war... what is it good for?

[morkinva]

We have:

the war on drugs
the war on terror
the war on poverty

It seems to me that we could be doing better in all of these wars. In fact, you might say I think 'we' purposely do worse on purpose, and by 'we' I mean our government(s). For example, I believe the US government makes a lot of money from illegal drugs, and therefore it has no reason the win a 'war on drugs'. But that's just me being the skeptic I am.

I feel the same about the other 'wars', and believe they are all total bull. Am I wrong?

 

[judasmachine]

illusions, one and all. just something to keep the busybodies busy. we can solve almost any problem if we approach it in a rational and compassionate manner, and not just burn money making it look like its working.

 

[Genx87]

I dont think the govt itself isnt putting the effort to win the wars. The problem is the above wars are not so much something you can erradicate but instead hope to reduce.

There are no set boundaries and finishes by taking the capital of an enemy. We all knew when WWII was over because the Germans and Japanese surrendered.

You will never see poverty or drugs surrender. And sadly I think the nutjobs who blow themselves up in the name of a cause wont go away either. You can only hope to change a component that will diminish the threat.

Poverty and Drugs have probably cost more than any war to date and cost thousands of lives. And yet we havent pushed it back much since the declarations.

 

[Vic]

All of them are illusions of propaganda specifically and intentionally designed to erode individual liberty and increase the power of government.

 

[sandorski]

As the word "hero" has been demeaned through overuse and hyperbolic application, so has "war". It is used to stimulate a response from a Society numbed by over-indulgence, over-stimulation, and overly-self-absorbed. It also displays a casual attitude towards Violence, that all problems can be solved with "War" and that is something that should cause all people concern.

 

[Amplifier]

Originally posted by: sandorski
As the word "hero" has been demeaned through overuse and hyperbolic application, so has "war". It is used to stimulate a response from a Society numbed by over-indulgence, over-stimulation, and overly-self-absorbed. It also displays a casual attitude towards Violence, that all problems can be solved with "War" and that is something that should cause all people concern.

Are you saying firemen/military police/cops/guys who refuel jet planes aren't all heroes?!?!

 

[Summitdrinker]

the war on drugs is the worst, declaring war on your own people is the worst.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Amplifier

Originally posted by: sandorski
As the word "hero" has been demeaned through overuse and hyperbolic application, so has "war". It is used to stimulate a response from a Society numbed by over-indulgence, over-stimulation, and overly-self-absorbed. It also displays a casual attitude towards Violence, that all problems can be solved with "War" and that is something that should cause all people concern.

Are you saying firemen/military police/cops/guys who refuel jet planes aren't all heroes?!?!

Just for the fact they are those things? No, Heroes go above and beyond the "call of duty". Serving itself does not constitute Heroism.

 

[Train]

Before debating thier effectiveness, we should nail down thier TRUE definitions, not just thier Literal Meanings.

WAR ON DRUGS:
Is this really a war on drugs? Maybe in some cases, but what has the real result been? Drug use has gone slightly down, but most of that is by more conventional methods like better education, not the traditional "War" part of it. Is this really just an excuse to influence South American countries? It would seem there has been more foreign influence than actual stopage of drug traffiking.

WAR ON POVERTY:
Hasnt made a dent in the % of americans below the standard pverty line. Yet has cost more than all of WWII in inflation adjusted dollars. What has the real effect been? More govt control, more opurtunities for corruption, more burden on working class.

WAR ON TERROR:
Terror is a tactic, you technically cant have a war against a tactic. Thats like having a war against kicking people in the nuts. The name itself is a big public relations- feel good type thing. War against anti-americans? anti-westerners? War against extremism? Who knows. The real enemy? Wouldnt we all like to pick one. In reality, its whoever shoots at us, or stands in the way of us shooting whoever shoots at us. I think both sides of this war are just bating eachother to step over an invisible line, the line that will cause a lot of people to wake up.

 

[StageLeft]

A war on poverty could technically be won, as could one on drugs, but a war on terror is like a war on ugliness. Terror is a mindset and philosophy or dogma. It can't be beaten or bested, only contained. Any time somebody mentions "winning" it, their intelligence automatically drops a peg.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
A war on poverty could technically be won, as could one on drugs, but a war on terror is like a war on ugliness. Terror is a mindset and philosophy or dogma. It can't be beaten or bested, only contained. Any time somebody mentions "winning" it, their intelligence automatically drops a peg.

We havent done it in 45 years since LBJ declared it.

The simply fact of any viable economy is you will have your poor, middle, and rich.

If everybody was rich inflation would spiral out of control. If everybody was middle class then the economy would be stagnant. If everybody was poor then the govt would cease to exist due to lack of revenue generation and industry would crumble due to lack of consumers.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Skoorb
A war on poverty could technically be won, as could one on drugs, but a war on terror is like a war on ugliness. Terror is a mindset and philosophy or dogma. It can't be beaten or bested, only contained. Any time somebody mentions "winning" it, their intelligence automatically drops a peg.

We havent done it in 45 years since LBJ declared it.

The simply fact of any viable economy is you will have your poor, middle, and rich.

If everybody was rich inflation would spiral out of control. If everybody was middle class then the economy would be stagnant. If everybody was poor then the govt would cease to exist due to lack of revenue generation and industry would crumble due to lack of consumers.

