Our prosecution of the war on terror is a joke without a punchline.

We will be attacked on our own soil again by Al Qaeda. What are we going to do then, find the perpeterators and hunt them down?

The war on drugs is a joke.

Supplies are high, prices are better than they've ever been. We put the end-users and mules in jail while the importers and corruption remain free.

Personally, after Iraq II: The Persian Gulf Distraction and Abu Ghraib I don't think we are ever going to 'win the war on terror', just as we will never 'win the war on drugs'.

Declaring 'war' on them only gives us a reason to say we're winning....when we are really losing...

The existence and procreation of each enemy can be directly attributed to our actions, as individuals and a nation. Will YOU take personal responsibility for the creation and maintenance of either enemy?

20,

I'm not sure I understand you on this. If I do, then I think I disagree.

The war on drugs is a joke, absolutely, and we aren't just losing it; we've long since lost it. (Salmo's platform: if elected, I will eliminate most of the crime in this country by legalizing drugs! This of course would undermine the economic well-being of drug lords and U.S. drug enforcement, but everyone else would be better off.)

Unfortunately, the war on terror is no joke at all. It does, of course, have in common with the war on drugs the incorporation of delusion. The delusion is that you can actually declare war on something like terrorism. You can declare war on specifically identifiable people, places, and tangible things, and then blast the crap out it/them.

You can no more effectively declare war on terrorism than you can declare war on democracy. Terrorists can shoot Americans, blow up places and symbolic icons, but they cannot defeat American democracy and values. Democracy and American values are ideas and ideals, and therefore not susceptable to bullets and bombs. Terrorism is an idea/ideal to instill fear through unpredictable actions against non-military targets.

That's why I think a war on terrorism is delusional. Realistically, what we can do is identify those terrorists we are able, and then hunt them down and kill them. Our initial action in Afghanistan was pretty much on track. Bush's mis-adventure in Iraq is pretty much fubar.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Sounds like we are pretty much on the same page, only I'm taking it one step further I guess by trying to assess blame for the existence and procreation of either enemy squarely on our own shoulders as a nation.

I think you explained better what I meant by 'joke' than I could have myself. Of course fighting terrorism is as serious as it gets...IMO its a joke to think we can wage any sort of conventional war against terrorism.

We might as well declare war against snagging......

Actually I think it's a brilliant comparison.

The solution to one is the solution to the other.

Legalize drugs AND legalize terrorism!!

Here's how it would work.

The goverment would set up, or allow private companies to set up "Drug Centers". All the crack heads and heroine addicts could get clean needles, 'clean' drugs, at only 10% over cost, or they could use their 'Drug Stamps' for the majority who are out of work. They could rent (or use their drug stamps) a low cost space in this drug center with their buddies or by themselves and shoot up, smoke, inject all they want. Medical staff would be provided of course. They wouldn't be allowed to drive home while high, but could use public transportation or the new Mono Rail. In fact, there would be a special run of the mono rail called the 'druggee rail' that would be reserved just for them - to help them get to work and their jobs in one peice.

As for the terrorists, they'd be supplied with strap on bombs with FCC regulated detonators. They'd receive goverment grants to take the new Evergreen College courses: Killing Infidels 101, Strap-Ons Aren't just for gays 201, 72 Virgins - they're waiting 301.
Then they'd be sent around the country to blow up themselves and their targets. Their targets are goverment or privately provided buildings away from populated areas called 'Drug Centers'....


PS - this is satire if you didn't pick up on that. I'm not really that sick in the head to think drug users should die....

...but not too sick in the head to think its funny.

:rolleyes:

Is it required to smoke an LB of homegrown to get the comparison? :rolleyes:

Calling them equal is really stretching it... Sure, you can find evidence to suggest some 'cause and effect' patterns between the 2, but that's about as far as it gets.

Sounds like Salmo and H2O need to smoke a few bowls and devise a system to arrest all those terrorists that America caused and then get them all ACLU lawyers to sue America for causing them to kill all those infidels. Once all that is done they can go down to the corner state run crack house and shoot up a couple of 8 balls and when they are good and wasted they can go down to the local justice of the peace and get married. Down the road when Osama Bin Laden is president and they are both dying of aids they can reminisce about the "good old days" when they helped get rid of those "neocon right wing christian fascists.

You don't have to use drugs to understand that jailing users does nothing but cost $$.

See, we don't spend money in the war against drugs very wisely either, just as in our prosecution of the war against terror.

The war on drugs is just a big boondoggle. The ATF is making WAAAAAY too much money on it for the war to ever end.

In perspective, drugs (excluding pot, alcohol, sugar, and coffee) can cause far more death and devastation in this country than terrorists do. Probably should have invaded Columbia first.

