When country A invades country B unprovoked, does it even make sense to discuss international

[Smith_3]

conventions on warfare? I mean, I don't see any reasonable argument why country B should be bound to them. This came to my mind after watching this video of the chimp where he, prior to the invasion, warns the Iraqi military not to commit war crimes http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x304434. One could argue that aggressive warfare is the ultimate warcrime that makes all conventions void, especially in an asymmetric scenario. Why should country B not use things such as false flag operations, hostage taking, attacks on civilian institutions of country A or whatever weapons of mass destruction they have? They don't really have a choice.

[sandnsea]

1. If cop A surrounds the home of criminal B

Should we codify it in law that criminal B can use whatever weapons of mass destruction he has to defend himself against cop A?

Sometimes criminal B is innocent, as in the case with Iraq. But you still don't give criminal B free rein to use whatever weaponry he chooses in his defense. He goes to court and hopes the justice system works to defend him. And even if it doesn't, his family doesn't gain the right to start killing people and bust him out of prison. That's anarchy.

[Smith_3]

2. Ah, but we are dealing with two countries here that are, at least in principle, equal before the law

Who said that country A is a cop? If anything, the equivalent of a cop would be an organ of the United Nations.

edit: I doubt Nazi Germany would have been defeated if all Russian Partisans put on uniforms and waited for an international court to defend them.

[sandnsea]

8. Yes, but even countries that are wronged

have a moral obligation to adhere to international standards. Every country that invades another believes it is doing so for just reasons, just like an honest cop believes his actions are always just. If you say that any person, or country, can use any amount of armament, and justify it with "I'm innocent", then it's clear where that will lead.

Nazi Germany was defeated when the international community came together and recognized it as a criminal nation.

[Fumesucker]

6. Where did that come from?

The USA is a cop and other countries are criminals?

WTF?

[rockymountaindem]

3. I'm glad you asked, because I'm reading a book and taking a class on this right now

The book is called "Just and Unjust Wars" by Michael Walzer, which is considered the most important book on the subject of the post-WWII era.

According to him, both armies, even on the defense, must adhere to war crimes conventions and human morality because the people they are shooting at, the enemy soldiers, are not policy-makers. Because the soldiers on both sides are tools of policymakers, they have a level of equality that demands mutual respect. Furthermore, with regard to the defending state, Walzer asserts that they must consider what they are in danger of losing before they declare the highest state of emergency and begin authorizing questionable or undeniably ethically wrong decisions. Now, for the Iraqi regime, the consequences were quite high as the United States' stated goal was the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. So it would be likely, if not morally correct, that he would authorize actions in contravention of international law as a means of saving his regime and his life.

However, you have to ask yourself some questions. Would it be proper, say, for a country unfairly invaded to unleash the smallpox virus (if they had it, which Iraq of course did not) against an invading army? Even if it worked, it would have disastrous consequences for the world population at large. This illustrates Walzer's argument that even if defeat is imminent, there are still higher values than the survival of a regime or state.

[Smith_3]

4. Thank you.

Nice reply.

Reminds me that I once heard that for a while president Carter had a policy in place to not retaliate in the event that the Russians strike first against the USA, for the sake of civilisation.

[Fumesucker]

5. But that's just it..

One side flagrantly broke the rules of war while the other side largely did not.

I don't recall any real atrocities against US troops by Iraqi ones before the fall of Saddam's government.

Uprovoked invasion on the other hand is a flagrant violation.

[karynnj]

7. Great post - that sounds like a book worth getting

and I will, based on your post here. This is an issue that will need to be seriously addressed as the current wars are wound down (though it seems that will not be soon.)

[rockymountaindem]

9. It's surprisingly easy to read for such a weighty topic

I've really enjoyed it. I'm glad we got into this thread because there might be an exam question on Wednesday just like this!

[The Magistrate]

10. That is Not How It Works, Sir

If person (or country) A breaks the law in acting towards person (or country) B, the latter is not thereby licensed to break the law in dealing with the former. Take an extreme case, in which you are genuinely attacked and have excellent reason to believe your attacker intends to kill you. You produce a pistol and shoot the man twice. He falls helpless to the ground. If at this point you step over and put a bullet through his head, that is murder, and unlawful, no matter that you were acting in lawful self-defense only a moment before.

[Boojatta]

11. "When country A invades country B unprovoked"

What's the objective process for distinguishing between sufficient provocation and insufficient provocation? I doubt that the government of Iraq portrayed itself as invading Kuwait unprovoked. Do you therefore give them the benefit of the doubt or did all armies that came to the aid of Kuwait have the right to slaughter Iraqi civilians?

[Bucky]

12. That depends... Is Country B keeping its sand on top of Country A's oil?

You have to take all factors into consideration. For instance, is it really terrorism when A does it?

[Postman]

13. When Country A does it, that means it's NOT illegal....

said in a Richard Nixon voice......