The ANZACs... Should we remember? (1 Viewer)

[Kwayera]

Ultra simplified version for Ms K

Its not really self defence when the other party hasnt attacked you yet and you invade in order to stop them attacking you. Who is the agreesor in the circumstance? Who has the real right to self defence?

WHAT IF

Country A wanted to pre emptively invade country B? Who has the right to self defence?

Was there any particular reason for Country A invading Country B? If there was not, and Country A simply wanted to gain power/land, then no, it is not justified. But if Country B was a threat to the people of Country A - i.e. agressively posessing WMD (with enough evidence to suggest that this is indeed the case and enough opposing force in that country to suggest that an agressive action against Country A was imminent) then yes, it would be justified - i.e. Country B has a right to self defence in the first case, and Country A was a right to pre-emtive self-defence in the second.

 

[Kwayera]

ahhh crap, i'm getting confused

Asquithian has a way of doing that.

 

[Generator]

Circularity, Asquithian? It would be kind of funny, if it wasn't such a serious issue.

 

[Kwayera]

By the way, Asquithian, I replied previous or during your edit, so just apply my answer to your pre-edit because I can't be bothered to change what I've already written.

 

[Kwayera]

I mean Indonesia does a pre emptive Attack on Australia as they feel that they are in danger from Aus as we have WMD (just say we do for example)

Aus defends itself as it feels that it is being attacked for no reason...

It is found out that Australia has no WMD...

Who is has the right to self defence? Indonesia who thoguth we had WMD's but was mistaken or Australia which didnt have WMDs and defended itself when attacked?

They both do. I can see how you'd relate this to Iraq, but the point is moot, considering WMD are not the only reason why the US (and we) went in.

And please stop calling me Ms K, as I get the feeling you're being condescending when you do it.

 

[dark_angel]

They both do. I can see how you'd relate this to Iraq, but the point is moot, considering WMD are not the only reason why the US (and we) went in.

And please stop calling me Ms K, as I get the feeling you're being condescending when you do it.

do u go to james ruse?

 

[Kwayera]

Lol so how can both parties be in self defence? Unless both parties are acting in self defence to eachothers acts of self defence?

So Indonesia in my example is perfectly justified in attacking Australia in self defence as they feel we have WMD?

as a result Australia defends itself?

So um? Whoes correct?

Both. They were both defending themselves.

 

[Kwayera]

do u go to james ruse?

Funny you should say that, but no. I go to Abbotsleigh. Why?

Ffunny because a good friend of mine left my school to go to James Ruse.)

 

[dark_angel]

Funny you should say that, but no. I go to Abbotsleigh. Why?

Ffunny because a good friend of mine left my school to go to James Ruse.)

dunno, smart people go to james ruse

 

[Kwayera]

So its ok for Iraq to fight back? As they are defending themselves, in their view, a war that has no justification in self defence?

The rebels? Yes, I suppose, it is their right to defend themselves (even though the war DOES [did] have a justification). I never said it wasn't, though.

 

[Kwayera]

dunno, smart people go to james ruse

Is that a backhanded compliment? Thanks, if that's the case

 

[Kwayera]

So whats the wars justication?

We've been over this. Or are you not so sharp tonight as to already forgotten?

 

[Kwayera]

overthrowing Saddam? (since um you cant rely on self defence since there was nothing to defend yourself against)

That, yes (and by extension freeing the people) - and there was something to defend against. A threat. That's enough justification, considering the nature of the threat.

At any rate, I need to sleep, considering it's almost 1am and I have school tomorrow (unlike most of you rat bags, I'm assuming).

 

[Nick]

how can america attacking iraq be considered a pre-emptive strike

that would be like the heavy weight champion of hte world beating a 2 year old to death because they might possibly have grown up and somehow obscurely hurt him

iraq was hardly a threat to the united states, why didn't they invade china or any other country that could conceivably hurt them in some way.

even many americans that supported the war at first when they thought it was about WMDs and terrorism now realise that it never should have happened, why do you think you are smarter than all of them?

 

[dark_angel]

overthrowing Saddam? (since um you cant rely on self defence since there was nothing to defend yourself against...ie no weapons of mass destruction)

I mean in my Indo/Aus example...

What if the Indonesians realised that there was no WMD in Aus, but wanted to overthrow John Howard since in their minds he was a bad man. So in order to justify their war against Australia they aim to get rid of john howard and instill a indocnesia puppet president in his place so as to ensure an indonesia form of government which is in their view better than the Australian form of government

that would be justified (according to bush) and since howard is bushes puppet i can deduce that that senario is possible

 

[thejosiekiller]

how in the hell did u turn this thread from anzac day to the iraq war- its enough already

 

[Generator]

Howard isn't Bush's puppet.

edit: Anyway, as above, back to the topic...

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Australia has never had WMD's, i think everyone suspected that Iraq had them...

 

[dark_angel]

Howard isn't Bush's puppet.

edit: Anyway, as above, back to the topic...

gimme a reason to oppose

 

[Not-That-Bright]

its a what if...suspciion is not enough to inavde a nation...

i agree, but how do you get proof that a nation has wmd's? They took a FAIRLY logical stance on it and assumed they had them...

Also Howard has never been the kind of person who has invaded another country,
given money to people's families who are suicide bombers,
experimented chemical weapons against his own people that he might not like (eg, labor )
he doesn't kill his political opponants,
he doesn't have rape rooms,
he is a properly elected leader...


I think your example is a pretty bad one..