Of course the difference being that drugs are a self inflicted hazard versus some asshole blowing you up when you least expect it and ruining a perfectly good day.

amen harley, nothing like a IED to ruin a good day of salmon fishing Bast@rds! I dream daily of being born in the late 1890's with a full tacklebox on the banks of puget sound. That will never happen and my happy arse will probably be fishign the euphrates this time next year. anyone have any hints or tricks?

You don't have to go to jail to understand that drugs are bad for you and those around you.

The American drug consumer is to blame for the proliferation of drugs in my opinion. Education and a culture checkup would do more for the "drug war" than all the other failed policies. Check out MTV for a look at the culture we have. Bich ez and HOs..bling bling and drugs.....Maybe we should declare war on ourselves.

I think you may be on to something there Gpa. The culture check up is what we need more than anything. MTV is a classic example of money driving "culture" (if you can even call it culture). I also think that H2o has a valid point in regards to the "drug war". This is a war that is in the best interest of politicians and the "market" for drugs. I don't think comparing it to the war in Iraq is necessarily a good opinion as I do not believe this is a good "war" for politicians nor is it artificially sustaining a market. That is, if you believe Homeland security is not a market.

I see most people have a hole in their soul and do not know how to fill it constructively or seek help in doing so. We have a society that takes a pill for everything wants an easy fix and treats the symptom not the cause. The war on drugs is attacking a symptom not the cause. But if middle America was told that the cause was inside their homes it would be more reality than they could handle . Like guns we blame inanimate objects for our problems. It is crazy that you can do more time for dealing weed than for killing someone but its a fact.

Remember Alcohol is a vastly larger problem in this country than all the illegal substances combined. And it's legal. The generational thing....I bet cavemen were complaining about their kids and the beat they pounded out. Look at Elvis Presley and his gyrations that were rotting the minds of the youth of the time. Of course alcohol, guns and the crime around the illegal drug trade weren't as prevelent. The war on terrorism, in my opinion, is also being used as a politcal tool and will be for the rest of our lifetimes. 2000 years from now, they may be talking about the never ending US war against terrorism just like Israel versus Palestinians. And, when a political diversion is needed, we will be subjected to terrorism alerts from unamed sources, based upon things we can't tell you about, against unknown targets and on unknown dates. But, the only ones who can kill democracy are us. And we are on that road. In November we reach a fork.

H20,

Yup, same page it looks like.

Phreak,

You made my day! I laughed so hard I had to set my lunch down and explain to my office mate what was so funny. . . . and then I got to your line where you said it was satire.

TK,

What’s an LB? I’m not as informed as you.

GP2,

No thank you. I hope you were just funnin’ me in this post. Some drugs (like tobacco, alcohol, heroin, crack, and meth) are dangerous and don’t appeal to me - excepting alcohol in moderation. However, I’ll defend your rights to use any drugs you want, just like I’d defend your right to free speech. Nor do I recommend arresting terrorists and getting them ACLU lawyers. Engaging in terrorism = forfeiture of rights; therefore I recommend the more sporting approach I described of hunting them down and killing them (not as easy as it sounds).

I’m sure H20 is a nice guy, but I could never get thaaaat wasted. Getting rid of neocon right wing Christian facists sounds attractive; however, I value diversity too much to do that.

You’re right that drug consumers (who create the demand) are much to blame. However, they are to blame only for creating the demand - which some enterprizing capitalist entrepreneurs are duty bound to supply. The folly of the drug war is our government’s complicity, both in thinking we can actually do something constructive about drug usage by making it illegal (actually there is one thing that is somewhat effective; it’s drug education) and then in developing a nationwide anti-drug industry of specialized law enforcement (that now has a self-serving interest in perpetuating itself) that is almost, but not quite, totally ineffective cuz it doesn’t address the root cause of demand.

There will always be a segment of the population that chooses to be unproductive and so extremely hedonistic as to make drug use their way of life. I say, legalize drugs and let ‘em have at it. That way drugs are cheap for them, and they won’t have to break into my house to steal my valuable fishing gear and pawn it for a fraction of its value to obtain their daily fix. And extreme drug use results in shorter life spans, so they won’t be on the dole extracting welfare from you for so long.

Wailuku,

A good point. I’m concerned that Homeland Security is exactly that, a new empire that will become more dedicated to self service (which it will be effective at) than to homeland security, which it cannot be effective at without infringing on my inalienable rights as a U.S. citizen. (i.e. Ben Franklen - “those who would give up freedom for security will end up with neither.”)

Harley,

Right on bro. Tobacco and then alcohol - both legal - cause more loss in the U.S. than all the illegal drugs combined.

TK,

Ta da!! Your quote, “The war on drugs is attacking a symptom not the cause.” You should get an award for that statement. Yes, the war on drugs attacks possession and dealing, but it does absolutely nothing to reduce or eliminate demand.

