War on ____

[Silver Incubus]

The subject on America's wars on things like Terror, Drugs etc seem to imply unending wars on concepts not actual things. From what I have learned on the way the brain comprehends language and symbolic words, these wars are really such a bad thing. Such people who protest in Anti-War instead of for peace are just doing themselves wrong. So instead of being against war you should be for peace. This is just more along the lines of concept that what you focus you attention on will make such things happen. Although I believe that the 'war on terror' has actually created more fear in people's lives then any solution. Why not be pro unity, or freedom from terror. Much like the drug war which has been going on for a few decades, this new war on terror is just , to me anyways, a way for the government to infringe on the freedoms that people enjoy with peace of mind. I don't believe in the government propaganda about 9/11 which started this whole war on terror initiative.

So my question to everyone is, what is your take on these War's on things, do you think that using the term war is beneficial or detrimental to the cause? Also, this depends on your knowledge of the subject,do these war cause corruption within the agencies involved(for example th DEA have been know to pull someone who has a gram of marijuana in there car, charge them with trafficking and pretty much steal everything that person had because they claim it was all bought with drug money ) ?

http://opposingdigits.com/vlog/?p=1887

 

[Nele]

I think that when someone uses the term "War on ___" it sounds... more powerful.
And in times like 9/11 for example it's exactly what people want, isn't it? They want someone to step up and really *do* something.
"War on ____" sounds like: "People, don't worry, we know exactly what we're doing, we have a good, strong policy that will soon end all of our problems."

Whereas when you say something like "the pro peace movement" (or whatever - I'm just trying ), it sounds more weak, it's less clear and will not convince people that a solution is near. It actually just sounds like a bunch of hippies organized themselves and started a little club, where they can talk about beautiful peaceful ideas but that won't make any difference.

For the record, I'm not a big fan of those "War on ____" programmes. I'm just saying it sounds stronger.

 

[waif]

Yes, you're totally right. We must now declare a War on War!

But yeah, it's because War on ____ sounds strong, like we're really doing something. It's politician-speak. I wouldn't worry about it too much.

 

[WeAreTheLastMen]

I would hesitate to call drugs "a concept" as opposed to"actual things", but I mostly agree. It's certainly not winnable, ever, and creates a lot of problems. But seriously, how can it hurt your campaign to say you support the war on drugs? What are you going to say - "I support the peaceful compromise with drugs?"
The war on terror is slightly different from the war on drugs in that our government does not supply most of the world's drugs. Breaking multiple domestic and international laws, most offensively torture laws, has made the war on terror somewhat of a paradox. If we were to take seriously our quest to "disarm all those who threaten the peace and security of the world", we would be somewhere in the middle of operation "Nuking the fuck out of ourselves" right now. There's no question that we're the source of most of the world's terror.
Furthermore, the term "war on terror" is a scary one for the American people, because, as you pointed out, it will never end. Perpetual war. And when, historically, do executives claim the most power? When are individual rights least valued? During war. Fuck. GW's claiming of more powers than an other US executive in history won't stop with the election, either, even if the Democrats win (Hilary and Obama both said they'd continue to issue signing statements). Precedents are being set that can never be reversed, mostly because of the way the perpetual "war" against "evil" has been portrayed.

 

[Silver Incubus]

Well in my experience "war" typically brings about thoughts of mass death, numerous casualties, restriction of freedoms, and economical strain andor boom.

War on drugs is for example a war on people, usually the poor but not always. This war is not even fought with officers in an army but with a special law enforcement agency. Wars typically were fought for religion, resources, land, or pride itself. The DEA is very corruptible and probabbly is in some respects.
This war is more then likely kept together for the sake of ************** companies, whom profits are above any other industry. Drugs are drugs, they all have their effects and negative responses to their use. Some illegal hard drugs are obviously very harmful, like crack, meth, pcp, whereas heroin use to be used as a painkiller, cocaine was used for various purposes, hallucinogens have been used in cultures all around the world for many years and marijuana plants have so numerous amounts of usage its astonishing.
The real problem with a war on drugs is that it is only an Idealist concept of what is and isn't acceptable for you to choose to put into your own body.

