In fact, we'd likely gain support among the enemy itself, as is often the case when a country is attacked.
And that's the whole problem with the increasingly corporatized military setup these days. They can't seem to create a legitimate enemy anywhere in the world.
"Only the dead have seen the end of war" Plato
Frmsldr
Your list of offensive and defensive vehicles is quite amazing. It appears you are confusing capabilities with doctrine, domestic and foreign policy? You can use nuclear power submarines for defensive roles however typically electric/diesel submarines are more effective.
Reference the Alps and the elephants, it would not be difficult for the Swiss to send their vehicles over the Alps to invade another country if they so desire to. Again this is my point, you are confusing capabilities with intent.
Think about it. If electric/diesel submarines are more effective and economical than nuclear powered submarines, then why nuclear powered submarines? Nuclear powered submarines are the most efficient and effect (technology we have in production) ocean going submarines capable of operating submerged for months on end (if not 12 months+ if need be). That's why nuclear powered subs are also nuclear weapons capable. There's no escaping the fact that nuclear subs were designed to be a strategic offensive weapon.
Some weapons, by their design, are offensive (war) weapons. Other weapons and technology are dual use; whether they are defensive or offensive weapons depends on how they are used or intended to be used. I have no confusion over this. If there is any confusion, it is coming from your quarter.
Let me further explain. A knife or a rifle (legally owned by a Canadian citizen) if used to cut (knife) or hunt (rifle) is not a weapon. If a knife is used (or the future intent is) to cut or stab with the intent or actuality of causing death or injury to a person, then the knife is a weapon. If the rifle is used to shoot someone, then it is a weapon. In these instances, there has been no change in the objects (knife and rifle) but a change in the use of these objects that makes the difference.
WRT to Sweden being in Afghanistan, they have either invaded and are providing supporting to other invading nations or they have been invited to Afghanistan. You can not have it both ways, Sweden is part of ISAF just as Canada is.
That's not the dichotomy I raised. As I explained above, the dichotomy I raised was how were the Swedish troops deployed. Were they deployed like Canada's troops, engaging in combat? Or were they deployed engaging in reconstruction, redevelopment, humanitarian work and/or supportive monitoring (for the described humanitarian work)?
A bit of history: In October 2001, after Kabul had been 'liberated' the Afghan people had gathered to determine Afghanistan's future government. At the same time, in Bonn, Germany, Hamid Karzai and the interim Afghan government in exhile was appointed by the Pentagon.
On December 15, 2001 the first NATO/ISAF troops arrived in Afghanistan. On December 25, 2001 the Pentagon appointed puppet Karzai interim government in exhile arrived in Kabul, was installed thus sweeping aside the legitimate Afghan government formed by local Afghans, escorted by its bodyguard of NATO/ISAF troops who provided "protection" and "security" for "Kabul" and "Karzai and his puppet government".
The claim that U.S./NATO/ISAF troops were invited over to wage a war of aggression in Afghanistan by the people and (legitimate) government of Afghanistan is proven by historical fact, to be a myth.
Your examples of offensive and defensive wars are very poor at best, and I am not familiar with any parts of the Nuremberg Principles, Geneva Conventions, U.N. Charter that says defending countries are not allowed to commit offensive operations against an invading county on the invading country sovereign territorial areas.
As I told PraetorianFour on the "Afghan People Will Win" page, google terms like "War of aggression", "military attack", "military force", "use of armed force", "just war", "unjust war", "illegal war", wrt the U.N. Charter and Geneva Conventions.
WRT to "Canadian guerrilla insurgent minutemen" and the examples you provide, there were countless deaths because these men and women were not properly trained and equipped. The same would happen in your Canadian/US scenario. I am not saying Canadians should give up without a fight, however the lost of Canadian lives would appalling according to your point of view.
