old man emu Posted June 17, 2025 Posted June 17, 2025 We are accustomed to the issuing of a declaration of war being issued when a country starts using military might against another country. I believe that under International Law such a declaration invokes certain rules of engagement, mainly to protect non-combatants. At present we have the State of Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran using military weapons against each other, and very often without consideration for the safety of non-combatants. I have not heard that a declaration of war has been issued by either Nation. So are they engaged in a war, or are they ignoring International Law. I suppose that if they are not signatories to those laws, they both can do what they like, but their actions put them outside the pale of acceptable, civilised behaviour. What gets me is that the government of the State of Israel claims that it is acting in self defence, however I see no invading army crossing its borders. In the 21st Century, does the word “invasion” now mean an aerial crossing of a border by destructive devices? 1
rgmwa Posted June 18, 2025 Posted June 18, 2025 A war is not a wsr when it’s a Special Military Operation which is when one country attacks another. 1
red750 Posted June 18, 2025 Posted June 18, 2025 https://www.9news.com.au/world/donald-trump-is-facing-heat-from-all-sides-but-his-fateful-iran-decision-is-one-only-he-can-make/0c49d1a6-c304-4f7f-987c-11c2e939d848 1
red750 Posted June 18, 2025 Posted June 18, 2025 https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/hard-to-come-back-from-this-trump-s-call-for-surrender-sparks-fear-us-is-going-to-war/ar-AA1GUccm?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=d30eabfd66c14ba7e196cfeae4c3d3a5&ei=19 1
Jerry_Atrick Posted June 18, 2025 Posted June 18, 2025 8 hours ago, old man emu said: We are accustomed to the issuing of a declaration of war being issued when a country starts using military might against another country. I believe that under International Law such a declaration invokes certain rules of engagement, mainly to protect non-combatants. I was thinking about this. At (Western) law, formal words are not the only things courts use to determine a state of affairs, nor a declaration - say for example in Australia - of the union of a couple giving legal rights akin to those of marriage. So, why do we need such formal declarations of war to start a war? So, I asked Mr Google, and his AI responded: "The Geneva Conventions don't prescribe a specific procedure for declaring war. However, they do outline rules for how armed conflicts, both declared and undeclared, should be conducted. While declarations of war were once common, they are no longer a prerequisite for the application of the Geneva Conventions." I would guess form the news over the last umpteen years, it is pretty clear that Iran and Israel have been at war, usually via proxies, such that a declaration is not needed. 8 hours ago, old man emu said: At present we have the State of Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran using military weapons against each other, and very often without consideration for the safety of non-combatants. I have not heard that a declaration of war has been issued by either Nation. So are they engaged in a war, or are they ignoring International Law. Ignorning the formal declaration of war, the Geneva convention would still apply if they are signatories. Even so, a war unfortunately claims civilian lives - it is the nature of the beast. No county fully segregates is civilians from its military. And I believe both sides are largely targetting military or government assets. Whether civilian only assets are intentionally being targetted I think will become evident in the days to come. Yes, Israel hit the state run TV station - although ironically that viral video of the news reader running for her life may have been spouting stuff about god protecting iran from bombs falling on them at the time according to some translations I have seen - which would at best be treated with caution.. I am not sure that would qualify for independent news service of, say, the ABC, BBC, and the like. However, happy to be corrected. 8 hours ago, old man emu said: I suppose that if they are not signatories to those laws, they both can do what they like, but their actions put them outside the pale of acceptable, civilised behaviour. What is acceptable civilised behaviour in a war? I don't mean this in an ideological context that all war is bad, etc (which I do agree with). I mean, if they are clearly at war with each other, as has been clear for years, and they are targeting most military and government assets and trying to minimise the civilian casualties. I would imagine in war, the grey areas of rules will be much wider than that of normal civilian life. Note, I haven't seen the latest reports this morning, or from what I have seen of them, doesn't indicatte strategic targeting of civilian assets from both sides. Also, these assertions are not limited to Iran and Israel. Russia famously didn't declare war in 2014 or their last invasion and were more sneaky the second time around. Yet, the world knew what they were up to. The other, non-Israel involved ME wars are brutal, and the many other skirmishes over the last 30 or so years, ironically with the exception of the yanks, have not had formal delcarations or notices of war/invasion. 