No, not some hippie, touchy-feely, lets all hold hands and sing "Kumbaya" "end of war." From the day one caveman had something another caveman wanted and wouldn't just give it up, we've had violence as a means to an end. And we'll have it until we evolve into higher, Star-Trek-style energy beings. Shit, if we evolve into Cybermen we're doubly fucked. No, I'm talking a more procedural and technical definition. So as anyone should know, we are still technically at "war" with North Korea. We're just in the middle of a very long and relatively stable cease fire. If we weren't pussies 30 years ago we should've been still at war with North Vietnam. And one of the big factors that allowed us to invade Iraq is that there was never a peace treaty. We only had a ceasefire. So what I'm wondering is, ironically, even though we've got troops in Iraq, and people are still dying, technically are we at "war"? Or did the Iraq War "end" when Saddam and his government were overthrown and the Iraqis capitulated? Some will argue that WWII was a direct result of WWI. The brutal terms dictated by France and the rest of the Allies essentially forced Germany into WWII. I have argued in the past that the troubles we've had in Vietnam and Africa are also result of WWI, but I don't know if I'm prepared to defend that stance right now. Anyway, I'm wondering, technically, is the Iraq War over? Is Korea? Or is it only a very long "halftime"
It's all one big scale, from cooperation to utter annihilation. Korea's a cold war and Iraq is a skirmish now. Calling it a "war" is a distinction for the historians.
War was not declared on Iraq in the first place. Not even if you want to use the false "continuation of Gulf War 1" argument. Nor Vietnam IIRC. That's the way of dodging the constitutional issues, is it not? So from a certain point of view, there hasn't been a war since the1940s.
War between functional countries is pretty much obsolete; trading partners have little reason to fight each other and open societies have little reason to demand it. The only "wars" left are against those few troublesome groups and pathetic states (e.g., Al-Qaida, North Korea) who reject openness.
But if we took those little asshole countries out of the mix, I'm the rest of us would find stuff to fight about.
I don't think that is necessarily true. Things have changed since WWII - there are very few things worth risking a full scale war with the "stable" countries in the world. Look at the Cold War for example, or the current status of China. Former enemies like France and Germany function together - sure there is friction as there will always be between nations, but I think the age of full-blown war has started to pass us by. It really is the rogue nations that have nothing to lose that will prosper through it - Iraq has cost us much more than the Iraqis; and if they ever decide to quit the fratricide the nation will be much better off; same with Afghanistan.
Was thinking mass media kinda also makes war difficult all those who die show up on tv. Kinda is a major determent for a country.
"Reject openness, willya? Take THAT!" As long as this "right to tell other nations what to do" exists, there will always be war.
Korea is still a cease fire- that is technically still a war, albeit an undeclared one. I would argue that the 'war' in Iraq ended with the overthrow of Saddam's regime, and what we've been doing since would be described as an 'occupation'. As for WWII stemming from WWI, absolutely. And if you accept that, then you must also accept that the rest of the 20th Century's geopolitical state, most notably the Cold War, stemmed from WWI.
