In war, when is it okay to invade a neutral country?

In war, when is it okay to invade a neutral country?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=zbgPpG8pO8U
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

If doing so will grant you victory

/thread.

"Rules" of war are an imbecilic delusion, the only rule should be "whatever works".

Yeah
Who the fuck is going to punish you if you kill them and make the survivors your bitch?

Not the Germans :^)

It doesn't matter if a country is neutral, it matters on whose side it's neutral.

This depends whether its a total war for destruction or do the countries involved have a dispute and intend to continue to coexist in the future. Since the later was the scenario in Europe in the 16-19 centuries the rules of war became a thing. But than Germans invaded Belgium and broke this tradition to ensure victory in a war that had no reason to be total.

When the country in question isn't a real country.

If you win, you'll get away with it. If you lose, it doesn't matter either way.

Not when all the nations of a continent signed a treaty specifically to guarantee the neutrality of that country

Yeah, I'm not taking advice from you anytime soon, Satan.

the only time you would ever need to invade a neutral country is if you're fighting a war of aggression

so never, because fighting that kind of war isn't okay to begin with

Treaties don't matter if you win
What, are you going to charge yourself with breaking it?

Building on this, during their famous 1971 meme-television-debate, Chomsky and Foucault exchanged this:

Foucault: One makes war to win, not because it is just.

Chomsky: I don't, personally, agree with that.

Chomsky the idealist BTFO

well it depends on the country and situation. Sometimes escalation of a war will hurt the political goals far more than any military benefits it provides. Furthermore the international influence is great so certain nations cannot be invaded for no reason; without significant political and economic consequences.

This post is merely a footnote to . Essentialism is best in this case.

No one puts Belgium in a corner.

If all you continental fucks could stop invading one another and instead make massive overseas empires the world wouldn't be shit today.
Belgium dindunuffin. Peace out God save the King.

I remember De-Valera gave a top-tier speech in response to Churchill saying "maybe we should just invade the irish to make them fight" which justified Ireland's neutrality.

I thought I smelt potatoes and strong liquor in here.

what was it?

youtube.com/watch?v=zbgPpG8pO8U
>"Mr. Churchill makes it clear that, in certain circumstances, he would have violated our neutrality and that he would justify his action by Britain's necessity. It seems strange to me that Mr. Churchill does not see that this, if accepted, would mean Britain's necessity would become a moral code and that when this necessity became sufficiently great, other people's rights were not to count.

>It is quite true that other great Powers believe in this same code-in their own regard-and have behaved in accordance with it. That is precisely why we have the disastrous succession of wars-World War No. 1 and World War No. 2-and shall it be World War No. 3?

>Surely Mr. Churchill must see that if his contention be admitted in our regard, a like justification can be framed for similar acts of aggression elsewhere and no small nation adjoining a great Power could ever hope to be permitted to go it own way in peace."

I would have loved to see Da Valera hung, but this was his finest hour.