8 hours ago, old man emu said: I suppose that if they are not signatories to those laws, they both can do what they like, but their actions put them outside the pale of acceptable, civilised behaviour. From Google AI: "Both Israel and Iran are parties to the main Geneva Conventions of 1949. However, neither has ratified the Additional Protocols I and II of 1977, which provide further protections for victims of armed conflict" 8 hours ago, old man emu said: What gets me is that the government of the State of Israel claims that it is acting in self defence, however I see no invading army crossing its borders. In the 21st Century, does the word “invasion” now mean an aerial crossing of a border by destructive devices? oi, Iran hasn't directly invaded Israel.. it does it by proxy through funding any of the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist organisations with one aim only... And they regularly attack Israel - even before October 16th, Hamas used to fire rockets daily into Israel. And the others would regularly attempt some attack or other. So, the idea that Iran hasn't attackde or invaded Israel is only in the literal sense. A person who employs a hitman to kill someone is also guilty of the murder (or at least incitement). In terms of invasion, i the literal sense, firing rockets and missiles across a border is not an invasion of people or armed forces. However, isn't doesn't the Geneva convention regulat war. I would suggest that these days you don't need to have troops on the ground to fight a war. 2
Jerry_Atrick Posted June 18, 2025 Posted June 18, 2025 (edited) Terrible form to quote oneself, but as I wrote the above in a hurry, it is only for correction when I was able to re-read: 52 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said: oi, Iran hasn't directly invaded Israel.. should read OK, Iran hasn't directly invaded Israel. and 52 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said: In terms of invasion, i the literal sense, firing rockets and missiles across a border is not an invasion of people or armed forces. However, isn't doesn't the Geneva convention regulat war. I would suggest that these days you don't need to have troops on the ground to fight a war. should read In terms of invasion, in the literal sense, firing rockets and missiles across a border is not an invasion of people or armed forces. However, doesn't the Geneva convention cover war as opposed to merely invasion? I would suggest that these days you don't need to have troops on the ground to fight a war if we look at ICBMs, UAVs, drones and the like. and to add.. Put simply, if a systematic attack using these methods was perptrated by, say China on Taiwan, or Australia, with the intention of subduing the population, would this not be an act of war and shouldn't the Geneva convention (assuming all are signatories and have given it effect in their domestic legal systems) kick in? Edited June 18, 2025 by Jerry_Atrick 1 1
onetrack Posted June 18, 2025 Posted June 18, 2025 The Middle East is the crucible of all wars, every nation there loves killing off neighbouring tribes, it's the history of the place for thousands of years - it's only been since WW2 that there has been long periods of relative peace (interspersed by short wars, of course, such as the Six Day War). As one lot of dictatorial warmongers is killed off, another dictatorial warmonger, or warmongering group, arises to replace the ones bumped off. Trump would be well-advised to steer clear of any involvement, because there's nothing surer the enemies of America in the Middle East will be hatching another 911 attack on the Great Satan, as of right now. 4
facthunter Posted June 19, 2025 Posted June 19, 2025 Trump will NEVER take advice. He'd have to UNDERSTAND it to heed it. His lob is to give directions exact revenge on those who oppose him, Make demands and get richer. Nev 1
nomadpete Posted June 19, 2025 Posted June 19, 2025 The tacoman is sure to back away from actively (rather than the present covertly) bombing Iran 1
nomadpete Posted October 15, 2025 Posted October 15, 2025 (edited) Just giving this thread a bump..... Q:- When is a war not a war? .... A:- When it is all about profits 636280-7d61c0cc30bccd570aa730c9633b2c81.mp4 . Edited October 15, 2025 by nomadpete 1 2
onetrack Posted October 16, 2025 Posted October 16, 2025 Nothing has really changed in thousands of years - it's just that today, the money levels of military expenditure are mind-boggling. and the military-industrial complex is better organised than ever, to make fat profits from War. 2
Grumpy Old Nasho Posted October 16, 2025 Posted October 16, 2025 Yeah look how much money we spent on the Vietnam war .. and it was all wasted. Hope you've never voted for the major parties, I never have. 1
facthunter Posted October 16, 2025 Posted October 16, 2025 ALL the WAY with LBJ, WASN'T IT? . and WE were Bushes Deputy Sherrif. ONE major Party is in danger of disappearing before your Very eyes. Independents are NOT a Party and have challenged LIB seats. Parties can DEVELOP POLICIES their Members Promote. Some are the BEST MONEY can BUY. You can work it out.. Compared to the REST of the WORLD we are not doing too badly. WE are let down by some/ most of the Media. Nev 1
nomadpete Posted January 10 Posted January 10 It's time to bump this thread. When is a war not a war? Answer:- When it's a Special Operation. That works for Pooten and his best buddy in USofA. It worked so well for orange-atan, that he has lined up a bunch of Special Operations...... such as Mexico (wasn't that where they got Texas & Mississippi?), Cuba, Panama, Greenland, Canada...... These have been mentioned. 1 1
