Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Why should we not dispatch troops even if the US has been directly attacked?

I am having a debate with a classmate as a project for english class. I have Position B which is : We should not use whether or not the United States or American embassies have been directly attacked as a guideline for dispatching troops to engage in combat in other country.

What other reasons would there be for dispatching troops besides being attacked?

Please be thorough to answer these two questions and i will award a lot of points to the best answer. thanks!

Update:

my position is: if the US was attack, i would not dispatch troops based on only that reason.

2 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    You would first need to clarify who attacked the embassies. If it was the lawful government of that country, then this was an act of aggression. Even if it was the government, sending troops to attack the country may not be the appropriate response.

    But if the attack was not done by the government, but rather some sort of organized criminal operation (such as terrorism) and the government itself is powerless, as many governments are, it would be an act of pointless aggression just to attack that country. ∠°)

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    As opposed to what? Doing nothing or using a nuke?

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.