The war on terror is a stupid PR move by the U.S. Government. By today's definition, the Boston Tea Party was an atrocious act committed by hardened terrorists. Think about it people, how can you declare war on a method of warfare? That is like declaring war on countries who drive on the left side of the road or digging with a flat shovel instead of a round one or drugs Of course our opponents in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere have to resort to terrorist tactics and guerrilla warfare- look at what happens to them when they try to organize an actual army or fight toe to toe (in case you've been in a hole for 15 years, go look up some of the military videos online. They are vastly outclassed). This is not a war on terror; this is a war on Islam! Religious warfare has been occurring throughout human history and we like to think that we have advanced beyond that point, but in reality we haven't. I am just waiting for the day that Christians and Muslims openly declare war on each other again (it's coming, just watch Bush and the leaders of Iran). The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not about oil (look at our gas prices), but was about religionReligion has been the cause of more suffering in humanity than any other cause. C'mon people, why can't we all just get along . I'm in favor of a war on religion in general; if the agnostics and atheists won, it would be the last war humans would ever have.
Guess what man, it is the same old cold war going on with the Superpowers using Muslims as pawns and proxies, the sooner you learn that the more understanding of events you will have!
Think of it like the war on drugs. It costs lots of money, makes a few people rich, and solves nothing. Today there is both: more dugs, and more terrorism than BEFORE we declared war on them
Democracy is not the antithesis of socialism. The only effective way to obliterate these stuffs is zero tolerance. I havn't seen that much lately. However, I do not think a fullscale brutal war on drugs or alcohol is neccessary.
Woah, wait: War on Islam does not exist. War on Terror DOES. Not all Muslims are terrorists. Just some of them. Granted, you are right, religions have been fighting in the past; but the United States and Freedom are -NOT- religions. We are fighting the Al Quaeda (Sp?) Terrorist Organization, NOT the muslims. If we were fighting the Muslims, we'd be all over the middle east, AND in our own country (as I know some personally)... not just Iraq & Afghanistan. I do like that you said this isn't about oil, but it is NOT about religion.
I completely agree that not all Muslims are terrorists. Not all Christians are terrorists. But there is a significant enough population in both religions to have caused sporadic warfare for the last two millenia. What my point is, is that the war on terror (an oxymoron) is actually a veiled continuation of the religious wars that have been occurring throughout human history. Read some of the conservative christian publications (such as World Magazine) or corresponding muslim publications and you will find that they both openly describe the Iraq and Afghani wars as religious affairs.
We've had a zero tolerance policy for almost ten years here in the US and drugs still have had an exponential growth. I agree that the war is unnecessary though.
I believe that wars help the economy grow. (If going well) and the attack on the world trade centers was a great excuse to declare war on Iraq. WW1 - Eco boom of the 20's WW2 - Pulled us out of the depression and a boom afterwards Viet - Don't really know anything about the eco after viet. Persian Gulf - Eco boom of the 90's Persian Gulf 2 - ? I don't believe this war is a religious war. I think it is about revenge, money, and power. Don't get me wrong I support the war and our troops, but I disagree with the way we went about it.
Wars have only helped the US economy because the US is isolated on a continent by itself and other countries have not been able to attack us personally, only our allies. The worst attack on our soil was Pear Harbor and we only lost a few thousand men. Compare that to Russia in WW2 with losses of 27 million. Their economy was shattered by the war. Our benefits tend to come at the expense of other countries. In an ideal world, we would try to build up the entire world instead of just our country.
If crackheads are using cracks in the suburb, there's no zero tollerance in that place. If they were all deported to some island or so, it could be a result from zero tollerance.
Zero tolerance according to conventional definitions in America refers to punishing all abusers with no chance for mercy/appeal. Are you trying to say we should implement much harsher penalties for drug abuse? Deportation? Even decapitation? I agree the death penalty would reduce drug consumption to zero. Everybody addicted would be killed and no one else would start for fear of the punishment. But is that really a policy we want to implement? My guess is you would have to kill of huge swaths of the population. I'd be dead, along with most of my friends. My guess is you probably would too. What we need to do is legalize and regulate drug use so that it can be monitored and controlled by the responsible public, legal businesses and the government. Perhaps put a gigantic tax on it so that it wouldn't be too available and to help pay for treatment programs.
No, I just said that such policy is more effective then the current passive 'war' on drugs if you know what I mean. Etc.. the millitary can clear up LA in a few days. However, I also said that I didn't support such policy.
I'm confused at what you are advocating here then. Are you just stating outlandish possibilities? We could do that forever. Jesus/Mohammed/Buddha could come down from heaven/paradise w/ virgins/ wherever buddha lives and take all the drugs away, but so far that hasn't happened.
A) The Boston Tea Party is not comparable to September 11. The Boston Tea Party was an act of civil disobedience in which the target was to disrupt a tool that the British used to exercise control over the Americans (The Tea Act/taxes). To call the Boston Tea Party an act of terrorism is very close to calling civil rights activists of the 60's terrorists just because they disrupted a tool of control being exercised over them. B) Terrorism is first and foremost an ideology, not a method of warfare. Nazism is/was an ideology, and we have every right to fight against it. Terrorism is not a method of war. Terrorists use guerilla tactics to fight their wars. C) This is not a war on Islam. For you to say that we haven't evolved above religious warfare is preposterous. You fail to recognize one key aspect of religious warfare in ancient and medieval times. They were fought not only between 2 religions, but between races, nations, and continents. There was no mixing of the people, so they were ignorant about each other. With integration (and certainly intermarriage), people realize that religion is no longer important enough to fight wars about. I'm assuming you're athiest, so you believe you're smarter than everyone else and that you "see" more than the "average" person, but athiesm is the most narrow-minded of all ideologies. Nobody knows what's out there, so who are you to say there's nothing. I'll leave you with one quote/thought: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.