The U.S. is not at war in Iraq or Afghanistan

I was wondering if anyone realizes that the United States is not at war in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Webster's Dictionary defines War as- A state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations.

With the installation of new governments in both countries the U.S. is no longer at war with either country.

What is going on how ever is a "police action" in both countries. I'll quote Webster's again with the definition of police action.
Police action- a localized military action undertaken without formal declaration of war by regular armed forces against persons (as guerrillas or aggressors) held to be violators of international peace and order.

What is actually happening is that the U.S. is helping, at the request of both governments, to combat an insurgency and to capture or kill the insurgents.

Webster's again:
Insurgency-the quality or state of being insurgent ; specifically : a condition of revolt against a government that is less than an organized revolution and that is not recognized as belligerency

Insurgent-a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent

My reason for bringing this up is that I am tired of hearing about captured insurgents having rights under the Rules of War. Do a little reading, the Geneva Convention does not cover insurgents. Insurgents are little more than criminals and murders. Technically under international law they may be executed upon capture.

What I find amazing is the media's use of these terms without knowing what they actually mean or their implications.

It's good to see someone talking sense and doing research! Keep it up!
Just shows that our soldiers shouldn't really be on trial, especially not when some maniac cleric is allowed to stay because of his 'human rights'.

(this is my opinon only and maybe not the opinion of others)

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I was wondering if anyone realizes that the United States is not at war in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Webster's Dictionary defines War as- A state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations.

With the installation of new governments in both countries the U.S. is no longer at war with either country.

What is going on how ever is a "police action" in both countries. I'll quote Webster's again with the definition of police action.
Police action- a localized military action undertaken without formal declaration of war by regular armed forces against persons (as guerrillas or aggressors) held to be violators of international peace and order.

What is actually happening is that the U.S. is helping, at the request of both governments, to combat an insurgency and to capture or kill the insurgents.

Webster's again:
Insurgency-the quality or state of being insurgent ; specifically : a condition of revolt against a government that is less than an organized revolution and that is not recognized as belligerency

Insurgent-a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent

My reason for bringing this up is that I am tired of hearing about captured insurgents having rights under the Rules of War. Do a little reading, the Geneva Convention does not cover insurgents. Insurgents are little more than criminals and murders. Technically under international law they may be executed upon capture.

What I find amazing is the media's use of these terms without knowing what they actually mean or their implications.

What a load of drivel. . . . . you label someone as an 'insurgent' and then think that this means that he has no rights and deserves to be killed. Even worse, people are being labelled as 'suspected insurgents' and then killed !

If the US was sponsoring these guys they would be called 'Freedom fighters' ( The CIA sponsored group known as Al Qaeda were described this way by Ronald Reagan, and their behaviour could just as easily have been described as 'insurgency')

As for 'Police Action' versus 'War', you might think that there is a crucial difference but there isn't really. . . . . it's just doubletalk . . . . . exactly what the man's uniform looks like doesn't make much difference to the victim.

The US sponsored forces in Iraq could more accurately be described as 'terrorists'

You can't justify killing by playing with definitions.



[edit on 22-7-2005 by Roy Robinson Stewart]

The point that I am trying to make is that the definitions of the words being used by the media to describe the TERRORISTS in both Iraq and Afghanistan and what is happening in both countries are wrong.

Under international law rebels, freedom fighters, insurgents, terrorists and any other name that you wish to call them are not protected by the Geneva Convention.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I was wondering if anyone realizes that the United States is not at war in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Webster's Dictionary defines War as- A state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations.

With the installation of new governments in both countries the U.S. is no longer at war with either country.

What is going on how ever is a "police action" in both countries. I'll quote Webster's again with the definition of police action.
Police action- a localized military action undertaken without formal declaration of war by regular armed forces against persons (as guerrillas or aggressors) held to be violators of international peace and order.

What is actually happening is that the U.S. is helping, at the request of both governments, to combat an insurgency and to capture or kill the insurgents.

Webster's again:
Insurgency-the quality or state of being insurgent ; specifically : a condition of revolt against a government that is less than an organized revolution and that is not recognized as belligerency

Insurgent-a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent

My reason for bringing this up is that I am tired of hearing about captured insurgents having rights under the Rules of War. Do a little reading, the Geneva Convention does not cover insurgents. Insurgents are little more than criminals and murders. Technically under international law they may be executed upon capture.

What I find amazing is the media's use of these terms without knowing what they actually mean or their implications.

Hypocricy: coming from the greek word 'YPOCRISIA' (which means 'under' + 'judgement'), it means the state of deliberately changing the meanings of words and phrases to serve one's interests.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
What is actually happening is that the U.S. is helping, at the request of both governments, to combat an insurgency and to capture or kill the insurgents.