The arms industry just loves you. Not only are you risking your life and your physical and emotional well being by fighting their war in Afghanistan, you are making a "humanitarian"(?) case that Canada should buy more expensive hi tech weapons, so that were Canada be invaded by the U.S.A., Canada would stand a "better"(?) chance in a conventional war.
No my friend, when it comes to asymetric warfare (where one side has a decided technological advantage), unconventional guerrilla trumps conventional warfare. The reason why in such wars, casualties among the insurgents is so much higher than among the conventional powers is due to the use of weapons and tactics of say, offensive use of white phosphorus, the mass deployment of napalm weapons, depleted uranium and DIME (Dense Inert Metal Explosives) munitions, "overwhelming force" used by air assets, UAV attacks for which insurgents (apparently) do not have defenses against, etc.
In other words, the amount of casualties inflicted on the "other" side is limited only by the conventional powers' tender mercies, morality and the extent to which they are afraid of international and national laws concerning the treatment of enemy soldiers, populations in war zones and prisoners of war.
That's not the dichotomy I raised. As I explained above, the dichotomy I raised was how were the Swedish troops deployed. Were they deployed like Canada's troops, engaging in combat? Or were they deployed engaging in reconstruction, redevelopment, humanitarian work and/or supportive monitoring (for the described humanitarian work)?
So according to you, parts of ISAF are committing war crimes and other parts are not? Just depending on what they are doing?
As I told PraetorianFour on the "Afghan People Will Win" page, google terms like "War of aggression", "military attack", "military force", "use of armed force", "just war", "unjust war", "illegal war", wrt the U.N. Charter and Geneva Conventions.
I can not find anything that you have mentioned about for war of aggression in the manner you have described, please provide a link.
The arms industry just loves you. Not only are you risking your life and your physical and emotional well being by fighting their war in Afghanistan, you are making a "humanitarian"(?) case that Canada should buy more expensive hi tech weapons, so that were Canada be invaded by the U.S.A., Canada would stand a "better"(?) chance in a conventional war.
No my friend, when it comes to asymetric warfare (where one side has a decided technological advantage), unconventional guerrilla trumps conventional warfare. The reason why in such wars, casualties among the insurgents is so much higher than among the conventional powers is due to the use of weapons and tactics of say, offensive use of white phosphorus, the mass deployment of napalm weapons, depleted uranium and DIME (Dense Inert Metal Explosives) munitions, "overwhelming force" used by air assets, UAV attacks for which insurgents (apparently) do not have defenses against, etc.
In other words, the amount of casualties inflicted on the "other" side is limited only by the conventional powers' tender mercies, morality and the extent to which they are afraid of international and national laws concerning the treatment of enemy soldiers, populations in war zones and prisoners of war.
I am not making a case that Canada should buy hi-tech weapon systems to counter American invasion. I would make the case that bolt action rifles in early conflicts such as Vietnam and Afghanistan are generally no match for fighting an invading force hence adding to the higher number of casualties amongst the defending nation.
When was napalm last used in war?
Most insurgents do have defences against air assets. Numerous aircraft have been shot down in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam.
I just want to end this thread by stating you are still confusing capabilities with intent.
Oh goodness, I am wounded, wounded I tell ya....especially cionsidering, I already tore apart the person starting this threads premise, and then watched a dialogue unfold that should not be happening here and belongs at Freedominion.
War mongering is such a progressive past time eh....
If you think I have violated this forum's policy then reported me to the site's moderators, have them make their decision to have me removed from this forum.
As I told PraetorianFour on the "Afghan People Will Win" page, google terms like "War of aggression", "military attack", "military force", "use of armed force", "just war", "unjust war", "illegal war", wrt the U.N. Charter and Geneva Conventions.I can not find anything that you have mentioned about for war of aggression in the manner you have described, please provide a link.
Frmrsldr has it wrong. There is absolutely nothing illegal about a country that has been attacked carrying on the war outside of its borders. If that were so, the allied powers (both the Soviets and the west) would be "aggressors" for having invaded Germany. Not to mention UN-sanctioned actions against Iraq and North Korea which extended into the territory of the aggressor states.
