For retaliation or a pri-emptive stike on US cities ?
Ofcourse, Americans are notorious for both
Lets see America waged war on Vietnam killed many thousands of innocent people, why ? .Regardless of the reasons I believe every nation has a right of waging a war on any other nation and any other nation has the right to retaliate
Now if you believe that no nation has a right of waging a war — then you are a fool
If you believe a nation has a right of waging a war but no one has a right to retaliate ---- then you are an american
And if you believe that either right is wrong and illegal and there should be no war at all, then you are a good for nothing activist and no one gives a damn to what you think.
Now suppose Vietnam wants revenge ( I know it does not, just hypothetically ) and blow up a city ( chicago , Los angeles ) with chemical / Biological weapons in a covert operation resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent people.
Now being a desi living in US, even you dont support US policies at all. Still you are living their and getting all the benifits from that country
Now would you ever be able to understand that it could be a lawful retaliation ? Or you would believe this kinda news
Al-Kaeeda has a growing network in Indonecia and Malasiaya, where they hire Vietnamize national to attack american cities. Bush Administration is seriously considering strike on these targets in the main cities of …
America did not war on South Vietnam did it? It supoprted the South Vietnamese government and army. So in fact, you can argue that America fought alongside, shoulder to shoulder with and in assistance of Vietnam.
It just so happened that the Vietnam America supported lost. A more specific term would be America waged war on North Vietnam; but then again, America waged war on North Vietnam because North Vietnam was waging war on America’s ally South Vietnam and American troops in South Vietnam through its Viet Cong guerillas.
On a more relevant note, the right to retaliation exists only within the time confines of a state of war.
If the US were to bomb Tokyo today and say it was retalation for Pearl Harbour, that wouldn't be right would it?
You make it sound like North Vietnam didn't get any retaliation, but the hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese, American, Australian and Zew Zealand soldiers killed by the North Vietnamese forces were retaliation.
If retaliation was justified even after a war was over, then Greek Orthodox Christians should still have the right to retaliate against Muslims for Hazrat Umar's (ra) military campaign against them (The Byzantine Empire was Greek Orthodox). India & Pakistan, should be justified to kill the British Queen for the death of Tipu Sultan, and the Roman Catholic Church should have the right to capture a kill a Muslim political leader to avenge Salahuddin's killings in custody of the murderous fanatics from the Templar and Hospitallier orders.
I believe that every nation has the right to wage war, with all weapons at its disposal including WMDs.
Every nation has the right to retaliate during a war for acts committed against it during that war. But once a nation accepts peace treaties, no matter how imposed, it must accept those and not try to avenge it. After all, if the defeated nation was not happy with the terms of the peace treaty it could reject it instead and live with the consequences. If you accept a peace treaty, you must abide by its terms, and you forego the right to retaliate for the events of the war.
Not thousands, but millions died...And the chemical warfare still causes deaths from cancers nowadays, specifically from a toxin called Agent Orange...
Iraq conflicts has already ruptured the backbone of Americans. For iraqis who are mindlessly killing each other..dark age has started...it will take a few centuries before they can really stand on their feet.
Sounds funny/ridiculous but ... north Korea is sadist by nature so we can expect insanity ...
They haven't the tecnology to do such a thing. None-the-less your argument is one used to justify the ongoing missile defense program. The bar to justify pre-emptive war or strikes needs to be a high one, but justification of such wars/strikes can exist.
This is pretty decent argument if we live in a civilized world, but ‘civilized world’ ceased to exist after humans occupied this planet
Lets say i agree that that right of retaliation exist only within the state of war… but then how would you explain to me the Never ending adventures in the state of Jerusalem ? Where retaliations would come decades or even centuries after agression took place… few generation grew up in between.There was truce, there was peace and harmony and then Bloody battles… The cycle seems never ending
I don’t know, Who am i to decide that. What i am saying that There were no rules of engagement back then, and there are no rules now…
Any country can attack other nations for land and resources and killl hundred of thousands of innocents then the she should remain ready for retaliation or pre-emptive strike …
North Korea is a perfect exmple as it is watching that USA is her public enemy No.1 She is watching her attackin counrties, after decieving/lying to the world .. If it feels threatened then one should not be surprised So it can always act in self defense… And We all know that in nuclear warfare second strike option is No option !
Sorry folks but America nowadays reminds me of Mad Dog Tannen From Back to the future … Imagine how people cheered when Mad Dog got some thrashing
mercenary2k 