Mutual defense treaties

[theiacowtipper]

How many countries do you suppose we are obligated, by treaty, to come to the defense of if either party is attacked? According to the State Department, the answer is 55. Does the United States really have a strategic interest in the safety of all these countries, to the point that we would provide for their defense? Incidently, the list includes Cuba, which I found interesting.

http://m.state.gov/mc18610.htm

 

[lucas80]

I would consider the Rio Treaty unnecessary at this point. The rest are certainly in areas of concern, with actual aggressors and potential aggressors.

 

[Sid.Vicious]

I would consider the Rio Treaty unnecessary at this point. The rest are certainly in areas of concern, with actual aggressors and potential aggressors.

Which completely ignores the greater point that the OP was making.

How are these areas condsidered to be significant to the national interests of the United States, to the point that we would actually go to war over them?

 

[Herky T Hawk]

I wonder if Cuba and many others are because of the Monroe Doctrine. That was the justification for the blockade during the missile crisis.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

"Mutual defense treaties" - or as we like to call them "right to intervene treaties."

That's why we have so many of them.

"OMG, that country is under attack from within by workers who want collective bargaining rights or consumers who want GMO labels. Send in the drones."

If that seems far-fetched, wait until Scott Walker is president with both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court under GOP control.