Is The US At War?

[Tsukiyumi]

We are in wartime.

Besides, that law could be amended.

Split from the "Wikileaks Releases US Cables" thread. - [SG]

[SolkaTruesilver]

We are in wartime.

Besides, that law could be amended.

No, we are getting involved into the current civil strife of the muslim world against its religious extremist who happen to be limited to using AK47 and gasoline in Afghanistan/Iraq or patched up explosives anywhere else in the world.

You just can't compare the current violence with an actual war. The most antagonist government with an actual industry that can face us are, at the most, a danger to our allies. Their offensive capabilities against us is reduced to throwing insults.

[Tsukiyumi]

When we were fighting in Korea in the early '50s, it was termed a "police action".

It was a war.

It doesn't matter what you or I think about it: the US government calls it the "war on terror". A war doesn't require that both sides are sovereign nations.

[SolkaTruesilver]

When we were fighting in Korea in the early '50s, it was termed a "police action".

It was a war.

It doesn't matter what you or I think about it: the US government calls it the "war on terror". A war doesn't require that both sides are sovereign nations.

Yes, it was a war.

What we have right now isn't even remotely close to what we had back in Korea. We don't have hordes of organised troopers coming to face us on a battlefield with the intent to gain territory. Get real, man. US had what, 4K dead soldiers in the past 7 years? 5K? You compared this to Korea's casualties, you notice it's quite trivial.

In Korea, we had 2 governements who openly took arms against us and had their economy redirected to wage war on us with actual hardware. What we face right now is, at the very best, an efficient guerilla force that just can't stand open combat against us and ain't remotely close to hitting us really hard where it hurts. The biggest victory was against our supply lines, and that was Afghanistan/Pakistan.

Get back to me about "being at war" if a whole country declares war or is declared war upon by the US and we don't just end up chasing shadows around the world in a silly "War on Terror". The conflict is all about Muslim's civil strife against a rising extremist part in their population, and the US/West got dragged into it because we happened to be the main sponsors of the current regimes in the middle-east. The US got all melodramatic about "War on Terror", thinking it was about THEM, while it isn't.

Compare security leaks between US gov and its allies happening during WW2 or the Cold War to security leaks happening right now. Germany/USSR could have genuinely exploited those leaks because they had the clout and power to do so. I don't see AQ representative walking up to an ambassador and using the finer point of diplomatic talks to use against the US. It's just not the same level of conflict.

[Captain Seafort]

When we were fighting in Korea in the early '50s, it was termed a "police action".

It was a war.

Agreed. What's that got to do with what's happening now?

the US government calls it the "war on terror"

The US government's tendency to declare war on the latest poor defenceless noun it takes exception to is not my problem. Accurately defining what's going on is.

In this case I'd agree that Afghanistan is indeed fighting a war - the same civil war the country's been fighting for the last three decades, which we invited ourselves to after 9/11. We should, however, be careful not to conflate the Aghan war with the last decade or two of counter-terrorism operations against al-Qaida. While the former certainly has an effect on the latter, they're a long way from being the same thing, or even parts of the same whole.

[Tsukiyumi]

You compared this to Korea's casualties

Did I now? Kindly find the quote where I compared casualties. Also, you'll note that the level of casualties in, say, the Spanish-American War was considerably lower than WWII, yet it's still considered a war.

It's just not the same level of conflict.

Level of conflict has no bearing on whether a war is being fought or not.

The US government's tendency to declare war on the latest poor defenceless noun it takes exception to is not my problem. Accurately defining what's going on is.

Yes. An accurate definition of what's going on would be " an armed conflict." Which is also the definition of a war.

[Captain Seafort]

Yes. An accurate definition of what's going on would be " an armed conflict." Which is also the definition of a war.

You could apply the same label to my town centre every Friday night. A bunch of drunks with broken bottles no more make a war than a bunch of crooks with co-op mix and Stanley knives.

[Tsukiyumi]

The dictionary disagrees.

Nations don't have to be involved; even animal species war with one another.

[Captain Seafort]

Nations don't have to be involved; even animal species war with one another.

What dictionary, "The fucking idiot's guide to abusing the English language"? Animals certainly fight, but they do not have wars - that requires a level of cooperative society that only humans have achieved.

[Tsukiyumi]

Nations don't have to be involved; even animal species war with one another.

What dictionary, "The f***ing idiot's guide to abusing the English language"? Animals certainly fight, but they do not have wars - that requires a level of cooperative society that only humans have achieved.

war - Hostile contention by means of armed forces, carried on between nations, states, or rulers, or between parties in the same nation or state; the employment of armed forces against a foreign power, or against an opposing party in the state.

Relevant parts bolded. We are in the middle of a "hostile contention" involving the rulers of organizations, and we are employing armed forces against a foreign power. The power in question is not a country, but the definition doesn't specify that it has to be.

Here are some definitions of the word "power" in context:

political or social authority or control, especially that exercised by a government

a state or country, especially one viewed in terms of its international influence and military strength

a person or organization that is strong or influential within a particular context

Seems to have a number of definitions, but an organization certainly seems to qualify.

These definitions courtesy of the Oxford English Dictionary. F***ing idiots abusing the English language since 1857.

[Sionnach Glic]

Thread split.

[Captain Seafort]

war - Hostile contention by means of armed forces, carried on between nations, states, or rulers, or between parties in the same nation or state; the employment of armed forces against a foreign power, or against an opposing party in the state.

Relevant parts bolded. We are in the middle of a "hostile contention" involving the rulers of organizations, and we are employing armed forces against a foreign power. The power in question is not a country, but the definition doesn't specify that it has to be.

In context, "foreign power" is clearly referring to a country, especially as bin Laden is only "strong or influential" in the Afghan-Pakistan border region, if that. Indeed, while I granted from the start that Afghanistan was in the middle of a war, albeit a civil war, even that is marginal. It's only the Taleban's de facto control of chunks of the country that even grants it that status, rather than simply being a very dangerous criminal organisation.

These definitions courtesy of the Oxford English Dictionary. F***ing idiots abusing the English language since 1857.

None of which make even a peep about animals. Concession accepted.

[Captain Seafort]

Cheers Sionnach. I was tempted myself, but got a bit tied up in answering points.

[Sionnach Glic]

Not a problem. The original discussion still had some life left in it.

[SolkaTruesilver]

In context, "foreign power" is clearly referring to a country, especially as bin Laden is only "strong or influential" in the Afghan-Pakistan border region, if that. Indeed, while I granted from the start that Afghanistan was in the middle of a war, albeit a civil war, even that is marginal. It's only the Taleban's de facto control of chunks of the country that even grants it that status, rather than simply being a very dangerous criminal organisation.

I have to wonder how much influence AQ genuinely has in the Afghan-Pakistan region, compared to the Talibans and the other Mujahadeens (spellingz?).

But ultimately, this conflict isn't against an ennemy that has the capacity to exploit diplomatic security breach, so... I don't see how you can justify executing Assan for treason because of it. The U.S. aren't in a war state.