Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
and then

How to Answer Continual Aggression?

22 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.com/lyrics/rageagainstthemachine/renegadesoffunk.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What guarantee of freedom?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

As it should, imo. To grab land for the sake of greed and conquest is unacceptable in the modern world, or should be. And before everyone has a STROKE, I include Israel in that equation as well. The only slim possibility - and it is nearly invisible - of Israel ever knowing any peace prior to Christ's return is to negotiate away a portion of the land they control in the hope of finding neighbors willing to coexist with them. The Palestinians have proven they will never really stop the aggressions but if Israel tries once more to buy the peace and once more they are made busy burying their children and elders for their naivete then I think the national psyche will finally harden to the truth and matters will be set right in the only way left to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

How free is the Golden Horde lately? How free are the Nazis? How free is Saddam Hussein? Don't peddle your false guarantees on me, I'm not interested. Power is a precarious thing, because too many wicked people want it. Wrapping it up in a false freedom colored wrapper didn't help.

You speak about the military like it's this robotic slave class of scapegoats for you to judge the performance of and not care about the moral and physical wreck that using it always causes. Have you ever been a part of the only freedom there ever was? Have you ever gotten used?

Freedom is taken for granted when you rely on the freedom of others to protect your own. Every soldier, even the one who volunteers, signs his a$$ away to the government to tow the line and letter of the code. If freedom was what we really cared about we'd want a strong military and a reluctance to use it. Like the Supreme Commander of Allied Forces once said, I wouldn't take anyone seriously who proposed the idea of preventative war to me. That's the invention of Hitler and it belongs in the dust bin of history with Hitler along with every other modern-day moron who's dumb enough to emulate him.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good topic actually.

I have a strong personal opinion on this, which is actually really simple and gets down to the point of freedom/human rights: Let the people of the country decide by vote.

Not being funny but why not?

We say that Britain has the right to the Falklands because the people there are British and want to be British. Look how much problems that solves!

Just ask the people. Governments have too much control as it is. The point of a government is to work FOR the people, not the other way around. So let the people have the choice how their country works/is owned by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as a few men can decide when an entire nation enters into a war and when it exits, there will never be a satisfactory solution to what's legitimate during war, not an actual reason for it. No nation should be thought of as better then the rest or less then the rest, because a nation is composed of the people living in it, not the government or military. A military should only ever be used for protection, never a statement of 'look at this, I can and will crush you if you attack me', because that just breeds defensive anger and fear which will lead to war.

Edited by Hasina
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

It’s not the most uncivilized of antagonists. Islam is still just another culture and it is a conflict between cultures. As many have pointed out, is it not the right of any opposition to fight? And the answer is yes. But that has never been the point. All life fights to survive. But not all organisms do survive. That is the nature of nature. Individual cultures in our civilization are the same way. Some will survive and others will not. And for the health of civilization, you don’t want every single one surviving.

Yes, Islam is making up its own rules and the double standard is sickening. We saw this in the recent protests from that movie ridiculing Mohammed (reminiscent of the jyllands-Posten cartoons and many others). I guess it is ok to ridicule any other religion but not Islam. I think you see that same mentality raise its head in this forum.

There really was no “uncivilized” time. From the time that there were 2 people, we had civilization. And some civilized people will go all the way to survive. The weak will die. Survival of the fittest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iraq invading Kuwait back in the Gulf War was for the purpose of annexation. You can see how the world reacted to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iraq invading Kuwait back in the Gulf War was for the purpose of annexation. You can see how the world reacted to that.

True, but hardly a good comparison. That was done for the theft of assets. I'm speaking of taking pieces of land for a self defense buffer - not whole countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but hardly a good comparison. That was done for the theft of assets. I'm speaking of taking pieces of land for a self defense buffer - not whole countries.

Indeed. Completely different situation.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with annexation in these situations. Annexation, just like war, can either be done for proper, necessary reasons.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.