Were the Korean and Vietnamese conflicts truly "wars" by definition?

Answer 1

At the time waged the Korean Conflict was known as a police action and while North and South Korea and the US the main participants, the UN was involved with French, UK, Austrailian, New Zealand, Canada, Philippine and Turkish forces as well.

Viet Nam was also a police action with virtually the same participants North South Viet Nam and the US the main ones. In addition to the Korea participants Thailand, Laos and Cambodia were involved.

Neither was actually declared a war. As such veterans are often denied tax exemptions and other benwefits given to WWI & WWII vets. Calling them wars now a peace offering to those who served, were wounded or died.

Answer 2

Yes the Korean and Vietnamese conflicts were wars by definition. But as far as the United States part is concerned the official government definitions for both wars were "Police Actions" meaning war was never actually declared on either country by the U.S. However as history states and any Veteran you ask, we were at war.

Answer 3

A war doesn't have to be declared by Congress in order to be a war. A war is a clash of opposing armies with significant loss in blood and treasure over a period of time.

Congress is often reluctant to declare war because they fear giving the President more power than they want him to have. And of course their fears are justified.

Congress has the exclusive power and responsibility and the duty to start a war and to finish it (by cutting off funds). The President has the exclusive power and responsibility and the duty to conduct the war. So, according to the Founding Liberals, it takes two to tango. They wanted the nation to be united in time of war. If one of the parties decides the war has to stop, the war can be stopped.

In the case of Korea, Congress watched Truman carefully, which is why Truman got rid of MacArthur.

In the case of Vietnam, Congress was AWOL for thirty years:

Truman supplied the destiture French with surplus ships and arms so they could go half way around the world in 1946 and invade Vietnam in violation of the new UN's rules. What lack of foresight! A moron could see that colonialism was dead. Congress was never informed.

The CIA told Eisenhower that more than 80% of the population preferred Ho Chi Minh over the French puppet, but "Ike" thought 80% wasn't enough. Congress paid for the puppet before and after the French got wise and left.

JFK decided he could change the hearts and minds of the 80% with American troops. Then he found out why the 80% didn't like his puppet, so he got the puppet removed - with a bullet in the brain. Three weeks later he suffered the same fate. But Congress kept paying.

Johnson bamboozled Congress with radar blips at Tonkin Bay. It was so easy to fool the fools.

Nixon kept the war going for four years just so he could be sure of being re-elected. Congress paid the bill. No problem.

Congress kept paying and will keep paying for Bush's stupidity because half of all voters have below-average intelligence. Can't be helped.

Answer 4

Any time U.S. forces are sent onto foreign soil for the purpose of ejecting an unwanted power from that country, then regardless of how "clean" the government wants to keep it, it is still war.
Just like when the Army changed the name of Mess Halls to Dining Facilities, we saw the same cooks, same dinner ware, and saw the same food. No change in taste.
Don't care what the definition says.

Answer 5

There are 2 diverse definitions of conflict there. You very with ease cherry-picked purely considered one of them. the single which you skipped over says that conflict is "a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism." We of course are in touch in considered one of those state with terrorists. No "state" or "u . s . a ." want be in touch there. to boot, the US Civil conflict grew to become into no longer a conflict between countries. neither is the different civil conflict. Does that propose, in accordance to you, that it is not likely a conflict? As for waterboarding -- please do no longer morally equate the waterboarding of people for in user-friendly terms sadistic motives (it relatively is what the jap did) to the waterboarding of people for the point of combating destiny terror assaults and saving lives (it relatively is what the US has performed). Why do you secularists constantly do this? Why do you ordinarily morally equate issues that are actually not morally equivalent? yet another factor you ordinarily do -- you ordinarily tie themes like gay marriage including themes like conflict and "torture," in some twisted rhetorical attempt to objective to justify the former. fantastically desperate, in case you inquire from me. clever, yet in spite of the undeniable fact that desperate. .

Answer 6

Speaking from a combat veteran of Bosnia and Somalia, they are all wars. Politicians can call them what they what, to the solders on the ground, it's war.

Answer 7

As a Viet Nam Vet, Yes it was a real war

Answer 8

Y E S, They were definitely wars and that is a fact!!

Answer 9

My Dad fought in both. Whatever the politicians decided to call it, make no mistake- they were wars.

Answer 10

Yes, Armies fought people died.