Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

It's just some weird deception where the inhabitants of this...

First 2 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
gumUnderfoot

22,517 Posts.

179

01/08/24

14:42

Post #: 75028287
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.
Upvote

Reply

Top Stories

MND

Albemarle lithium downsize burns $200M hole in Monadelphous's pocket as latter's contracts terminated

Second Christmas for 2024 coming to Kalgoorlie: Diggers & Dealers starts Monday

CPV

Clearvue shares up 15% as it inks deal to enter Middle East and Indian construction markets

CKA

Deal with Petrosea opens the door for Cokal's ramp-up plans in Indonesia

KAI

Pilbara Minerals buys land off Kairos part of its York gold project for $20M – and a 2% royalty on any PLS gold sales

First 2 Last