The occupation of an embassy is considered an act of war. So wouldn't that mean that we have technically been at war with Iran since the late 70s? We have no formal relations with Iran and there has never been a peace treaty signed.
2007-10-26 16:38:56 · 3 answers · asked by smsmith500 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I have not heard that there is a time limit on taking action. An attack on an embassy is an act of war. We would be justified to declare one in my view even at this late date.
2007-10-26 16:54:04 · update #1
occupation of an embassy is considered an act of war. When an act of war is committed, the president can ask the congress to declare war against the transgressor. Until congress declares war--we are not at war--so no treaty need be signed. We just suspended diplomatic relations with them. President Carter didn't have the cajones to kick Iranian butt--I think as far as he was willing to go was to boycott wimbledon.
2007-10-26 16:47:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
just because they committed an act of war, that doesn't mean we responded with one as well. Doing a deed which is a provocation does not automatically start a war, it simply justifies one if you choose to go ahead.
2007-10-26 23:48:46 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
An attack on the King's soldier's is the same as an attack on the King himself..!!
2007-10-27 00:11:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