I am not sure of what point you are trying to make her
(here, I guess)
War, we were talking about war, not international trade 30 years later.
disruption of the peace and order
In how many countries there is none of that right now? Add one -two- more. (Yes, it sounds callous, we are callous).
I was not missing "the" irony.
A bit difficult to catch when using different adjectives for the same actions. (Invading countries/killing civilians).
I suspect you mean "because they fear that power.
No, because it pays the bills. (And yes, a huge gradation there, but they still use collateral damage for "some" things).
according to Wikipedia, ended in 1971.
Well, if it's in Wikipedia...
I am not here to make your arguments for you
On the other hand, you could google Rumsfeld, first strike policy, US nuclear doctrine... I am not going to do your research for you (but try not to use Wiki).
So, why didn't the war in Vietnam end in World War III?
Short answer: US did not invade NVN.
NVN sent more troops to the south and invaded. US sent more troops, escalated the bombing, was bombing more countries, invading other countries
(campaigns) and conducting terrorist attacks in other countries (covert operations if you like).
US had plans (armies have plans for everything) to invade NVN, China would them send troops into NVN, US would use tactical nuclear weapons against them (official doctrine and the generals in the field had the authority to do so, I don't know if CinC Pacific, CinC MACV...), I don't think China had nuclear weapons in the 70's, but USSR could had passed them a few (as some wise men are calling for around here), then US would
had to use nuclear weapons against China: WW3. (I don't think USSR would had allowed the humiliation of China and a clear US victory/world domination).
The UN may very well play a role in "deciding"
It may well decide, countries will only intervene according to their interest.
Anybody in the armed forces
has the duty to disobey unlawful orders. (Something that O. North "forgot")
Wikipedia "citation needed."
On the other hand, you could google Soviet, Osama, weapons, Afghanistan, CIA... There is also a film, you could get the names of those characters and google them too. I am not going to do your research for you, (but try not to use Wiki).
So, no, this is not the sort of action that
True, every country would probably make direct threats if threatened. "Context", sounds like: "Stop quoting the law, we carry weapons", the guy quoting the law, living in a fairy tale. I will decide what is a threat, I will decide the response; like it has always been.
Also:
Just leaving this here.
So, Putin sounds like Trump now?
