The United States is not at war with Iraq.  If we ever were, we won that war, when we removed the ruling regime and installed our own puppet democracy.

Europe knows how to war.  When nation-states war, millions of lives are lost on each side.  The United States has lost 2000 lives in Iraq-related conquest and support, not all of them even in battle.  Comparatively, we have executed 1000 of our own civilians since the death penalty was resumed.  Our enemy is only twice as proficient at killing our troops as we are killing our felons.

Given that two or more generations of Americans do not know the loss and sacrifice of real war, myself included among them, how big an impact of this blissful ignorance is had on public debate regarding war policy?

War is a word used by people/politicians to stir emotional responses.  It can be used to show that a particular faction is serious about an  issue, such as "The War on Drugs".  It can also be downplayed when a hot issue needs to be diluted, such as saying "We are not at war with Iraq".  Opposing political parties will always choose the meaning that best suits their needs and will change that meaning as they see fit.

It is my opinion that most Americans are gullible sheep and allow themselves to be spoon-fed their thoughts via television and politicians.  Because of this, you will most likely get a variety of answers from people depending on what channel they are watching at the time.  My personal opinion is that we are not at war in Iraq, we are not engaged in a "War on Drugs", and the last "war" we engaged in was World War II.  I got my opinion from the Cartoon Network for those of you that feel compelled to ask.  :P

What happened in Vietnam?

There should be a clear difference between war (open conflict between two opposing forces) and a massacre (having 10000x the weapons and technology, marching into a country slaughtering the opposing army).  But I guess the phrase "we massacred Iraq's army" doesn't bring the right emotional response. 

But that's what politicians do, they use words and language that elicits an emotional response in people such that people don't think with their heads, they think with their hearts (in a manner of speaking).  The word "war", much like the phrase "support our troops", pushes those emotions up. 

The major problem is that when somebody is brainwashed by these emotions (and don't think you aren't.. if your mood changes when you hear the word "war" on tv (I know even mine does), you've been brainwashed), they call anybody who speaks against it a traitor.  Machievelli said that one of the most important things for a ruler to do is to suppress free thought and free speech.  The government doesn't even HAVE to do that, because the citizens do it to each other.  It's quite amazing. 

[quote author=iago link=topic=13499.msg137401#msg137401 date=1134492207]
The government doesn't even HAVE to do that, because the citizens do it to each other. It's quite amazing.
[/quote]

I've noticed that too. It's quite depressing.

Amen, everytime I try to explain that I get called ignorant.

[quote]A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious[/quote]
I'd say we're still in a war against the insurgents from Syria that are attacking people in Iraq

Much as we're at war with CrAz3D...

[quote]
1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : STATE OF WAR b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2 a : [red]a state of[/red] hostility, conflict, or [red]antagonism[/red] b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease> c : VARIANCE, ODDS 3
- war·less  /-l&s/ adjective
[/quote]

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13499.msg137413#msg137413 date=1134496327]
Much as we're at war with CrAz3D...

[quote]
1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : STATE OF WAR b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2 a : [red]a state of[/red] hostility, conflict, or [red]antagonism[/red] b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease> c : VARIANCE, ODDS 3
- war·less  /-l&s/ adjective
[/quote]
[/quote]Word

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13499.msg137398#msg137398 date=1134491034]
What happened in Vietnam?
[/quote]

Vietnam was at war.  The US got into a dick bumping contest with China and sent troops in to show just how meaty our cock was.  Too bad there was no Viagra at the time.  The definition of war is a very subjective one.  No dictionary can define peoples interpretation and use of the word.

./edit speeling

So, is this an argument over a definition or over the death penalty?

If it's over a definition: Of course we aren't at war because we're not fighting a "civilized" enemy, it's a bunch of rebels. This is a "conflict" at best. Any war that we had with Iraq was over as soon as the regime fell.

If it's over the death peanlty, stop being a troll and go discuss it in one of the already-open topics on this.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=13499.msg137463#msg137463 date=1134511128]
So, is this an argument over a definition or over the death penalty?

If it's over a definition: Of course we aren't at war because we're not fighting a "civilized" enemy, it's a bunch of rebels. This is a "conflict" at best. Any war that we had with Iraq was over as soon as the regime fell.

If it's over the death peanlty, stop being a troll and go discuss it in one of the already-open topics on this.
[/quote]Death penalty?...has that even been mentioned in this thread?  I think trust needs more sleep

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13499.msg137467#msg137467 date=1134511603]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=13499.msg137463#msg137463 date=1134511128]
So, is this an argument over a definition or over the death penalty?

