BS: What is the Proper Response

Subject: RE: BS: What is the Proper Response
From: DonMeixner
Date: 11 Aug 04 - 04:29 PM

A puzzling answer "Guest". Care to elaborate?

Subject: RE: BS: What is the Proper Response
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Aug 04 - 04:23 AM

the proper response at that level should always be the "considered" TRUTH.

Subject: RE: BS: What is the Proper Response
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Aug 04 - 02:50 AM

I shall join you in giving up smoking for a week Wolfgang!

I don't normally smoke Wolfgang... but I do often get the smell of burning rubber...

Subject: RE: BS: What is the Proper Response
From: Wolfgang
Date: 10 Aug 04 - 04:29 PM

I will boycott The Olympics (Foulestroupe)

Sorry, but my impression is that this announced boycott is as genuine and hard for you as if I would say I shall boycott cigerettes the next couple of weeks.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: What is the Proper Response
From: mack/misophist
Date: 10 Aug 04 - 02:53 PM

Note: "Hot Persuit" is a limited doctrine. In practice, the persuer must be able to see, or have recently seen the persued; local authorities must be notified; international boundaries are a whole other matter. It only works well within a country. ie. Bush is still an asshole.

Subject: RE: BS: What is the Proper Response
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 10 Aug 04 - 01:30 PM

Who in this day and age would warn the people they are about to attack?

Subject: RE: BS: What is the Proper Response
From: DonMeixner
Date: 10 Aug 04 - 01:27 PM

No, I didn't, are you suggesting that there are times when an attack without warning is acceptable?

Don

Subject: RE: BS: What is the Proper Response
From: Kim C
Date: 10 Aug 04 - 12:31 PM

You say "without warning," but you don't say if there is any reason or provocation for such an attack.

Subject: RE: BS: What is the Proper Response
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Aug 04 - 12:07 PM

The Olympics are nearly on us. I am suffering an overload of TV brainwashing about "The Spirit of The Olympics". This includes the "Sacred Truce" of the Olympics. It was said that those nations involved in a war should not send athletes to The Olympics.

If The USA & Australia (and the rest of the willing coalition) does not immediately withdraw their athletes, I will boycott The Olympics.

And other countries should boycott them if they do not withdraw!

That is the Proper Response!

That should give me a bit of peace in the next couple of weeks.

Won't have anything to talk about in public either.... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: What is the Proper Response
From: Wolfgang
Date: 10 Aug 04 - 04:25 AM

It depends for me, like Bill has posted, both individually and on the large scale. I see not the slightest reason to differentiate between personal and national reaction.

(1) If I'm about as strong as the aggressor that is if counteraggression makes sense, fight back. (Tit for tat is on the long run the best survival strategy in computer simulations)
(2) If the aggressor is much stronger and/or fighting back makes no sense, then do exactly what Bobert describes as his action on a national basis (but as a general rule it makes no sense: I just try to imagine Luxemburg attacking Germany and then have to smile about Bobert's overly general response). On a personal level too, I'd hand over my money and whatever they want to a group of strong and armed robbers when nobody is near to hear me.
(3) If the aggressor is much stronger and makes clear that my death/destruction is his aim than I'd fight back against all odds to make him at least rue a bit his killing me, both on a personal and on a national level. A group of thugs about to kill me, I'd at least try to kick one of them where it hurts. My favourite group of people in history doing such a fight are the Jews in the Warszwa ghetto fighting without a real chance against the German army but trying to die with a fight and not like lambs and trying to kill as many of their eventual murderers as possible. This too for me is a situation in which Bobert's (in general) good idea simply doesn't apply.

I'm a conscientious objector (after having served my time) but not for being a pacifist, but simply for considering fighting back in the particular context of a nuclear war in Europe senseless. In different political contexts I would not have objected.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: What is the Proper Response
From: Jeri
Date: 10 Aug 04 - 12:50 AM

Don, I don't think there ever will be a "way acceptable to all neutral or non-injured parties."

It'll depend on who they think is right and who is wrong, whether, how and with whom their interests are involved, the potential consequences of any possible reaction , and any number of other factors.

I don't think there IS one universally right or acceptable way to react.

Subject: RE: BS: What is the Proper Response
From: Blackcatter
Date: 10 Aug 04 - 12:26 AM

i.e. Sudan.

Subject: RE: BS: What is the Proper Response
From: DonMeixner
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 11:46 PM

Hi Don,

What you read as a flaw is meant to be a part of the question and considered in the reply. I intended to offer the possibility that people could attack from one country and not be aligned with the government in power. It also allows for regional conflict within borders.

The Other Don

Subject: RE: BS: What is the Proper Response
From: mg
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 10:57 PM

Did you mean Pax Vobiscum? mg

Subject: RE: BS: What is the Proper Response
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 10:52 PM

I believe there is a basic flaw in the question, namely "One political group or the leadership of one nation" can be two different things (possibly three) and call for at least two different responses (possibly three).

1. If the leadership of the attacking nation has the support of the nation's people, then that would appear to be classic war, and the response is fairly clear-cut. One defends oneself.

2. If the leadership of the attacking nation does not have the support of the nation's people, or at least, not a large percentage of that nation's people, then the problem is a bit more complex. One defends oneself, and one viable tactic in that defense would be to determine if there is an underground in the attacking nation, and if so, attempt to form an alliance, enlist their aid, and do as much as you can to assist them.

