Are we still at war?

[The Mikado]

The answer to the question in the topic is obviously yes, but it's meant to get your attention.

Has there ever been a war in human history as widely ignored as the current one in Afghanistan (and the remaining mopping up in Iraq)?  I understand that the economy is a much more relevant story to any American who isn't currently deployed or has a loved one in the line of fire, but seriously!  This is flat-out bizarre!

[Marokai Backbeat]

I've always been conflicted on what to call it. It doesn't really feel like a war, but what else could one call it?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

We're absolutely at war, and it's a shame that people don't pay more attention to them.

[© tweed]

prediction: we will never again not be "at war" in our lifetimes for any extended period of time

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

prediction: we will never again not be "at war" in our lifetimes for any extended period of time

Been reading 1984 a lot lately?

[© tweed]

prediction: we will never again not be "at war" in our lifetimes for any extended period of time

Been reading 1984 a lot lately?

not since 2003 iirc

[Associate Justice PiT]

     It hasn't really felt like we've been at war since mid-2006.

[12th Doctor]

We are always at war.  That is the sad reality of the modern era.  I am not saying this to sound an alarm, frighten people, or say we need to start a fresh assault on civil liberties, but Americans really need to come to grips with the fact that, as long as we are strong, there will be someone, somewhere in the world that is going to want to challenge us.  We all want peace.  And peace is the prevailing sentiment.  However, it is a simple fact that we is at war... and I say "is" on purpose.  War now simply is.  It never was, and likely never will be again as those words denote that there will be a conflictless present at some point.

The "War on Terror" has been won, for all intents and purposes.  Bin Laden failed in his objectives.  Al Qaeda objective was to foment a massive, Islamic world wide uprising against what it views as "U.S. backed regimes".  This has failed, and they have run out of steam.

The primary objective now, for the United States is to create a stable regime that is friendly to the United States, in central Asia, to help keep the Russians in check for when Cold War II begins with them.  China is attempting to assert itself in that region, but it will be a halfhearted effort at best, and it will fail, because China's main interest now lies in the Pacific, not central Asia.  Russia's dream has always been to have Eastern Europe and Central Asia united under Moscow, and they will try again.

[dead0man]

As long as we have troops overseas we are at war with something.  Why else have troops overseas?  We've been at war since at least 1941.  "war" has changed meaning a lot since 1945.


(except for training of course...we could send troops to Germany to train and not be considered at war.)

[Associate Justice PiT]

As long as we have troops overseas we are at war with something.  Why else have troops overseas?  We've been at war since at least 1941.  "war" has changed meaning a lot since 1945.


(except for training of course...we could send troops to Germany to train and not be considered at war.)

     Clearly that definition is not good enough for our purposes. Troops training in Germany are at war with Germany.

[dead0man]

No, not for training.  We've had installations in Germany since 1945 that have cost us billions of dollars (again, you're welcome rest of the world), why are we still paying for them if we're not at "war" with somebody or something?  Same with Japan, S.Korea, UK, Italy and every place else enjoying the benefits of a nearby US military presence. 

Lets end WWII and the Cold War and bring our boys home.

[12th Doctor]

No, not for training.  We've had installations in Germany since 1945 that have cost us billions of dollars (again, you're welcome rest of the world), why are we still paying for them if we're not at "war" with somebody or something?  Same with Japan, S.Korea, UK, Italy and every place else enjoying the benefits of a nearby US military presence. 

Lets end WWII and the Cold War and bring our boys home.

Yeah, because there is absolutely no trade off for having a U.S. military presence.  It's all cash for you, baby.

[paul718]

We aren't at war because Congress hasn't made a formal declaration of war.

[The Mikado]

We aren't at war because Congress hasn't made a formal declaration of war.

Pedant. 

[12th Doctor]

We aren't at war because Congress hasn't made a formal declaration of war.

Yawn!!!  We could be fighting a total war with 20,000 casualties a day, and I am convinced Congress wouldn't get around to actually declaring war.  The business of actually declaring war is "too messy" for Congress to handle, these days.

[Associate Justice PiT]

We aren't at war because Congress hasn't made a formal declaration of war.

Yawn!!!  We could be fighting a total war with 20,000 casualties a day, and I am convinced Congress wouldn't get around to actually declaring war.  The business of actually declaring war is "too messy" for Congress to handle, these days.

     Quite. Declarations of war are too quaint for today's society.

[paul718]

We aren't at war because Congress hasn't made a formal declaration of war.

Yawn!!!  We could be fighting a total war with 20,000 casualties a day, and I am convinced Congress wouldn't get around to actually declaring war.  The business of actually declaring war is "too messy" for Congress to handle, these days.

Well, that's kind of the point I was getting at.  I really wish this wasn't so.

[War on Want]

We never were at war really.

[12th Doctor]

We never were at war really.

Obviously it was all a Papist Plot, of a Jewish Conspiracy.

[dead0man]

No, not for training.  We've had installations in Germany since 1945 that have cost us billions of dollars (again, you're welcome rest of the world), why are we still paying for them if we're not at "war" with somebody or something?  Same with Japan, S.Korea, UK, Italy and every place else enjoying the benefits of a nearby US military presence. 

Lets end WWII and the Cold War and bring our boys home.

Yeah, because there is absolutely no trade off for having a U.S. military presence.  It's all cash for you, baby.

Why can't Germans be the military presence in Germany?  What's wrong with Japanese defending Japan?  If they need our help, we can be there in short order.  That is our specialty and nobody in the history of the world has been able to project power better than the US.  It's not like Poland could prepare to secretly attack Germany without everybody knowing it.  This isn't...well, that's never really been possible, but with satellites, it's very impossible.

(if I misinterpreted your post, my apologies)

[Devilman88]

Of course we are, but the bias left media don't want to call it that.

[Nym90]

Of course we are, but the bias left media don't want to call it that.

Just as we are also perpetually at war with poverty, but the bias right media don't want to call it that, either.

We are always at war with things like terrorism and poverty in the sense that they will never go away as threats; we must always be vigilant and striving to eliminate them whenever possible. However, it's also important to realize they are wars that can never truly be won, and therefore no special suspension of rights or such should take place, at least not with the idea that such suspensions will only be temporary.

[Psychic Octopus]

The Most Ignored War Is This:

Second Congo War

1998-2002