How is attacking a sovereign army within their own borders not a declaration of war?
Is there any particular cases you want explenation? If not then general answear is:1. it might be accident - You dont want for example USA invading Mexico just because one Mexican boarder guard dropped gun that shot and injured USA soldier.2.Map problems - Borders are large and in many places you cant put fence all the way so in rare occasions one army or border guards accidently cross border and in even rarer cases they meet enemy border guards and due to night and thinking other side is trying to illegally cross border there is small shootout.3. it might be provocation - Imagine some Mexican locals wanted Trump as their leader so they dress up as Mexican army shoot at USA and wham war was started.4. It might be rogue army - Imagine some Russian general deciding that Russian government is week and he orders his men to start shooting at one of Eastern Europe boarder guards. you want countries to start WW3 because of one rouge general?5.Countries dont want to start a war - Imagine Chine starts moving its border with all the fence 1 km inside India (they are doing it in mountains). How should India respond? start WW3 or just fight that one post and move it back at original placeCountries understand that if you make declaration of war it will be bad for both of the countries. That means if you really wanted to declare war you start a war on all fronts. If that attack is small then probably it wasnt planned as attack and in that case its a lot better to stop all activities that could lead to all out war, gather facts and send diplomats to fix situation.
Why did America invade Mexico in 1845?
Territorial expansion—Polk had said before he was elected that the annexation of Texas and Alta-California would be a goal of his administration. (Alta-California would be, roughly, California, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico.) This gained him the support of southern states who assumed that this would increase their political power, as the Missouri Compromise had assured that the majority of the Louisiana purchase territory would enter the Union as free states. The war was highly unpopular in northern states because of the possibility of the expansion of slavery, and the consequent rise in southern political power (see “the Three-Fifths Compromise”). It is probably not justified to accuse Polk of wanting to promote slavery, and in the event, only Texas was admitted as a slave state. California entered as a free states, and the southwestern territories (with the exception of Nevada, entered in 1864) were not admitted to the Union until after the American civil war. The Mexican War heightened the tensions surrounding the issue of slavery, with Lincoln and Frederick Douglas being two prominent voices in opposition.
If a police officer is beating someone Do they have the right to protect and fight back?
My buddy was involved in a case where he was being beaten by cops. He's 6'', 290 lb and the 2 idiot cops thought that they can teach him a lesson. After he saw blood from his mouth caused by cops pushing him against the wall he began to protect himself and when the cops attacked him he nailed both of them and both cops were out on the ground. He then called 911 and waited till officers arrived, explained the situation and then was arrested. About 30 cops and investigators showed up and when they took witness testimony.He was release 10 hrs later with no charges. The incident was a stupid DUI traffic stop and it was escalated when he did not want to allow the officers to search his vehicle. They then decided to arrest him for no reason and without warning (Guess they were scared of his size and perhaps him putting up resistance) both cops attacked him and it escalated from there. Cops concluded that the traffic stop was legal but the search and arrest was not, No substance in his system
Was the devastation of Pearl Harbor a result of American unpreparedness, or of superior Japanese planning?
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor began just before 8AM on Sunday, December 7, 1941. Within a short time, five of eight battleships at Pearl Harbor were sunk or sinking, with the rest damaged. Several other ships and most Hawaii-based combat planes were also knocked out, and over 2,400 Americans were dead.
Does Mexico need to build a strong military quickly?
