[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The Minstrel Boy
Silliness ! Hell! that was brilliant!
It seems to me that the Korean "Conflict" was analogous to a husband
and wife doing battle with a third party present so it doesn't get out of
Without declaring war on Korea United States stayed in relatively safe
territory with the Soviet Union and China. U.S. could have war without
sending out "wolf tickets" on friendly buddies of the North Korean's like
the Soviet Union and China, who were, indeed, much more threatening than the
North Koreans. Now that I have read about Truman's distain for the military
it all makes more sense.
Does this sound right?
>To: KOREAN-WAR-L@raven.cc.ku.edu, firstname.lastname@example.org
>Subject: The Minstrel Boy
>Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 20:20:50 EDT
> Believe it or not, but in the 20th Century the United States only
>two declared wars - World War I and World War II. The term "two declared
>wars" is sought of an oxymoron, because pursuant to the US Constitution the
>United States can only have declared wars. Now, I hope you don't mind but
>think I'll like to do a little recreational thinking.
> I know that it upsets most American who fought in Korea to be told
>that the military action they participated in was a "conflict," a "police
>action"-- anything but a war. I don't believe that anyone would deny that
>North Korea and South Korea were engaged in a Civil War and anyone who
>there, fought in a war. However, no matter how hypocritical the American
>Government is you must remember that for the United States to have a real
>it must be the result of an explicit declaration of the US Congress. Since
>Congress never declared war on the opposing factions (North Korea, China
>the Soviet Union) there was no "war" that an American could say he fought
> However, if it is believed that the 1950 United Nations' resolution
>meant that the United Nations declared war on North Korea and North Korea
>allied with the Soviet Union and China and it is further believed that
>American were members of the United Nations' armed forces, I suppose you
>could say you fought in a war. Since the United Nations represents more of
>the world countries than the number of counties involved in World War II,
>probably could say you fought in World War III. However, if you believe you
>were in the US armed forces you can only claim that you participated in a
>police action, a conflict - anything but a war.
> A civil war was also fought between North and South Vietnam.
>the US Congress did not declare war on North Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia, no
>American who fought in South East Asia can claim they fought in a war. If
>American fighting in South East Asia believed he was a member of SEATO's
>armed forces he is out of luck believing he fought in the South East Asia
>because SEATO doesn't have the power to declare war.
> For that matter, war can not be declared by NATO, the Organizations
>American States, etc., so if you as an American fought in Granada, Panama,
>Haiti, Lebanon, Kuwait, Libya, Sudan, Iraqi, Saudi Arabia, Kosovo,
>Serbia, Yugoslavia, etc. and you believed you were in the United States
>Forces, like it or not, you did not fight in a war. However, the Iraqi war
>could have been a United Nations' War and since the United Nations was
>involved, I suppose you could say you fought in World War IV.
> Not having fought in a real American "war" could possibly have a
>silver lining. Any person who have experienced "road-rage," I imagine they
>could understand what "war-rage" is, so if you were ever involved in a
>shooting conflict, or a police action with civilians in a foreign county
>could not be charged with committing "war crimes." Maybe conflict crimes,
>police action crimes or even abuse of power, but with the lack of a war you
>certainly couldn't be charged with war crimes.
> That's enough silliness for one-day and if you can - have a real
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com