Is the 'war on terror' like the war on drugs, and the war on poverty?

Question

a pathetic joke, sound bite by discredited politicians bought by the gullible?

Answer 1

well, since you think that no prisoners should be at GITMO, I guess I understand that you think that the "war" is a joke...its all a big joke to you, isn't it?

Answer 2

The War on Terror is very much like the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty in that they are more made up of euphemisms than productive action. I completely agree on this point.

However, what is more troubling is all three so-called “Wars” are driven by ulterior motives that are impelled by corporate objectives, and furthermore, the fact that these efforts are being propelled by monetary aims is so transparent even the least inquisitive mind can see it.

The War on Poverty seeks to sustain a permanent lower class, whose cheap labor benefits corporate fat cats, the War on Drugs endeavors to monopolize drug sales for pharmaceutical giants, and the War on Terror allows for capital growth in the areas of defense contracting; oil extraction, refinement, and transportation; construction; and a whole host of other business ventures.

The only “War” that our government has committed themselves to is the “War to Deceive The American Public”.

Answer 3

Actually, the War on Poverty was going pretty well. Johnson's social programs were doing a good job of cutting down the percentage of poor in America. That came to a screeching halt when Ronnie Reagun decided it was more important to make the rich richer faster. Poverty declined a bit under Clinton with the bi-partisan Welfare reforms, but is back bigger than ever under George the Third.

The War on Drugs and the War on Terror are identical twins and perfect examples of the Politics of Fear. Take a real problem, blow it up out of proportion, and demand extraconstitutional powers to fight it. Most importantly, pick a strategy that appears proactive but which won't work or, in the case of the Drug War, one that is actually counterproductive. When the inevitable failure occurs, blame critics and the Constitution and seek even more extraordinary powers.

Answer 4

Wow you asked fairly some questions. enable me try. you are able to no longer win a warfare on terrorism for the comparable reason you are able to win a warfare on strategic surgical air strikes. Terrorism is a tactic. in comparison to assert communism or fascism that's an ideology or form of governing. The warfare on poverty in all probability has the appropriate possibility, the subject is we've under no circumstances and don't intend to combat it with the comparable verve as militia wars. There oddly adequate isn't lots funds for contractors in a warfare on poverty. i'm no longer a liberal it somewhat is purely actuality. militia conflict would be very rewarding. The warfare on drugs, it somewhat is a hard one with the aid of fact drug use/abuse like terrorism is a tactic for confronting another situation. human beings use drugs (criminal and unlawful) with the aid of fact they are in soreness or extra useful reported with the aid of fact something approximately them actual or psychological would not sense precise. If I also have a headache and that i ordinary save taking aspirin i'm going to under no circumstances locate that I also have a tumor becoming till I even have the two ruined my device with aspirin or die from the ruptured tumor. The final question is by using some distance the least difficult. A doctrine of preemptive strike, whether i've got self assurance in it, which i do no longer, is risky for the international community, with the aid of fact it places every person (alongside with present day allies) at hazards for our ire. you spot with the aid of fact probably each enemy ought to be making plans to strike and for this reason I even have the best to strike first. in addition to because you in all probability have "former acquaintances" from grade college, college, and artwork everywhere even your present day acquaintances are skill enemies and there fore skill threats. wish I helped.

Answer 5

All three are largely metaphorical 'wars' that cannot possibly be 'won,' yes, though for different reasons.

In the 'war on drugs,' for instance, the enemy is, primarily considered to be drug producers and distributors - but, they're really just filling demand by users, and the only reason that causes so much trouble is because they're illegal. Make them legal, and demand would be filled much more safely and efficiently by the existing pharmacuetical and tobacco industries.

The 'war on poverty,' OTOH, took aim not at an artificially-induced problem, but at an intractible problem as old as civilization itself. It's failure was inevitable.

The 'war on terror,' conersely, seems more like a real war - we were attacked by terrorists - after all. The problem is that terror (terrorism) isn't the enemy, it's just the means /used/ by the enemy. Fighting a war on terror in response to 9/11 is like fighting a 'war on bombs' in response to Pearl Harbor. It's nonsensical and doomed to failure.

Answer 6

The war on terror is actually the war for profits.

Answer 7

No. We actually kill and blow up stuff as we should have in the other two. Well maybe not so much in the war on poverty. But if you started shooting at poor people they would surely get enough money to buy a gun and shoot back so it might work there too.

Answer 8

Bumper sticker war on terror is purely a mental entrapment to allow Dubya to do what he wants in the M.E. unfortunately more people die from drugs and poverty of war than any terror by a 100 fold. Look at Dar fur and the terror they are experiencing? what has this administration done for the war on terror? he is doing absolutely nothing to implement his bumper stick war there in Sudan. What a shameful president we have.

Answer 9

I asked this same question a month or so ago and stated along with the question if it is indeed true, we're not doing so good in the wars department. That would make us oh for three. I guess we won't be making the playoffs.

Answer 10

Thank you for such a profound question. The "wars" that you have mentioned were never meant to be won, only "fought". We will never win these "wars", they are much too profitable while ongoing.

Answer 11

yes and no.

a pathetic joke, definitely. But this really is a "war", and people really are dying.

Our government has sunk so low. I hope we're saved in the next election.