In short, no.Mexico has a military that is capable and adequate for what it does - search and rescue and attacking drug cartels.They are under the US security umbrella.This Trump administration has been nasty and aggressive but so far Mexicans are of the opinion that Mexico and the US will remain allies.The thing is, no amount of buildup will make any difference during a US invasion - which is the only remote possibility.Some of the changes in current US foreign policy make Mexico the proverbial “Canary in the coalmine”. Mexico in 2017 is Poland or Austria in 1930. If a rogue regime in the US becomes aggressive, there's nothing Mexico can do. It's the “front line” in an American-based world war, so to speak.This is a role that Mexico has gotten accustomed to. Several US “interventions” for “Mexico’s own good” have been made all the way up to 1916. They can't occupy the whole territory (two thirds the size of Western Europe in mountainous, caves, desert, forest and jungle terrain leaves lots of places to hide) nor can they win the peace anyway - the US has proven time and time again completely unable to fully control Mexico - so Mexico fights the invasion, let's things play out and just waits them out. Independence would be a given eventually. Remember the same constituency who would love to “invade mexico” to “teach them a lesson” actually hates the population. So they wouldn't annex - whites would be the immediate minority forever and you'd have to give all 140M people US citizenship.However, it would be a huge wake-up call for the rest of the US allies to start building up their arsenals.Sadly, the only reasonable way for any small power to counter an oppressive US that goes rogue against liberal democracies would be to pursue nuclear weapons, like the French, Israelis, Chinese, North Koreans, Pakistanis and Iranians have done. It tends to turn even the most unreasonable bully into a reasonable broker (or at least make an invasion impossible) real quick.Mexico trying to obtain them at this stage would guarantee an invasion. But what happens after the invasion of one of the original signatories of nonproliferation if every country decides to pursue it since it clearly didn't work for them?And this is why I see Trump’s “bull in a China shop” foreign policy as a tremendously dangerous, stupid game. But maybe that's just me.
Do bats attack humans? I go out running and there are a few bats flying near trees. Is it risky, as they sometimes fly just in front of my head?
as wild animals go, bats are actually incredibly docile. they have no reason to attack you. and are even unlikely to nip while you scoop them out of their beds, hold out their wings to examine them (younger bats do not have such solid bones as fully grown, so by extending a wing and holding it to the light, you can tell if a bat is an adult or juvenile) etc. they are extremely tolerant, and very laid back about being handled by a very large (to them) animal. I’ve handled many bats during population surveys, and never been bitten. the old chap that was in charge was very old school, and unless it was the larger two breeds (still easily fit in the palm of your hand) he would tell you to take your gloves off or you won’t even feel them. and this is largely true. they are so small and light, if you put your hand into a bat box, taking one out to identify the species IS tricky with even light gloves on. and most bat species can’t bite through those gloves to the skin, a few would barely leave a scratch on your hand if they tried. this is NOT recommended practice. recommended practice is to always wear thick gloves if you are handling a bat, and for most people I’d advise it. but he felt that gloves made you less able to handle the smaller species competently. if a roost was in a site not likely to be used by one of the two larger (still small) species, then your hand was going in bare. I’ve never been bitten by a bat.now vampire bats, tiny little things, MAY feed on a human. you can’t really consider this an attack. there are health risks from the saliva, but the way they feed is not an attack. they have numbing and thinning agents in their saliva, and just cut a tiny scratch in the skin. they can double their weight in consumed blood (hence the name desmodus rotundus, as it makes them appear quite bloated) but to host animals, the amount is still tiny and insignificant, and barely even felt. mostly they feed from livestock. occasionally sleeping humans, who do not wake.interestingly, vampire bats have a highly mutually benefical social structure. bats that are unsuccessful, return to the roost and request that their roost mates regurgitate to feed them. the bats will do so. if they do not do so, if they return unfed, other bats, not just the one they refused, will refuse them. so they take care of their communitiesso even the so called “scariest” type of bat is really quite adorable.
What was the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and why was it important to the U.S.?
The Gulf Of Tonkin Resolution gave LBJ and Congress the authority to increase troops levels in Vietnam without declaring war. As found out later, it was a trumped-up event that didn't happen, and LBJ, McNamara and the military Had what they wanted to send as many troops to Vietnam as they wanted. It was a "Remember The Maine", and "Remember Pearl Harbor" excuse to get us involved in the conflict with public support.