A similar statement can be made about the war on terrorism; it attacks a symptom - perpetrators of terrorist attacks. Well, at least it could, if we focused on that, but there have been many threads and hundreds of posts on that issue here. I’m absolutely mind blown that our government isn’t putting an ounce of effort into identifying and addressing the root cause of terrorism against the U.S. (I don’t mean to hijack this thread and apologize now if this does.)

I know you and GP2 and some others here seem to be satisfied that the terrorists attack the U.S. simply because they are Muslims and therefore are religiously dedicated to attacking us infidels. I’m probably hoping for too great a leap of faith here, but nonetheless I’m hoping that some of us here, like me, who aren’t buying into that theme, might actually have a point in our expression that some radical Muslims become terrorists who attack the U.S. only for the reason that they see us supplying Israel with weapons that are used in state-sponsored terrorism that kills and otherwise oppresses Palestinians. And that if we addressed that root cause, Muslims in general would have less reason, and therefore be less likely, to support Muslim terrorist acts against the U.S.

Consider that Muslims have been around since Muhammad in the 7th century, or even 4,000 years in one thread you posted to. Doesn’t matter; the U.S. has only been here since 1776, and Muslims have only shown enmity against the U.S. since about 1948 and the U.S and UK creation of the state of Israel. Even if I’m wasting my time here, it seems worth it to say one more time that if the U.S. treated Palestinians as evenly as we treat Israel, most of the reasons that most non-radical Muslims have for hating the U.S. and supporting terrorism against the U.S. would be gone. And our war on terror would be most effectively fought.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo,

LB as in a pound, weight.

I disagree with your conjecture that we are to blame for others attacking us. 1) there are many peaceful ways to go about change and they never tried one. 2) They have used religion as the basis for their claims and as a reason for thir violence. It cannot be justified . As i stated in another thread this country has a long history of quashing people that choose to mix religion and violence as a means to a end.

Would you support the ELF bombing your neighborhood for the wrongs your home imposes on the environment? How about the NA's seizing your property and killing your family for the hundreds of years of wrongs they percieve against tthem?

"Right on bro. Tobacco and then alcohol - both legal - cause more loss in the U.S. than all the illegal drugs combined."


Is this an argument for or against legalized susbstances like drugs, alcohol, and tabocco?

Are alcohol and tobacco bigger killers because they are more readily available, cheaper, and widely used?

So by adding other sustances to that list, we are somehow better off?

I do see both sides of the argument, and dont' have an extreme position on eithe side, but I really wonder about the point you both were making...

I don't know if I was trying to make a point as much as just stating a personal observation. I see the war on drugs as a major waste of time, effort, and taxpayer's money; i.e., a boondoggle.

I fear that the "war on terror" could very easily suffer the same fate if we don't get back on track and refocus our priorities.

Speaking of drugs and terrorists, ironically our displacement of the Taliban has allowed the Afghan natives to begin anew the production of poppy plants for herion. Sheesh, you make strides in one war and create setbacks in another.

good points Salmo...and of course I was just being a dick earlier....

harley you have hit on something that bugs me..the Afghanistan poppy fields...We won't destroy them because it is their biggest cash crop...we would destroy their economy. Kind of like when we supported Saddam when he was fighting Iran...the guys who took our hostages. We have fought on one hand against things while supporting similar things on the other hand for years...Pretty confusing. We are attempting to fight terrorism in other parts of the world besides Iraq but it is obviously alot harder than conquering a third world country.

Sorry to hear the theory that if we just abandon Israel the terrorists will leave us alone...that is an antisemetic theory that is not very wise.

There are going to be a lot of examples of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" in this war on terror, I'm afraid.

I'm not sure about the alcohol analogy...I stopped drinking any alcohol for 2 years and it was so boring that I gavei tup. Now it is much easier to only have one of two....Alcohol has ruined lots of lives and marriages and families. Drugs have done the same. Countries around thee world tht havelegalized hard drugs are not good examples of utopian society. Whether we can legislate morality is another story.

TK,

Yeah, I’m not surprised. I’m OK with agreeing to disagree with you on the entire Muslim and terrorism topics. We have different sources of information that we each perceive as most reliable for forming our respective opinions. I’ll try not to waste your time debating or trying to change your mind.

No I don’t support ELF or NA (whoever they are). When I attempt to explain why I believe a particular form of terrorism occurs does not mean I believe that terrorism is OK by me. I think understanding the cause of something is the first and best approach to dealing with it. Think medical or other scientific research, if you will. For a simple example, I don’t like cancer either, but I think learning that and how nicotine and tar in tobacco smoke cause cancer is a smart way to figure out how to deal with it. Same thing with terrorism.