Since you're good at definitions, what's the definition of a foriegn military who won't hand over control of operations to the Government they are helping, even after being requested to do so?

How about a foreign military who still refuses to hand over control of intelligence operations?

Originally posted by AceOfBase

Originally posted by JIMC5499
What is actually happening is that the U.S. is helping, at the request of both governments, to combat an insurgency and to capture or kill the insurgents.

Since you're good at definitions, what's the definition of a foriegn military who won't hand over control of operations to the Government they are helping, even after being requested to do so?

How about a foreign military who still refuses to hand over control of intelligence operations?

I wasn't aware that a formal request for withdrawl of U.S. forces has been made by either government. Any information that you have on that would be appriciated. How do you hand over control of intellegence operations?
What intellegence operations are you referring to?

Wasn't the United States' adventure in the late sixites and early seventies in South East Asia (the so called Viet Nam War) technically a Police Action?

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I wasn't aware that a formal request for withdrawl of U.S. forces has been made by either government. Any information that you have on that would be appriciated. How do you hand over control of intellegence operations?
What intellegence operations are you referring to?

I never said there was a request for withdrawal.
I said there was a request for control over operations and that request was not honored.

msn

Kabul has grown impatient with what many see as the US military's heavy-handedness and is anxious not to further alienate the rural communities of the south and east, which have borne the brunt of anti-terrorism operations.

Mr Karzai recently demanded that all US military operations in Afghanistan receive Kabul's clearance as part of a strategic alliance between the two countries, but has so far received no such commitment from Washington.

Here's the information on Intelligence operations:

Knight Ridder

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The CIA has so far refused to hand over control of Iraq's intelligence service to the newly elected Iraqi government in a turf war that exposes serious doubts the Bush administration has over the ability of Iraqi leaders to fight the insurgency and worries about the new government's close ties to Iran.

The director of Iraq's secret police, a general who took part in a failed coup attempt against Saddam Hussein, was handpicked and funded by the U.S. government, and he still reports directly to the CIA, Iraqi politicians and intelligence officials in Baghdad said last week. Immediately after the elections in January, several Iraqi officials said, U.S. forces stashed the sensitive national intelligence archives of the past year inside American headquarters in Baghdad in order to keep them off-limits to the new government.

Iraqi leaders complain that the arrangement violates their sovereignty, freezes them out of the war on insurgents and could lead to the formation of a rival, Iraqi-led spy agency. American officials counter that the new leaders' connections to Iran have forced them to take measures that protect Iraq's secrets from the neighboring Tehran regime.

No matter how Webster's (or anyone else for that matter) define "war" or "police action" or whatever, there's still a core truth here that never changes:
People shoot at each other...People are killed in large numbers. By any other "official definition", it's still mass murder.

What ever happened to "Thou shalt not kill?"


[edit on 22-7-2005 by MidnightDStroyer]

Originally posted by McGrude
Wasn't the United States' adventure in the late sixites and early seventies in South East Asia (the so called Viet Nam War) technically a Police Action?

Yes and so was the conflict in Korea in the 50's. The difference between Korea and Iraq or Afghanistan is that the threat came from a sovereign country (North Korea). In Vietnam the insurgency (Vietcong) were recieving support from North Vietnam until the Vietcong were defeated during the Tet Offensive, then the North Vietnamese army took over the fight. Technically under the Rules of War that I spoke of earlier, both the North Korean and North Vietnamese combatents were covered under the Geneva Convention while the Vietcong were not.

Originally posted by JIMC5499


Under international law rebels, freedom fighters, insurgents, terrorists and any other name that you wish to call them are not protected by the Geneva Convention.

Which is exactley why they are given those "labels".

It really doesn't matter what we label them, they see this as a war and are treating it as such.

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
No matter how Webster's (or anyone else for that matter) define "war" or "police action" or whatever, there's still a core truth here that never changes:
People shoot at each other...People are killed in large numbers. By any other "official definition", it's still mass murder.

What ever happened to "Thou shalt not kill?"


[edit on 22-7-2005 by MidnightDStroyer]

Personally I agree with you MidnightdStroyer. I was in Beruit right after the bombing of the Marine Barracks in 1983. My first operational flights with my squadron were Medevacs. I saw enough there to last me a lifetime. Problem is the quote "Thou shalt not kill." comes from the Bible. The opposition in this conflict follows another book. Let's face it the current situation is just round 3000 of the Crusades.

Give it a rest.

