Why do Republican presidents rally behind un-winnable wars?

Question

Regan: The war on Drugs
Bush: The war on Terror

These are two things that will never go away. As long as there are humans, there will be drugs and terrorism. What's the point of declaring war on behaviors and ideas that will persist no matter what? Nobody will ever rid the world of drugs, and the more terrorists you kill the more spring up in their place. And on the note of terrorism, why is the focus on Islamic terrorism? There is plenty of domestic terrorism as well. Are countless neverending wars in the middle east going to solve that problem as well?

How about a war on sex next?

Answer 1

Are you saying that we must ignore the use of drugs and ignore terror?

Answer 2

Governments have wars to achieve a certain end. If there is no genuine need for war, one will certainly be invented.
Now it would have made a lot more sense for Bush to declare war on Osama, or on Al qaeda. But to declare war on a word- terrorism- which is not only broad in its definition, but also subject to misuse, is ignorant and misguided.

Answer 3

War is a very profitable business, which is very appealing to big business conservatives...do you think it's a coincidince that many of our leading conservatives are board members for companies reaping the profits of war?

In terms of the war on terrorism, you are correct...the more you kill, the more that will spring up...here's a novel idea...how about we NEGOTIATE....maybe if America, Israel, G.B, and other super powers actually changed some of their policies, the terrorist groups would also change theirs...

Of course, it's too easy to sell the U.S. public on the catch phrase....never negotiate with terrorists....

I guess we can wait and see how effective Israel's bombing campaign has been in eliminating terrorism in Lebannon.

Answer 4

Since the "war on drugs" is not really a war I will not address that one.

Korea was not an unwinnable war, neither was Vietnam, nor is islamofascism. What makes the war unwinnable is when Americans lose their will to support the effort. Losing the will is based on a small group of pacifists like Chomsky and then of course the socialists in Congress supported by the media.

Unfortunately Americans are mostly sheep and are lazy, they will not do their homework instead relying on what they see on TV to believe. Once the media began to support the socialists in Congress who had begun to support the pacifists in order to get votes, it was plastered on everything you see or read, we can't win the war, which of course is a lie.

Answer 5

You better look back through history to our worst disaster... Vietnam. The war on drugs and terror are two wars WORTH fighting... most others are not!

Answer 6

A joint never hijacked a plane and flew it into a building. A joint never blew itself up in a crowded restaurant.

Clinton continued to prosecute the "War on Drugs". Kennedy and Johnson both got us more involved in Vietnam (the first "un-winnable" war). So, it's not a republican/conservative versus democrat/liberal issue. Hey, everybody's gotta have something to do.

Answer 7

So we should just roll over and let the terrorists take the world over, sure.
Terrorisim and the drug war are apples and oranges. I would legalize drugs. Bush is way too soft on terrorism. I would hit them so hard they would have blood dripping from their a**es if I was in control.

Answer 8

Because we want to decrease the threat to be as low as possible. We all know that those wars won't end but at least they will be contained

Answer 9

it scare the voter people want to believe there leaders