Yes? I’m arguing that the United States set a precedent for what wealthy, nuclear-armed states can get away with. We started using the “right of self-defense” as pretext to invade other countries. I don’t see the contradiction you seem to see?
Yes? I’m arguing that the United States set a precedent for what wealthy, nuclear-armed states can get away with. We started using the “right of self-defense” as pretext to invade other countries.
The use of ‘self-defense’ as an excuse to invade other countries long predates Article 51.
Article 51 was invoked several times in blatantly unjustified wars by other states before the US invoked it in '64.
I don’t see the contradiction you seem to see?
Because you have no understanding of the history you purport to parrot.
![[despairing laughter]](https://media.piefed.social/posts/56/U0/56U06tladgkKbwy.png){kind=link}
This you, buddy?
Yes? I’m arguing that the United States set a precedent for what wealthy, nuclear-armed states can get away with. We started using the “right of self-defense” as pretext to invade other countries. I don’t see the contradiction you seem to see?
The use of ‘self-defense’ as an excuse to invade other countries long predates Article 51.
Article 51 was invoked several times in blatantly unjustified wars by other states before the US invoked it in '64.
Because you have no understanding of the history you purport to parrot.