Allies helping allies

[MMM]

On a separate thread I said the following:

"If our ally is being attacked then it is not only our duty but a requirement to help them. If that help is in the form of military defense and is what is needed, then that is what happens."

It was suggested that this is quite an offensive position. However, to me, it seems like normal diplomacy and how countries relate to each other.

Is this a mistaken notion?

[Suki]

LOL

Awww really, MMM?

Anyway, my thoughts on this topic have been made fairly clear in other threads. I'll just sit back and read, for a change.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Suki

LOL

Awww really, MMM?

Anyway, my thoughts on this topic have been made fairly clear in other threads. I'll just sit back and read, for a change.

Too bad. I was curious to hear your explanation as to what is wrong with allies helping allies.

[Suki]

Originally Posted by MMM

Too bad. I was curious to hear your explanation as to what is wrong with allies helping allies.

Wha-? AGAIN!?

Aight, I'll make it short and simple cause I really don't wanna engage in this conversation once again: it is WRONG if the help comes in the form of blatant violence, which happened to be the case (and still is every time the US joins in on a military takeover).

[MMM]

I think at some point we were talking about what if N. Korea were to invade Japan, should allies like the US send military support. In this case it would involve shooting N. Korean soldiers so they don't kill Japanese soldiers. If this isn't the definition of an ally, I don't know what is.

[xkmkmlmx]

Originally Posted by Suki

Wha-? AGAIN!?

Aight, I'll make it short and simple cause I really don't wanna engage in this conversation once again: it is WRONG if the help comes in the form of blatant violence, which happened to be the case (and still is every time the US joins in on a military takeover).

So precise violence is ok, but blatant is not?

How do you apply this logic to a friend (ally) that you are walking home with, who is suddenly physically attacked?

[WingsToDiscovery]

Originally Posted by xkmkmlmx

So precise violence is ok, but blatant is not?

How do you apply this logic to a friend (ally) that you are walking home with, who is suddenly physically attacked?

You help to kick the attacker's ass.

[siokan]

weapon export country vs weapon export country

catch22

[Elenwe]

Originally Posted by MMM

On a separate thread I said the following:

"If our ally is being attacked then it is not only our duty but a requirement to help them. If that help is in the form of military defense and is what is needed, then that is what happens."

It was suggested that this is quite an offensive position. However, to me, it seems like normal diplomacy and how countries relate to each other.

Is this a mistaken notion?

Not necessarily by means of arms... you can try to help your ally disolve the problem by using diplomacy. Say if you were in a governmental position and don't agree with your ally country's actions, would you still hold this position? But yeah, I don't think it's offensive though, it's the internet.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Elenwe

Not necessarily by means of arms... you can try to help your ally disolve the problem by using diplomacy. Say if you are in a governmental position and don't agree with your ally country's actions, would you still hold this position?

Read closely what I wrote. If your ally is in trouble, I believe it is your responsibility to help them. That help MAY be in the form of military support or arms, but then again it may not.

I don't understand your question. Can you give an example?