Saudi Arabia sends troops into Bahrain to put down protests

[GommeInc]

Technically. E.g. The Falklands 'WAR' was never a war because neither side declared war. It was a battle of an Island.

Declaring war means a war is official, not declaring war but going into battle is practically going to war unofficially. War doesn't necessarily mean both sides have to declare it, loads of wars have been made - the key word being made. It's like saying punching someone in the face and claiming it's not an attack because no-one said anything. It's grossly inaccurate to assume war has to be declared, when war can be unofficial if the "acts of war" become obvious.

Gaddafi seems to be calling this a war in some respects, but the West would never admit to such a thing. Our actions in Libya seem useless - Gaddafi will only fight back, we're barely delaying the inevitable and would probably end up declaring war if he doesn't back down, and considering he's only churning out more troops it seems more likely that we'll get more and more involved, the rebels aren't doing as much as can be expected. It would be better if the West just gave them weapons to fight their own war so we don't end up killing more innocent people like we've already done in the last few days

[StefanWolves]

One thing i do find so funny is that Cameron has slated Labour for year for going to war in Iraq etc, now the Conservatives themselves have potentially dragged us into another war and how more or less set a precident to other countries such as Syria etc.

[-:Undertaker:-]

There's actually a reason why they are not keen on calling it a war, not only for propaganda purposes but it also involves U.S. internal politics;

There you have it America, you got your 'change' - the question is, will all the Obama fanatics now hate Obama in the same way they did with George W Bush.. hmm. The political system in the United States is just as warped as it is over here with the party monopolies.

One thing i do find so funny is that Cameron has slated Labour for year for going to war in Iraq etc, now the Conservatives themselves have potentially dragged us into another war and how more or less set a precident to other countries such as Syria etc.

Mr Cameron and his un-conservative Party supported the Iraq war, Mr Miliband now supports this new war and as do the Liberal Democrats - who opposed the Iraq war and said it was 'illegal' (how things change) but I now suspect purely on electoral grounds in order to serve their purpose as the 'non choice' party.

[xxMATTGxx]

Mr Cameron and his un-conservative Party supported the Iraq war, Mr Miliband now supports this new war and as do the Liberal Democrats - who opposed the Iraq war and said it was 'illegal' (how things change) but I now suspect purely on electoral grounds in order to serve their purpose as the 'non choice' party.

Just wondering (I don't want big long posts, I'm just wondering about this)::

But isn't it different this time because they actually went to the United Nations and the United Nations said it was ok to do what they are doing now. Where as the Iraq war, no one bothered to do so? (I don't think)

Edit: Scrap that, think I may of found the answer to my question looking at wikipedia.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Just wondering (I don't want big long posts, I'm just wondering about this)::

But isn't it different this time because they actually went to the United Nations and the United Nations said it was ok to do what they are doing now. Where as the Iraq war, no one bothered to do so? (I don't think)

Edit: Scrap that, think I may of found the answer to my question looking at wikipedia.

The sovereignty lays with the nation state, not the United Nations. Daniel Hannan explains well in this piece that treating UN approval as supreme is silly. I never call Iraq and so forth illegal in terms of 'international law' because of the reasons Hannan lists, and that it conflicts with sovereign law.

[xxMATTGxx]

The sovereignty lays with the nation state, not the United Nations. Daniel Hannan explains well in this piece that treating UN approval as supreme is silly. I never call Iraq and so forth illegal in terms of 'international law' because of the reasons Hannan lists, and that it conflicts with sovereign law.

Thanks, I shall give it a read.

[AgnesIO]

A selfish but realistic attitude, historically our overseas adventures have only returned to bite us from the behind.

The 'blowback' theory; Cambodia, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq to list a few.

Finding American and Australia..

Why not name all the countries we have had 'overseas adventures' to?

[Ajthedragon]

One thing i do find so funny is that Cameron has slated Labour for year for going to war in Iraq etc, now the Conservatives themselves have potentially dragged us into another war and how more or less set a precident to other countries such as Syria etc.

It's not exactly Iraq is it, it's legal and a majority of Libyans are for the action.

No 'weapons of mass-destruction' involved at all.

Yes the Tories did vote for action in Iraq, as have Labour given support for the Libya operation. Kinda invalid argument isn't it.

[StefanWolves]

I know i totally agree with you, was just saying

It's not exactly Iraq is it, it's legal and a majority of Libyans are for the action.

No 'weapons of mass-destruction' involved at all.

Yes the Tories did vote for action in Iraq, as have Labour given support for the Libya operation. Kinda invalid argument isn't it.