facthunter Posted January 10 Posted January 10 (edited) Rich People don't fight in Wars, They are too busy making money from them in the Name of the Money God. The Peasants do not question WHY and are never consulted. Wars are also supposed to be declared. Most Armies are DEFENCE Forces. Trumps is NOW the DEPT of WAR. Ready for Action to Back TRUMPS annexation and THEFT Of ANYTHING He desires. That's AMERICA FIRST. IF YOU don't like it, TOO BAD. YOU are Nothing. Nev Edited January 10 by facthunter clarity 2
nomadpete Posted January 11 Posted January 11 4 hours ago, facthunter said: Trumps is NOW the DEPT of WAR. Give him credt for being honest! It would be disingenuous to use the Defense Department to invade a foreign country, wouldn't it? 1 1
red750 Posted January 11 Posted January 11 And what could be better than putting a TV announcer as head of the Dept of War. Totally logical..... 1
nomadpete Posted January 11 Posted January 11 Just now, red750 said: And what could be better than putting a TV announcer as head of the Dept of War. Totally logical..... Don't knock it, it is working well. (For some.) 1
facthunter Posted January 11 Posted January 11 Spilling Blood is OK If t's "OTHER" People and you can steal their STUFF. . Not what you do, But what you can Get AWAY with. Arm yourself to the teeth and threaten everyone at enormous cost and Hope No One Make s a slip or the WORLD ends because of some false alarm. MADNESS. Nothing less. Armament Builders make Money. Scared People Buy More Papers, More LIES Spread to Foster HATE of others who are different someway or other... Nev 1
Marty_d Posted January 11 Posted January 11 Watch "Mountainhead". Dark comedy but in some respects quite scary. Like where one of the tech billionaire's AI is being used to create fake video so realistic that it's causing civil unrest and factional violence. 1 1
nomadpete Posted yesterday at 10:44 PM Posted yesterday at 10:44 PM On 11/01/2026 at 10:55 AM, facthunter said: Rich People don't fight in Wars, They are too busy making money from them Aaah, the secret of making america great again.... Is to get another country to start a war and sit on the sidelines making money from it. Your multiple choice question:- Until Japan attacked and Hitler directly involved the USA, did the USA.... a) Send troops to assist UK etc (as the UK did in Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan) b) Provide free equipment to assist the UK c) Provide largely old equipment in return for worldwide bases, or money that the UK didn't have so had to borrow and spent decades paying back? i.e. So until their hand was forced, USA made profits from the blood of UK and others fighting Axis. USA's actions are consistent through recent history. Capitalism rules over morals. 1
Jerry_Atrick Posted yesterday at 10:51 PM Posted yesterday at 10:51 PM Derrr.. d) Went for truth, justice, and most importantly (and possible contrary to he a priori), the American way!
facthunter Posted 23 hours ago Posted 23 hours ago IF there's no dollars in it. It won't be done, except sometimes by the Dems. With "I run everything and don't dare try to stop ,me" Trump it's for him and his super rich Mates and the Middle finger to the rest of you and the entire World (excepting were Money can be Made quickly. for DO and family. MAGA now means to Many "Make America Go Away.". IT cannot be trusted UNDER this Regime. Nev
onetrack Posted 23 hours ago Posted 23 hours ago America was a better place in the 1930's and 1940's, but there was an overwhelming desire by Americans even back then, to not become involved in "foreign wars", in that period. But, yes, Americans have always been willing to supply armaments to combatants in "foreign wars". It has been said, "the U.S. economy runs on the manufacture of War equipment". "The Neutrality Acts were a series of U.S. Congressional acts passed between 1935 and 1939, driven by 1930s isolationist sentiment to prevent involvement in escalating foreign wars. They banned arms sales, loans, and credit to belligerent nations, and restricted American travel on ships owned by warring nations, specifically following the 1935, 1936, and 1937 legislation. Key Aspects of the Neutrality Acts: 1935 Act: Initiated by the threat of war, it prohibited exporting "arms, ammunition, and implements of war" to foreign nations at war and allowed for travel restrictions on belligerent ships. 1936 Act: Extended the 1935 restrictions and further prohibited extending loans or credit to belligerent nations. 1937 Act: Included a "cash-and-carry" provision, allowing warring nations to purchase non-military goods if they paid upfront and transported them on their own ships. It also restricted U.S. citizens from traveling on belligerent ships. 