3. If it is a "political group," and not a discreet nation, then you have a situation where classic war is rarely, if ever, the answer. This sort of thing is more like tracking down criminals than it is war, and requires entirely different tactics. If a given nation actually harbors and gives aid to the group, then presumably the attack was with the approval of that nation. If the leaders of that nation are unwilling to cooperate in efforts to bring the criminals to justice, then (as Rabbi-Sol has said) the "doctrine of hot pursuit" is perfectly in order. This would not be all-out invasion, it would be more in the nature of surgical commando strikes. At the same time, one should seek the assistance of other nations in attempting to restore order and bring the criminals to book, including the use of international sanctions against any nation or nations that harbor or give aid to the criminals. One certainly does not attack and/or invade nations that (even though they may be in sympathy) do not harbor or actively give aid to the criminals.

This sort of action is not "war" and should not be characterized as such. It gives a totally false impression, it can easily (as we currently see) lead to actions which go into left field, cause all kinds of international complications, put one's own nation in a highly questionable position in terms of international law and moral rectitude, and do nothing to solve the original problem—in fact, it can make it much worse. And to call it "war" empowers and lends dignity to the criminals—or terrorists—or whatever you care to call them.

I don't think they teach the correct countermeasures for this kind of criminal activity in most military schools. They're still fighting wars from yesteryear. And political leaders who are thinking only of the next election and seeking only simple answers to complex problems, are totally incompetent to handle problems like this.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: What is the Proper Response
From: GUEST, Pax vorbiscum
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 10:25 PM

Overly simple question to what could not possibly be a simple scenario. What if the nation attacking (and by that do you mean war?) has been the subject of oppression by the attacked nation?
Some predicatble answers here from catters with axes to grind.

Subject: RE: BS: What is the Proper Response
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 10:15 PM

On an individual case basis I would defend myself and my family. On a national basis and given the scenerio that Don described one can assume that the agressor has the military advantage so I say, "Screw it". Let them have their little victory and then start making life miserablre for them with non-violent civil disobedience and make them look like the bullies that they are. World opinion and/or the Big Guy will take care of the rest...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What is the Proper Response
From: freightdawg
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 09:58 PM

What difference does it make what the "neutral or non-injured" parties think? Who cares?

If someone punches me in the nose I am not going to send the Gallup pollsters out to those in the immediate vicinity to take a random sample of their "feelings" about how I should respond. If it was a little twerp that hit me I am going to smash him. If it was a troglodyte with biceps bigger than my waist I am going to apologize for making him angry and get the heck out of Dodge.

The feelings of the neutral and non-injured parties are absolutely meaningless.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: What is the Proper Response
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 08:47 PM

fight back if you can, if you are a lot weaker, ask for help.....

(I can't quite see having many possible answers to such a question...it seems like an obvious thing)

Subject: RE: BS: What is the Proper Response
From: Peace
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 08:36 PM

Fight back and ask for international assistance.

Bruce Murdoch, Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: What is the Proper Response
From: DonMeixner
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 08:27 PM

Please, not editorializing about rightness or wrongness of anyone specific.

The only specifics in this excercise is..."One political group or the leadership of one nation of people attacks without warning another group of people or nation.".....

Don

Subject: RE: BS: What is the Proper Response
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 08:11 PM

I believe in the "Doctrine Of Hot Pursuit". Those invaders who crossed over into your territory to start the agression must be chased down, irrespective of any national boundries. If not, they will only re-group and start up again. Two examples of attacks WITHOUT WARNING were the North Korean invasion of South Korea which started the Korean war, and Pearl Harbor which brought the USA into WWII. In each case, the agressors had the war brought back into their own territory. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: What is the Proper Response
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 07:59 PM

"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."

Far as I know, this is essentially the law that governs fighting between individuals in most, maybe all, of the states in the US. Pre-emptive attacks are illegal, and punishing the attacker after he has stopped fighting is illegal. There are differences in the details, but that's generally it.

It seems to me that there should be some authority greater than the two combatants thet they could appeal to; in other words I could approve of pre-emptive attacks if there were a world court that had authority to decide the justness of the matter and the ability to enforce their decision.

"...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..."

I believe GWB said just before the war that if Saddam stepped down it would'nt make any difference, the US would invade anyway.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: What is the Proper Response
From: PoppaGator
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 06:21 PM

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."

Subject: RE: BS: What is the Proper Response
From: Blackcatter
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 06:16 PM

The leaders of the country who attacked should all be tried in international court for war crimes. George W. Bush and his band of Fascists should be tried like that as should Saddam and Tony Blair.

Subject: RE: BS: What is the Proper Response
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 05:49 PM

I assume that the aggression was unilateral and unprovoked. Then,
self-defense. Only self-defense. And scream to the international community for assistance.

Subject: BS: What is the Proper Response
From: DonMeixner
Date: 09 Aug 04 - 05:40 PM

I am interested to know what the concensus would be to this question:

One political group or the leadershipo of one nation of people attacks without warning another group of people or nation. How should the attacked party respond in a way acceptable to all neutral or non-injured parties.

1. I have no political axe to grind here. I'm just interested what is viewed as the proper response.

2. I have left out anything that may predetermine or allude to any political entities or nationalities in the question. I am not asking for any speculation as to what countries I may mean in this puzzle. I am not speculating at all.

3. This purely an excercise geo-politics with having the benefit of know political entities.

4. If you wish to answer please do. If you can please answer as a "Guest" and name your country if you wish. Or your continent, or neither.

5. I have no interest in starting fights or debates. I am merely looking for what people view as right and wrong when it comes to international or regional aggression.

Thanks.

Don Meixner