Tairaa wrote:Invasion and Proactive defence are synominus are they not?
In most modern day examples that is.
They are not. Just because it is the same action the end results are not the same. The two share different intentions by reason of the individual motivations. One is to conquer and take over. The other is to conquer and prevent. Recent and past American history bears this out. Iraq is a prime example. One term presupposes intended claim to ownership the other does not.
With the Allies, they liberated Western Europe from the Nazis, much of Asia from the Japanese, Panama from Noriega, Iraq from Saddam but the verdict is still out whether this is going to be successful.
We've had some failures, too. After the Japanese surrender, China went to the Reds; we had to wait 45 years to finally get the Communists out of Eastern Europe. Vietnam was lost to the Communists (and to the corruption of the South Vietnamese leaders). Burma and Laos have yet to be liberated. And let's not talk about Cuba...
But generally, America has been a force for good.