  What would be accomplished by doing so?

[and then]

RavenHawk, on 04 October 2012 - 05:22 AM, said:

Until we eradicate the concept of civilization, the need to defend yourself will continue to exist.  This is why the UN does not know what it is talking about and why you can never legislate war.  But when we do away with civilization, we also do away with arts, sciences, and culture.  It is a constant struggle and balance.  Strong nations will always take land from weak ones.  By means of defeating your enemy either in conquest or in defense.  That doesn't make the strong nation evil or immoral.  Returning taken land is entirely up to the victor.  What would be accomplished by doing so?

But in this case the concept of civilization is being used to further the aims of the most uncivilized of antagonists,imo.  One side playing within the rules and the other making their own up as they go, as it were....  The double standard is sickening to me and I suspect if the shoe were on another foot the opinions would differ greatly about the correct action to resolve the problem.  Maybe the problem is so resistant to solutions because it is a direct throwback to a completely uncivilized time.  It will eventually offer sociologists an opportunity to see just how far a "civilized" people will go to attempt to survive unending hatred.  Hopefully some bright soul will be around to write it up for posterity.

[Yamato]

It's not civilization we have to get rid of, it's nations.  Turning away from the concept of nationalism is an important goal we can begin to implement in this generation by changing our idea of what the role of government ought to be and dissing all those magical lines that governments love to draw between people to cause hatred, resentment, violence and death.

http://www.azlyrics....adesoffunk.html

[and then]

Yamato, on 04 October 2012 - 06:15 AM, said:

It's not civilization we have to get rid of, it's nations.  Turning away from the concept of nationalism is an important goal we can begin to implement in this generation by changing our idea of what the role of government ought to be and dissing all those magical lines that governments love to draw between people to cause hatred, resentment, violence and death.

http://www.azlyrics....adesoffunk.html

It's an interesting point.  Do you mean you would be willing to cede the sovereignty of our country to some larger entity and stop being American?  I mean, if it truly could bring a measure of peace and safety as well as some economic benefit, would you think it is worth giving up that guarantee of freedom?

[Yamato]

and then, on 04 October 2012 - 06:45 AM, said:

It's an interesting point.  Do you mean you would be willing to cede the sovereignty of our country to some larger entity and stop being American?  I mean, if it truly could bring a measure of peace and safety as well as some economic benefit, would you think it is worth giving up that guarantee of freedom?

What guarantee of freedom?

[Wickian]

Given the international community, it's probably going to become less and less common for territorial expansions to happen through the conquest of one country to another.  I don't think the practice will ever completely end, but it will become less common.

[and then]

Yamato, on 04 October 2012 - 06:51 AM, said:

What guarantee of freedom?

The only one there ever was...a strong military and a will to use it.