Wasn't there another war, crusaded by the U.S. that was billed as "The War To End All Wars?"?

Question

I asked a question before about war and terrorism being one in the same, and even though I received many answers stating that war and terrorism are two different things, when they broke either thing down and defined the words respectively the same definitions applied to both words.

My outcome is that terrorist events are acts of war, whether directed at civilians or the military, pleanty of civilians are going to get murdered. This is what war is all about and this is what terrorism is all about.

Terrorism is the same exact thing as being on the offensive during acts of war.

The war that was billed "The War To End All Wars" could have been called "The war to end all terrorism," or "The terrorist act that will end all wars."

Are not the two words completely interchangable?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061218064126AAbMgqS

.

Answer 1

Of course there was and there always will be. War is nothing but old men talking and young men dying...

Answer 2

World War I was the war to end all wars, the war which would make the world safe for democracy. Sorry but terrorism is a tactic of war; it's not war itself. The "war on terrorism" was a label which was focus group tested as acceptable to Americans back in 2001. What the policy makers really wanted, and have probably gotten, is a "war against Islam" or Islamofascism.

Answer 3

The "War to end all wars" was WW 1 (1914-1918), The US did not enter until 1917, so I don't think you could say it was "crusaded" by the US.
I do agree with your logic, that "Acts of War" could be classified as "Acts of terrorism". For example, when you bomb a city, in most cases, far more innocent non-combatants are killed than military.

Answer 4

ter·ror·ism (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

war (wôr)
n.
1.
a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
b. The period of such conflict.
c. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.
2.
a. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
b. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.

THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT WORDS WITH TWO DIFFERENT MEANINGS. THEY ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE.

TERRORIST ARE COWARDS THAT INTENTIONALLY TARGET CIVILIANS.

IN A STATE OF WAR CIVILIANS GET KILLED BUT THEY ARE NOT INTENTIONALLY TARGETED.

YOUR PLAY ON WORDS MAY FOOL AN UNIFORMED PERSON LIKE YOURSELF BUT ANYONE WITH A HALF OF AN EDUCATION KNOWS THE DIFFERENCE.

Answer 5

WWI was supposed to be the war to end all war. Also the war for Democracy. Wilson wanted us in the War so bad he coined several phrases to help sell it. However the treaty of Versailles was so bad that it made WWII inedividable.

Answer 6

If you're an American liberal.

If you fail to see the difference between acts of terrorism directed at civilians and acts of war directed at militarily strategic targets, you might be a liberal.

Answer 7

TERRORISM IS USED WHEN THE SIDE USING CANNOT ENGAGE THE OTHER COUNTRIES ARMED FORCES IN COMBAT BECUASE THEY DO NOT HAVE THE WEAPONS OR THE MONEY OR THE GENERAL BACKING OF THE POPULATION.TERRORISM IS PRIMARLY USED AGAINST THE CIVILIAN POPULATION TO INSTILL FEAR.TERRORISM HAS NEVER WON A WAR OR FORCED A GOVERMENT OUT OF POWER FROM THE USE OF SUCH TATICS AND ACTUALLY HAS SHOWN TO WORK AGAINST THE TERORRISTS HAS THE POPULATION TURNS ON THEM OR HAS VERY LITTLE SUPPORT.

Answer 8

i don't think so. only WWI was billed as the war to end all wars because at that time, it was the biggest war in the history of the world