@ "No, Vlad said that our ships crossing their borders is justification for Indonesia to declare war. Clearly, no one actually thinks that's going to happen thus my clearly unrealistic response.": Just 3 clarifications, not counters:
1) I said that as a reply to what you said. If you think "declare Terra nullius. Invade and settle it the hard way like Brittan did." is more likely than Indonesia destroying some or all of Australia's ships and detering it from invading it's territorial waters, then that's your problem.
2) Just because it won't happen, doesn't mean it's not legally justifiable.
3) War is just the status of the relationship between two or more entities. Japan and Russia are still at war, even tho WW2 ended. Syria is still at war with Israel (since 1967; ceasefire =/= peace). The Koreas have been at war since 1945. Also, you don't need to attack a nation to be at war with it.
4) You won't have a consensus of people on prime time talk shows saying: "war will start on the 23rd of February, 16:23 Australia time, after 7 Indonesian ships will attack 3 Australian ships that were escorting 2 boats and one canoe", if war will start on the 23rd of February, 16:23 Australia time, after 7 Indonesian ships will attack 3 Australian ships that were escorting 2 boats and one canoe.
@"When the navy starts blowing boats out of the water come back to me.": Your opinion regarding Strayan actions are as relevant to this as what my sharks are doing in the acquarium atm. What is relevant is how Indonesia views it and what aggression is.
- threatening to kill civilians, for no reason (they don't check the boats, brah, they just guess -wether they are rite is irrelevant to how their methodology looks-)
- invading a sovereign nation's territorial boarders several times
- having
George W. Bush Tony Abbott saying he'll continue the "policy", after all of the reactions from Indonesia
All of those are aggressive acts (the 2nd one is a casus belli, regardless of the likelyhood of war). The first one becomes a casus belli if they kill civilians. The 3rd one is just the predictable consequence of Straya making a very educated and smart decision. Indonesia doesn't have to go to war with Australia for it to be a casus belli. That's not how a casus belli is defined. This stuff is relevant for things such as triggering alliances, the UN response and the response from other nations. A legal/legitimate war is massively different than an illegal/ilegitimate war (it is very similar to the difference between a self-defence war and a war of invasion). Every nation on earth has the legal right to defends its sovereignty.
Regarding how Indonesia views the actions: four Air Force defence radars are specifically monitoring Straya (all after the latest invasion), Indonesia sent more warships and the Air Force Chief Spokesman, Hadi Tjahjanto, said: "If we notice any border violations, our air base in Makassar will be ready. Australia is reachable from there.". I assume he meant: "reachable for hugs".
In the post-WW2 world, most acts of violence from a nation towards another nation have not resulted in a war. If Indonesia does destroy an Australian Navy ship that invades it (no legal difference between invading water/air/land) the action will:
-
not be a casus belli (legally!) for Australia
- will be a self-defence response from Indonesia (and, ofc, a legal action)
- not cause Australia to retaliate (most likely)
I'm specializing in post WW2 history. Afaik, no war in this period has ever started after a nation defended its sovereignty (by destroying a plane or a boat that violated it's territory), but there have been a massive amount of such events (I'd say it easily reaches 100). If we go further, and look at military conflicts (so, just some attacks by states that were not part of wars), then, after 1945, you had 10.000s of such examples (including pre-emptive/pre-ventive strikes/attacks) that did not result in retaliations (I'm talking about attacks in general, not just self-defence, so, shit that would be casus belli, including shit that would be a legitimate reason for retalation that didn't result in it, between states that are in a de jurre state of war). The difference is so high, because most of those attacks happened between states that were in a de jurre state of war (either during a cease-fire or just them having a time out -they don't sign/declare cease fires each time they actualy cease fire-). Retaliation isn't the most common response. Retaliation after a legitimate attack is very far from a common response.
Once again, Indonesia would be self-defending and Australia would be seen as the aggressive party (after Indonesia said it will protect its territory) if they destroy an Australian boat that invades Indonesian territorial waters, on Indonesian territorial waters, after pretty much saying they will destroy Australian boats that invade Indonesian territorial waters. If you want a comparison with humans: the Castle doctrine applies for states.
Just some observations:
- the area isn't really peaceful:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_conflicts- Idonesia isn't a peace-loving country:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_IndonesiaIn the modern era, wars aren't always decided by who is stronger and you don't always win via impressive territorial conquest. Look at the Vietnam War, Total People's Defence and this (shipping and trade routes):
I see nothing absurd in Indonesia destroying Australian ships, if they continue to violate their territory, after all the warnings (doing nothing is far more absurd). Declaring war is unlikely. Self-defence, if the invasions continue isn't. Each time Australia does it, the chances of an Indonesian violent response increase (btw, after the last time, the Australians claimed the wind made them drift).
If your shit-for-brains ruler would be a tiny bit smart, he'd realize that apologising, while still turning back boats (without going too close to Indonesian waters), would make him look good and restore some Indonesian pride (oh, look, we made them say "sorry" and they are keeping their distance), but, nah. Damn, these cowboys and indians movies.
@"that community celebrating key events in its history isn't a disparagement on the rest of the world": it's shitty to the Aboriginals. You do understand that each time a Japanease prime-minister visits the Yasukuni Shrine, it causes controversy, rite? You are able to understand why this happens, yes?
@
"I'm not going to play the pretend to feel sorry for natives who were displaced centuries before I was even born": I really don't get how you can't understand why some people are upset about having this as a day of celebration.
@"They can, but I'm not going to feel anything about it. I question how emotionally invested you can honestly really be for ancestors dead for centuries.": I question how emotionally invested you are in what your ancestors did in the 18th century.
@as for the "white" protesters, I question how much of their outrage has anything to do with genuine sympathy for the plight of the aboriginals, and not more motivated just out of love of "attacking the system" so to speak.: maybe they just think it's retarded to celebrate such a horrible day.
@it's not about not liking Australia day, it's that if you are so genuinely outraged over the acquisition of this country by the British, and even more so that anyone would have to total gal to celebrate a key date in the history of this country, that you vandalise historic buildings and call for everyone to feel shame for living here, then yes I do think you are being obnoxiously hypocritical by being here.: People that vandalise historic buildings. That was the topic. Yeah.
Once again: I am not saying you should feel guilty. I am saying this is a shit day to celebrate.
Also, the "VANDALISE HISTORIC BUILDINGS" reaction isn't that odd compared to your reaction to my original post, which was, fucking obviously, meant as a joke-observation thing. I have stated my opinion on illegal immigrants several times. You surely saw it on TFA. Illegal immigrants are immigrants which are illegal. A state has the right to deport them. It also has the right to turn back boats (but they should make sure everyone there is fine and not starving or something). My OP was about how pathetic the people that hate the boathumans while priding themselves in decending from boathumans are.
Let's see what happens after this: you Austrians are just wannabe Germans!