If it's over a definition: Of course we aren't at war because we're not fighting a "civilized" enemy, it's a bunch of rebels. This is a "conflict" at best. Any war that we had with Iraq was over as soon as the regime fell.

If it's over the death peanlty, stop being a troll and go discuss it in one of the already-open topics on this.
[/quote]Death penalty?...has that even been mentioned in this thread? I think trust needs more sleep
[/quote]

Or not.

[quote]Comparatively, we have executed 1000 of our own civilians since the death penalty was resumed.  Our enemy is only twice as proficient at killing our troops as we are killing our felons.[/quote]

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=13499.msg137470#msg137470 date=1134511781]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13499.msg137467#msg137467 date=1134511603]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=13499.msg137463#msg137463 date=1134511128]
So, is this an argument over a definition or over the death penalty?

If it's over a definition: Of course we aren't at war because we're not fighting a "civilized" enemy, it's a bunch of rebels. This is a "conflict" at best. Any war that we had with Iraq was over as soon as the regime fell.

If it's over the death peanlty, stop being a troll and go discuss it in one of the already-open topics on this.
[/quote]Death penalty?...has that even been mentioned in this thread? I think trust needs more sleep
[/quote]

Or not.

[quote]Comparatively, we have executed 1000 of our own civilians since the death penalty was resumed.  Our enemy is only twice as proficient at killing our troops as we are killing our felons.[/quote]
[/quote]OH yeah....forgot bout that 'ne.  I think that was just a stupid side remark (like my black discrimination thing I just posted in another thread).

This topic about "what is war" was brought up so people who are in the other thread yelling "support our troops" will begin to realize that we are not at war.  The term war is being used so that they can also mind-tweak you guys into agreeing with policy by pleading to you for support of the troops.

After all, we of course support our fellow citizens, our families are over there, to say we don't support them would make us look bad, right?

So the administration MUST equate support of troops with agreement with policy.

When the realization hits you that there is no war, your support for troops might wane, then you would be one step away from disagreeing with poliicy!

And we can't have that, no no no.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13499.msg137413#msg137413 date=1134496327]

[quote]
1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : STATE OF WAR b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2 a : [red]a state of[/red] hostility, conflict, or [red]antagonism[/red] b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease> c : VARIANCE, ODDS 3
- war·less  /-l&s/ adjective
[/quote]
[/quote]
^
War defined

sounds like we're at war to me

You're right, by that definition we are indeed at war with CrAz3D.

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
-Shakespeare

I don't think anybody cares about the word "war".  This thread is about the definition of what a war is, which is an idea, not a word.  You could call it a "blargh", and this thread still applies to it. 

Grok, Bush announced the war was over and ended in victory a while ago. Just because people choose to loosely refer to us as being in one, doesn't mean we are.

war: a legal state created by a declaration of war and ended by official declaration during which the international rules of war apply; "war was declared in November but actual fighting did not begin until the following spring"

These are rebels. They aren't even a government, they run around with smelly rags on their heads and fire AKs at people and they die. They die a lot too, like 200,000 times.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=13499.msg137521#msg137521 date=1134518807]
[....] during which the international rules of war apply [...]
[/quote]
I know the US doesn't always go for international rules... which ones do they use when declaring?  I'm trying to clarify.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=13499.msg137521#msg137521 date=1134518807]
These are rebels. They aren't even a government, they run around with smelly rags on their heads and fire AKs at people and they die. They die a lot too, like 200,000 times.
[/quote]
More emotionally rigged and meanlingless statements.  Making them seem like animals, not people, is not a way to make it seem okay to kill them.

Obviously I view them with a sense of detest, seeing as how they're the enemy. But above that, they're anti-Democracy and anti-a lot of other good things (womens rights, freedom of speech, etc.) Why should I have any sort of respect for them? I called it how it is.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=13499.msg137524#msg137524 date=1134519276]
Obviously I view them with a sense of detest, seeing as how they're the enemy. But above that, they're anti-Democracy and anti-a lot of other good things (womens rights, freedom of speech, etc.) Why should I have any sort of respect for them? I called it how it is.
[/quote]

So their wearing of "smelly rags on their heads" has to do with their moral principles?  It wasn't meant to make them look unhuman?

Everybody should understand that the enemy troops are people too.  The enemies have believes, hopes, dreams, and families who care about them.  Just because they disagree with your beliefs doesn't make them bad people.

