On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 17:21:25 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 10/22/2011 3:54 PM, Scout wrote:


"Hawke" wrote in message
...
On 10/21/2011 2:01 PM, Scout wrote:


"Hawke" wrote in message
...
On 10/19/2011 7:49 PM, Scout wrote:


"Hawke" wrote in message
...
On 10/18/2011 6:50 PM, wrote:
On Oct 18, 2:49 pm, wrote:


So you both think that we would have gone to war in Iraq if Al
Gore had
been elected? You ought to know there was little chance of that
happening if Gore was in the White House. I'd say something like
whether
we go to war or not is a rather huge difference in which party
is in
office. Look what going to war has done to our economy. Don't you
wish
we had elected Gore instead of Bush? But then what difference
would it
make if both parties are the same?

Hawke

I think we have gone to war in Libya under Obama.

I do not think that going to war has had much to do with the
economy.
Most of the problems with the economy are because of the boom and
bust
in the housing market. Some of the problems is caused by other
countries doing better than the U.S. in education and getting into
high tech manufacturing.


Dan



Do you think that France, Germany, and Italy think they are at war?
And do you think the people in those countries think they're fighting
a war? I don't. The people at war are the Libyans. Europeans and
Americans are just helping them out. Of course, if I was looking for
another reason to criticize Obama I'd say we are at war.

I see, so according to you a war is a state of perception rather
than an
even of one nation attacking another?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War


Like any word "war" can be defined in many different ways. For the
Libyans who fought against the dictator to overthrow him and for
Khaddafy's forces I'd say they had a war. Would I call what NATO and
the U.S. contributed to the Libyan people a war on their part? I'd say
no. It was too short term and too limited to qualify as a war on their
part.

Really? So if you have a 6 day War, then it really doesn't count because
it's too short term and limited?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

I will simply note that you have your own personal definition which has
nothing to do with any commonly accepted definition, and thus reflects
your inability to communicate because what you say has nothing to do
with what you mean.

If you know my definition of war you would also know that ....

....it makes it all but impossible to carry on a conversation because
when I say "red" I really mean "blue" and the people I talk to keep
thinking I'm talking about 'red'.

Sorry, Hawke but your inability to stick to the accepted meanings for
words is your personal problem, and if that means you can't communicate
your intent, that is also your personal problem.

Don't blame others because you say 'war' but mean something else.


Did you happen to read the post by Johnjohnsn? If you did he used an old
and very famous quote by Clausewitz that "War is politics by other
means". If you notice that isn't anything like the definitions for the
word war you find in any dictionary. That quote is what one man, with
lots of personal experience with war, says war is. So he has his own
definition of war. That's just like me. I have my own definition.

If the world can allow Clausewitz his own definition of war then it can
allow me mine too. If you find that you can't understand what I write
I'd say that's not because what I write is incomprehensible to a normal
person. I'd say it's because you have a reading and comprehension problem.

Hawke

The quote from Clausewitz is not a definition of war as you assert. He
was attempting to explain the underlying reasons for war. and in fact,
your translation is faulty as he used the word "Politik" which can be
translated as policy. i.e., the policy of a government.

His definition of war was "an act of force to compel our enemy to do
our will".

However, modern U.S. usage of the word seems to be the traditional, "a
legal state created by a declaration of war and ended by official
declaration during which the international rules of war apply:, as
neither the Korean nor Vietnam conflicts were officially defines as
wars.


--
John B.

On 10/22/2011 6:58 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 17:21:25 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 10/22/2011 3:54 PM, Scout wrote:


wrote in message
...
On 10/21/2011 2:01 PM, Scout wrote:


wrote in message
...
On 10/19/2011 7:49 PM, Scout wrote:


wrote in message
...
On 10/18/2011 6:50 PM, wrote:
On Oct 18, 2:49 pm, wrote:


So you both think that we would have gone to war in Iraq if Al
Gore had
been elected? You ought to know there was little chance of that
happening if Gore was in the White House. I'd say something like
whether
we go to war or not is a rather huge difference in which party
is in
office. Look what going to war has done to our economy. Don't you
wish
we had elected Gore instead of Bush? But then what difference
would it
make if both parties are the same?

