Saigon - er Kabul has fallen.......oh well.

[gaffo]

War is terrifying. So, you can and will NEVER justify 'war'.

yes and no.

The act of participating in war is a 'terrorist act'. No matter what "side" one wants to believe they are on.

not so simple. Japan illegally invaded both Manchuria and China - as did Germany France, Poland and Russia.

none fo thoe other countries started an illegal actions - China did not invade Japan, Poland nor France invadd Germany. etc....

so who starts it does matter - the act of rolling armies over another nations land is an act of war and illegal under international law - the response - a prober one (as the Poles and Russians and Chiines did - was to fight back! i.e. make war back to the illegal invader.

unlike France - who just rolled over and siad "thanks master may have have a few mor whippings - please install a puppet gov while your at it (petain and ww1 hero - WTF was in his mind when he agreed to be a puppet? - i wonder - the infinate sellout? about face from hero to lapdog?.

so no your not righthere. who starts it matters. - the started is the thug and illegal in action - the response is never illegal - just sometime pussified like in the case of France.

and ys i know wars have not been so clear cvut since ww2 - Korea was BTW - the NK invaded first - butthe principle remains.

thanks to the Bomb we will never have a ww3 - MAD works - might have a limited nuc - if so bet PAk and India - but even that wu0old be insane and i thnk reason will prevent any nuc war regional or global. mad works. for 75 yrs now..........

if not for MAD we would have had ww33 30 yrs ago.

and a buiild up to ww4 today.......

[Age]

War is terrifying. So, you can and will NEVER justify 'war'.

yes and no.

When is the "yes"?

The act of participating in war is a 'terrorist act'. No matter what "side" one wants to believe they are on.

not so simple. Japan illegally invaded both Manchuria and China - as did Germany France, Poland and Russia.

Is it possible to 'invade', legally?

If yes, then when?

none fo thoe other countries started an illegal actions - China did not invade Japan, Poland nor France invadd Germany. etc....

so who starts it does matter - the act of rolling armies over another nations land is an act of war and illegal under international law - the response - a prober one (as the Poles and Russians and Chiines did - was to fight back! i.e. make war back to the illegal invader.

unlike France - who just rolled over and siad "thanks master may have have a few mor whippings - please install a puppet gov while your at it (petain and ww1 hero - WTF was in his mind when he agreed to be a puppet? - i wonder - the infinate sellout? about face from hero to lapdog?.

so no your not righthere. who starts it matters. - the started is the thug and illegal in action - the response is never illegal - just sometime pussified like in the case of France.

and ys i know wars have not been so clear cvut since ww2 - Korea was BTW - the NK invaded first - butthe principle remains.

thanks to the Bomb we will never have a ww3 - MAD works - might have a limited nuc - if so bet PAk and India - but even that wu0old be insane and i thnk reason will prevent any nuc war regional or global. mad works. for 75 yrs now..........

if not for MAD we would have had ww33 30 yrs ago.

and a buiild up to ww4 today.......

This has absolutely nothing at all in regards to what you quoted me saying here. So, as I was saying - The act of participating in war is a 'terrorist act'. No matter what "side" one wants to believe they are on.

[gaffo]

War is terrifying. So, you can and will NEVER justify 'war'.

yes and no.

When is the "yes"?

The act of participating in war is a 'terrorist act'. No matter what "side" one wants to believe they are on.

not so simple. Japan illegally invaded both Manchuria and China - as did Germany France, Poland and Russia.

Is it possible to 'invade', legally?

If yes, then when?

ys its possible - but only if the majority of inhabitants wish to be invaed byt thier neighbor and invite them in. AFAIK per histroy this has never happened, but such an invation would be legal if that requirement were honured.

in the real world we have nations invading others illegally.

and ys who starts it matters - enough to start world wars - 2 so far.

[gaffo]

The act of participating in war is a 'terrorist act'. No matter what "side" one wants to believe they are on.


I dissagre with the above - i''ve stated above who starts it matters - invading anopther land is illegal - period. so any respons - waring back is legal by default!

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The act of participating in war is a 'terrorist act'. No matter what "side" one wants to believe they are on.


I dissagre with the above - i''ve stated above who starts it matters - invading anopther land is illegal - period. so any respons - waring back is legal by default!

Which country invaded the US?

[Sculptor]

The act of participating in war is a 'terrorist act'. No matter what "side" one wants to believe they are on.


I dissagre with the above - i''ve stated above who starts it matters - invading anopther land is illegal - period. so any respons - waring back is legal by default!

That would put the USA on an illegal basis for every single war waged since 1945.

[gaffo]

The act of participating in war is a 'terrorist act'. No matter what "side" one wants to believe they are on.


I dissagre with the above - i''ve stated above who starts it matters - invading anopther land is illegal - period. so any respons - waring back is legal by default!

