Calling Some One a Racist or Bigot

[M.Dancer]

One two three four

I declare a thumb war

[Higgly]

One two three four

I declare a thumb war

Well now a thumb war. That's different.

[ScottSA]

War requires resources from the nation's purse and needs a precise legal definition. If that does not suit your idea of war, then you are wrong. If you don't like that, talk to your MP. You don't have the power to declare war just because you have an internet connection.

If I'm not mistaken, the nation's purse is paying for this war. Otherwise we would have heard a few complaints about a lack of paychecks and bullets. Nor does a war require any "legal definition" beyond bullets flying at one from the other side. The absence of a declaration of war doesn't mean no war exists. I might remind you that Korea had no such declaration, nor did Vietnam, but I haven't heard many people claiming that no war existed. Hence the name, "Korean War" and "Vietnam War." I could point to any number of wars that didn't have declarations attached to them by the combatants, but you're so obviously lost in this discussion that I won't bother.

[Higgly]

If I'm not mistaken, the nation's purse is paying for this war. Otherwise we would have heard a few complaints about a lack of paychecks and bullets. Nor does a war require any "legal definition" beyond bullets flying at one from the other side. The absence of a declaration of war doesn't mean no war exists. I might remind you that Korea had no such declaration, nor did Vietnam, but I haven't heard many people claiming that no war existed. Hence the name, "Korean War" and "Vietnam War." I could point to any number of wars that didn't have declarations attached to them by the combatants, but you're so obviously lost in this discussion that I won't bother.

Well alright. Who gets to decide when a state of war exists? You? If it were left up to you we'd be in a holy war at the moment

I wasn't aware that there had been no formal declaration with respect to Vietnam. But look what happened there!

Edited October 23, 2007 by Higgly

[ScottSA]

Well alright. Who gets to decide when a state of war exists? You? If it were left up to you we'd be in a holy war at the moment

I suppose insults are one way to squirm out of your ignimonious defeat. Beats just admitting you're wrong, I guess.

[guyser]

War requires resources from the nation's purse and needs a precise legal definition.

You are correct, officially, but it does not stop anyone from calling it a war. It is correctly termed Korean Conflict, Vietnam Conflict.

But say vietnam war, and everyone knows what you mean.

[Higgly]

You are correct, officially, but it does not stop anyone from calling it a war. It is correctly termed Korean Conflict, Vietnam Conflict.

But say vietnam war, and everyone knows what you mean.

Hi ScottSA!

Edited October 23, 2007 by Higgly

[ScottSA]

Hi ScottSA!

errr..hello? You're citing guyser and gloating? Oy vey.

Here's a list of other wars that are not declared but nonetheless known to history as wars. Note the "Gulf War," which was also undeclared. Note also that each war is characterized by combat, not by declaration:

Quasi-War France 1798 J. Adams Convention of 1800 (Treaty of Mortefontaine)

First Barbary War Barbary States 1801 Jefferson

Second Barbary War Barbary States 1815 Madison

Intervention during the Russian Civil War Bolshevist Russia 1918 Wilson

Protection of Lebanon Rebels 1958 Eisenhower

Vietnam War National Liberation Front, later Democratic Republic of Vietnam Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, August 7, 1964 88-2 416-0 Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon Peace agreement signed in Paris, January 1973

Multinational Force in Lebanon Shia and Druze miltias; Syria September 29, 1983 54-46 253-156 Reagan Force withdrew in 1984

Invasion of Panama, also known as Operation Just Cause Panama Defense Force December 20, 1989 George H.W. Bush Manuel Noriega deposed

Persian Gulf War, also known as Operation Desert Storm Iraq January 12, 1991 52-47 250-183 The United Nations Security Council drew up terms for the cease-fire, April 3, 1991

2001 war in Afghanistan, also known as Operation Enduring Freedom Taliban government of Afghanistan and al-Qaida S.J. Res. 23

September 14, 2001 98-0 420-1 George W. Bush Ongoing

Iraq War, also known as Operation Iraqi Freedom Iraq H.J. Res. 114,

October 16, 2002

[M.Dancer]

The Gulf War didn't need a formal declaration between nations as it had a conditional ultimatum via the UNSC.

[shavluk]

Wow

hahhahhahha

[ScottSA]

The Gulf War didn't need a formal declaration between nations as it had a conditional ultimatum via the UNSC.

You know that because I told you too...

However, one might profitably argue that the First Barbary War wasn't under the aegis of the UNSC.

[M.Dancer]

You know that because I told you too...

However, one might profitably argue that the First Barbary War wasn't under the aegis of the UNSC.

Those wars were against errr....arrrh.....Pirates.. You can't issue a Declaration of war against pirates!

Now you could say, no the war was against the sultan of swat or whatever.....

...yes, you would be right, but yoiu still couldn't declare war on the sultan of swat cause the Sultan was techinally a dominion of the Ottomans....and back then, you didn't want to declare war on the Ottoman empire.....which is the reason why most seafaring nations simply paid tribute up to that point.

You're welcome.

[guyser]

errr..hello? You're citing guyser and gloating? Oy vey.

