So you’d be okay with the Chinese dropping a bomb on a house in your neighbourhood because some right-wing nut was gonna blow up a government building?
At this point you really need to define what a “war” is because all you’re doing is dancing around without having to actually stake any claim to an argument. Instead of getting indignant at people drawing conclusions from what you DO say, make the substance of your opinion known so it can be examined and criticized openly.
Explain what the difference is between having your military attack another country and a “congress didn’t say it’s a war but it’s really a war”.
Right, but we’re just talking in the abstract. You have a definition of war, I’m asking if there is a conventional war, one state opposing another site, trying to gain the other’s resources or territory - you don’t consider this a war unless both countries explicitly declare war on the other?
Ok, then I guess I have no response. I disagree, but I doubt either of us is going to convince the other. I will just say, if something is functionally a war I believe it should be considered a war, regardless of if the parties to the conflict are calling it that.
So you’d be okay with the Chinese dropping a bomb on a house in your neighbourhood because some right-wing nut was gonna blow up a government building?
He’s a terrorist, so it’s all good right?
I mean, I’m not going to shed any tears over a would-be Timothy McVeigh who probably fantasized about killing leftists like me.
Now, if they start bombing weddings, then we’ve got a problem. And yeah, the US military did that.
I’m not justifying it. I’m only saying the title is a bit misleading/sensationalist.
It’s really not. It’s a definite act of war.
At this point you really need to define what a “war” is because all you’re doing is dancing around without having to actually stake any claim to an argument. Instead of getting indignant at people drawing conclusions from what you DO say, make the substance of your opinion known so it can be examined and criticized openly.
Explain what the difference is between having your military attack another country and a “congress didn’t say it’s a war but it’s really a war”.
“a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state”
Key word, “between.” You can’t have a war if no one declares war.
Are you just fucking with us now? Is this a bit?
I’ve seen at least one other person gently remind you of the last 70 years of US history. Are you just being a troll at this point?
I worded my question explicitly so as to make you think about this. Can you please try to?
Two states fighting against each other for the other state’s territory or resources is not a war unless they declare war?
Mexico wouldn’t be fighting back in this case (which is obviously bad, I’m just speaking semantically).
Right, but we’re just talking in the abstract. You have a definition of war, I’m asking if there is a conventional war, one state opposing another site, trying to gain the other’s resources or territory - you don’t consider this a war unless both countries explicitly declare war on the other?
An invasion sure, but not technically a war.
Ok, then I guess I have no response. I disagree, but I doubt either of us is going to convince the other. I will just say, if something is functionally a war I believe it should be considered a war, regardless of if the parties to the conflict are calling it that.
I’m curious if you extend that to the Russia-Ukraine conflict too…