historical Q about wars

[240 is Back]

Country A and B are at war.

Country C sells or gives weapons to B to fight A.

Is C conducting an act of, or declaration of, war on A?

Before you speak with emotion, can anyone cite historical precedent, when we gave weapons, and when weapons were given against us?  (The example is Iran of course, but I'd like to see where this has actually happened, and what were consequences)

[Purple Aki]

Huh good god...

[Hugo Chavez]

Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know.

[rockyfortune]

Country A and B are at war.

Country C sells or gives weapons to B to fight A.

Is C conducting an act of, or declaration of, war on A?

Before you speak with emotion, can anyone cite historical precedent, when we gave weapons, and when weapons were given against us?  (The example is Iran of course, but I'd like to see where this has actually happened, and what were consequences)

See Lend/Lease Act of 1941...The US did this with England, Russia and China during World War 2...It's not an overt act..but could be considered an act of war..

[240 is Back]

See Lend/Lease Act of 1941...The US did this with England, Russia and China during World War 2...It's not an overt act..but could be considered an act of war..

Interesting.

See, many want to attack Iran for oil and bases, and that's fine if they want to be honest about it.  But first the (now debunked) WMD scare, and now the "they're sending weapons over".  I didn't know if this was a legit act of war, or just an excuse to start more wars for resources. 

[rockyfortune]

Interesting.

See, many want to attack Iran for oil and bases, and that's fine if they want to be honest about it.  But first the (now debunked) WMD scare, and now the "they're sending weapons over".  I didn't know if this was a legit act of war, or just an excuse to start more wars for resources. 

Eventually, the administration will come up with something that will stick...

Won't they?   

[OzmO]

Interesting.

See, many want to attack Iran for oil and bases, and that's fine if they want to be honest about it.  But first the (now debunked) WMD scare, and now the "they're sending weapons over".  I didn't know if this was a legit act of war, or just an excuse to start more wars for resources. 

Regarding supplying weapons to Country A or B.  It's really up to the other whether they want to consider it an act of war.  They can use it as an excuse and or justification if they choose to.  And it also depends on the situation as to whether or not it possible for them to start and armed conflict or whether or not it makes sense to do so in the long run as far as what is gained or potentially lost.  For example, we were helping the Muhajdeen (sp? I'm lazy right now....) in the 80's fight the Russians in Afghanistan.  Russia could have started hostilities with us, but would it have been worth to them?  Probably not.  Russia, China and the USA have all supplied weapons to each others opposition  in the past at one time or another.

Regarding Iran, it would be difficult for us to engage in hostilities and benefit from it at this point with out invading them which we cannot do at the moment with out a draft.  And unless something drastic happens, the American public will not stand for a draft to go to war with Iran.