Here's a list of other wars that are not declared but nonetheless known to history as wars. Note the "Gulf War," which was also undeclared. Note also that each war is characterized by combat, not by declaration:

Quasi-War France 1798 J. Adams Convention of 1800 (Treaty of Mortefontaine)

First Barbary War Barbary States 1801 Jefferson

Second Barbary War Barbary States 1815 Madison

Intervention during the Russian Civil War Bolshevist Russia 1918 Wilson

Protection of Lebanon Rebels 1958 Eisenhower

Vietnam War National Liberation Front, later Democratic Republic of Vietnam Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, August 7, 1964 88-2 416-0 Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon Peace agreement signed in Paris, January 1973

Multinational Force in Lebanon Shia and Druze miltias; Syria September 29, 1983 54-46 253-156 Reagan Force withdrew in 1984

Invasion of Panama, also known as Operation Just Cause Panama Defense Force December 20, 1989 George H.W. Bush Manuel Noriega deposed

Persian Gulf War, also known as Operation Desert Storm Iraq January 12, 1991 52-47 250-183 The United Nations Security Council drew up terms for the cease-fire, April 3, 1991

2001 war in Afghanistan, also known as Operation Enduring Freedom Taliban government of Afghanistan and al-Qaida S.J. Res. 23

September 14, 2001 98-0 420-1 George W. Bush Ongoing

Iraq War, also known as Operation Iraqi Freedom Iraq H.J. Res. 114,

October 16, 2002

boiled down....scott is wrong and is stretching to save face.

Scott,those two were not "War"....you can call it that, and we all surely do, but it is what it is , and that is called a conflict. Vietnam Conflict, Korean Conflict.

[betsy]

Oh boy, conflict or campaign or picnic....call it whatever. Like a pacifier..... (and I don't mean peace-keeper or a meddler or a busy-body or a smug holier-than-thou, or a referee, etc - take your pick),....whatever soothes you.

All I know is that for me it is called "war" since our men are fighting and dying over there and we're spending billions for this war.

Edited October 24, 2007 by betsy

[ScottSA]

boiled down....scott is wrong and is stretching to save face.

Scott,those two were not "War"....you can call it that, and we all surely do, but it is what it is , and that is called a conflict. Vietnam Conflict, Korean Conflict.

Excuse me, but WW II was often referred to as the "European Theatre" and the "Pacific Theatre," but they were hardly stage sets or auditoriums. They are also referred to as "conflicts," as are all conflicts.

Further, just to burst your bubble: because Korea was under the authority of the UNSC, and because it took place when elements of Chapter VII, to wit, articles 45-47, were actually taken seriously, the "proper" term is "police action," although even that is a Trumanesque description and not a legal term. "Conflict" has no legal meaning. Just so you know. You can call Vietnam anything you want, but the folks who fought in it on the American side call it a war, and the folks who fought on the other side call it a war of liberation, and the history books call it a war. It's a war, and the fact that it's also a conflict is largely irrelevant.

Here's another tidbit for you: "declaration of war" is a relatively recent convention often honoured in the breech. A declaration of war is a formal action, but not technically a "legal" action. It has no weight in and of itself in any way shape or form, other than to formally tie the combatants to the GC, insofar as they are willing to abide by it in the first place. And that itself is more a reflection of European nation's agreements between each other than the North South axis shift of today. Prior to the 16th century, no one ever 'declared war' on anyone else, yet I daresay you'd be hard pressed to find an historian who will agree with you that wars didn't exist prior to the rennaissance. One does not need to "declare" war on another in order for two states to be at war; states of war often exist between nations and groups with or without declarations. Japan didn't declare war on the US before Pearl Harbour, insofar as sharing the news with the US, just as one example, yet I challenge you to find someone who thinks Pearl Harbour was not an act of war, or who thinks the war only began with Roosevelt's declaration a day later.

We can keep arguing this until the cows come home, but I know quite a bit more about this than you do, regardless of what you scrounge up on google U. We are at war, whether declared or not.

[M.Dancer]

Further, just to burst your bubble: because Korea was under the authority of the UNSC, and because it took place when elements of Chapter VII, to wit, articles 45-47, were actually taken seriously, the "proper" term is "police action," although even that is a Trumanesque description and not a legal term.

You know that becasue I already said that in post 163

[Higgly]

ScottSA, I have to acknowledge that I learned a few things about the modern framework for war from reading your posts in this thread. Boiling it down, it appears that declarations of war have become passé, particularly after the Vietnam War, and that what has been happening is that we have been seeing a preponderance of "creeping war". That is a war where a country first goes in as a "police action", "peace-keeping action", what have you, and then gets drawn into full scale war, bit by butt .

This is what the idea of a declaration of war is supposed to short-circuit. Either you are at war, or you are not. If you are at war, then you need to say so and to define it specifically in legislation that can be debated in the democratic process. Otherwise you end up in the kind of mess that both the US and the USSR keep getting themselves into.

ScottSA, I have been trying to assess where you are coming from, and I get more and more that you have a military background. The military will always chaffe at the constraints of its civilian oversight. In some cases, it gets away with it. Burma comes to mind.

