In theory, the invaded nation can and should fight back to defend themselves on their own soil, and call a halt to the fighting when they push the aggressors back out of their territory. Would that it were that simple!

In practice, the idea of "self-defense" can be quite ambiguous. Effective self-defense, it is often and effectively argued, may well require retaliation against the enemy's homeland, to impact their ability to continue their activities. Also, an invaded nation may not be able to defend itself effectively without the help of allies, who will undoubtedly have their own agendas wheN it comes to treatment of the common enemy.

Even the phrase "without warning," as used in the initial message, can be interpreted differently by different sides of a conflict. For example, supporters of the unilateral US invasion of Iraq maintain that their action could have been avoided had Sadaam responded to "warnings" by stepping down voluntarily, or doing something equally implausible for any head of state.

For the record, I am an American citizen, a long-time war resister, and a veteran of the US Army where I spent about a year serving as a non-combatant clerk before receiving an honorable discharge "for the convenience of the government."

Perhaps, per your instructions, I should be even more anonymous than I am under this pseudonym, but I don't really care to reboot or do whatever I'd have to do to turn off my cookie and become "GUEST."