Technically, they were at war since they were fighting a war.

There was no peace treaty, but rather a cease fire -- a cease fire that was haltingly adhered to.

The Gulf War ended in 91'. We were in Somalia in 93'.

__________________


"We can't screw it up any worse than they have." - Barack Obama

Wanna bet?



"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste...." - Rahm Emmanuel

I was answering an argument by legalism. By any common-sense evaluation, we fought the Gulf War against Iraq, then had peace for years, then attacked Iraq in 2003. Legalistically, you could argue that we were "at war" the whole time, but then, legalistically, you could argue that we were never at war at all. Which was my answer.

Since a state of war was never declared, a peace treaty would have been impossible. A cease fire, under those circumstances, means peace.

Mudwhistle: thanks for the date correction. 12 years, then, not 10.

What makes you think that they despised each other?

Could you explain the reasoning you used to come to that conclusion?

__________________
... ..................
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Sure, and since you asked for reasoning, I won't go look up quotes. I'm prepared to do that if necessary, though.

Osama bin Ladin is a Muslim fanatic who likes Islamic republics, the stricter the better. The Taliban was a government that met his favor. He does not like secular governments, self-interested despotic tyrants (except when they're being despotic in proper service to God), or rulers that collaborate and cooperate with the U.S.

Saddam Hussein was a secular tyrant. He was widely perceived as a lax Muslim. He was also, in more normal terms, cruel, despotic, and generally a bad man -- and in service only to himself, not to God. And, finally, he collaborated and cooperated with the U.S. on many occasions, receiving American aid during the Iran-Iraq war, until he fell afoul of the U.S. by invading Kuwait.

So Saddam was exactly the sort of leader of a Muslim nation that finds himself on bin Ladin's hit list. Also, bin Ladin has explicitly said that in the past, if I'm not mistaken.

Irrelevant. No-fly zone or not, obviously it is war when they are shooting at each other

I'd say that when opposing military forces are attacking each other with missiles, bombs and artillery, it's reasonable to say they are at war with each other.

Do you disagree with that?

__________________
... ..................
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

As an absolute statement, yes, I do disagree. The scale of the attacks matters, as does the intention of the governments involved. There were border skirmishes between the Soviets and the Chinese all through the 1970s, but the two countries were never at war. Our troops at Guantanamo occasionally traded fire with the Cubans, but the U.S. and Cuba were never at war. The crew of a U.S. spy boat was captured by North Korea some time after the Korean War ended and treated rather badly, but the U.S. and North Korea were not at war.

This is a pretty common occurrence in history when two countries have an uneasy peace but neither is willing to initiate full-scale war.

Declaration of war is not necessary for there to be a war. War in itself is not an absolute necessity for a peace treaty to be signed. Your statement is just strange.

Of course, an agreement on cease fire or other kinds of agreements can substitute a peace treaty. There has, for example, never been a peace treaty signed between Germany and the Allies after WWII, but the war is undoubtedly over and the borders settled through other means. Germany and Poland have signed a special treaty about recognition of the present borders, but this was not a peace treaty as such.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

Declaration of war is not necessary for there to be a war (in some sense), but war IS necessary for a peace treaty to be signed, and moreover it must be a DECLARED war. We never had a peace treaty with North Vietnam, for example. We did have one with Nazi Germany and with Imperial Japan. We were at war with all three countries, but in a declared war (requiring a formal peace treaty to end it) only with the latter two.

This isn't terribly meaningful except in response to the claim that we were still at war with Iraq between the two wars because there was no peace treaty. Since we were never formally in a declared war with Iraq at all, the lack of a peace treaty is meaningless.

Yes, you can have a war without a declaration of war. You can also have a peace without a peace treaty. That was my point.

Realistically, Look at the changes being made (or attempting to be made) by Pelosi and the current Democrats in government and you will pretty much have your answer. Obama does not have the experience or the political clout to drive the changes he is talking about, only to support the changes that the Democartic Leadership presents to him. If you are happy with what the Democartic leadership is selling then support Obama, otherwise beware.

When you get past all of the great talk, you have another John Kennedy without the political power of the Kennedy family to back him up. Obama may have great ideas, but that doesn't mean he has any more political influence or experience that any other citizen to bring them to reality.