The US and its cohorts rush to stamp out any possibility of any country gaining the means to war. Japan considers a pre-emptive strike on North Korea just because it's about to develop ICBM technology. Sure, these developments make the rest of us uneasy but is this action right?
It used to be we declared war when an act of war was perpetrated against us. Why now is it ok to invade or declare war when someone just gains the means? Isn't that sort of like laying an assault charge on someone for buying a weapon?
2006-07-13 05:17:57 · 8 answers · asked by scruffy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Japan is worried because they will never build nuclear weapons, which leaves them vulnerable to N.Korea - a country that is highly unpredictable and a stone's throw away. N.Korea doesn't need an ICBM to get to Japan - their short range missles can hit Japan :-(
Running a pre-emptive strike is not the first action of ANY country. Diplomacy is always tried. We are trying to talk with N.Korea, but they seem to not want to, at least not on our terms. It might be time for the US to lean on China to lean on N.Korea.
2006-07-13 05:23:13 · answer #1 · answered by bablunt 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
History
2006-07-13 05:20:09 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
even in spite of the indisputable fact that your question supplies the possibility to loads of human beings to vent their spleen on the Iraq war, they do no longer answer your question - that's fairly pertinent one. the respond shows the pointlessness of loads of the argument. a million. Chilcott shouldn't declare any war unlawful or everyone to have acted illegally - he's not a court docket and that's no longer a tribulation and that's no longer in his remit. that is like a autopsy. 2. many all and sundry is complicated what you have asked approximately - they are complicated the war being declared 'unlawful/unlawful'; with war-crimes. no longer a similar component in any respect. There could be war-crimes in a lawful war; and no war-crimes in an unlawful war. 3. affirming war 'unlawfully' isn't a war-crime in international regulation; - no count what number anti-Blairites could want it in any different case 4. in basic terms the international criminal court docket or the UN ought to declare a u . s . to have acted illegally. that ought to require Iraq to inn a criticism. 5. The 'penalty' could be that the country in touch could could desire to pay reparations to the Iraqi government. properly, the Iraqi government isn't inquiring for them and has gained many billions of greenbacks to tackle the mess the coalition made interior the 1st place, and desires many billions greater. 6. The illegality of the invasion (if it replaced into) replaced into ratified via the UN protection council after the main considerable conflict stopped; the colation replaced into declared to be the 'occupying capability' thereby granting specific rights and implementing specific responsibilities to the 'occupying capability'. Therafter, it ceased to be 'unlawful'. So - as you will discover from the logical technique above; the actual repercussions of there being a announcement that the Iraqi war replaced into unlawful could be - precisely no longer something. Sorry to disappoint those hoping in any different case.
2016-12-10 06:07:18 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We were attacked on Sept.11, 2001! We are now fighting the people and the terrorist organizations responsible for that! Also it is in our best interest not to let governments that support terrorists or that are ruled by crazy unstable dictators not to develop any weapons of mass destruction! If you are not with us you are with the terrorists! There's no middle ground! Simple fact!!
2006-07-13 05:24:43 · answer #4 · answered by Jimmy Pete 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you. We should wait until a nuke actually takes out San Francisco or Los Angeles before we do anything. We need about 5 or 6 million Californians dead before we go trying to stop this mad man. Just having nukes does not mean he will use them. Let us wait until the 'left coast' slips into the sea before we respond to this provocation.
2006-07-13 05:24:12 · answer #5 · answered by Bear Naked 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because we would rather prevent somebody from attacking us.
If somebody is threatening to kill you - are you going to wait for him shoot you before you try to do something?
2006-07-13 05:25:22 · answer #6 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To many women in politics. Sissy liberals...
2006-07-13 05:23:27 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thats right.
2006-07-13 05:20:52 · answer #8 · answered by Ogytor 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