Anttech said:
Russ, there are no international treaty which define what is and what is not an act of war.
There is no clean cut definition we can use to determine what falls into the area of "act of war" and out with the scope of that definition.
Therefore if something is claim as thus, it must be followed by a war, which was not the case.
Your argument (such as it is - it doesn't say much) contradicts your end assertion, Anttech. Your argument says (really just implies) that an act of war is an act on which a war can be/is justified, but your assertion is that an act of war is an act that a war follows. You are right that there is not set law that defines it but even if there was, laws and punishment are not automatic. The person the "act" was committed against still gets to choose the response.
Besides, just because a person
says a certain act precipitated a war, that does not necessarily mean it
is a just cause for war. Ironically, your assertion follows that in the sense of 'it is a fact because I say it is a fact'.
In any case, this is all irrelevant. You understood that
my usage meant 'an aggressive act that is a just cause for war' (presumably because you know that that is the correct/conventional usage
), so why bother being argumentative about it?:
It was an act of aggression if the UK soldiers were taken from Iraqi water, which I tend to believe is the case.
Yes (more or less...). So you
agree that this was a wrongful aggressive act and therefore a justifiable basis for war. Fine. Good. We agree. The point I'm making by pointing that out is that
if the UK so chooses, they
would be justified in sinking every Iranian military ship in range, should the Iranians pull something like this again. That's why this is a big risk for Iran.
Most of the rest of your post there isn't complete sentences and doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Sorry, I can't comment on that...
