Yes, when is a war not a war? When the Boss says it isn't! LOL!

The USA has been engaging in a limited war against Iraq ever since 1989. Like most limited wars, it is an undeclared one, and the rules of engagment keep changing, and it's hard to figure out what they even are. The result of this limited war has been the death of many Iraquis, a few Americans, and a few other people here and there, plus expenditure of a vast amount of money and propaganda, and handy testing out of new weaponry and spying techniques by the US Navy and Air Force.

Saddam has also been engaging in a limited war against Shiites, Kurds, Israelis, and various other people...for a long time now.

Israel has been engaged in a limited war against Palestinians and other Muslims for decades.

Those people have themselves been engaged in a limited war against Israel ever since 1948.

The unbroken period of peace teribus describes in Europe has included a bloody revolution in Rumania, and a horrendous series of wars in the former Yugoslavia, as well as other smaller incidents of bloodshed here and there in various localities...mostly as a result of the Cold War or of old ethnic feuds predating the Cold War and emerging again in the wake of the Soviet Empire's collapse in '89.

When is a war not a war? When the media say it isn't! The media work for the Boss.

And, yes...Japan did invade American territory. So?

So-called "unconditional" surrenders ALSO end with negotiations...but those negotiations come much farther down the road...entailing much greater loss of life than is necessary to secure a victory. Japan and the USA did negotiate various surrender conditions in 1945. It was mostly just a diktat by the USA, Britain, and Russia to Japan, but it did include quietly letting the Japanese know that the Emperor would not be arrested or tried or threatened in any way. That is a negotiated settlement, whether you call it "unconditional" or not.

The claim of having forced unconditional surrender on an enemy is almost always, in truth, a false claim, but it indicates a degree of hubris and self-righteousness on the part of the victor, that's all, Like gloating over the remains of the fallen and completely humiliated enemy. I do not admire such an attitude in victors, whichever side they are on. It lacks humanity. It lacks respect for the foe. It is dishonourable and crass.

- LH