# War in Iran? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 14, 2008, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-in-iran/452938 "2008-06-14T18:28:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2008, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-in-iran/452938/121 "2008-06-20T18:29:35Z")
[QUOTE=Merijeek] Pfft. Ol’ **John** is very fluid in his definition of what a “war” is. [/QUOTE] Pffft yourself. I specifically didn’t use the term “war” because it is not well defined. Here is what I did say: > [@John Mace](#): > > There will not be an invasion of Iran. There may be one of those so-called surgical strikes, but absolutely no ground invasion and no attempt to forcibly overthrow the government there. I’m willing to bet anyone who thinks othewise. And I said that because of the way the OP was worded: > [@OP](#): > > …A close friend with strong military ties has indicated that we may be ramping up for an invasion. So, wanna bet on that? We can clarify it further if you like. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2008, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-in-iran/452938/122 "2008-06-20T18:36:21Z")
[QUOTE=Ravenman] Oh, let’s get real here. Air strikes are war. It may be a little war, but I defy anyone to promulgate an explanation of why war isn’t actually intentional, state-sanctioned violence directed against another country. [/QUOTE] So, we went to war with Iraq under Clinton’s presidency? And we went to war with Sudan and Afghanistan? YOu really think most historians would record it that way? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2008, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-in-iran/452938/123 "2008-06-20T18:48:26Z")
[QUOTE=FinnAgain] But numerous attacks that were state-sanctioned, even carried out by nation states, have not led to actual war being declared or, for that matter, fought. [/quote] Declaration of war is not a precondition to being at war. Conversely, North Korea never revoked its declared war against the US, but I’d hardly say we are in a war today. > [@](#): > > After Israel’s recent strike against the Syrian nuclear facility, the two countries were not at war (or at least, not any more than they’ve been over the last few decades). There’s certainly not a continuing exchange of violence, unless one considers Syria’s support of terrorist groups supporting violence against Israel to be a measure of indirect, asymmetric war, which, as I think, could be a reasonable proposition. I don’t think war is properly defined by time limits, as in, violence is too quick to be considered a war. We can nuke Moscow inside the hour: if that started and ended the hostilities, I would still claim that the US engaged in a war. > [@](#): > > Heck, we’ve even recently launched strikes within Pakistan that have killed Pakistani citizens. Not only are we not at war with them, they’re still our ally. There certainly was no intent to harm the government of Pakistan, so that’s not really relevant to what I proposed. > [@](#): > > But if one side attacks, or even keeps attacking, while the other does nothing? It seems much more accurate to claim that unilateral attacks are being carried out, rather than that a war is being fought. Country A is perpetrating a war on Country B. Whether Country B is too weak to respond doesn’t change the nature of Country A’s intentions or actions. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2008, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-in-iran/452938/124 "2008-06-20T18:58:31Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] So, we went to war with Iraq under Clinton’s presidency? And we went to war with Sudan and Afghanistan? YOu really think most historians would record it that way? [/QUOTE] I think if the shoe fits… I note that many historians still find ways around acknowledging that the Korean War was entirely unconstitutional, so, having studied history myself, I’m not sure I’d trust historians as a group to accurately define the nature of war. In short, I think the essential nature of war is the application of violence by one country against another country in order to achieve a some resolution of to a dispute. If one country chooses to capitulate immediately, that doesn’t mean that the actions of the other has changed in any meaningful way. War can be little or it can be big, short or long, full of carnage or perhaps even bloodless, but at its core it is still an act of aggression among nations. I can’t say whether a poll of historians would validate this view, but I’d bet good money that Clausewitz would probably agree. ---
