Bambang wrote:Yes, you are right my friend. We can do the diplomatic approaches when both parties have the will to do that. When one of them or may be both do not have the will to do that, then the process will be useless. See!!! You yourself got the point. These diplomatic channels are not always applicable in every stage of war !!!! Got it my friend ???
My friend, diplomatic channels are always useful, in spite of the parts in conflict don´t have the will to negotiate, because in some point, they will reach an agreement depending on the evolution of the war. But to do that they must keep talking. What I´m was trying to explain when I said that the parts should have the will to talk is because in that way, they can understand each other and stop the war quicker.
Bambang wrote:....... My friend, My point is I agree when we attack the invader to protect our countries and people. Once again my friend, I support the protective action instead of the invasion.
Well, no question about that point!!! of course you have to attack the invader to defend your country, in fact, we´ve descussed that point in previous posts. The problem would be that we can attack the invader in many, many forms. By the way, Could you please give me some examples of "protective action"? I´d like to understand better what you´re trying to say with that....
Bambang wrote:Could you please tell me which invasions you meant?
Could you please show me any “good” invasions in this planet?
Of course, I´ll tell you the ones I can recall, but I betcha that there are more examples hanging there:
During the World War II, We can see a few good examples. When the Nazis invaded Russia, red army fought bravely and at the end, they managed to expel them. But they didn´t stay in Russia, no, they chased nazis until they reach Berlin an bring down Hitler´s administration. If you look up information, a very few books (to don´t say none) refer to that action as an invasion, even though they entered a country by force and took possesion of Berlin (See invasion definition below).
Other example would be regarding Britain performance. They stayed stand when Nazis sent fightplanes to attack them but, when Americans and Russians got involved into the war, they planned to invade Germany with them to displace Hitler from power. If you analyzed this fact carefully, they invaded Germany to stop the agression that they were suffering (Protect their country invading other).
Let´s take a look to French case. They were defeated by Germany and its army were dismantled. Afterwards, they created a resistance to fight back, but they didn´t have any success until the allies re-invaded France to kick Germans out. They weren´t called invaders (even though they entered to a country by force), they were called "liberation force" instead.
I´ll give you more recent examples. In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and later on the whole world gather an multinational force to expel Iraqui army from that country, As you know, They did it but again, they didn´t stop there, no, they entered into Iraqui´s soil and established the famous paralel 30 (You must remember that). The "multinational" force invaded Iraq, but, again a few countries complained about it, or at least didn´t make such a big deal that they are making nowadays about Iraq. I betcha If they had gone to take over Baghdad in that time, the world wouldn´t have said anything about it.
In 1994, NATO invaded Kosovo to expel Serbian´s Army. In fact, they didn´t called it as an invasion, they called it as an "humanitarian war"
. And what about the invasion of Afghanistan? Countries which have opposed to Iraq invasion were supportive to this one, or at least they didn´t offer a strong opposition as they have been giving it regarding Iraq.(e.g. France. Germany, China, Russia, etc)...
I can give you more example: Haiti, Somalia, etc, but with those ones that I´ve written above are enough. To me, the inavasion in those cases are completely justificable....