The problem with the war on terror is that who is the terrorists and who isn't? Where does that line get cross between being an "Enemy combatant" or a civilian? Is it when you protest, or research terrorism or read certain books in a library or any seemingly subversive activity in the ever watchful eye of the government?
Uncontrolled power like that can end up in creating misery for a large segment of the population, whom the government are suppose to protect from harm.

 

[derek]

It's simply a stirring term to gain popular support for sinister machinations.

That these wars have overwhelming public support is a testament to how effective their rhetoric has been over the general body politic.

 

[Rintrah]

War on drugs is for example a war on people, usually the poor but not always. This war is not even fought with officers in an army but with a special law enforcement agency. Wars typically were fought for religion, resources, land, or pride itself. The DEA is very corruptible and probabbly is in some respects.

The DEA is just a facet of the corruption; they are a scapegoat for those who truly make the calls: The Department of Health and Human Services. The enforce the laws, and take the brunt of the criticism for the harm they cause and the idiotic laws they enforce, whilst they really have no say in them. Also, the laws are made so that they take FOREVER to change. Easily the GREAT majority of US citizens support complete legalization of Marijuana, yet every attempt to even decriminalize it has taken years, and years, and years, and in the end failed.

This war is more then likely kept together for the sake of ************** companies, whom profits are above any other industry. Drugs are drugs, they all have their effects and negative responses to their use. Some illegal hard drugs are obviously very harmful, like crack, meth, pcp, whereas heroin use to be used as a painkiller, cocaine was used for various purposes, hallucinogens have been used in cultures all around the world for many years and marijuana plants have so numerous amounts of usage its astonishing.
The real problem with a war on drugs is that it is only an Idealist concept of what is and isn't acceptable for you to choose to put into your own body.

That is not the purpose behind the War on Drugs. That's just the message they portray to society, that they are fighting drug abuse to protect society; that is truly very far from the truth. It isn't just "more than likely" kept together for the sake of corporations; it's an irrefutable fact that the War on Drugs is fought almost solely to enrich drug companies, who, through being lobbyists, in turn, enrich the politicians they command.

Proof of that: Marijuana was originally scheduled with no knowledge of its abuse and addiction potential. Immediately following its scheduling, the government funded a study to determine its abuse and addiction potential, promising to remove it if there was found to be no addiction potential (as is legally required of a schedule I, II, or III substance; schedule I requiring extremely high addiction and abuse potential). That study came back with results saying Marijuana and it's psychoactive constituents were not addictive at all, and that it had very low abuse potential. The administration completely ignored the study, and to this day Marijuana remains a schedule 1 substance (illegally). Also, it is unconstitutional for any substance to be controlled without an amendment, as had to occur for Alcohol to be banned. And you know what's more? Many of the active psychotropics in Marijuana are potential extremely effective treatments for brain cancer, and other types of cancer to a lesser degree, yet the laws against it greatly inhibit the progression of research, research which likely could have saved thousands by now. Why? Because if Marijuana was legal many of the (toxic and addictive) pain medications currently mass-manufactured would become obsolete, losing the drug corporations billions.

Secondly, LSD is an extremely highly penalized schedule 1 substance without any addiction potential either, along with the other main psychedelics: Psilocybin, Mescaline, 5-MeO-DMT, DMT, Ecstacy, and all of their analogs. The minimum federal sentence for LSD possession is 5 years in prison. Aside from the amphetamines, all of these drugs are completely non-toxic to humans. I think it is rather obvious, due to the nature of these drugs, the reason they are so illegal: they cause people to question, to wake up and dissent. They were (illegally & unconstitutionally) made illegal in association with an "attempt to overthrow the government" (the children's revolution of the 60s and 70s). In other words: these drugs are so illegal in order to pacify and control the people. Even more, these drugs are some of the most therapeutically beneficial substances known to man. LSD & Psilocybin are the two most powerful treatments for one of the most painful human illnesses (cluster headaches); they stop the pain, and interrupt the cycle of headaches, preventing them from occurring in the future. And all psychedelics are extremely potent and helpful tools in psychotherapy, with nothing else that even comes close to the benefits they can gleam. Yet there is no accepted medical use of any psychedelic.