**Author:** ![DJB5](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a6a055/32.png) [@DJB5](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DJB5)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2008, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-in-iran/452938/125 "2008-06-20T19:40:39Z")
Dunno about the quality of the source, but supposedly there is a house resolution calling for (or perhaps authorizing) the stoppage of all petroleum exports from reaching Iran. If this passes, would this really require a blockade? [http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9377](http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9377) I can’t wait for $9/gallon gas. snippet of the resolution: (3) demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program; ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2008, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-in-iran/452938/126 "2008-06-20T19:49:57Z")
[QUOTE=Ravenman] Declaration of war is not a precondition to being at war. Conversely, North Korea never revoked its declared war against the US, but I’d hardly say we are in a war today. [/quote] No and I specifically stated that one could be at war without such a declaration, but a declaration of war does mean that a state of war exists. Likewise, we are, legally, still at war with North Korea. I take it that you are rejecting, in toto, the concept of a legal-war rather than a shooting-war? [QUOTE=Ravenman] I don’t think war is properly defined by time limits, as in, violence is too quick to be considered a war. We can nuke Moscow inside the hour: if that started and ended the hostilities, I would still claim that the US engaged in a war. [/quote] I think that’s the main point of contention here. If I engaged in my favorite hobby, beating up babies and taking their candy, you wouldn’t really say I was “in a fight” with a baby. You might say I attacked/hit/smacked around a baby, but as the saying goes, it takes two to tango. Likewise, if the US nuked Micronesia tomorrow and killed every man, woman and child there, you could say that we attacked attacked them, even committed genocide upon them, but in my mind calling it a war implies _two_ sides fighting, not one side getting slaughtered and the other going to grab a beer. The analogy is a bit forced, but the general gist is accurate, I’d contend. [QUOTE=Ravenman] There certainly was no intent to harm the government of Pakistan, so that’s not really relevant to what I proposed. [/quote] Well, to be fair, you proposed that war was “intentional, state-sanctioned violence directed against another country.” I don’t grok why intentionally killing citizens of a nation is not war, but intentionally trying to harm the government of a nation, is. Where, for instance, do troops fit in then? Was Vietnam not a war because the VC weren’t trying to harm our government? Were we at war with Iran during the 80’s and 90’s? How does one track the length of a war, then, between acts of violence that are separated by years? Would you argue, perhaps, that there was the Marine Barracks War and the Khobar Towers War, etc…? Not being tongue in cheek, just trying to grok in fullness. Help me understand where you’re coming from. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2008, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-in-iran/452938/127 "2008-06-20T19:56:18Z")
So long as cooler heads prevail (if the Goddess shall cease to avert Her eyes…), lmiited war is just that, limited. Trouble is, there are raving, bloodthirsty loons all over these issues, who would like nothing better for an opportunity for their preferred deity to smite the infidel, hip and thigh. They are the ones quick to use words like “traitor!” and “coward!”. War is a demon, you only kill a demon by starving it. Would that there was another way. There isn’t. If our grandchildren are to have a future, we must commit ourselves to picking up the sword only when we must, never because it is the easy way for the strong to get what they want. All we are saying is give peace a chance. Maybe it isn’t taking longer than we thought, but it sure takes longer than it should. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2008, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-in-iran/452938/128 "2008-06-20T20:30:32Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Based on what’s been posted on this board over the years about the Iranian nuclear facilities – carefully buried and hardened against conventional bombing, a lesson learned from [Osirak](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osirak) – I really doubt Israel has the capacity to take them out. The USAF could, but not without losing some of its own planes. Iran does have its own [Air Force,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Air_Force) and a much more formidable one than Hussein used to have. [/QUOTE] We could sell (or could have already sold) Israel some CP (concrete penetrating) bombs. Enough of those should be able to get the job done. Initially I thought we could sell Israel some MOAB bombs, but they are designed to explode above ground and to not leave a huge crater in the earth, so I suppose that wouldn’t work, although the sight of a bomb that’s packing 22,000lbs of high explosives that’s 30 feet long would be pretty demoralizing. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2008, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-in-iran/452938/129 "2008-06-20T20:44:51Z")