Hawke

I think we have gone to war in Libya under Obama.

I do not think that going to war has had much to do with the
economy.
Most of the problems with the economy are because of the boom and
bust
in the housing market. Some of the problems is caused by other
countries doing better than the U.S. in education and getting into
high tech manufacturing.


Dan



Do you think that France, Germany, and Italy think they are at war?
And do you think the people in those countries think they're fighting
a war? I don't. The people at war are the Libyans. Europeans and
Americans are just helping them out. Of course, if I was looking for
another reason to criticize Obama I'd say we are at war.

I see, so according to you a war is a state of perception rather
than an
even of one nation attacking another?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War


Like any word "war" can be defined in many different ways. For the
Libyans who fought against the dictator to overthrow him and for
Khaddafy's forces I'd say they had a war. Would I call what NATO and
the U.S. contributed to the Libyan people a war on their part? I'd say
no. It was too short term and too limited to qualify as a war on their
part.

Really? So if you have a 6 day War, then it really doesn't count because
it's too short term and limited?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

I will simply note that you have your own personal definition which has
nothing to do with any commonly accepted definition, and thus reflects
your inability to communicate because what you say has nothing to do
with what you mean.

If you know my definition of war you would also know that ....

....it makes it all but impossible to carry on a conversation because
when I say "red" I really mean "blue" and the people I talk to keep
thinking I'm talking about 'red'.

Sorry, Hawke but your inability to stick to the accepted meanings for
words is your personal problem, and if that means you can't communicate
your intent, that is also your personal problem.

Don't blame others because you say 'war' but mean something else.


Did you happen to read the post by Johnjohnsn? If you did he used an old
and very famous quote by Clausewitz that "War is politics by other
means". If you notice that isn't anything like the definitions for the
word war you find in any dictionary. That quote is what one man, with
lots of personal experience with war, says war is. So he has his own
definition of war. That's just like me. I have my own definition.

If the world can allow Clausewitz his own definition of war then it can
allow me mine too. If you find that you can't understand what I write
I'd say that's not because what I write is incomprehensible to a normal
person. I'd say it's because you have a reading and comprehension problem.

Hawke

The quote from Clausewitz is not a definition of war as you assert. He
was attempting to explain the underlying reasons for war. and in fact,
your translation is faulty as he used the word "Politik" which can be
translated as policy. i.e., the policy of a government.

His definition of war was "an act of force to compel our enemy to do
our will".

However, modern U.S. usage of the word seems to be the traditional, "a
legal state created by a declaration of war and ended by official
declaration during which the international rules of war apply:, as
neither the Korean nor Vietnam conflicts were officially defines as
wars.


--
John B.



That's the point isn't it. War is not so easily defined as one might
think. There's always the definition in the dictionaries if you want.
But the word is used in a lot of ways that are not all wrong. I'm saying
I don't simply accept the dictionary definition. I put my own take on
it. To me small fry encounters, battles between minimal sized groups,
and very short duration conflicts don't arise to what I call war. To
each his own. But as you have seen plenty of people are unwilling to
allow me the latitude to allow me my own definition of the word.

Hawke

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 19:21:12 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 10/22/2011 6:58 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 17:21:25 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 10/22/2011 3:54 PM, Scout wrote:


wrote in message
...
On 10/21/2011 2:01 PM, Scout wrote:


wrote in message
...
On 10/19/2011 7:49 PM, Scout wrote:


wrote in message
...
On 10/18/2011 6:50 PM, wrote:
On Oct 18, 2:49 pm, wrote:


So you both think that we would have gone to war in Iraq if Al
Gore had
been elected? You ought to know there was little chance of that
happening if Gore was in the White House. I'd say something like
whether
we go to war or not is a rather huge difference in which party
is in
office. Look what going to war has done to our economy. Don't you
wish
we had elected Gore instead of Bush? But then what difference
would it
make if both parties are the same?

Hawke

I think we have gone to war in Libya under Obama.

I do not think that going to war has had much to do with the
economy.
Most of the problems with the economy are because of the boom and
bust
in the housing market. Some of the problems is caused by other
countries doing better than the U.S. in education and getting into
high tech manufacturing.


