Grounds for invasion?

[Gooblah]

Note: hypothetical scenario!

Would you support invading a nation that has...
a) weapons of mass destruction?
b) has threatened to use aforementioned weapons?
c) has experienced election fraud on the local and state - and allegedly national - levels, with poor compensation by the federal government?
d) has been either unwilling or unable (due to bureaucracy and incompetence) to aid its citizens in the event of a major natural disaster?

Simple yes or no.

 

[Bigfoot3814]

I'm pretty sure this is a trick to get people to say they'd invade the United States.

 

[Earthling]

Yes, it is, a very poor OP. Though it also applies to the Galactic Empire .

 

[Riffraff]

I'm pretty sure this is a trick to get people to say they'd invade the United States.

Really?

Well none of those are reasons anyways.

 

[hossam]

I'm pretty sure this is a trick to get people to say they'd invade the United States.

i was thinking pakistan.....

 

[Lillefix]

No. If they have wmd and threatens to use them, they will much likely use them on our soldiers if we attack. Bomb them from air and hope for the best. Alternatively diplomacy.

 

[hossam]

the only legitimate reasons, imo are a and b, and thats only assuming that the invader can neutralize all nukes before they can reach their intended station or be used.

 

[Gooblah]

I'm pretty sure this is a trick to get people to say they'd invade the United States.

Actually, no (seriously). Kinda weird though...

I was thinking more alone the lines of Pakistan or Libya or Iran or North Korea or numerous other nations (or hell, even a fake one!).

 

[Kennigit]

No. If they have wmd and threatens to use them, they will much likely use them on our soldiers if we attack. Bomb them from air and hope for the best.

I'd personally would interpret "invade" as "offensive military aggression". War has changed from sending large standing armies or invading with imperialist intentions, etc, etc.

For OP- No.

 

[Shekwan]

Yes.

But only if it threatened an EU country.

I don't get why I should give a damn about their elections/system of government or their capability to take care of their citizens.

 

[Bigfoot3814]

Actually, no (seriously). Kinda weird though...

I was thinking more alone the lines of Pakistan or Libya or Iran or North Korea or numerous other nations (or hell, even a fake one!).

Well, it's a hard question to answer. WMD's are serious in the wrong hands, but as exclusive cause for invasion, I don't know. Then again you have people like Iranian president Name-I-Can't-Spell-ijad who talk about wiping Israel off the map on the daily. I'm not down for that.

I don't get why I should give a damn about their elections or their capability to take care of their citizens.

People in foreign countries are people too?

 

[JonathanStrange]

Poor grounds for invasion list (except perhaps "has threatened to use WMDs" though even there one needs context: threatened to use WMDs, why? where? against whom?).

 

[JonathanStrange]

People in foreign countries are people too?

People with the ability and desire to live their lives without interference; it may be noble to intervene for major emergencies but a military invasion for subjective, hard to prove, and generally non-life threatening issues like election fraud or poor handling of a crisis? One might as well intervene because their tax rates are too high or they allow CEOs to earn too much money or don't provide welfare benefits generous enough to effectively retire at age 25.

 

[Bigfoot3814]

People with the ability and desire to live their lives without interference; it may be noble to intervene for major emergencies but a military invasion for subjective, hard to prove, and generally non-life threatening issues like election fraud or poor handling of a crisis? One might as well intervene because their tax rates are too high or they allow CEOs to earn too much money or don't provide welfare benefits generous enough to effectively retire at age 25.

That was mostly in response to why he should give a damn about "their ability to take care of their citizens". Poor handling of a crisis is certainly life-threatening, although even that's not a reason to invade all by itself.

 

[choxorn]

e) If some crazy group within their borders hijacked a plane and blew up an important building in your country, killing a few thousand?

 

[Dachs]

I believe I've already stated what I consider to be valid grounds for invasion of another country.

 

[Elta]

Kuwait usually makes good grounds for staging an invasion!

 

[Ecofarm]

Spreading democracy. That's all the reason I need.

@OP: a) through d) = no

 

[kulade]

e) If some crazy group within their borders hijacked a plane and blew up an important building in your country, killing a few thousand?

Or how about if a crazy group within their neighbors' borders hijacked a plane and blew up an important building in you country, killing a few thousand?

 

[Ecofarm]

That settles it. Any country with a crazy group gets nuked.