[QUOTE=FinnAgain] Well, to be fair, you proposed that war was “intentional, state-sanctioned violence directed against another country.” I don’t grok why intentionally killing citizens of a nation is not war, but intentionally trying to harm the government of a nation, is. [/quote] When I say “against another country,” I mean against another country, not taking place in another country. Just because we are dropping bombs in Afghanistan to try to kill Osama bin Laden doesn’t mean we are at war with Afghanistan. > [@](#): > > Where, for instance, do troops fit in then? Was Vietnam not a war because the VC weren’t trying to harm our government? Were we at war with Iran during the 80’s and 90’s? How does one track the length of a war, then, between acts of violence that are separated by years? Would you argue, perhaps, that there was the Marine Barracks War and the Khobar Towers War, etc…? The bombing of Khobar Towers clearly was not perpetrated at the behest of another government. Some may argue that the Marine barracks bombing was aided by governments, but I think the case is highly questionable that it was a deliberate effort conducted by one government to attack another. I think those are really two clear-cut cases of terrorism, not war. And if you are saying that the Viet Cong wasn’t trying to achieve a political end by using violence against US troops, then I simply don’t understand what you’re talking about. I’m also not clear what you mean by asking whether the US being at war with Iran through the 80s and 90s: what are you referring to? > [@](#): > > Likewise, if the US nuked Micronesia tomorrow and killed every man, woman and child there, you could say that we attacked attacked them, even committed genocide upon them, but in my mind calling it a war implies _two_ sides fighting, not one side getting slaughtered and the other going to grab a beer. I’m looking at [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com), I’m remembering On War and the Art of War, and I’m not seeing or recalling anything that requires prolonged resistance as a sine qua non of war. The implication you refer to isn’t off-base, because war tends to involve prolonged conflict, but I don’t see how that implication can be grown into a definition, no more than saying a movie has to be over a certain number of minutes long, otherwise it isn’t a movie. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2008, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-in-iran/452938/130 "2008-06-20T21:25:20Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] So, if China sees the US as leveraging its occupation of Iraq to unfairly assure herself of Iraq’s oil, they have a legitimate right to exercise force? **XT** , that ain’t a slipperly slop, thats straight to Hell in the handbasket. Or are these rights peculiar to America, and exclusive of others? [/QUOTE] That’s pretty much at the heart of discussions like this. WE can support terrorism, torture people, subvert, bomb and conquer other countries and that’s just fine; when someone else does the same thing they are ruthless fanatics. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2008, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-in-iran/452938/131 "2008-06-20T21:37:19Z")
[QUOTE=Ravenman] When I say “against another country,” I mean against another country, not taking place in another country. [/quote] But you haven’t defined what you mean by “against another country”. If deliberately killing the citizens of another country, for whatever reason, isn’t “against that country”, what exactly is? If tomorrow we launched missile strikes on those Iranians who collaborate with Hezballah, would that then not be a strike “against another country”? If that would count, why then does attacking Pakistani citizens who collaborate with Al Quaeda not count as an attack on their country? [QUOTE=Ravenman] The bombing of Khobar Towers clearly was not perpetrated at the behest of another government. [/quote] Not true. From the Findings of Fact in the American trial which, unfortunately seems to no longer be online, (non-working link still included, maybe your google-fu is stronger than mine.) > [@](#): > > 1. The terrorist attack on the Khobar Towers was approved by Ayatollah Khameini, the Supreme leader of Iran at the time. It was also approved and supported by the Iranian Minister of Intelligence and Security (“MOIS”) at the time, Ali Fallahian, who was involved in providing intelligence security support for the operation. Fallahian’s representative in Damascus, a man named Nurani, also provided support for the operation. Id. > > 2. Under Louis Freeh, the FBI conducted a massive and thorough investigation of the attack, using over 250 agents. Id. > > 3. Based on that investigation, an Alexandria, Virginia, grand jury returned an indictment on June 21, 2001, against 13 identified members of the pro-Iran Saudi Hezballah organization. The indictment’s description of the plot to bomb the Khobar Towers complex frequently refers to direction and assistance from Iranian government officials. Id. > > 4. In addition, as a result of this investigation, the FBI also