That is the real problem with the War on Drugs.

 

[Rintrah]

Oops, I meant to quote just "The real problem with a war on drugs is that it is only an Idealist concept of what is and isn't acceptable for you to choose to put into your own body." Why the hell can't I edit my posts?

 

[waif]

Well in my experience "war" typically brings about thoughts of mass death, numerous casualties, restriction of freedoms, and economical strain andor boom.

War on drugs is for example a war on people, usually the poor but not always. This war is not even fought with officers in an army but with a special law enforcement agency. Wars typically were fought for religion, resources, land, or pride itself. The DEA is very corruptible and probabbly is in some respects.
This war is more then likely kept together for the sake of ************** companies, whom profits are above any other industry. Drugs are drugs, they all have their effects and negative responses to their use. Some illegal hard drugs are obviously very harmful, like crack, meth, pcp, whereas heroin use to be used as a painkiller, cocaine was used for various purposes, hallucinogens have been used in cultures all around the world for many years and marijuana plants have so numerous amounts of usage its astonishing.
The real problem with a war on drugs is that it is only an Idealist concept of what is and isn't acceptable for you to choose to put into your own body.

The problem with the war on terror is that who is the terrorists and who isn't? Where does that line get cross between being an "Enemy combatant" or a civilian? Is it when you protest, or research terrorism or read certain books in a library or any seemingly subversive activity in the ever watchful eye of the government?
Uncontrolled power like that can end up in creating misery for a large segment of the population, whom the government are suppose to protect from harm.

The war on drugs targets dealers rather than users, tbh. And the dealers really do need to be stopped, because the distribution of the drugs creates a surprising number of bodies. If anybody's watched the HBO show The Wire, which isn't bad despite the pointless profanity, one of the cops brings up an interesting point when he says something along the lines of

You know, I just don't get the drug thing. I mean, with every other business people sell each other shit and everyone walks away happy. Why do can't it be like that with drugs? I mean, you got people shootin' and stabbin' and robbin' each other. Why's it gotta be like that?

If the drug trade could regulate itself so that it didn't wind up killing almost everyone involved, as well as hundreds of innocent bystanders, I doubt people would consider drugs a big deal - after all, they only hurt the users, and it's a conscious choice, as no one forces you to use them. So the war on drugs is really the war on dealers.

With regards to what WeAreTheLastMen said, it is really freaky. The thing is that the US doesn't really use terrorism, because we don't target civilians. Sure we kill civilians, but they're just "collateral damage/acceptable losses/oopsie." We cause plenty of terror, but that isn't are goal. The goal of terrorism is to cause fear in enemy civilians through use of violence against both the enemy government and it's citizens (my own homemade definition, if anyone wants to critique it). This isn't the goal of the US so much as a side effect.
As far as determining who's friend and foe, that gets increasingly easy - pretty soon, they'll all be foe.

 

[Silver Incubus]

Sure we kill civilians, but they're just "collateral damage/acceptable losses/oopsie." We cause plenty of terror, but that isn't are goal. The goal of terrorism is to cause fear in enemy civilians through use of violence against both the enemy government and it's citizens (my own homemade definition, if anyone wants to critique it). This isn't the goal of the US so much as a side effect.

Well I'm sure if you talked to some of the people in Iraq, they are terrified of US soldiers. And like anything else its never the intention is the actuality of a situation that creates the label. I mean if you steal stuff your a thief even if it is justified to feed yourself. If you kill someone you don't know for anything but self defense it is still murder. If you create terror in a civilian population like the US is in Iraq then they are terrorists and occupiers.

 

[TheAnonymous]

The usage of the term is meant to keep people afraid. The government wants people afraid because then they have more power, and the media wants people afraid because then they will keep watching the news.

Still, the actions taken in those wars are often necessary. The whole war on terror thing is vital. A lot of people criticize America for it but if you don't fight the terrorist, then they'll just get worse and worse and more and more powerful. Radicals are a danger to the world and must be stopped and sometimes certain measures have to be taken to stop them even if they do violate human rights.

 

[derek]

Contentious statements.

