When do you call it a war?

Hi Taskr, Well, to put it midly, I am sure you would not find the UK or the US fighting a 'real' war. They are far too cowardly for that. When the Russians totally flattened Chechneya, the Americans didn't raise an eyebrow. Remember Georgia. Americans went into Somalia under a UN mandate, a mission that went badly wrong and havn't dared to go back since even though pirates and terrorists are brewing there. Vietnam was thought to be push-over, but Americans retreated. Yet all of the recent wars have been against enemies which have no real weapons or effective ability to counter. These are open desert battles which the West can defeat from 20,000 feet! Very cowardly. To me, if you hit your fellow human being, you are provoking a reaction with intent to take revenge. Individually, this remains within the two or more people involved, and diplomatic peaceful measure usually take the sting out of the situation. But if the sting is not taken out and they wind each other, no other option but to fight is achieved. Groups which develop with this mentality are present in all countries, and they war against other. In the developed world these are kept in check by the law enforcement authorities and well developed institutions for justice. In the Third world these are often corrupt and under funded leading to a high risk gang or tribal warfare. Remember the phrase 'You kill one and you are a muderer, kill a million and you a conquerer.' Therefore, the definition of war and context in which it is drawn is also in the hands of the victor. Look at the United Nations. This body was and is on the outset a keeper of world peace and prohibits invasions or attacks on civilians. The charter means well, but where is all the power. The victors of WWII - China, Russia, US, UK and France. These victors are the permanent members of the security council and have the power to veto anything they don't like irrespective of the wishes of the hundreds of other countries who don't have a voice (other than rotating members). The General Assembly allows some platform, but gives now teeth of power to world opinion. Therefore, if Russia flattens Chechneya, China annexes Tibet, UK and US invade Iraq, and France bombs Libya - where is the opposition of other countries to fairly debate and openly and publicly be able to denounce such actions. Germany and Japan have big developed world economies, but do they have a voice? Germany cannot be permitted to send its troops beyond its soil and yet allow UK and US bases in the country. In a nutshell, all war is illegal, because civillian lives are caught up and even army soldiers are placed in unnecesary danger. War should only be undertaken in self defence, when the nation is being attacked. The UN, if applied fairly caters for this. If the West really wishes to help, it needs to help Third world countries to build proper institutions of law and order, education and hospitals. Poverty removal is also a recepi for peace. Then, of course there is Israel, flagrantly abusing all UN resolutions passed against it, and accepts it is right and UN is wrong. Yet the UN does not do nothing. Civilians are killed in the Palestinian terrotories daily, there is no protection for them. Thus, just like the individual, world leaders need to take the sting out of situation hot beds for the sake of peace. They do not need to be arrogant just because they think they have the weapons to destroy. Powerful nations need to be more responsible. What is further baffling is that in both the UK and US, people are losing their jobs, cuts are made in the UK savagely because no money is available, yet money appear to be available to bomb Libya! People need to understand the fools politicians make of people for the sake of pride of their positions and to look good on the world stage and of course oil!

Right now- I'd classify it as a 'battle'. If they have more series of these 'battles' then I'd say it is a war.

When we attack them, and they attack us, then that is when we call it a war.

To the terrorists in Washington DC? Probably only after billions of taxpayers money have been wasted and they no longer can seem to sell any more rhetoric as body bags keep arriving!

That is something the nations of the world need to decide on. Acts of war are no longer actual war. You can have shooting matches that aren't war. It used to be that a UN sanctioned military action was a "police action", but I haven't heard that term applied to anything since Korea. I don't know what is taught in diplomacy school. In Army training we didn't worry about whether it was an actual war or not... we trained for any contingency.

I'll call it an unjust war because it didn't have to get this far and other world powers like United States, France who started the bombing and United Kingdom, all because of one person, just because he wouldn't step down, his reign of tyranny has gone on without no complain from citizens. This is not war, it's bullying from Libyian perspective, normal citizens are going to get hurt and lives would be lost, they don't know what they started as a riot would turn out to be a war. Gadafi ain't letting go easily.

I'm a liberal, but I believe that if you fire on another country like that, it's an act of war. Wars have to start somehow, don't they? I believe that 9/11 was an act of war, Pearl Harbour was an act of war, the invasion of Iraq was an act of war, people doing things in other countries that will cause harm to that country is an act of WAR, end of story!

I tend to think that in our country today if a Republican does something, it's war and if a Democrat does something, it's some really nice tree-hugger term and not a war.