Share
25,626 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 179
clock Created with Sketch.
01/08/24
14:42
Share
Originally posted by bacci:
↑
When a country is attacked does it have the right to respond? Is responding to the aggressor with consequences a moral imperative? Alternatively should it "turn the other cheek" so as to avoid "escalating " the situation? Lets look at history. When Germany invaded Poland the UK issued an ultimate for Germany to withdraw, the didn't and the UK declared the start of WW2. When Japan bombed Pearl Harbour the US declared war. Both of these retaliations resulted in millions of deaths, should the UK and USA have "turned the other cheek". When Osama Bin Laden co ordinated an attack on the USA the USA, Australia,Canada, UK etc invaded Afghanistan to kill Osama. Was that justified? Hamas attacked Israelis and took hostages, is retaliation justified? In my opinion in all these examples it was best to retaliate, otherwise aggression will increase and the world would be worse off. bacci
Expand
It's just some weird deception where the inhabitants of this tiny speck of dust in the cosmos that spins around itself and around the sun, can't get along. They have all this stuff going on in their heads thinking they know something about something.