Thats a load of bull, (A) war is ALWAYS CONSTANT AND DOES NOT HAVE ANY HAPPY ENNDING BECAUSE IF YOU ATTACK ANOTHER COUNTRY FOR NO REASON AND KILL INOCENT PEOPLE FOR YOUR OWN GOOD THENTHEN A NATION THAT STRUGLES CANT BE STOPPEDWAR IS CAN ONLY BE WON WHEN ONE NATION EXCEPTS THERE LOST THE WAR.OR OTHER WISE US WON THE BATTLE IN IRAQ BUT NOT THE WAR KEEP THAT IN MIND.

And stop blaming and naming another race as insurgents really what is it wrong if another race fights back when it is under occupation, My friend, friend just came back from Iraq and he said it is hell out there, he says there is nearly every day US missle attacks, and it is war like conditions every where, he goes that the people are home less, nobody is safe.

And top that up he goes on petrol with full load ammunition and weapons, this only happens when you in war conditions.

give it a rest the war is false and wrong and people are killed and lives have been destroyed, a race is uprising, and there attacking back.

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
No matter how Webster's (or anyone else for that matter) define "war" or "police action" or whatever, there's still a core truth here that never changes:
People shoot at each other...People are killed in large numbers. By any other "official definition", it's still mass murder.

What ever happened to "Thou shalt not kill?"

Problem is the quote "Thou shalt not kill." comes from the Bible. The opposition in this conflict follows another book. Let's face it the current situation is just round 3000 of the Crusades.

The opposition? The opposition in this conflict are all those who kill, regardless of which 'side' they are on. . . . . . both sides in a war are actually attracted to each other by a mutual desire to kill. . .

Did you notice that the American President supposedly follows the Bible, and is ignoring the commandment "thou shalt not kill" ?.. . . .

Originally posted by JIMC5499
The point that I am trying to make is that the definitions of the words being used by the media to describe the TERRORISTS in both Iraq and Afghanistan and what is happening in both countries are wrong.

Under international law rebels, freedom fighters, insurgents, terrorists and any other name that you wish to call them are not protected by the Geneva Convention.

So if China invaded the US tomorrow because they wanted a regime change, would Americans who take up arms and fight back be called "insurgents" and "terrorists" by the Chinese media?

Semantics. There's a word for your type: Boobus Americanus.

The free men in Iraq who resist American tyranny have every right to fight back any way they see fit. Get that through your thick skull, Boobus Americanus. The entire war was based on a pack of lies, It is therefore totally unjustified. The world hates Team America, the self-designated World Police.

Can I get a durka durka? Amen.

Out of Iraq now. You Amerians are going to really fluck yourselves when you take on Iran. But you're too chicken I bet. Those nations are backed by the Russians and the Chinese. You chicken# Americans wouldn't dare take on a real war. You'd end up using nukes because you're a pack of lying chicken#s who wouldn't sacrifice so many of drafted "men and women in uniform" for what could easily be done with a nuclear weapon.

Since when did a country not have a right to defend itself from a foreign aggressor? You set up your puppet government in dirt poor Iraq and then label the resistance "terrorists" when the only thing they're terrorizing is foreign soldiers who have invaded their sovereign nation under the pretext of making themselves safe from your non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

Asshole American. Don't go travelling in Europe these days. All you get is scowls and mockery, Boobus.

Even though AlienAntFarm put it very bluntly, he is speaking the absolute truth. Americans cant even put themselves in the shoes of a iraqi citizen, but then expect the iraqi's to accept their ideologies and culture?
This whole war is a scam, and everyone knows it even the neo-conservatives can but they dont really care. Because they know in the long run the war will benefit american people, while leaving the rest of the world to fend for itself. Americans are not world police...they are people with a powerful military hoarding resources for the future...because they know resources will be stretched very thin in the future. So if your a american who only cares about your own country and not the human race as a whole, then i see the pro war agenda, and i totaly understand it. It is a evil and selfish agenda based upon the greed of capitalism.
The foundation of this war is ideology more thananything else, capitalism to me is the most evil governing system ever conceived as it is based on greed, which is evil virtue. While to me a islamic state seems just like another hell as it is based apon religion and ignorance.
So really i dont want either side to win. Im just sick of all the propaganda that is shoved down my throat everyday on all media outlets.

I agree except that in the long run it isn't going to benefit the American people. . . . they have already lost civil liberties and soon everyone is going to be in the same boat because the fascists hate everyone. . . . . they are playing on racial hatred right now to get the global police state underway but they will turn on their own people. . . . as their agents in Iraq and elsewhere are already doing . . . . . .

I was wondering if anyone realizes that the United States is not at war in Iraq or Afghanistan?

I'm not going to argue the linguistics of it, but I talked to my buddy serving in Iraq the other day and he informed me it sure as hell was a war. I informed him that he wasn't involved in a war. He told me he'd have to look into that.