obtained a great deal of information linking the defendants to the bombing from interviews with six admitted members of the Saudi Hezbollah organization, who were arrested by the Saudis shortly after the bombing. Id. at 11-30. These six individuals admitted to the FBI their complicity in the attack on the Khobar Towers, and admitted that senior officials in theIranian government provided them with funding, planning, training, sponsorship, and travel necessary to carry out the attack on the Khobar Towers. (Exh. 7 at 11, 13-14, 27; see also Dec. 18, 2003 Tr. at 24-30.) The six individuals also indicated that the selection of the target and the authorization to proceed was done collectively by Iran, MOIS, and IRGC, though the actual preparation and carrying out of the attack was done by the IRGC. (Dec. 18, 2003 Tr. at 25.) > > 5. According to Director Freeh. the FBI obtained specific information from the six about how each was recruited and trained by the Iranian government in Iran and Lebanon, and how weapons were smuggled into Saudi Arabia from Iran through Syria and Jordan. One individual described in detail a meeting about the attack at which senior Iranian officials, including members of the MOIS and IRGC, were present. (Dec. 18, 2003 Tr. at 23.) Several stated that IRGC directed, assisted, and oversaw the surveillance of the Khobar Towers site, and that thesesurveillance reports were sent to IRGC officials for their review. Another told the FBI that IRGC gave the six individuals a large amount of money for the specific purpose of planning and executing the Khobar Towers bombing. > > 6. Louis Freeh has publicly and unequivocally stated his firm conclusion, based on evidence gathered by the FBI during their five-year investigation, that Iran was responsible for planning and supporting the Khobar Towers attack. Blais at \*4. [QUOTE=Ravenman] Some may argue that the Marine barracks bombing was aided by governments, but I think the case is highly questionable that it was a deliberate effort conducted by one government to attack another. [/quote] Doesn’t seem like that’s an accurate gloss either. [From another trial](http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/30/iran.barracks.bombing/): “From the subsequent bench trial, Lamberth concluded that Hezbollah was formed under the auspices of the Iranian government, was completely reliant on Iran in 1983 and assisted Iranian Ministry of Information and Security agents in carrying out the operation.” The PDF for that [should still have a working link.](http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/iran/ptrsniran53003opn.pdf) But that’s neither here nor there, just wanted to clear up the factual issues. [QUOTE=Ravenman] And if you are saying that the Viet Cong wasn’t trying to achieve a political end by using violence against US troops, then I simply don’t understand what you’re talking about. [/quote] No. What I said was that the VC weren’t trying to harm our government. Our troops? Or agenda in their country? Maybe even our global standing? Sure. Our government? No. [QUOTE=Ravenman] I’m also not clear what you mean by asking whether the US being at war with Iran through the 80s and 90s: what are you referring to? [/quote] The “intentional, state-sanctioned violence” directed against the US represented by the MBB and KTB. But never mind, I don’t think we’re going to stop talking past each other. I wrote this post more to correct the record of facts on the KTB and the MBB. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2008, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-in-iran/452938/132 "2008-06-20T22:00:27Z")
[QUOTE=Ravenman] I think if the shoe fits… I note that many historians still find ways around acknowledging that the Korean War was entirely unconstitutional, so, having studied history myself, I’m not sure I’d trust historians as a group to accurately define the nature of war. [/QUOTE] Would you trust physicists to define “gravity” or biologists to define “evolution”? If so, why wouldn’t you trust the experts in the field of history to define terms used in that field? If we’re all just going to use our own definitions, then we won’t be communicating very well. But I don’t really want to have that debate here, since I never offered a bet about “war” in this thread anyway. \*\*Merijeek \*\*must not have read my post recently, which is why I copied it for him, above. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2008, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-in-iran/452938/133 "2008-06-21T03:25:21Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] That’s pretty much at the heart of discussions like this. WE can support terrorism, torture people, subvert, bomb and conquer other countries and that’s just fine; when someone else does the same thing they are ruthless fanatics. [/QUOTE] Oh whatever. If we REALLY wanted Iraqi oil as a form of “payback” for our efforts, then where’s the increase in production/delivery of Iraqi oil? Oh, right, evil Bush just wants to sit on it until a pre-determined Armaggeddon timeframe. Gotcha. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2008, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-in-iran/452938/134 "2008-06-21T04:09:10Z")
