war against drugs, war against poverty and the list goes on....?
we catch the small drug dealers while the big dealers gets even bigger!the poor gets poorer while rich gets richer! are we stupid or is there a conspiracy or both?
http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/71678/
2007-12-27 19:23:11 · 9 answers · asked by macmanf4j 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
What an outstanding question? Now to answer this please allow me to switch my hats between peace and war !
Now to win a war you must attack your enemy decisively and hit him hard with all you got? How you ask ? just like WW2, and war with Japan, i have a hard time to even write this, but that was a war US meant to win and End . Two nukes, it 's what it took to achieve the goal ? Let's talk about Nam, did US truly wanted to win and end it? Well, i think not? coz one H bomb would have finished The job and VC's to their knees?
But instead we got engage in a long, hard and bloody mess, with no victory ? Aha, but why? the answer is our economy which has based income on war efforts ?! so every war that we got engaged in after WW 2 follows the same path. Sadly the same goes for the number of casualties .
Regards.
2007-12-27 20:17:22 · answer #1 · answered by iceman 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
war is an extension of politics by other means. This is how it has always been. the strategy of war is to accomplish a particular objective, not to win or loose. My favourite battle, the Battle of the Bulge, was fought by Germany, which was already defeated IN FACT. But, in order to prolong WWII, (NOT to win it, but to avoid LOSING it), the German's (NAZI's) mounted an offensive to gain access to the Allies strategic gasoline reserves. This would renew the cponflict and allow Germany to obtain better terms when they did surrender, which they knew was inevitable.
The objectives of wars fought by the US are three-fold. First, to acheive political ends, Second, to bolster the economy through war related industries, and Three, to promote the idea that the US (the 'super-superpower) is the big brother to the world.
Ordinary citizens and their opinions are not important. What is important is the shadow government of the US and the foreign governments aligned with it through mutual oppression and monetary profit.
So, why the same strategies? Because they are tried and true methods to accomplish the above agenda.
2007-12-30 15:36:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have had several questions deleted by YA that posed the same notion. They claim I was ranting.
Conventional warfare simply doesn't work when an enemy is using gorilla tactics. Conventional warfare in response to gorilla tactics only brings more support into the enemies side.
Let's suppose the KKK based in the USA started blowing up buildings in Canada. In response, Canada invaded the USA. Americans not even remotely in support of the KKK start getting killed all over the place. Would not every American see the Canadians as enemies?
2007-12-28 00:29:32 · answer #3 · answered by Perplexed Bob 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The answer is 'follow the money' once and for always. I used to debate this point on the other side. Not anymore. Who benefits from not winning? If you want the answer to any puzzling question, and if you have the time to research, this will lead you to the answer. Sometimes the digging a person has to do is tedious and worse yet when you get the answer it is STUNNING how little can be done about it. Follow the money, follow the money, follow the money.
2007-12-28 06:51:08 · answer #4 · answered by DagneyT 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The war on drugs targets dealers at the top. I don't know where you thought it was otherwise. The DEA won't even investigate small time drug crime, it's out of their jurisdiction. If they bust someone big, they usually offer that person a chance at a lower sentence by turning in the bigger fish.
2007-12-28 04:05:44 · answer #5 · answered by Pfo 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There always has to be a 'war' to justify tough measures. Presidents declare 'war' to achieve an ulterior agenda.
The War on Drugs, for instance, was started by Nixon. The real purpose of it was not really drugs, in fact as you see drug use has gotten worse and worse. The real purpose of the War on Drugs was to empower police. Before the War on Drugs, police had to knock on a door, they couldn't break it down. Now they can break down doors for a number of reasons beyond drugs. Before the War on Drugs police had to have 'probable cause' to stop someone on the street, but now they can stop people for no reason at all.
The War on Terror takes this several steps further. Bush had the Patriot Act all ready to go when 9/11 happened, and it passed through Congress in -minutes-. Nobody even read it. But what it does is to empower police and prosecutors more and more. It turns out phone companies were turning over our phone records to the govt. BEFORE 9/11. Bush now has the power to arrest anyone he likes and hold them indefinitely with no charges or Constitutional rights. He has suspended habeas corpus, something that's never been necessary in the US. He's authorized torture and basically ignores all international laws and treaties that we used to support.
And the War on Terror makes us no safer from terrorism, just as the War on Drugs doesn't make us safer from drugs.
2007-12-27 19:39:08 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
One can only assume that those in power do not want to make progress on those issues.
2007-12-28 02:15:46 · answer #7 · answered by . 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Its becoming a habit.
2007-12-30 05:54:54 · answer #8 · answered by CAPTAIN BEAR 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because we are ignorant and elect ignorant leaders.
"Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it"
2007-12-27 19:30:50 · answer #9 · answered by emiliosailez 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