[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:
And I said that because of the way the OP was worded:
So, wanna bet on that? We can clarify it further if you like.
[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?
[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.
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.
There certainly was no intent to harm the government of Pakistan, so that’s not really relevant to what I proposed.
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.
[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.
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
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;
[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.
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.
[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 – 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, 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.
[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.
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?
I’m looking at 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.
[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.
[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.)
[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: “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.
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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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 ?
[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.
[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]