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil] Oh whatever. If we REALLY wanted Iraqi oil as a form of “payback” for our efforts, then where’s the increase in production/delivery of Iraqi oil? [/quote] The insurgents spent a lot of time blowing up oil extraction equipment, and the government of Iraq hasn’t cooperated with handing over the oil profits to us like we intended that they do. And besides, Bush’s friends in the oil industry have made out big time; they’ve made huge profits due to oil prices being high. [QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil] Oh, right, evil Bush just wants to sit on it until a pre-determined Armaggeddon timeframe. [/quote] Conflict with China was one of the scenarios the neocons pushed, with their “Project for a New American Century.” What makes you think that Bush and friends **ever** intended sharing any of the profits with us, anyway ? They are aristocrats; in their eyes, we are expendable cattle. You don’t share profits with cattle. They **want** America in general to go to hell; it increases their own power relative to the rest of us, indulges their sadism, and gives them an excuse to eliminate social programs. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2008, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-in-iran/452938/135 "2008-06-21T04:24:06Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] That’s pretty much at the heart of discussions like this. WE can support terrorism, torture people, subvert, bomb and conquer other countries and that’s just fine; when someone else does the same thing they are ruthless fanatics. [/QUOTE] Yup, that’s exactly how it is. Please provide cites for your evidence. Thanks in advance. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2008, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-in-iran/452938/136 "2008-06-21T04:26:38Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] The insurgents spent a lot of time blowing up oil extraction equipment, and the government of Iraq hasn’t cooperated with handing over the oil profits to us like we intended that they do. And besides, Bush’s friends in the oil industry have made out big time; they’ve made huge profits due to oil prices being high. Conflict with China was one of the scenarios the neocons pushed, with their “Project for a New American Century.” What makes you think that Bush and friends **ever** intended sharing any of the profits with us, anyway ? They are aristocrats; in their eyes, we are expendable cattle. You don’t share profits with cattle. They **want** America in general to go to hell; it increases their own power relative to the rest of us, indulges their sadism, and gives them an excuse to eliminate social programs. [/QUOTE] Well shit, the two-year-old is up. Perhaps later. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2008, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-in-iran/452938/137 "2008-06-21T04:51:15Z")
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil] Yup, that’s exactly how it is. Please provide cites for your evidence. [/QUOTE] :rolleyes: Hello ? Watch the news. War in Iraq ? Torture ? And so on ? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2008, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-in-iran/452938/138 "2008-06-21T18:48:46Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Would you trust physicists to define “gravity” or biologists to define “evolution”? If so, why wouldn’t you trust the experts in the field of history to define terms used in that field? If we’re all just going to use our own definitions, then we won’t be communicating very well. [/quote] War is a political term, not a historical one. Historians are no more suited to defining what war is than they are in authoritatively defining what gravity or evolution is when they write a biography of Newton or Darwin. Again, speaking as someone who has studied under some damn fine historians, I say research, analysis, and writing are stock and trade of historians, but war is really defined through statecraft, not from collecting information from the National Archives. My disagreement with your point is that should one follow this train of logic further, one could come to the conclusion that the Constitution should be interpreted by 18th century American historians, rather than jurists. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2008, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-in-iran/452938/139 "2008-06-21T19:31:55Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] The insurgents spent a lot of time blowing up oil extraction equipment, and the government of Iraq hasn’t cooperated with handing over the oil profits to us like we intended that they do. [/QUOTE] [The latter is about to change.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/19/AR2008061903232.html) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-in-iran/452938.md?page=6)