When we use the term "war on terror" we are playing games with words. Unfortunately, it has an impact on the way we think.
"War" is what we fought in WW II, Vietnam and Afghanistan. What we're doing in Iraq was a war, but it had nothing to do with terrorism. Now it's a high-intensity peace-keeping operation. (No disrespect to our soldiers and airmen, who are to be commended.)
By using this misleading term, we exagerate the situation and fool ourselves into taking drastic actions. In order to start thinking in productive ways, we should change the language we use.
How about some different terms, like
-- The struggle for peace and tolerance
-- The campaign to replace fanaticism with education
-- The movement to protect civilians and non-combatants
-- The drive for airborne safety
If you have a suggestion for a better term, do you have any ideas on how to promote its usage?
2006-10-05 07:54:47 · 5 answers · asked by Tom D 4 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Sorry about the typo - it should be "exaggerate"!
2006-10-05 07:57:06 · update #1
"united9198" - Exactly what does your term ("weak tit dems") mean?
You seem to have some gender confusion issues - does that make you need to exaggerate your manhood through aggression?
2006-10-05 09:33:06 · update #2
How about, "let's get over our paranoia and leave the world in peace".
Seriously, they're good suggestions.
The campaign for the brotherhood of man.
2006-10-05 08:30:55 · answer #1 · answered by The Gadfly 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I like "The struggle for peace and tollerance" the best, if only we could spray ''tollerance'' in to the atmosphere, what a world it could be.
I don't think "The campaign to replace fanaticism with education" is valid because we're not actually doing that. Its a great idea, but it isn't the direction we're going, at least thats not how its been outlined and it would take a serious effort to get it underway.
How about:
- World War III or IV
- The War on Terrorists (a slight change but a significant one, as you can't wage a war on an ideology, at least not with guns)
I think to promote the usage of a new term will be difficult. Other than mailing it to news agencies and think tanks, you'd pretty much need to know someone who was in a position to use it on a regular basis, meaning they'd have to be in the media.
Good ideas.
2006-10-05 08:12:09 · answer #2 · answered by Hans B 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Its not just the language that is wrong, the way this so-called "struggle" is being conducted is deeply flawed too. If we really want to spread peace and tolerance then why are we spending $300 billion on bombs and missiles? If you want to catch a criminal you don't bomb a country. Granted, we lost people as a result of a dastardly terrorist attack, but terrorist are hardly ever deterred by invasions. Terrorist are defeated by cooperation not confrontation. Telling people that you are "either with us or you are with the terrorists" is hardly the appropriate way of gaining trust and cooperation from others.
My suggestion is to not only change the name, but also change the strategy. If you find out that men, women and children were raped and tortured in US-run prisons abroad, you don't fill the airwaves over the Middle East with positive information about the US, you end the rapes and torture.
2006-10-05 08:36:19 · answer #3 · answered by Whatever 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Anti-abortion has become Pro-Life, Laws to take away our rights are called The Patriot Act, The Resistance Forces in Iraq have become the Insurgents, Stealing Oil by Bush and Cheney have become War on Terror.
People use noble sounding terms to put their own spin on unpopular ideas.
2006-10-05 09:03:12 · answer #4 · answered by Jabberwock 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I like a "campaign to expose weak tit dems"
2006-10-05 08:29:41 · answer #5 · answered by united9198 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