Should the US ever use it's military to attack another country unless that country attacked 1 or more of the

Question

50 states?

Answer 1

If you do research anywhere, you find that we have agreements going back 50 years to defend our allies if they are attacked.
You will find that is how we came to fight in Nam.

After WW2 we decided not to wait until we are attacked here at home. Better to fend off attacks overseas so you don't get killed at home, while you sleep, in your jammies.

Get it?

Answer 2

Taking the military option off the table doesn't work out well, a la Carter/Iran. It sometimes seems to work well, as in Tripoli (either against the Bey as in the Marine Hymn or against Gaddafi in the Reagan administration). Goals must be clear, there should be bipartisan support, and action should be brief, though, or the American people will not tolerate it. Muddled or changed objectives, as in Beirut also during Reagan's administration; partisan bickering, as in some of the "Banana Wars;" or anything that lasts more than a couple of years we do not do well.

Answer 3

No Absolutely not. If 'prevention' is the mechanism, then many countries will follow US as a model and then declare war on US itself.

In modern world, it's rediculous to use the 'prevention' argument.

The worst Enemy US ever had in the recent past was Saddam. He didn't declare war or nothing has been proved so far that he had intentions or the might. What happened now by the illegal war declared by US?. Thousands of innocent lives have been lost.

It only shows the arrogance of US.

And these terrorists, they don't belong to countries.

Answer 4

Yes.
Persian Gulf War '91. We went, because Kuwait specifically asked for our help. That war ended swiftly with agreement from Hussein that he would allow U.N. forces to keep a check on his weapons productions. It was a well-know fact that Hussein had chemical weapons as he used them broadly and freely on his own countrymen, the Kurds. The end-of-war agreement was that Hussein would keep his borders open to U.N. weapons inspections teams, and if at any point Saddam was to breach this agreement, there would be "dire consequences." For at least 5 years, after Clinton took office, Hussein barred the U.N. from doing their inspections and were virtually locked out of that country.... this to no "dire consequences."

In this event, since the perameters had been previously set up and had been time and time again, defied, then yes... definitely, a military attack was necessary to re-enter the borders of a hostile country to take up again the task of weapons inspections.

Answer 5

I don't think the US should attack another country unless that country has attacked the US *or one of our allies.* There's a difference.

Answer 6

Yes to protect our interests our military is the best tool that we have and who else is going to do it other than Great Brittan and Australia and maybe the Russians nobody else's military is capable of attacking a country on its own and winning.

Answer 7

The USA should never use our military to attack another country unless if we plan on going in and pulvarizing it with airstrikes before EVER sending in ground troops, my theory is if you're not going to do something right, then you shouldn't do it at all.

Answer 8

Yes, we should.

The US is in a unique position as the world's police force. Without us, international criminals can escape beyond the borders of a protective nation and never be prosecuted.

Answer 9

this is a tough question, and without understanding you extra appropriate it relatively is puzzling to respond to wisely. I as quickly as had to take a direction and for regardless of reason somebody concept it would be a stable concept to enable a reporter watch, movie and interview us. We did slightly very final keep fit exercising and of direction some adult males have been given pumped up, yelled and so on. The reported asked me later why each physique as adult males who have been shot at in the previous might get so pumped up as to yell for the duration of a coaching state of affairs and that i attempted to describe that to a pair people, failing your pals or your self is extra frightening than doing all your superb and getting killed. What motives that for the duration of people is rather complicated and that i do no longer are conscious of it, yet I even have by no potential been petrified of death, in basic terms of failing. perchance that's what's in you. yet there are various different opportunities. you may desire to easily no longer in all probability think of you will get harm in the protection rigidity. Statistically conversing, the protection rigidity is an particularly risk-free place. Even now. you may desire to easily be attentive to a lot of protection rigidity people and experience that they made it lower back risk-free so which you would be ok. you may desire to lose your innovations in case you ever get shot at, mortared, blown up and so on. you may desire to be like Churchill and in basic terms have an unfailing feeling which you would be able to no longer die in conflict. What i will make it easier to be attentive to, with none doubt in any respect, is that if it a prefer to die for u.s. that makes you experience like turning out to be a member of up, then you definately choose extra motivation than that. it relatively is noble and stable to prefer to serve your u . s .. I commend it. yet once you reside to tell the story MREs and the final bathe you had became into with water bottles 3 days in the past. you will nonetheless be attentive to that fat pogs are on a base 50 miles away residing it up ingesting steak, lobster and residing in AC. With that for the duration of innovations, it relatively is puzzling to prefer to die for you u . s . understanding that some pay clerk is going to bypass homestead and act like he did your interest. whilst it comes right down to it, you combat for you and your pals. no person else gets it, no person else will comprehend.

Answer 10

Yes, Being attacked is what you want to avoid. If you have an enemy that you know wishes you harm sometimes it is better to send a message.