Criteria: how to ascertain who is aggressor and who is defender?

1. 51

   paarsurreyposted 15 years ago

   Hi friends
   
   Are there any principles to know for sure if party A made aggression on party B; or B party made aggression on A in a war?
   
   Thanks
   
   I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

   replyreport
   1. 67

      Arthur Fontesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      
      
      There are no principles, war by definition is aggression.  If both sides acquiesce that they are in a war.
      
      If one side is simply the defender then it is simply an attack, not a war.

      replyreport
   2. 70

      rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Usually the guy who finishes it.

      replyreport
   3. 87

      Don Wposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      When you get to the point when you don't remember who started the fight or why, it's probably time to stop.

      replyreport
2. 57

   leebertteaposted 15 years ago

   I always find that to be difficult to ascertain. If someone hits you first are they the aggressor? A witness that only saw the punch would certainly say so, but perhaps it was the challenge you issued before the punch that was the first instance of aggression and the punch then only an escalation. Like any truth it's often a matter of perspective. I'm sure their are guidelines in law but again it all depends on interpretation.

   replyreport
   1. 51

      paarsurreyposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Hi friend leeberttea
      
      I agree with you; but I am sure there are wise men who must have found out some fool proof system; I am sure.
      
      Thanks
      
      I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

      replyreport
3. 60

   tobey100posted 15 years ago

   If your nose is bleeding your the defender.
   If your knuckles are bruised your the aggressor.

   replyreport
   1. 51

      paarsurreyposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Hi friend tobey100
      
      I meant countries; peoples not individuals.
      
      Thanks
      
      I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

      replyreport
      1. 60

         tobey100posted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Me too.  Funny thing is that in history, the one with the nose bleed usually if not always comes out the winner and the aggressor with the bruised knuckes is the loser.  War is a funny thing (pardon the expression) in that the attacked, at least for the last 300 years, triumphs over the attacker eventually.  This should provide a historical lesson to all aggressors but.....I'm not holding my breath.

         replyreport
4. 57

   leebertteaposted 15 years ago

   North Korea is clearly the aggressor. South Korea should launch an attack on them right away, otherwise they will feel like they can continue to do this and get away with it.

   replyreport
   1. 51

      paarsurreyposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      OK; but under what principle? Please
      
      Thanks

      replyreport
      1. 57

         leebertteaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Let's see, the fired a torpedo and killed 46 South Korean sailors without a warning. I'd say that's agression under any principle wouldn't you?

         replyreport
5. 69

   MikeNVposted 15 years ago

   North Koreans are the aggressor   Happy Now?

   replyreport
6. 63

   bgamallposted 15 years ago

   Stealing oil is never a defensive position. It is always an aggressive war crime.

   replyreport
   1. 51

      paarsurreyposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Who stole the oil?
      
      Thanks

      replyreport
      1. 57

         dagnytaggertposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         The birds and fish didnt steal it.. it was poured on them! They will be glad to give it back!  Oil is a stupid arguement for war and agression.. just like religion.. but greed and religion are the two major cuases of war through out time. No way to stop war as long as those two remain.. and they will!

         replyreport