And again, I'm not even addressing the moral argument of the initial attack. I'm saying that at a certain period of time, you have to admit that you become the aggressor if you are going to "take back what's yours".
If you occupy and despoil another country for long enough, it's Murrican now and the natives are aggressors for wanting... "the consent of the governed" and all the other slogans Murica spouts but doesn't believe.
If an American soldier kicked in their door to take their shit, they're absolutely justified in resisting. However, most the the time the Americans can be made to go away with the following interaction:
I can't say I mind the killing of Islamists and putting them in pig hides, but at the same time, as difficult as this may be for you to grasp... American soldiers had no business being in someone else's country. Even if it was 23 years and 2 months that they were there.
"the consent of the governed" and all the other slogans Murica spouts but doesn't believe.
That can still apply to people who are subjugated. Notice that the Navajo are 100x larger than their pre-annexation population numbers, have more wealth, and are all able to vote.
American soldiers had no business being in someone else's country.
That depends on the causus belli. I'm not going to accept Pacifism.
If you occupy and despoil another country for long enough, it's Murrican now and the natives are aggressors for wanting... "the consent of the governed" and all the other slogans Murica spouts but doesn't believe.
I can't say I mind the killing of Islamists and putting them in pig hides, but at the same time, as difficult as this may be for you to grasp... American soldiers had no business being in someone else's country. Even if it was 23 years and 2 months that they were there.
That can still apply to people who are subjugated. Notice that the Navajo are 100x larger than their pre-annexation population numbers, have more wealth, and are all able to vote.
That depends on the causus belli. I'm not going to accept Pacifism.