When is a "war" not a "war" ?

[kentuck]

After all, we lost over 3000 people on 9/11. The WTC and the Pentagon were both attacked with American airplanes hijacked by terrorists with box cutters. Historically, it would be called an "act of war".

However, we were not attacked by another country. So we could not declare war on a country. We were attacked by 19 people in a terrorist "cell". So what was our reaction. We invaded Afghanistan because that was where Osama bin Laden was living and he was the supposed mastermind of the terrorists. Most of the world supported our efforts in Afghanistan at that time, although we lost much of that support with the imprisonment of many, perhaps innocents, in Guantanamo, Cuba.

Then we invaded Iraq. Why? What did it have to do with the "war on terrorism" or the people that attacked us. Nothing. But, certain political leaders thought it necessary.

Unfortunately, in our attempts to spread "democracy" thru-out the Middle East, we suffered loss of credibility and American lives beyond imagination. Another "lack of imagination" failure, as was noted by the 9/11 Commission? We now find ourselves in the middle of a civil war in Iraq, brought about by our actions and the decision to invade that country.

But the incompetent leaders argue that they have succeeded because we haven't been attacked again. But, in historical context, that is not unusual. They had attempted to bring down the WTC in 1993. The Clinton Administration tracked down many of those responsible and tehy are now in prison. But, they never caught Osama bin Laden. Then 9/11 happened and we declared "war on terrorism"?.

But is it a "real war"? Should we be devoting all of our political and military resources fighting such an invisible enemy? Although we were attacked and suffered casualties equivalent to an act of war, was it really a declaration of war on America? What if one person had biological or nuclear materials and killed 100,000 Americans. Who would we declare war upon?

It seems that a few individuals hate us enough to try and kill us all. But how do we declare "war" on this one person? Who harbors them? What if they live in the UK? Do we attack the UK? I do not think we are fighting a traditional war or a traditional enemy. It is not a war where we invade countries. It is a war of imagination or lack thereof. We need intelligence and cooperation more than anything in this new struggle. The caveman methodolgy no longer works in the modern world. We need leaders that no longer think with their clubs.

[donsu]

1. when it becomes an occupation

nt

[kentuck]

2. Explain..?

I guess most folks think this is a "real war"?

[porphyrian]

3. Only sovereign nations can perpetrate acts of war.

Otherwise, it is simply an extremely horrible criminal act. War cannot be declared by an individual. War cannot be declared by an organization.

Likewise, despite what this insane administration claims and so many intellectually-lazy people accept, war cannot be declared on a concept. There is no war on terror, there is a "war on terror," which is merely a placating title for the propaganda designed to fool the reality-blind and the stupid into thinking more is being done to insure our security than they have any intention of ever doing, very similar to the corporate misnomer "light" mayonnaise. In this case, it is the opposite of a euphemism, an exaggeration to give the appearance of something greater rather than something lesser.