Timeline for Is there a strong legal guarantee that the U.S. can give to another country that it won't attack them?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 10, 2019 at 22:45 | comment | added | RonJohn | @Aaron the reason why "from the first guy's heart" is an invalid analogy is because Panama is still living, not run by the US, and does things that the US doesn't like (such as get cozy with the Chinese). | |
| Jul 10, 2019 at 21:43 | comment | added | Aaron | @RonJohn I see where you're coming from, and you might be technically correct, but I think most people would say that is acting in bad faith. It's like the old story about the guy who signed a contract that he'd owe the other party a pound of meat of their choosing, and the other guy chose a pound from the first guy's heart. Technically that is within the bounds of the contract. In every other way it is a violation. So while you are correct, I would not say that discounts o.m.'s point. Then again, I do not fully understand the political climate of the time, and that might change things. | |
| Jul 10, 2019 at 17:48 | comment | added | RonJohn | I'm pretty sure the Canal treaties never said "we'll never invade you or topple your government". If they did, I'd love to see the reference. | |
| Jul 10, 2019 at 17:10 | comment | added | o.m. | @RonJohn, the US based military forces in Panama to defend the canal according to the treaty, and then used those forces, plus others deployed for the occasion, to topple the local government. What more are you looking for as an example, a Senate-ratified treaty not to attack on Christmas Eve followed by an attack in time for the turkey? | |
| Jul 10, 2019 at 13:59 | comment | added | polfosol ఠ_ఠ | To all who complain about lack of any deals approved by the Senate in mentioned examples: Does the treaty of amity count? | |
| Jul 10, 2019 at 6:28 | comment | added | RonJohn | @o.m. what does "treaty over who controls the Canal Zone" have to do with regime change, when the US honored the Canal Treaties by giving them to Panama? | |
| Jul 10, 2019 at 5:25 | comment | added | o.m. | @RonJohn, the US sent troops beyond their treaty-assigned areas and purposes, and then effected a regime change. The OP asked about attack, not conquest, and it was an attack. | |
| Jul 10, 2019 at 5:13 | comment | added | RonJohn | @o.m. your comment strongly implies that the US took back possession of the Canal Zone, or even conquered Panama, which you know very well is not true. | |
| Jul 9, 2019 at 20:23 | comment | added | Aaron | You should provide links to supportive material for each of your claims. The problem one for me is the one about Iran. I only read the news casually and occasionally, and I get it from "both sides of the fence," yet I've only heard that Iran broke off on that first and wanted to continue the agreement despite not following it, then the US (Trump anyway) declared he was abandoning it since Iran was not following it anyway. If that is true, then "Iran held that promise, yet the US broke that deal" would be blatantly false. Maybe it's true, but I've not heard that claim and you should back it up. | |
| Jul 9, 2019 at 16:39 | comment | added | PoloHoleSet | @CJDennis - Did THE Ohio State University take them to court over that? | |
| Jul 9, 2019 at 15:37 | comment | added | reirab | The U.S. did not make a deal with Iran. The Senate never approved it, which is required for the U.S. to officially make any legally-binding treaty. President Obama made a deal with Iran without the consent of Congress. He had no legal authority to do so. | |
| Jul 9, 2019 at 15:18 | comment | added | Joshua | Unfair to list Iran. Obama tried to skirt the constitution and so could only ever form a deal that would only bind until he left office. | |
| Jul 8, 2019 at 17:27 | comment | added | o.m. | @jpmc26, I added the Panama example. The US returned control over most of the Canal Zone to Panama, yet they toppled Panama's government. | |
| Jul 8, 2019 at 17:08 | comment | added | Denis Nardin | @jpmc26 While I see your point the other countries just don't care about minutiae of US constitutional law. For all they know the US could change their constitution. It is on the US government not to sign treaties they cannot make go through the legal formalities. | |
| Jul 8, 2019 at 16:06 | comment | added | o.m. | @Jasper, yes, edited. | |
| Jul 8, 2019 at 16:06 | history | edited | o.m. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Jul 8, 2019 at 15:37 | history | edited | o.m. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 208 characters in body
|
| S Jul 8, 2019 at 12:58 | history | suggested | DavidTheWin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
removed anachronous "the" referring to Ukraine
|
| Jul 8, 2019 at 12:29 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jul 8, 2019 at 12:58 | |||||
| Jul 8, 2019 at 4:49 | comment | added | Keith McClary | The US ratified (making it US law) the UN Charter which says Article 2, paragraph 4 All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.. Use of force is routine and threats are tweeted daily. | |
| Jul 8, 2019 at 4:46 | comment | added | o.m. | @Jasper, I think Just Cause broke the Panama treaties. | |
| Jul 8, 2019 at 1:16 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | moved from User.Id=28660 by developer User.Id=43069 | |
| Jul 7, 2019 at 20:11 | comment | added | Bobson | @Jasper - That's a really good question. As far as I can tell, no. | |
| Jul 7, 2019 at 17:17 | comment | added | Jasper | Did any of the three specific examples involve a treaty ratified by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate? | |
| Jul 7, 2019 at 16:39 | history | answered | o.m. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |