I hope you're not suggesting you've changed your answer that I quoted from you about a historical factual reference just to fit a dictionary definition. Tony, you can not change history...it happened the way you originally described. ...after Pearl Harbor everyone considered the U.S. to be at war with Japan (your words). wrbtrader
Regardless, I still prefer your original definition involving Pearl Harbor and War versus your attempt to change a historical factual reference as shown below to fit a dictionary definition that doesn't even use the words "after" or "during"... Do you need to find a new dictionary or maybe use a military definition instead of a traditional dictionary ? I would give you my military dictionary but it's too valuable because it belonged to my old man. Yet, you can contact the Department of Defense (DOD) or North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)...maybe they can send you one. wrbtrader
There was no attempt to change,only you trying to argue against the Oxford/Google dictionary definition of war.
it is not a dictionary definition but a declaration of war that requires congressional approval which involves commitment of troops on foreign soil. U.S. didnt go to War with Russia just because it sent aid to Ukraine nor did it go to war because it bombed a Who-Tee military site..
On December 8, 1941, the day after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Roosevelt delivered this "Day of Infamy Speech." Immediately afterward, Congress declared war, and the United States entered World War II. We are talking about what is a Constitutional declaration of war not a dictionary. Sending missiles does not require Congress. Mobilizing forces to invade Iraq did.
Japan was not "at war" when they did pearl harbor either. That would've given up the element of surprise. It's a stupid arguments progs are engaging in just because they see the trade disruption as couched in virtue. By the same logic, just like in Pearl Harbor, the Houthis started a war against the US by targeting our warships and we're just counterattacking their declaration. The Houthis tried to embargo Israel and uphold the embargo by force...something Israel does to Gaza, something we do to Iran and Cuba, and Venezuela, and.... Problem w/that logic is they tried to do so unilaterally in an international world. If they want to play that game, the world can send their ships as escorts....you want to fuck around w/said ships, you're going to find out.
You'll be surprised at how many people have tried desperately to change that fact, especially since the 1960s when Americans began changing what WAR was and to do that...they needed to go back in history to begin changing the definition of WAR in WWII. Surprisingly, that shit is still happening today although I'm confused about their agenda today in trying to rewrite history. The Oxford (Google) dictionary...hilarious. wrbtrader
again we can get off topic on what people's opinion are on what is war but the starter of this conversation was the U.S. constitution on what a president can do as commander in chief in ordering military actions. Biden nor trump need congressional approval to order a military strike on Houthis if they were threatening U.S. ships or commercial vessels. SO I dont understand this intellectual exercise on what war is when the point is biden and trump as commanders in chief dont need congressional approval for a strike like in Iran or Yemen. The Consittuition and War Powers Act only come into play when military forces and troops are being committed over time.