2 ms·
> This is in inexcusably bad taste to not call it war given the tens of thousands of combat losses Well, the Wikipedia summary is short on details, so it's har
by gwbas1c 3y ago
> This is in inexcusably bad taste to not call it war given the tens of thousands of combat losses
Well, the Wikipedia summary is short on details, so it's hard to debate the merits of the articles / book from the summary.
But: The general thesis is that "The Gulf War" doesn't meet the definition of "war." The point is to make you think about the purpose and merit of the Gulf War.
We should always question the legitimacy of wars. It's how we grow as a society and try to minimize (or eliminate) as much conflict as possible.
(I'm a believer that the root cause of war is psychopathic leadership and naive leadership. Preventing these situations is much easier said than done.)
- eesmith 3y agoI don't agree with this thesis because I don't seem to agree with the unstated definition of war. Was the Six Day War really a war? What about the Kosovo War? The Spanish-American War? I picked these as well-known examples of "curb stomp" events with the title "war" in them. (They are even listed at https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/CurbStompBattle/RealLife https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/CurbStompBattle/RealL... ). What about Anglo-Zanzibar War? It's famously the shortest recorded war in history at less than an hour. If it isn't a war, why not? Was the Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire a war? Fewer than 2,000 Spaniards died, compared to 200,000 or so Aztecs.