|
DesideriScuri -> RE: Things are getting hot fast in the Middle East (4/13/2015 7:50:31 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: housebitch777
Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, actually quite a long list. Iran develops nukes.....to late to declare war....its already a war. what is prohibited in the constitution? is assassination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasions#1945.E2.80.931999
In the last 50 years, 7 times we've invaded a sovereign country.
1965: The Dominican Republic - initially started as an evacuation of US military personnel. President Johnson ordered (against counsel) for the US Military to intervene in the DR civil war to prevent the spread of Communism to the DR.
Constitutional? No. But, we weren't going in to destroy the entire country, but to stop their civil war.
1983: Grenada - We went in after the revolutionary coup's leader was murdered, and restored the country back to it's pre-revolution coup format. We went in to oppose Cuban-Soviet power expansion.
Constitutional? No. But, again, we weren't going in to destroy the entire country.
1989: Panama - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama#United_States.27_justification_for_the_invasion
Constitutional? It's iffy. If the US did have authority under treaties signed, then, there you go.
1991: Iraq - UN Coalition forces (led by the US) in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
UN authorized. Like it or not, there you go.
1994: Haiti - UN authorized, again.
2001: Afghanistan - This one wasn't as much as invading Afghanistan, as it was getting al Qaeda (which required deposing the Taliban ruling regime). We weren't really at war with the Afghanistan, really. It had UN approval, too. It may not have been the greatest idea, but there were at least concrete reasons behind it (9/11).
2003: Iraq - Most people will think it was a bad idea, and one in which we had no authority to invade. Some will rely on Iraq's breaking of the treaty after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. In a sense, both are right. We did have authority to invade and topple Saddam for breaking his side of the treaty, but that was not the authority cited.
You're going to have to try harder. There are several nuclear-armed countries, and, yet, there has not been war breaking out about it. Nuclear armaments are more about threatening use, than actually using them. It's similar to having a trump card. It's a negotiating tool to preserve at least the semblance of peace through the threat of a big boom. Iran getting a nuke isn't guaranteed war. That's just warhawk rhetoric, and most rhetoric is called out on these boards.
|
|
|
|