Besides, while a "war of aggression" is illegal (and Frmrsldr seems to think that it involves any warfare beyond one's borders), it has yet to be defined:
Aggression has been included as a crime within the Court's jurisdiction. But first, the States Parties must adopt an agreement setting out two things: a definition of aggression, which has so far proven difficult, and the conditions under which the Court could exercise its jurisdiction. Several proposals have been considered. Some countries feel that, in line with the UN Charter and the mandate it gives to the Security Council, only the Council has the authority to find that an act of aggression has occurred. If this is agreed, then such a finding by the Council would be required before the Court itself could take any action. Other countries feel that such authority should not be limited to the Security Council. There are proposals under consideration that would give that role to the General Assembly or to the International Court of Justice, if an accusation of aggression were made and the Security Council did not act within a certain time. In September 2002, the Assembly of States Parties to the Court established a special working group, open to all States, to elaborate proposals for a provision on aggression.
It is the resources of a country that cause invasions by lustful neighbours. The only conceivable enemy Canada could face is America and we could never defeat them militarily in the hundred mile corridor where the vast majority of our population lives but controlling the hinterlands would be more difficult.
At this point we have signed the NAFTA deal that gives our natural predator feeding rights so we are in no danger of invasion Until we repeal NAFTA what is there to protect?
So if we ever want to invade America in order to force them to take our valuable energy reserves off our hands and abide by NAFTA to continue robbing us blind, then we'll have to beef it up some. We should take a look at refurbishing some of those dud Bomarks from the cold war era. We could like threaten to incinerate ourselves if they don't comply.
Machjo
Can you provide an recent example for post #87
Maybe I'm exaggerating there and alliance building would be important even with a citizen-army. However, this can also be done not only via military means, but also via economic means such as embargoes. That said, I can't think of any war in recent history where the invaded population gained much sympathy from abroad. Certainly that could be harnessed in some way.
That's not the dichotomy I raised. As I explained above, the dichotomy I raised was how were the Swedish troops deployed. Were they deployed like Canada's troops, engaging in combat? Or were they deployed engaging in reconstruction, redevelopment, humanitarian work and/or supportive monitoring (for the described humanitarian work)?
So according to you, parts of ISAF are committing war crimes and other parts are not? Just depending on what they are doing?
Um, yeah: A police officer arrests X, a Native person in the act of "Breaking and Entering". Later that evening, that same police officer arrests Y, another Native person, for "Breaking and Entering", even though Y had broken no laws. The officer's reasoning: "X is a Native person who was 'Breaking and Entering'. Y is also a Native person. It therefore follows, that on these grounds, Y must have committed a 'Break and Enter.'" This is called discrimination. It is also the fallacy of assuming that if a member of a group acts/is a certain way, then all members of that group act/are that way.
If you're still confused, please let me know.
As I told PraetorianFour on the "Afghan People Will Win" page, google terms like "War of aggression", "military attack", "military force", "use of armed force", "just war", "unjust war", "illegal war", wrt the U.N. Charter and Geneva Conventions.
I can not find anything that you have mentioned about for war of aggression in the manner you have described, please provide a link.
http://www.lawyersagainstthewar.org/legalarticles/foleyexposure.html#_ftn8
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/ (See esp. Preamble and Article 51)
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Just+War
The arms industry just loves you. Not only are you risking your life and your physical and emotional well being by fighting their war in Afghanistan, you are making a "humanitarian"(?) case that Canada should buy more expensive hi tech weapons, so that were Canada be invaded by the U.S.A., Canada would stand a "better"(?) chance in a conventional war.
