In other news, Ecofarm supports complete nuclear apocalyse and the obliteration of the human race...
Grounds for invasion?
- Thread starter Gooblah
- Start date
In other news, Ecofarm supports complete nuclear apocalyse and the obliteration of the human race...
Ecofarm
Deity
It's the only way to be sure.
I can't argue against the fact that the mass extinction of humans would end the problem of crazy humans, I'll grant you that.
Since survivalists would be some of the only people to survive, nuclear apocalypse would actually increase the proportion of lunatics...I can't argue against the fact that the mass extinction of humans would end the problem of crazy humans, I'll grant you that.
Since survivalists would be some of the only people to survive, nuclear apocalypse would actually increase the proportion of lunatics...
I used the word extinction for a reason.
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
Note: hypothetical scenario!
Would you support invading a nation that has...
a) weapons of mass destruction?
b) has threatened to use aforementioned weapons?
c) has experienced election fraud on the local and state - and allegedly national - levels, with poor compensation by the federal government?
d) has been either unwilling or unable (due to bureaucracy and incompetence) to aid its citizens in the event of a major natural disaster?
Simple yes or no.
You need to further define option B as in the conditions by which they would use WMDs. I would applaud any country using WMDs under condition that it pre-empted imminent use of WMDs against myself, and under which no other option was physically possible. I'm pretty selfish that way.
I'd say no to D, generally. I'd consider saying yes if said country refused aid offered it by other countries, or if it abused aid given to it. But again, it's not an unconditional thing.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2001
- Messages
- 30,085
Moderator Action: That is not the way to have a discussion thread. Discussion requires that people justify their choices. Yes / No threads have a very short life.
Discussion to this point has been very lacking & very spammy. Please improve it, or it gets locked.
Theirn neighbors or their friends. You know, those guys who were friends with terrorists were probably terrorists too.
Nuked? That's not far enough. We should glass them!
Don't care.
If a threat against you or you allies is credible, but that has nothing to do with WMDs. If they are credibly threatening you, that is valid reason.
Don't care.
That is its choice.
The only situations I might consider it justified to invade another country are:
a) They directly attack you/your allies, or are aiding someone who did.
b) They threaten you/your allies, and this threat is credible. Diplomatic posturing doesn't count.
c) You go in to support a significant opposition force, with popular support, actively opposing the government. And by significant I mean one that can, and does, stand up in open battle against the and effectively controls a notable portion of the country. To put it simply: if the people are doing the job themselves, you can go help.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
1) Cause must be Just
Yes, I do think that someone should invade the US. But in all seriousness, the only reason for an invasion should be if the government is committing major humanitarian atrocities, and war would definitely and absolutely have a more favourable outcome. If a government cannot provide humanitarian aid for its people in the case of a natural disaster, who is to say that anyone else could do it better?
Godwynn
March to the Sea
- Joined
- May 17, 2003
- Messages
- 20,502
I believe I've already stated what I consider to be valid grounds for invasion of another country.
The unlawful occupation of Danzig?
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
I need more information.
That would seem to fit.
Eclipse-X010
Imperial Ascended Being
"Invasion" generally means sending in troops, so no. At the very most, spend a large amount of money on training hackers to screw around with their defense computers and ICBM launch system. If there is a high risk of them shooting the WMDs soon, outfit home country with Tesla Cannons, and try to take them out their silo's with strategic bombardments before they can launch and hope for the best.
Possibly.
There are a few reasons that I forgot to put in there, like suppressing revolutionary social or political tendencies in other countries, because at the time that was written I was on a 17th century kick. 
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Don't answer! It's a trap!
The bottom line is that it is never justified to unilaterally invade another sovereign country.
Possibly.
I'm surprised you didn't tack on "Manifest Destiny, fools!" Just for good measure.
Similar threads
