The USA went to war against North Korea.

My argument assumed that war is a state of violence, and as included in my opening statement sought not to prove if said violence is legal. Indeed the violence of war need not even be polite.Con's argument seems very simple.Premise 1: War is only something declared legally.Premise 2: The US did not legally declare war.Conclusion: Therefore there was no war.Rebuttal:Con ended on a all caps Straw Man fallacy (1): "THE U.S. NEVER DECLARED WAR ON NORTH KOREA. TO SAY THAT THEY DID IS FALSE." As I never stated the USA went through diplomatic channels or otherwise before engaging in the war, what relevance does this statement have except to attempt false attribution, then to call me a liar for what I never stated?His single quote makes two points. First that President "Truman did not seek a formal declaration of war from congress." Second that "officially, America's presence in Korea amounted to no more than a 'police action.'"To the Second: Not merely the article but Con's quote, makes clear use of the word "officially" as a point. While I hope police tactics in my city never involve tanks and land grabs, I shall leave what should be expected of police officers for another debate.And the First: The source states President Truman did not pursue a formality. Whatever his reasons, the political posturing of one man, have little impact on the nature of a military engagement as to if it was really a war or not.Con has argued that for a country to be at "a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air" (definition of war), first there must be a formal declaration through legal channels. In the case of the USA it must be a Declaration of War through congress, as he used his quote to imply.A Federation of American Scientists report prepared for congress in March 2011 (2), remarks on the US having entirely ceased use of declarations of war after WWII, and states on the world adapting to such loopholes "The laws of war, such as the Hague and Geneva Conventions, apply to circumstances of armed conflict whether or not a formal declaration or authorization was issued."For my opponents definition to be true, war must exist not as actual violence, but as a piece of paper signed prior to violence. A formal thing. The only possible exception to this would be 1989's war against Panama in which they declared war against the US. If true Pearl Harbor was not part of a war. Not even Vietnam in which we relied heavily on the draft was a war. Applying this standard to recent memories, the USA never had any war in Iraq or Afghanistan, and President Bush Jr. is a liar for making statements of any "war on terror" without a formal declaration of war through congress.Closing Statement:As this argument is conducted using the English language, English instead of some new political language must be used to weight the terms. Further the question under consideration is not if the US formally declared war, but if we went to war.The nearly forty-thousand dead Americans of the Korean war, plus the continued military presence, are proof that the conflict escalated to the point where US involvement passed any threshold to be considered a war, whether or not it was also a police action or any other formal title. Regardless of if politicians in congress intended US soldiers to be fighting a war, there was indeed a violent war and war heroes.Sources:(1) http://www.txstate.edu...(2) http://www.fas.org...