No my friend, when it comes to asymetric warfare (where one side has a decided technological advantage), unconventional guerrilla trumps conventional warfare. The reason why in such wars, casualties among the insurgents is so much higher than among the conventional powers is due to the use of weapons and tactics of say, offensive use of white phosphorus, the mass deployment of napalm weapons, depleted uranium and DIME (Dense Inert Metal Explosives) munitions, "overwhelming force" used by air assets, UAV attacks for which insurgents (apparently) do not have defenses against, etc.
In other words, the amount of casualties inflicted on the "other" side is limited only by the conventional powers' tender mercies, morality and the extent to which they are afraid of international and national laws concerning the treatment of enemy soldiers, populations in war zones and prisoners of war.
When was napalm last used in war?
Most insurgents do have defences against air assets. Numerous aircraft have been shot down in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam.
I just want to end this thread by stating you are still confusing capabilities with intent.
Updated coctails of napalm have been used by the U.S.A., Israel and NATO/ISAF, etc., in Afghanistan, Iraq, Gaza, Somalia, etc., it's such a common "household" (sick metaphore, I know) weapon that it scarcely merits even passing mention in Western mainstream media. Either that, or it doesn't want to make us look like the 'bad guys' in these dirty little wars.
If you know of any incidents where Predator or Reaper drones were shot down by Afghanis or Pakistanis, please let me know so that I may be that much the wiser.
Still confused over capabilities and intent?
What do you think is going to be the Pentagon, U.S. National Intelligence Agencies, U.S. National Defense Agencies, U.S. intelligence/defense/right wing political think tanks reaction toward Russia or China or India or Brazil or Venezuela or Cuba building, buying or receiving a fleet of nuclear powered/nuclear weapons capable submarines and then explaining that they will be used for self-defense only?
Do you think they will be believed? Would you believe them?
Scenario 2: The U.S.A. gives Colombia a number of short range nuclear missiles. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez expresses concern that the U.S.A. is arming Colombia to wage a war of aggression against Venezuela. The U.S.A. denies this claim.
Who would you believe?
http://www.lawyersagainstthewar.org/legalarticles/foleyexposure.html#_ftn8http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/ (See esp. Preamble and Article 51)
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Just+War[/quote]
None of this even remotely supports the proposition that you make here:
Example 1 (Offensive War): Canada is invaded by the U.S.A., Canada "defends" itself by launching C-F/A-18 Hornet squadron counterstrikes against U.S. factories (located within U.S.A. sovereign territory) . . . No, sorry, this is a war of offense or aggression and is illegal/unjust.A country that has been attacked is perfectly free, under international law, to attack targets within the territory of the aggressor state.
Frmsldr
I am only confused by your lack of consistence, and providing examples that are poor at best. One moment you are claiming tanks are a offensive weapon, and the you change your mind.
Can you show me the exact paragraph from those sites you provided? Because I can not find any article that restricts a nation to counterattack another nation, especially on the attacking nation's sovereign territory
I am not aware of napalm being used in Iraq or Afghanistan; do you consistently create untruthful facts and then try to change your statement after you are confronted? I have wondering this since the first time you posted about the "Canadian mortar round killing those Afghan children".
Your 2nd scenario is totally unbelievable why would the USA, allow nuclear weapons to be used on a region that what to claim as there own, had the USA provided Colombia with arms and training then I would be more likely to Venezuela claim.
As I told PraetorianFour on the "Afghan People Will Win" page, google terms like "War of aggression", "military attack", "military force", "use of armed force", "just war", "unjust war", "illegal war", wrt the U.N. Charter and Geneva Conventions.I can not find anything that you have mentioned about for war of aggression in the manner you have described, please provide a link.
Frmrsldr has it wrong. There is absolutely nothing illegal about a country that has been attacked carrying on the war outside of its borders. If that were so, the allied powers (both the Soviets and the west) would be "aggressors" for having invaded Germany.
