>He doesn't understand what a war means
if we don't fight the Nazis, we speak German today
He's literally this retarded.
if we don't fight vietnam, so what?
who was that guy in the tv show monk..... the guy from silence of the lambs....
buffalo bill
yeah whats his name again?
one is for survival on a national level
Ed gein
Vietnam was a battlefield game
Oh, I tend to agree with MA that war is two nations fighting on scale. War does not need to be officially declared to still be war
the other is for interests on the national level
@Laucivol Scale is irrelevant.
but to a soldier, there is no difference
Wait the actor played something recently
he always is the one doing the fighting either way
War, DOES need to be officially declared for it to be considered a war, else it's a conflict.
There are battles and skirmishes, but a series of them war make.
That's why the Falklands isn't considered a war.
No weez in real war there are no rules
Tell that to the fighting folks.
Because it was never declared by either.
ted levine
You mean, total war. @Tato
thats who jessica janiv reminds me off
true; it's a nuance i guess. point is, i think there MUST be a cost otherwise it becomes normalized
I mean actual war
Weez is an essentionalist while lauci is looking at it functionally
Total war is what you're describing. @Tato
Just to help you communicate lol
Not modern understanding of war
At this point Weez is arguing for official (benefit and political based) definition rather than practicality.
if the sons and daughters of politicians had to fight each time they used military force?
Where the end of the nation is a possibility.
"uuuuh blaire.... it puts the LOTION ON ITS BACK"
we'd see ALOT less invasions
You can have a war and not have the end of the nation.
what do ya think stopped Vietnam?
@svarozhyc You beat me to expressing it. XD
Yes weez thats how it operates in modern system
