I regard war as an actual physical event, BB, not a legal technicality.

The whole world was involved in the debate as to whether the USA should "go to war" against Iraq, prior to the younger Bush's attack. They were focused on the actual reality OF a full-scale attack, not some lawyer's legal definition of the word "war".

Bush made the decision to invade. THEN it became a war. Prior to that, it had been an ongoing state of threat and harassment (involving sanctions and some bombing in the "no-fly" zones.

We all know when a war is really a war, and playing with BS lawyer words doesn't change that. It's just common sense. When your borders are invaded, and the skies are filled with the enemy warplanes, it's a war.

The Korean War, in actual terms of reality, ended with the ceasefire, regardless of whether they agreed on paper that the war was over. A 6-year-old schoolboy can see that. Anyone can see it, except a lawyer, a politician, or someone who doesn't want to see it. Lawyers will tell you differently, because they are clever, and cleverness is always happy to twist reality any way it wants to in order to achieve its desired objective...which is to "win" a verbal point in a debate. In court, that works, but we're not in court here...we're in real life where common sense is more important than legal techicalities.