"Jim Watt" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 06:17:30 -0700, "TinCanman"
wrote:

Did you forget about the arbitrary part?

No I answered that fully.

But you answered it with a textbook definition from the dictionary that
doesn't support your position. ????

Your observation there is no war iss irrelevant and carries no weight.

Thats an interesting way of ignoring it.

Your observation there is no war IS irrelevant to the issue because it is
purely opinion on your part. The belligerent parties believe there is a war.
You'll note their soldiers are dying. That is the only thing that matters.
Third parties sitting on the hillside picnicking and pontificating on the
existence of hostilities while the combatants in the valley maim and kill
one another is ridiculous.


That a state of war exists would be up to the combatants to decide.

Did the Japanese get away with that when they bombed Pearl Harbour?

Oh, for the love of Pete. This is getting sillier by the paragraph. I'm just
going to chalk the last statement up to an early start on the weekend's
festivities. Please try to stay with the current situation. I'll not be
trading analogies with you as they are seldom equalities