I mean, obviously it is literally the "war in Iraq". What I mean is, why do we put the "war on obesity" or the "war on poverty". Yes, they are conflicts, but why is the word "war" abused like that. They are conflicts, yes, but it doesn't make anyone feel better because of that. I just wonder why we are stereotyping everything as a war.
2006-11-08 07:37:05 · 11 answers · asked by otter7 5 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
I'm not sure it is stereotyping, rather metaphorical to a realistic extent. What I mean is to some people getting over obesity is literally a "war" against themselves. And poverty is literally a war to, define war... a major conflict between two things that results in many deaths... so literally poverty is a major conflict of people against the world that results in millions of deaths...
Sorry if I was harsh up there ^^^
2006-11-08 09:27:05 · answer #1 · answered by movie guru, tv master 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Obviously you are not old enough to have experienced Vietnam. It was a full blown war and they only called it a "conflict" to save the country from the "war mode."
All our boys came home maimed with scrambled brains. Not one was the same. They were spat on and forgotten. Iraq should be upgraded to a war so the war benefits would apply. END IT AND ALL WARS!!!
2006-11-08 07:43:18 · answer #2 · answered by Saffernellie 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't know, but I have the opposite problem. Unless something has changed politically, they are still calling Vietnam a 'conflict' and not a war. That's just *wrong*.
2006-11-08 07:38:53 · answer #3 · answered by Shadow 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's a feel good tactic. LBJ declared a 'war on poverty' and poverty is just as bad if not worse than it was then, Reagan declared a 'war on drugs' and drug abuse is more rampant than ever, and Georgie boy declared a 'war on terrorism', while terrorism keeps increasing.
2006-11-08 07:42:47 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The doctrine of having substitute with non violence in no way be seen as a organic,useful mode.the potential of nonviolent approaches - substantial gadget -" starvation strike to dying" observed in particular by potential of gandhi jee in its actual experience can't be a ethical & organic mode.If threatening to kill another is evil then how the threatening to kill oneself to be a desirable & organic ethical gadget to alter the others coronary heart?.Its merely a coercion.Such Gandhian are type of utopians. Non violence potential of Mahavira and Buddha have been sheer out of their spiritualism.He grew to become into so purified that even he had venture even for tiny bugs to no longer be harm what to talk of people.His Non violence grew to become right into a fashion of existence regardless of the shown fact that that's pity that people has no concerns with Mahavira or Buddha legacy
2016-12-28 16:17:34 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Americans love war. This has been taught to them for many generations.said it before and ill say it again"the U.S. is a country that was born because of a war, and will die because of war"
2006-11-08 07:44:11 · answer #6 · answered by Mr Rogers best friend 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's a deterrent to make you look one way while they do something sneaky the other way. And people actually risk and lose their lives over it!!
2006-11-08 07:38:43 · answer #7 · answered by Rachel 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
"War - huh - yeah. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing, say it again come on. War - huh - yeah...
2006-11-08 07:39:42 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
we have the right
2006-11-08 07:45:29 · answer #9 · answered by The Chair Wizard VII 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
To justify it.
2006-11-08 07:38:21 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