No, you've got it wrong. Read the links I've provided above. If using armed force to militarily attack, invade, wage a war of aggression against and/or occupy another/other countries is acceptable, then the Bush Doctrine of Strike First Pre-emptive war (which is the updated intellectual cousin to the Schleiffen Plan) would be legally and morally acceptable. The Nazi government's arguments that the Polish government, backed by the Soviet Union, was a hostile regime and that on the early hours of September 1, 1939 Polish army units attacked German radio stations and other communications infrastructure. The Nazi military invasion of Poland and regime change of the Polish government were legally and morally justified.
Keep in mind, that during WW II, there were no Nuremberg Trials and (consequently) no Nuremberg Principles (that was to come after the end of the European ground war), the Geneva Conventions were modernized and updated in 1949 and the U.N. Charter was published in April 1945.
Not to mention UN-sanctioned actions against Iraq and North Korea which extended into the territory of the aggressor states.
What the hell are you talking about? Concerning North Korea, are you talking about 1950-1953 or the past couple of years? If the past couple of years, then there is no U.N. sanctioned embargo against North Korea. It's just the U.S.A. that refuses to export to North Korea and tries to loud mouth other countries into doing the same.
In 1980, after the Iraq military was supplied with weapons and training by the U.S.A., Iraq with the support and encouragement of the U.S.A., attacked Iran. That bloody war lasted until 1988.
in 1990, Saddam sought support from his "ally" the U.S.A. for a planned invasion of Kuwait, by informing the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq in Bagdad of his intentions and if this would be alright with the U.S. government. The Ambassador conferred with President H.W. Bush and replied that Iraq's relations with Kuwait were an "internal Iraqi matter and are of no concern to the U.S." Once again, the U.S. set Iraq up for another war. By now, the U.S.A. wanted Iraq crushed because Israel saw Iraq as too strong and a threat to Israel's hegemony in the Middle East. For the U.S., it was no longer good enough that Iraq sold cheap oil to the U.S. Uncle Sam wanted to set things up so that in the future, he could get his hands on free Iraqi oil.
During the blockade/embargo in the 1990s against Iraq, then Secretary of State Madeleine Allbright commented "If it gets rid of Saddam Hussein, even if it means the death of 500,000 children, it will be worth it."
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died as a result of complications created by the blockade. The blockade was both a war crime and a crime against humanity.
Besides, while a "war of aggression" is illegal (and Frmrsldr seems to think that it involves any warfare beyond one's borders), it has yet to be defined:
Aggression has been included as a crime within the Court's jurisdiction. But first, the States Parties must adopt an agreement setting out two things: a definition of aggression, which has so far proven difficult, and the conditions under which the Court could exercise its jurisdiction. Several proposals have been considered. Some countries feel that, in line with the UN Charter and the mandate it gives to the Security Council, only the Council has the authority to find that an act of aggression has occurred. If this is agreed, then such a finding by the Council would be required before the Court itself could take any action. Other countries feel that such authority should not be limited to the Security Council. There are proposals under consideration that would give that role to the General Assembly or to the International Court of Justice, if an accusation of aggression were made and the Security Council did not act within a certain time. In September 2002, the Assembly of States Parties to the Court established a special working group, open to all States, to elaborate proposals for a provision on aggression.
This is the International Criminal Court trying to define its boundaries. There is an older and higher court that has already done this: The International Justice Court. Read Article 51 of the U.N. Charter. The quote isn't saying much new about determining whether an act of aggression has occurred.
The suggestion that it should be the Security Council that does this is the problem. It's like the fox guarding the hen house. It is also the current state of affairs. That is why the illegal Afghan and Iraq wars are still being fought and why the U.N. has been muted in pointing this out. Because of the fact that the U.S.A. and its partners in crime, the U.K. and France are members of the (Five Member) Permanent Security Council. Russia and China's tacit involvement in this crime came about either through the U.S.A.'s in some way 'bribing' or cajoling (or both) them.
Started a continuation thread for this HERE:
http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/continued-swiss-military-model...
since it looked like people want to go on discussing this topic.
Good call Ken Burch. Closing.
