Nah, nations don’t do “war” any longer. They call it something else so that they don’t have to abide by the rules we’ve all agreed to when going to war. Now they’re “operations”.
The last war we had was WWII. War includes suspension of constitutional rights, along with a mass of other bullshit. You do NOT want them actually declaring war.
No idea why you’re so combative. We’re largely on the same page here. I’m describing the nuances of the situation, not arguing with you. It’s not war in a technical sense. There are reasons why it’s not considered war, and nobody really wants it to be defined as a “war” either. But is it war? Well, yeah…kinda. Just not in the general sense of the word, and without all of the baggage that comes along with it being a formal “war”.
It’s like asking is the sky blue.
Unintelligent people say: Yes.
Intelligent people might say: Yes, well - most of the time. Occasionally it can be oranges, reds, etc depending on the angle of incidence of light, cloud cover, etc. And the blue color is more due to Reyleigh Scattering of the incoming full spectrum light rather than the actual sky itself being blue; technically it’s clear.
Nothing I am saying is even close to the term Newspeak. Newspeak is controlled language, simplified grammar, and limited vocabulary designed to limit a persons ability for critical thinking.
But I’m not limiting your ability to think critically, I’m trying to expand it. Yet, not only are you failing to think more critically here, you’re actively avoiding it by tossing out accusations and making jokes. Likely because you’ve already decided that you’re “right” (whatever the fuck THAT is in this context, since we agree) and that you’re going to fight whatever you’re perceiving as an…attack?
In short - yes, it would informally be a declaration of war - because they don’t call it that now. I’m just pointing out the second half is all.
The problem is that the belligerents will generally both agree that the conflict isn’t a war. This isn’t limited to the USA either. The Falkland Islands conflict involved the invasion and counterinvasion of the Falkland Islands between Argentina and the United Kingdom. Officially, that conflict was not a war and neither side officially declared war on the other.
The problem is that the belligerents will generally both agree that the conflict isn’t a war.
Maybe they do that, but then it is their own problem.
I am still free to call it what it is. In my country there was & is nobody (except maybe some diplomats/politicians who were talking with these countries at the time) who called the Falkland war anything else than war.
Nah, nations don’t do “war” any longer. They call it something else so that they don’t have to abide by the rules we’ve all agreed to when going to war. Now they’re “operations”.
Ok.
And I call it what it is.
It’s not war unless congress declares it.
The last war we had was WWII. War includes suspension of constitutional rights, along with a mass of other bullshit. You do NOT want them actually declaring war.
LOL
No idea why you’re so combative. We’re largely on the same page here. I’m describing the nuances of the situation, not arguing with you. It’s not war in a technical sense. There are reasons why it’s not considered war, and nobody really wants it to be defined as a “war” either. But is it war? Well, yeah…kinda. Just not in the general sense of the word, and without all of the baggage that comes along with it being a formal “war”.
It’s like asking is the sky blue.
Unintelligent people say: Yes.
Intelligent people might say: Yes, well - most of the time. Occasionally it can be oranges, reds, etc depending on the angle of incidence of light, cloud cover, etc. And the blue color is more due to Reyleigh Scattering of the incoming full spectrum light rather than the actual sky itself being blue; technically it’s clear.
OMG are you the one who has increased the chocolate ration to 20 grams?
You are promoting “Newspeak”. I refuse.
Nothing I am saying is even close to the term Newspeak. Newspeak is controlled language, simplified grammar, and limited vocabulary designed to limit a persons ability for critical thinking.
But I’m not limiting your ability to think critically, I’m trying to expand it. Yet, not only are you failing to think more critically here, you’re actively avoiding it by tossing out accusations and making jokes. Likely because you’ve already decided that you’re “right” (whatever the fuck THAT is in this context, since we agree) and that you’re going to fight whatever you’re perceiving as an…attack?
In short - yes, it would informally be a declaration of war - because they don’t call it that now. I’m just pointing out the second half is all.
The problem is that the belligerents will generally both agree that the conflict isn’t a war. This isn’t limited to the USA either. The Falkland Islands conflict involved the invasion and counterinvasion of the Falkland Islands between Argentina and the United Kingdom. Officially, that conflict was not a war and neither side officially declared war on the other.
Maybe they do that, but then it is their own problem.
I am still free to call it what it is. In my country there was & is nobody (except maybe some diplomats/politicians who were talking with these countries at the time) who called the Falkland war anything else than war.