Brandon9000 wrote:old europe wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Thanks for putting words in my mouth which I totally disagree with. My point should be quite obvious. I will try to express it with a question to you. Country A attempts to assassinate the leader or country B. Are you actually maintaining that country B then does NOT possess the right to respond militarily?
Wait. You say "country B HAS the right to invade country A", yet you said "alas,
they (Japan) didn't have the means to fight back". Sounds like "Might Makes Right" to me.
Nevertheless, assuming you disagree with that position, your argument is that Chile totally has the right to invade the US?
Why are you afraid to answer my question? It is a yes or no question.
Because I didn't realize
you had already answered
my question, but again:
I you're saying that the assassination (or even attempted assassination) of one's country's leader is justification for invasion, would that apply to all countries, and if yes, would that specifically apply to the case of e.g. Chile? Or would it only
theoratically justify invasion, in a Darwinist way, provided the attacked country had to means to invade the attacking country?
But to answer your question and stop you whining: Yes, I believe a response would be appropriate. A military response? Not necessarily. An invasion and occupation of the attacking country? I don't think so. By doing so, you value the the life of one person (assassinated head of state) higher than the lifes of all the innocent people that would die in the course of an invasion.
Your turn, Branny. Awaiting your answers, and no sorry "you didn't answer my questions" games, if I may say so.