 

[Nele]

Still, the actions taken in those wars are often necessary. The whole war on terror thing is vital. A lot of people criticize America for it but if you don't fight the terrorist, then they'll just get worse and worse and more and more powerful. Radicals are a danger to the world and must be stopped and sometimes certain measures have to be taken to stop them even if they do violate human rights.

I personally don't think the war on terrorism was a necessary one. You're absolutely right when you say that terrorism must be stopped or it'll get worse. I just don't think that, for example, dropping bombs on a country where a mighty terrorist might be hiding is the answer? And the war in Iraq was supposed to be another step in the war on terrorism. Because there were supposed to be illegal mass destruction weapons (I'm sorry if this is not the correct term ).
Wooops. They didn't find illegal weapons. They found a whole lot of oil.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Politicians used to promise us utopias to get our support, but now they know we don't believe in that any more and they have changed tactic. Now they make us fear false enemies and create those enemies - while offering to protect us and organise the defeat of these threats. This is also a convenient excuse for reducing our freedoms in the name of security. That's what all this "war on..." language is about.

And the funny thing is: our government actually is the real enemy.

 

[derek]

Our government?

 

[Rintrah]

The war on drugs targets dealers rather than users, tbh. And the dealers really do need to be stopped, because the distribution of the drugs creates a surprising number of bodies. If anybody's watched the HBO show The Wire, which isn't bad despite the pointless profanity, one of the cops brings up an interesting point when he says something along the lines of

If the drug trade could regulate itself so that it didn't wind up killing almost everyone involved, as well as hundreds of innocent bystanders, I doubt people would consider drugs a big deal - after all, they only hurt the users, and it's a conscious choice, as no one forces you to use them. So the war on drugs is really the war on dealers.

Are you kidding me? The reason the drug trade is lethal is because of the War on Drugs. If drugs were legal, individuals would have much easier access to SAFE drugs, and there wouldn't be a huge industry provided to scumbag real criminals.

And it's besides the fact that it is the users choice, not the dealers. The dealer can't control how anyone uses his product, just as a car dealer can't. No death of a drug user is the responsibility of the dealer, unless they are selling a product they know to be contaminated or not truly what they are selling it as, which happens 99% of the time solely because of the illegal status of drugs.

 

[WeAreTheLastMen]

Are you kidding me? The reason the drug trade is lethal is because of the War on Drugs. If drugs were legal, individuals would have much easier access to SAFE drugs, and there wouldn't be a huge industry provided to scumbag real criminals.

Drugs=problems. This is all I know. Anyways, this is irrelevant with respect to the thread's subject.

 

[Rintrah]

Our government?

All western nations (including westernized nations) are governed by the same pathetic force, some to a lesser or greater extent, but still the same.

 

[Rintrah]

Drugs=problems.

And that means you don't really know much, except the bile they teach you in gov't-guided health class, which isn't really "knowing," as 99% of it isn't true.

Drugs are the single-most valuable and beneficial biological resource, aside from food, water, and air, known to man. Hallucinogenics enlighten. Stimulants and depressants inspire. And all have great medical benefit.

And sure it has to do with the topic. It is about the validity of one of the wars, and its motives. All of these Wars on Things are the same filth.

 

[TheAnonymous]

Politicians used to promise us utopias to get our support, but now they know we don't believe in that any more and they have changed tactic. Now they make us fear false enemies and create those enemies - while offering to protect us and organise the defeat of these threats. This is also a convenient excuse for reducing our freedoms in the name of security. That's what all this "war on..." language is about.

And the funny thing is: our government actually is the real enemy.

I partly disagree with what you're saying. I don't think the government is the enemy nor should it be looked at as such. It should be seen as a necessity about which you can freely state your opinions and hopefully try to change for the better, whether by voting, by interaction with other people (who will later vote), by enlisting to a party etc.

Also, the governements don't create enemies. Terrorism is very real and it is out there, and must be fought. So is drug abuse (though I think that a large percentage of drug use isn't abuse) and countless other things. I do think that the governments hides details, highlights things that are less than true and make us turn a blind eye to things they don't want people to object to. This is sometimes necessary but sometimes leads to power abuse by the government, which in turn leads to a lot of needless suffering...