Dan



Do you think that France, Germany, and Italy think they are at war?
And do you think the people in those countries think they're fighting
a war? I don't. The people at war are the Libyans. Europeans and
Americans are just helping them out. Of course, if I was looking for
another reason to criticize Obama I'd say we are at war.

I see, so according to you a war is a state of perception rather
than an
even of one nation attacking another?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War


Like any word "war" can be defined in many different ways. For the
Libyans who fought against the dictator to overthrow him and for
Khaddafy's forces I'd say they had a war. Would I call what NATO and
the U.S. contributed to the Libyan people a war on their part? I'd say
no. It was too short term and too limited to qualify as a war on their
part.

Really? So if you have a 6 day War, then it really doesn't count because
it's too short term and limited?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

I will simply note that you have your own personal definition which has
nothing to do with any commonly accepted definition, and thus reflects
your inability to communicate because what you say has nothing to do
with what you mean.

If you know my definition of war you would also know that ....

....it makes it all but impossible to carry on a conversation because
when I say "red" I really mean "blue" and the people I talk to keep
thinking I'm talking about 'red'.

Sorry, Hawke but your inability to stick to the accepted meanings for
words is your personal problem, and if that means you can't communicate
your intent, that is also your personal problem.

Don't blame others because you say 'war' but mean something else.


Did you happen to read the post by Johnjohnsn? If you did he used an old
and very famous quote by Clausewitz that "War is politics by other
means". If you notice that isn't anything like the definitions for the
word war you find in any dictionary. That quote is what one man, with
lots of personal experience with war, says war is. So he has his own
definition of war. That's just like me. I have my own definition.

If the world can allow Clausewitz his own definition of war then it can
allow me mine too. If you find that you can't understand what I write
I'd say that's not because what I write is incomprehensible to a normal
person. I'd say it's because you have a reading and comprehension problem.

Hawke

The quote from Clausewitz is not a definition of war as you assert. He
was attempting to explain the underlying reasons for war. and in fact,
your translation is faulty as he used the word "Politik" which can be
translated as policy. i.e., the policy of a government.

His definition of war was "an act of force to compel our enemy to do
our will".

However, modern U.S. usage of the word seems to be the traditional, "a
legal state created by a declaration of war and ended by official
declaration during which the international rules of war apply:, as
neither the Korean nor Vietnam conflicts were officially defines as
wars.


--
John B.



That's the point isn't it. War is not so easily defined as one might
think. There's always the definition in the dictionaries if you want.
But the word is used in a lot of ways that are not all wrong. I'm saying
I don't simply accept the dictionary definition. I put my own take on
it. To me small fry encounters, battles between minimal sized groups,
and very short duration conflicts don't arise to what I call war. To
each his own. But as you have seen plenty of people are unwilling to
allow me the latitude to allow me my own definition of the word.

Hawke


I don't believe that the word can be accurately defined as, at least
in American usage, it has become a word to describe nearly any action;
the WAR on poverty, the WAR on drugs, and so on. On the other hand
becoming involved in affairs that kill some 36,000 Americans in one
case and some 58,000 in another is not WAR.


--
John B.

On 10/23/2011 4:38 AM, John B. wrote:

However, modern U.S. usage of the word seems to be the traditional, "a
legal state created by a declaration of war and ended by official
declaration during which the international rules of war apply:, as
neither the Korean nor Vietnam conflicts were officially defines as
wars.


--
John B.



That's the point isn't it. War is not so easily defined as one might
think. There's always the definition in the dictionaries if you want.
But the word is used in a lot of ways that are not all wrong. I'm saying
I don't simply accept the dictionary definition. I put my own take on
it. To me small fry encounters, battles between minimal sized groups,
and very short duration conflicts don't arise to what I call war. To
each his own. But as you have seen plenty of people are unwilling to
allow me the latitude to allow me my own definition of the word.

Hawke


I don't believe that the word can be accurately defined as, at least
in American usage, it has become a word to describe nearly any action;
the WAR on poverty, the WAR on drugs, and so on. On the other hand
becoming involved in affairs that kill some 36,000 Americans in one
case and some 58,000 in another is not WAR.



If you try to tell any of these jokers around here that those things
aren't war they'll accuse you of the same thing as me, making up your
own definitions.

Hawke