Which country invaded the US?

I assume you arefere to the Americna Inians - so ya our, Spanish, and French userpation of thos lands without assent fro the natives was and remains illegal.


i affirm the rule of law madam. and the rules of war for that matter.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The act of participating in war is a 'terrorist act'. No matter what "side" one wants to believe they are on.


I dissagre with the above - i''ve stated above who starts it matters - invading anopther land is illegal - period. so any respons - waring back is legal by default!

Which country invaded the US?

I assume you arefere to the Americna Inians - so ya our, Spanish, and French userpation of thos lands without assent fro the natives was and remains illegal.


i affirm the rule of law madam. and the rules of war for that matter.

No. I wasn't thinking along those lines at all...

[RCSaunders]

The act of participating in war is a 'terrorist act'. No matter what "side" one wants to believe they are on.


I dissagree with the above - i''ve stated above who starts it matters - invading anopther land is illegal - period. so any respons - waring back is legal by default!

Illegal? Who the hell determines the legality of war and what warring nation ever cared whether some other agency passed a law against it? The biggest wars in history all began with some nation breaking some suppose, "legal," agreement or treaty.

[RCSaunders]

The act of participating in war is a 'terrorist act'. No matter what "side" one wants to believe they are on.


I dissagre with the above - i''ve stated above who starts it matters - invading anopther land is illegal - period. so any respons - waring back is legal by default!

That would put the USA on an illegal basis for every single war waged since 1945.

So war is OK so long as it's legal? I don't think you think that, but what's wrong with war is not because it's against some law, but that it is subhuman dedication to wholesale murder and destruction justified by some absurd ideology.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Ironic the way religion turns humans into unimaginative psychopaths while the religious among us like to preach 'morality' and claim the moral high ground.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The act of participating in war is a 'terrorist act'. No matter what "side" one wants to believe they are on.


I dissagree with the above - i''ve stated above who starts it matters - invading anopther land is illegal - period. so any respons - waring back is legal by default!

Illegal? Who the hell determines the legality of war and what warring nation will ever cared whether some other agency passed a law against it? The biggest wars in history all began with some nation breaking some suppose, "legal," agreement or treaty.

I agree. It's absurd to refer to war as 'legal' or 'illegal'. It's just humans being their usual fuckwit selves.

[Sculptor]

The act of participating in war is a 'terrorist act'. No matter what "side" one wants to believe they are on.


I dissagre with the above - i''ve stated above who starts it matters - invading anopther land is illegal - period. so any respons - waring back is legal by default!

That would put the USA on an illegal basis for every single war waged since 1945.

So war is OK so long as it's legal? I don't think you think that, but what's wrong with war is not because it's against some law, but that it is subhuman dedication to wholesale murder and destruction justified by some absurd ideology.

Nothing I said here so much as implies that.
WW2 was a case where Germany declared war on the USA.
All the rest since then were illegal.

Let me ask you: if a country declares war on you , is it "ok" to fight?

[Age]

yes and no.

When is the "yes"?

not so simple. Japan illegally invaded both Manchuria and China - as did Germany France, Poland and Russia.

Is it possible to 'invade', legally?

If yes, then when?

ys its possible - but only if the majority of inhabitants wish to be invaed byt thier neighbor and invite them in.

I am not yet sure how you are using and defining the 'invade' word, but to suggest that 'one could and would "wish" to be invaded' sounds completely contradictory to me.

Also, even if the 'majority' wished some 'thing', then that, in and of itself, does NOT automatically make that 'thing' legal.

AFAIK per histroy this has never happened, but such an invation would be legal if that requirement were honured.

Do you envision that ANY government or controlling body of a country would "invite" "others" to "invade" their country?

in the real world we have nations invading others illegally.

There is absolutely NO need to use the, incorrectly used, phrase; "in the real world". And, there is also NO need to state the OBVIOUSLY FACT that, in the days when this is being written, there are nations invading other nations, illegally.

and ys who starts it matters - enough to start world wars - 2 so far.

What is the question you are answering "yes" to here? And, who wrote that question?

Also, does it REALLY matter who "starts"?

In regards to fighting and warring I would suggest what REALLY matters is NOT engaging in either.

[Age]

The act of participating in war is a 'terrorist act'. No matter what "side" one wants to believe they are on.


I dissagre with the above -

Okay.

i''ve stated above who starts it matters -

Just stating things does NOT necessarily make them real, true, nor correct.

invading anopther land is illegal - period.

"illegal" to who, exactly?

Let us say, for example, if the people of the united states of america said it was legal to invade the country called afghanistan, then how exactly is that "illegal"?

Also, WHY do you stay on land that was obtained 'illegally'?

so any respons - waring back is legal by default!

But what if, as you said before, the majority "wished to be invaded", then would ANY one 'warring back' then be legal?