Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Trickstergod" data-source="post: 1284156" data-attributes="member: 10825">That's rather faulty logic, actually. You might as well say that when the aggressor chooses to attack anyway, even after the victim nation's stated intent that it will defend itself, that the aggressor is starting the war. Or that both nations are equally to blame. After all, the aggressor could back down and not attack when the victim says it will defend itself - thus placing the blame right back into the aggressor's hands again. At the best, that logic holds both sides accountable. The defender, however, at worst, is not starting the war, but only responding to the one who started it in the first place. Just like the victim chooses to defend itself, the aggressor chooses to charge ahead. Unless of course the aggressor backs down, and then the defender chooses to attack the aggressor anyway - which means that the roles have been switched, and it's still the aggressor starting the war. Or the aggressor and victim both agreeing to the war, neither side backing down.</blockquote>