US rules of engagement?
959709
In military or police operations, the rules of engagement (ROE) determine when, where and how force shall be used. Such rules are both general and specific, and there have been large variations between cultures throughout history. The rules may be made public, as in a martial law or curfew situation, but are typically only fully known to the force that intends to use them.\n\n(NATO) Directives issued by competent military authority which specify the circumstances and limitations under which forces will initiate and/or continue combat engagement with other forces encountered.
179693
How about read the rules?
1051291
Well, I don't know in other countries, but in the US the congess must declare war by a vote.\n\nUnfortunately our pres. is also commander in chief of the millitary and can wake up one day and say "this country over here pissed me off and we are going to bomb it for up to 30 days without congressional approval".\n\nThe US can also go blow up some third world country indefanately with out ever declaing war, but that takes congress to approve.
799683
don't shop where you harbor resentment...\nthat would include USA>>>>>
89987
Hope these links help you.\n\nThere are several faults in the US. \nOne link is a chance for email notification for early warning.
427909
The clearest example is the 2/3rds rule.  Think of trying to get anything passed in Congress today, if you had to have a 2/3rds majority
286787
The US Department of Defense officially defines ROE as:\n\n"Directives issued by competent military authority which delineate the circumstances and limitations under which United States forces will initiate and/or continue combat engagement with other forces encountered." [1] \n\nThe ROE deal with four issues [2]:\n\nWhen military force may be used, \nWhere military force may be used, \nAgainst whom force should be used in the circumstances described above, and \nHow military force should be used to achieve the desired ends. \nThe ROE take two forms: Actions a soldier may take without consulting a higher authority, unless explicitly forbidden (sometimes called 'command by negation') and second, actions that may only be taken if explicitly ordered by a higher authority (sometimes called 'positive command').\n\nIn addition to a typically large set of standing orders, military personnel will be given additional rules of engagement before performing any mission or military operation. These can cover circumstances such as how to retaliate after an attack, how to treat captured targets, which territories the soldier is bound to fight into, and how the force should be used during the operation.\n\nThe ROE are extremely important:\n\nThey provide a consistent, understandable and repeatable standard on how forces act. Typically they are carefully thought out in detail well in advance of an engagement and may cover a number of scenarios, with different rules for each. \nThey assist in the synchronization of political-diplomatic and military components of a strategy by allowing political commanders to better understand, forecast and tailor the actions of a force. \n\nThe first rule of engagement for United States military forces is always the right to use force in self-defense.\n\nIn any engagement, the ROE need to balance two competing goals: The need to use force effectively to accomplish the mission objectives and the need to avoid unnecessary force. This creates room for two types of error:\n\nExcessively tight ROE can constrain a commander from performing his mission effectively, called a Type I error. It is typical for the political leadership to constrain the actions of military commanders. This is often a source of tension between the political leaders, who are trying to accomplish a different objective than the military commanders, who are trying make the most effective use of their forces. Sagan [2] provides an excellent discussion of this topic. The UN Peacekeeper's ROE (see UNAMIR) during the Rwandan Genocide is a tragic example of too restrictive ROE. \nExcessively loose ROE can facilitate the escalation of a conflict which, while being tactically effective, negates the political objectives that the use of force was meant to achieve. This is a Type II or 'escalatory' error and an example of it may be the accidental killing of Jean de Menezes on July 22, 2005.
6598
Go to canada and australia official sites. they have all the rules and  paperwork you need.
1028674
Rules?There should be compromise.
573837
What kind of "relation"? US Embassies? You know the saying "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer"
235420
Erm... it makes a legal rule.\n\nNot actually sure what you're asking - more info may help.
581923
Depends on the circumstances.\n\nFor example: if country 'A' declares war and attacks - then country 'B' had better do something.\n\nHowever there have been times when a country has declared war and been ignored (such as the three times Iran has declared war on the US).
279808
There are some great tools for doing this:\n\nhttp://www.americanshareware.com/
179397
If you're really interested in this question, read about international law.\n "The international legal rules governing the use of force take as their starting point Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits any nation from using force against another. The charter allows for only two exceptions to this rule: when force is required in self-defense (Article 51) or when the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII)."\n\nA google search on international law and the Iraq war will yield an abundance of information.
277033
USRA.org\nclick the rulebook tab
50518
none to high (usa level)
932703
There are no set rules.  The S&P Index Committee has the final say based on their own criteria.  If you want the full explanation, it is here:\n\nhttp://www.ifa.com/Media/Images/PDF%20files/SP500_Rules_GeneralCriteria.pdf\n\nIt is an easy read.\n\n.