1939 Act: Passed after the invasion of Poland, this Act repealed the 1935 arms embargo, allowing the "cash and carry" of war materials, which primarily aided Britain and France. Impact and Legacy While designed to keep the U.S. out of World War II, these acts were ultimately considered ineffective, because they failed to distinguish between aggressor and victim, limiting support for allied nations. They were largely repealed in 1941 by the "Lend-Lease Act". The Lend Lease Act was initiated on 11th March 1941, and US$7B in free war goods was supplied immediately to Britain, Russia and China on that date. The aim of the L-L Act was to help those three countries repel war attacks on them, with ownership of the war goods remaining with the U.S. at all times, until the U.S. decided what it would then do with it. The original intention was the L-L equipment would be returned to America at the end of the War. The reality turned into a battle between the politicians who wanted the war goods returned and the industrialists who DIDN'T want the equipment returned to the U.S., because those industrialists feared the equipment (especially equipment with civilian use capabilities, such as trucks and jeeps) would seriously depress future sales and production from the industrialists manufacturing facilities. Of course, the industrialists won and very little of the L-L equipment was returned to the U.S. A lot of it was either dumped at sea, or abandoned (due to major damage and remote locations that meant the cost of transport exceeded the residual value of the equipment) - but a lot was sold off to scrap dealers, the Allied countries and individuals. All Allied countries benefited substantially from the cheap purchase of surplus U.S. war equipment and supplies (both L-L equipment, and equipment still owned by U.S. Forces) - which equipment and supplies was purchased at prices around 5% to 10% of its original manufacturing cost. "QUESTION: When did the U.S. start supplying free war equipment to Britain during WW2? The United States began supplying significant amounts of war equipment to Britain through two primary phases: an initial "paid" phase and the eventual "free" (or credit-based) phase known as Lend-Lease. 1. The Turning Point: Lend-Lease (March 1941) While the U.S. had been selling equipment to Britain since 1939, the transition to providing equipment without immediate payment—effectively "free" in the short term—began with the Lend-Lease Act, signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on 11 March 1941. By late 1940, Britain was nearly bankrupt and could no longer afford to pay gold or cash for supplies. Lend-Lease allowed the U.S. to "lend" or "lease" war materials to any nation deemed vital to U.S. defense, with the understanding that the equipment would be returned or settled after the war. 2. The Timeline of Support Before the "free" era of Lend-Lease, there were several critical steps in the supply chain: September 1939 (Neutrality Acts): The U.S. initially had an arms embargo. This was quickly changed to "Cash and Carry," meaning Britain could buy supplies but had to pay upfront in gold and transport the goods on their own ships. September 1940 (Destroyers for Bases Agreement): This was a precursor to Lend-Lease. The U.S. gave Britain 50 aging destroyers in exchange for 99-year leases on British naval and air bases in the Western Hemisphere. While not "free" (it was a trade), it was the first time equipment moved without a cash payment. March 1941 (Lend-Lease Act): This ended the "Cash and Carry" requirement. Massive shipments of food, oil, tanks, and aircraft began flowing to Britain (and later the USSR and China) on credit. 3. Was it actually free? Technically, it was a loan of goods, but in practice, much of it was never returned or fully paid for in cash. Reverse Lend-Lease: Britain "paid back" some of the debt by providing land, services, and supplies to U.S. troops stationed in Europe and the UK. Final Settlement: After the war, the U.S. sold the remaining "in-place" equipment to Britain at a massive discount (about 10 cents on the dollar), financed by low-interest loans. Britain made its final payment on these WWII loans in December 2006. Key Data at a Glance Program ........................ Start Date ....... Payment Method Cash and Carry ............ Nov 1939 ........ Immediate Cash/Gold Destroyers for Bases ... Sept 1940 ....... Land Leases (Trade) Lend-Lease ................. March 1941 ..... Credit / Deferred Payment Note: Between 1941 and 1945, the U.S. sent approximately $31.4 billion (equivalent to over $600 billion today) worth of supplies to Britain alone." To Summarise - WW2 did cost the U.S. a vast sum of money. That cost was born by U.S. taxpayers, though, the industrialists lost very little, but gained very substantial wealth via the production of war equipment. The U.S. Govt did impose a maximum allowable profit level of 10% on suppliers of war equipment during WW2, but that 10% made them a lot of money, thanks to the vast amounts of equipment produced. Some industrialists that had manufacturing facilities in Europe (such as Henry Ford and GM), had to endure serious damage to their overseas assets, such as bombed factories. In the same vein, those factories were previously supplying equipment to the Nazis at a profit, until those factories were taken over forcibly by the Nazis.
facthunter Posted 22 hours ago Posted 22 hours ago The great depression started by Wall street commenced in 1929 and a Lot of US companies went out of business Others survived with Much lower sales. People were destitute. Public works were done by some governments. Any one who went through it never forgot it. it affected their way of thinking forever, WW2 got the World out of that depression but debts continued for Countries Like Britain and Australia. Russia never Paid any of the Debt to the USA. The German and Japanese economies were Helped by the USA, so they Prospered. Nev 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now