It was Dwight D. Eisenhower who first warned against the growing power of the industrial-military complex, and he was a decorated general.

Edited October 24, 2007 by Higgly

[Guest American Woman]

Word games. That's all the denial is. And it's not impressive. I wonder if the Afghans realize there is no war taking place in their country? Perhaps O'Connor should go there and tell them. I'm sure that would really set their minds at ease.

[Higgly]

Word games.

Yeah politics. What bitch.

[shavluk]

its called an occupation

we are imposing our will

deciding who the good guys are

its no war now going on 6 years and the longest not a war in one hell of a long time

Edited October 25, 2007 by shavluk

[bush_cheney2004]

Word games. That's all the denial is. And it's not impressive. I wonder if the Afghans realize there is no war taking place in their country? Perhaps O'Connor should go there and tell them. I'm sure that would really set their minds at ease.

Some folks need such word games to fool themselves.....I prefer a more direct lexicon when it comes to armed conflict. "Department of War" had a nice, unambiguous ring to it!

Well at least they haven't changed the word "warhead" to "defense head" or "peacekeeping head".

[ScottSA]

its called an occupation

we are imposing our will

deciding who the good guys are

its no war now going on 6 years and the longest not a war in one hell of a long time

No, it's called a war, and the object of war is precisely to "impose our will" on the other side. Holding votes in the middle of a firefight is rather hard to do, regardless of what the NDP thinks. The Clausewitzian dictate that war is an extension of politics, or politics by other means, or whatever his exact phraseology was, didn't mean that 'time out' should be called while we hold a vote. Yeesh.

[shavluk]

No, it's called a war, and the object of war is precisely to "impose our will" on the other side. Holding votes in the middle of a firefight is rather hard to do, regardless of what the NDP thinks. The Clausewitzian dictate that war is an extension of politics, or politics by other means, or whatever his exact phraseology was, didn't mean that 'time out' should be called while we hold a vote. Yeesh.

I'm sure they would take you wouldn't they?

Me I will be here waiting for your triumphant return.

Bizarre but then I would like to impose my will tooooo.

[kengs333]

No, it's called a war, and the object of war is precisely to "impose our will" on the other side. Holding votes in the middle of a firefight is rather hard to do, regardless of what the NDP thinks. The Clausewitzian dictate that war is an extension of politics, or politics by other means, or whatever his exact phraseology was, didn't mean that 'time out' should be called while we hold a vote. Yeesh.

"2. Definition

Wir wollen hier nicht erst in eine schwerfällige publizistische Definition des Krieges hineinsteigen, sondern uns an das Element desselben halten, an den Zweikampf. Der Krieg ist nichts als ein erweiterter Zweikampf. Wollen wir uns die Unzahl der einzelnen Zweikämpfe, aus denen er besteht, als Einheit denken, so tun wir besser, uns zwei Ringende vorzustellen. Jeder sucht den anderen durch physische Gewalt zur Erfüllung seines Willens zu zwingen; sein nächster Zweck ist, den Gegner niederzuwerfen und dadurch zu jedem ferneren Widerstand unfähig zu machen.

Der Krieg ist also ein Akt der Gewalt, um den Gegner zur Erfüllung unseres Willens zu zwingen.

Die Gewalt rüstet sich mit den Erfindungen der Künste und Wissenschaften aus, um der Gewalt zu begegnen. Unmerkliche, kaum nennenswerte Beschränkungen, die sie sich selbst setzt unter dem Namen völkerrechtlicher Sitte, begleiten sie, ohne ihre Kraft wesentlich zu schwächen. Gewalt, d. h. die physische Gewalt (denn eine moralische gibt es außer dem Begriffe des Staates und Gesetzes nicht), ist also das Mittel, dem Feinde unseren Willen aufzudringen, der Zweck. Um diesen Zweck sicher zu erreichen, müssen wir den Feind wehrlos machen, und dies ist dem Begriff nach das eigentliche Ziel der kriegerischen Handlung. Es vertritt den Zweck und verdrängt ihn gewissermaßen als etwas nicht zum Kriege selbst Gehöriges."

Vom Kriege

[Higgly]

No, it's called a war, and the object of war is precisely to "impose our will" on the other side. Holding votes in the middle of a firefight is rather hard to do, regardless of what the NDP thinks. The Clausewitzian dictate that war is an extension of politics, or politics by other means, or whatever his exact phraseology was, didn't mean that 'time out' should be called while we hold a vote. Yeesh.

Hmmm. Seems to me that there was a vote before launching into Iraq, no? The complaint there was that the Congress was being fed the wrong information. There was a vote before Afghanistan too, was there not? - That is, regardless of what the fascist right wing thinks.

As for imposing your will, I'd say there are two purposes to war: one is to impose your will, which is the role of the attacker. The other is to prevent someone from imposing their will upon you, which is the role of the defender. Iraq is an example of the former, and Afghanistan the latter, which is why the US has found it easier to find allies for Afghanistan than for Iraq.

Edited October 25, 2007 by Higgly