Would another country be justified to attack the US?

Bringing democracy to Iraq was just one of the six or eight excuses given by the administration. It was never about that at all. There are many other nations without democracy, and we don't invade them.

Besides, if that were a valid reason, why would not it have been just as valid for the Soviet Union to have invaded us to bring us the benefits of communism?

 

Was it Hitler who said, "God is on the side with the most cannon?"

 

Napoleon...

 

Can you provide evidence that we have ,in fact, crammed "american "rights" like sodomy, abortion and feminism" on them?

 

Would we be justified in invading a country to save the lives of 1 1/2 million children a year?

Of course we would - so your point is well made.

 

The U.S. needs to learn to mind its own business. We have enough problems here to occupy the government's time and energy. I don't think the founding fathers envisioned America as the world's policemen.

 

No country has the right to invade another sovereign country regardless of their political bent. Sometimes we get involved by invitation of the country in question, as was the case in Korea in 1950. We did not just go there....we were invited in behalf of South Korea.

England tried for more than 50 years to "assist" in democracizing the Middle East. She pulled out after learning it was impossible. Not every country is best off with a democratic state. The sooner we learn this, the better off the world will be.

"Ambassadors have no battleships at their disposal, or heavy infantry, or fortresses. Their only weapons are words and opportunities." Demosthenes, 345 BC (2 Cor 5:20)

Cheers,

Jim

 

Did we have the right to invade the sovereign nation of Nazi Germany? After all, they didn't attack us first.

 

Yes, because Germany was allied with Japan.

 

Germany declared war on the U.S. before any combat or invasion of their country.

 

That is pretty much true since they had the luxury of realistic isolationism. There were no major threats close enough to attack in a matter of hours. When a threat was close by, like Mexico or Indians, they very much did not mind their own business.

OTOH, they strictly did mind their own business when it came to the matter of redistributing wealth.

 

And, they were sinking our ships and had U boats off the Atlantic shores.

 

What does this have to do with the OP?

 

Let's not forget since this is a politics thread that ones perspective on these issues depends on who is the President many times.

If a Democrat President attacked another country such as Iraq, the same people that are complaining about it now would be in support of it. (i.e. Balkan states in 90s)

And of course the opposite is true as well.

 

Not necessarily true, PastorSBC. I for one, do not support invading countries unless there is a clear and present danger to the US or highly strategic interests. The party in power has no bearing to me on that. Maybe if I were a die-hard, yellow dog Republican or Democrat, I would be different; but since I vote issues and candidates, not parties, maybe I am the exception. I don't know.

For example, I strongly support the decision by President Bush to initiate the invasion of Afghanistan for their role in providing haven for Al Qaeda, but strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq.

 

MP that is why I said "many times."

I realize it is not an across the board thing. But there is a strong group of people that determine their stance how I stated.