Friendly reminder, by the worst moderator in political forum moderation history:
WG481 said:
If we want to delve into semantics, no, the country is not at war. The actions taken by our Executive branch of the government were without Legislative approval from either the House or the Senate. There has been no formal declaration of war from the governing bodies of the country.U.S. involvement in the Korean War (which was fought between North and South Korea) was a police action under the hospices of the UN, the United States were never “at war with Korea”.
https://www.britannica.com/question/Was-the-Korean-War-technically-a-war
The situation was similar with Vietnam - Congress approved troop deployment against the Viet Cong, but no declaration of war was issued, so technically speaking it was a conflict, not a war. In both cases the term “war” is used either colloquially or in reference to other belligerents whom the U.S. supported.
https://www.britannica.com/question/Was-the-Vietnam-War-technically-a-war
You just listed two very good reasons why being precise is important. This is prescient today because the majority of the western world is supporting Ukraine in their war with Russia, be it financially or by way of delivering ordinance, but none of those countries are *at war* with Russia.
src: click
Keine Angst, das können deutschsprachige Medien auch nicht herausfinden. Woher denn auch.
Peter Handke, bitte zum ORF Interview, Peter Handke bitte!
Gut Regime Change ist ja auch viel leichter, man muss nur Iranische Nobelpreisträgerinnen fragen, oder die Columbia Professorin Victoria Nuland. Da müssen wir noch nicht mal Semantik bemühen.
edit: Es gibt aber auch wieder eine gute Nachricht, die Presse weiss komplett nicht was Rational Choice Theory (rational actor) in der Politikwissenschaft ist - und lügt mit ihrer Einschätzung daher wieder die Bevölkerung zu.
Naja macht ja nichts, Hauptsache man kann als Redakteur einen Beamten der ehrlich war, in den Dreck treten, sagt sich die Chefredaktion immer.
