@barefootstache I'm trying to work that out....if both parties agree then I don't see how it could be an invasion at that point. "Hey, we are going to invade you." "Sure, cmon in!" Lol. Can you give me a hypothetical example, I can't come up with one.
@obi let’s say the secret agencies agree to improve moral within the nations that an invasion is needed. Though they sell it to the public that it was an invasion.
@barefootstache but since its "secret" they would still label it as an illegal invasion, right? I'm trying to find a situation where you could use the term "legal invasion", mainly to point out that everyone who says " the illegal invasion of Ukraine" is dumb, because they are unknowingly propagating the notion that its really bad because its illegal, vs having a legal invasion.
@obi so read up a bit on international law, which is what is used to claim that it’s illegal. The notion is that since Ukraine didn’t attack Russia first, that Russia’s invasion is illegal.
There’s also some notion that the UN has to accept the country as well. So as long as the region still has colonies, then entering/invading the region is still legal.
@barefootstache Yeah, understood. There is so much wrong with all of that. The US in large part controls the UN and/or international laws (as well as ignoring it, along with other big players i.e UK, China, etc) so I wonder how they describe the US war with Iraq? It’s obviously the same situation, Iraq didn’t invade anyone etc etc. So my point, saying it’s “illegal” is just a way of selling it to citizens, to make it sound worse.
@barefootstache But again, I’d like to hear them give me a coherent historical example of a legal invasion.
That’s the trick, there isn’t one, they will call them liberations lol
@obi yeah it always depends from whom you hear the history. Technically all attacks can be considered illegal.
@barefootstache agreed. Or illegal. It’s a matter of perspective.
@obi hypothetically yes. If both parties signoff on the upcoming circumstances.