They disagree with the majority of the worlds beleifs. Besides, it's not so much what they beleive, it's what they are doing to show people what they beleive. Many Muslims have said that these people aren't true Muslims due to their extreme acts of violence. The Koran preaches peace and modesty as two major principles. I don't see these radicals doing anything peaceful, and just look at how they enforce the modesty (modesty in reference to womens dress/mannerisms) upon women. I'm all for a more American lifestyle (or Canadian, or British, or whatever as they aren't too different...they're free) in Iraq. I don't see how you can morally defend the type of government these people would rather have instead of Democracy. People constantly compare Bush to Hitler and call him a tyrant among other things, but look at what he's trying to stop. I honestly do not see how people can dislike this man or this policy. But, of course, they must not disagree TOO much considering he was elected for a second term.

"International rules of war" is a stupid idea to me, war (violent malicious conflict) is supposed to be gruesome so it doesn't happen...it doesnt help when the other side kills themselves first though :(

Guess what the hopes & dreams of the enemy is...guess.
It is to kill you & everything you stand for.  You, iago, believe in freedom, they hate that, they believe in oppression, they believe you & I should die for disgracing Allah (or whoever it is).
Their dreams amount the fall of western civilization.
The desecration of such freedoms is bad, they live to destroy what the free world has worked so hard to build.  They are bad people.

Grok, you should make this a poll.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13499.msg137545#msg137545 date=1134524563]Guess what the hopes & dreams of the enemy is...guess.
[/quote]

Their hopes & dreams are obviously to get to live their lives in peace without oppression from the evil America.


[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13499.msg137545#msg137545 date=1134524563]They are bad people.
[/quote]

And that means America is bad people, coming to mess with the good people.....

You damn well know that what you just said is bullshit, you're just trying to get a rise out of me

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13499.msg137587#msg137587 date=1134561750]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13499.msg137545#msg137545 date=1134524563]Guess what the hopes & dreams of the enemy is...guess.
[/quote]

Their hopes & dreams are obviously to get to live their lives in peace without oppression from the evil America.


[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13499.msg137545#msg137545 date=1134524563]They are bad people.
[/quote]

And that means America is bad people, coming to mess with the good people.....
[/quote]

I agree with Adron.  Their beliefs differ from ours, so it's understandable that they view Americans as evil, and that America views them as evil.

[quote author=Explicit[nK] link=topic=13499.msg137626#msg137626 date=1134583858]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=13499.msg137587#msg137587 date=1134561750]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13499.msg137545#msg137545 date=1134524563]Guess what the hopes & dreams of the enemy is...guess.
[/quote]

Their hopes & dreams are obviously to get to live their lives in peace without oppression from the evil America.


[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13499.msg137545#msg137545 date=1134524563]They are bad people.
[/quote]

And that means America is bad people, coming to mess with the good people.....
[/quote]

I agree with Adron.  Their beliefs differ from ours, so it's understandable that they view Americans as evil, and that America views them as evil.
[/quote]

I also agree.  You both believe the other side is evil.  You both want the other side to be wiped out.  The only real difference is that you have means to declare a formal war whereas they can only do sneak attacks (since they don't have the means to fight head on). 

You have more in common than you think! :)

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13499.msg137625#msg137625 date=1134583670]You damn well know that what you just said is bullshit, you're just trying to get a rise out of me
[/quote]

No. You are just incapable of viewing things from the other side. In Soviet Russia, do you think they considered themselves as evil and the US as good? If the USSR had won the cold war, who would have been good today? If fundamentalist muslim ruled the world, who would be good?

Russia collapsed because communism was stupid in reality.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13499.msg137641#msg137641 date=1134587779]
Russia collapsed because communism was stupid in reality.
[/quote]
I'd blame the collapse of the Soviet Union more on its poor leadership rather than its form of government, after all, they did challenge the power of the US during that cold war.

I think you're one of those people that thinks anything besides America's democratic republic is stupid.

[quote author=Falcon[anti-yL] link=topic=13499.msg137648#msg137648 date=1134590058]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13499.msg137641#msg137641 date=1134587779]
Russia collapsed because communism was stupid in reality.
[/quote]
I'd blame the collapse of the Soviet Union more on its poor leadership rather than its form of government, after all, they did challenge the power of the US during that cold war.
[/quote]
......& "lost", so to speak.


[quote author=Falcon[anti-yL] link=topic=13499.msg137648#msg137648 date=1134590058]
I think you're one of those people that thinks anything besides America's democratic republic is stupid.
[/quote]
No, I just think communism doesn't work (because it doesn't), socialism is ok, parliamentary forms of government are okey dokey too.