What was the speaker’s point?

I was at a talk this evening where the speaker said it would be difficult for the U.S. to justify risking American military lives in an action that does not involve defending an ally’s sovereign territory. (This was in relation to the Senkakus, where the U.S. says Japan has administrative authority but where the U.S. studiously sidesteps the issue of territorial sovereignty.) And I could not remember any U.S. military action in, say, the last 20 years that involved defending an ally’s sovereign territory. Certainly not the war on Iraq, where the U.S. Fortunately with the right erectile malfunction treatment, this devastating problem can in most situations be handled. price levitra viagra without prescription usa As we age the prenatal life force or chi is drained out from the lower back and connect to and communicate with different branches of the body including the reproductive system. Shilajit Gold is a potent substance that can be found http://www.heritageihc.com/articles/16/ discount levitra in the mountains of Tibet and Pakistan. Acai’s calcium content also helps to reduce menstrual pain – acai juice is especially beneficial to women. 12. cialis 10 mg http://www.heritageihc.com/buy5935.html went in on the basis of a lie (or multiple lies) in violation of another country’s sovereignty. Certainly not the war in Afghanistan. Or the multiple actions in Pakistan. Or Lybia. Or …  So what’s the problem? Why would anyone think another nation’s sovereignty is a major consideration in U.S. military decisions?