I know, it's silly, but still they can at least be theoretically beaten, but to beat terrorism you'd need to really undermine humanity.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: morkinva
We have:

the war on drugs
the war on terror
the war on poverty

It seems to me that we could be doing better in all of these wars. In fact, you might say I think 'we' purposely do worse on purpose, and by 'we' I mean our government(s). For example, I believe the US government makes a lot of money from illegal drugs, and therefore it has no reason the win a 'war on drugs'. But that's just me being the skeptic I am.

I feel the same about the other 'wars', and believe they are all total bull. Am I wrong?

What war on poverty???

 

[glenn1]

A war on poverty could technically be won, as could one on drugs, but a war on terror is like a war on ugliness. Terror is a mindset and philosophy or dogma. It can't be beaten or bested, only contained. Any time somebody mentions "winning" it, their intelligence automatically drops a peg.

How do you "win" poverty when the definition of the term is a moving target? Let's say we give everyone $1 million tomorrow, that just means that people with less than say $1,020,000.00 would be then "poor." You're fighting a quixotic war against a quantitative definition.

IMHO, those who claim there is poverty in the United States simply have lost all ability to distiguish what poverty is. And besides, who's the enemy in a "war on poverty?" Poor people?

 

[GreatBarracuda]

Because it keeps the populace in a "patriotic haze" while the government takes advantage of it to advance its agenda. Very useful. Good? That's questionable.

 

[Cerb]

They're all illusions. All are artificial, created by politicians and (bored?) corporate leaders. Only the war on terror has ANY basis for existing, and it is bieng executed as norhing more than a bad PR stunt. Without teeth, it shall remain an illusion.

Win the war on poverty: get better banktrupty(sp) laws in, which they are specifically doing their best to not give us; make decent real-world education part of schooling; lower taxes; give us back our money (JFK tried), so that inflation might be controlled--even reversed. There will always be poor. However, there should not be such a separation between rich and poor that the poor don't have time to raise kids because of work, and then can hardly care for them or themselves.

Win the war on drugs: legalize them. You're fscking done. That's it. End prohibition, and crime involving the stuff under prohibition goes down to being almost nonexistent.

Win the war on terror: stop supporting Israel, stop supporting half-allies, get out of the Middle East, clean up the DU, and stop having a culture that wants nothing more than to waste energy. Beyond that, there are tons of ways to deal with the fact that there are those who will try to harm us, and the agencies who can do something about it should get the funding that the useless crap has gotten so far, such all the money for airline security. IMO, though, as long as we're over there killing to steal oil, they'll keep trying. As we've seen already, we're not dealing with idiots.

 

[piasabird]

This poll is the biggest load of crap I have seen.

 

[loup garou]

They gotta war for oil, a war for gold
A war for money and a war for souls
A war on terror, a war on drugs
A war on kindness and a war on hugs
A war on birds and a war on bees
They gotta a war on hippies tryin' save the trees
A war with jets and a war with missiles
A war with high seated government officials
Wall street war on high finance
A war on people who just love to dance
A war on music, a war on speech
A war on teachers and the things they teach
A war for the last 500 years
War's just messin' up the atmosphere
A war on Muslims, a war on Jews
A war on Christians and Hindus
A whole lotta people just sayin' kill them all
They gotta a war on Mumia Abu Jamal
The war on pot, is a war that?s failed
A war that's fillin' up the nations jails
World war one, two, three and four
Chemical weapons, biological war
Bush war 1, Bush war 2
They gotta a war for me, they gotta a war for you!

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: Train
Before debating thier effectiveness, we should nail down thier TRUE definitions, not just thier Literal Meanings.

WAR ON DRUGS:
Is this really a war on drugs? Maybe in some cases, but what has the real result been? Drug use has gone slightly down, but most of that is by more conventional methods like better education, not the traditional "War" part of it. Is this really just an excuse to influence South American countries? It would seem there has been more foreign influence than actual stopage of drug traffiking.

WAR ON POVERTY:
Hasnt made a dent in the % of americans below the standard pverty line. Yet has cost more than all of WWII in inflation adjusted dollars. What has the real effect been? More govt control, more opurtunities for corruption, more burden on working class.

WAR ON TERROR:
Terror is a tactic, you technically cant have a war against a tactic. Thats like having a war against kicking people in the nuts. The name itself is a big public relations- feel good type thing. War against anti-americans? anti-westerners? War against extremism? Who knows. The real enemy? Wouldnt we all like to pick one. In reality, its whoever shoots at us, or stands in the way of us shooting whoever shoots at us. I think both sides of this war are just bating eachother to step over an invisible line, the line that will cause a lot of people to wake up.

Hey Train and I actually agree on something. :thumbsup:

 

[0roo0roo]

no war on piracy?

 

[yllus]

Hypothetical: What would replace the 'war on poverty' if it was 'ended'?

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: yllus
Hypothetical: What would replace the 'war on poverty' if it was 'ended'?

United against poverty?

 

[spazo]

War is for polticians to get elected...
War is to increase govn't spending which usually increases GPD...
War is also for the arms companies to make lots of money...
War is to show "I'm better than you"
War is to used to control the population

There are many reasons for war, and yes, you're right(directed towards OP). War is bull but so are a lot of other things in life...

 

[0roo0roo]

well there are legitimate reasons for war. if the police lay down, criminals don't go away.

but yes, "war" as a term is misused on things like drugs.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Vic
All of them are illusions of propaganda specifically and intentionally designed to erode individual liberty and increase the power of government.

Took the words out of my mouth....

I'd also add to influence people to beileve that a big goverment and control is nessicarry.