Phreak,

It’s not an argument for or against alcohol, tobacco, and drugs. Rather, it’s an observation of how two-faced our society and government is toward these things. Truly, I do favor legalizing drugs. Not because I favor drug use, but because the drug war has been, and continues to be, a waste of scarce financial resources, and a loss of human resources in the form of prison inmates that contribute to the increased demand for prison space. I would put people who hurt people in jail. If they want to buy, sell, or use drugs, I don’t much care so long as they aren’t driving, etc.

Pot and hash are legal in the Netherlands, and the parade of horribles predicted by the “let’s legislate morality and behavior” crowd simply hasn’t come to pass. The people who want to use dope do so and pretty much stay out of the way of, and are mostly ignored by, the majority of the population that just isn’t interested. I’m favorably impressed by the pragmatic intelligence of their approach.

GP2,

I don’t recommend abandoning Israel. This is a topic that requires great precision in writing, speaking, reading, and listening. Opposing the state-sponsored terrorism of the Israeli government is not the same as being anti-semetic, anti-Jewish, etc. One of my very best friends is a Jew, for example, who absolutely is opposed to the actions of the Israeli government. She has gone to Gaza twice to work with Palestinians in large part because of her convictions on this issue. Many Israeli citizens are also opposed to their government’s actions against the Palestinians. Understanding the Israeli - Palestinian issue requires the knowledge that there are more moderates among both the Jews and Palestinians, but that the story to the world is made by the radicals and extremists on both sides.

You won’t find any statement by me recommending abandonment of Israel, nor hopefully any anti-Jewish statements. I do try to be very precise in my distinction. I simply recommend that we treat Palestinians and Israelis equally. What a concept, eh? Could, would, the U.S. dare treat world citizens equally? Too many people who are close to both Palestinians and Israeli Jews have repeated the theme that the U.S.’ one-sided support of the Israeli government, at the direct expense of the Palestinians, has done more than anything else to fan the flames of Arab hatred of the U.S.

Please tell me why it’s unwise to identify the root cause of terrorist acts against the U.S. and then trying to address that cause. As described in other posts in this thread, we seem very capable of attacking the symptoms of terror in the way we went after Al qaeda and the Taliban. Other threads have described that we might not be able to find and kill terrorists faster than new ones are produced and recruited. Would you agree that it might be desirable to create conditions that result in fewer terrorists being created and recruited in the first place, provided the cost is no skin off our nose, so to speak?

Shifting gears slightly, allowing the Afghans to grow opium poppies is totally consistent with our two-faced attitudes toward drugs. By allowing the poppy growing, we help keep the U.S. drug enforcement and prison industry well employed. We’ve allowed both government and entrepreneur empires to develop. Legalizing drugs (which would reduce wholesale demand due to lack of drug interdiction) would leave an economic void that would cause some influential people to displeased, probably causing them to take political action in this country. Our national behavior in this regard does conform to my contention, however, that nations don’t have friends; nations have interests. They act on behalf of those interests, going to war with Iraq against Iran one day, with Iran against Iraq the next if it suits us. Or flip-flopping on Afghan poppy growing. Face it, it’s not like we actually care about anybody.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Nothing wrong with this theory at all. I just wonder if the way we support Israel is not just a convenient scapegoat? The Palestinians that Israel is fighting and attacking are the radical ones who want to end the existence of Israel. That is not a theory. So we should support them? These people use the same tactics as other terrorists worldwide. Comparing Israel's hard line against these killers to terrorists is wrong in my opinion. I am still convinced, unfortunately, that one side is going to have to eliminate the other side or this war will never end. The sides are too entrenched in their hatred.

How would you level the playing field? How would you have the US give equal treatment to the Palestinians?

So many of the terrorists are living in a different century than the rest of us. The 6th century perhaps. They live a religion of death and I find it hard to imagine reasoning with any of them. If we walkled away from Israel and swithched our aliance over to the Palestinians do you honestly believe that they would be our friends?

"These people"

"religion of death"

Again....you fail to distinguish between Muslims's and terrorists/Palestinians and terrorists...this is why I call you a racist.

.

GP2,

I used to suggest, slightly t.i.c. that we level the playing field by giving the Palestinians all the same kinds and quantity of military equipment and weaponry that we’ve given the Israelis over the last 50 years. As least we couldn’t be accused of playing favorites. I don’t make that suggestion in complete seriousness, but if there does become an independent and free Palestinian state, it will have to have its own military and police forces, so some military assistance probably does make sense.

You say that the Palestinians Israel attacks are the radical terrorists. Really? Perhaps that is the principle focus, but the Israeli government has a pretty high tolerance for collateral damage, given that more innocent women, children, and other non-combatants are killed than are member of Hamas and other extremist elements. I think knowingly executing military operations - as the Israeli government does - that will kill innocent people along with potential radical targets meets the definition of state sponsored terrorism. The rationalization is that only radicals are targeted (hard to believe with the wholesale destruction of houses last week; houses that are not inhabited by radicals), but the expected collateral damage is the deliberate infliction of fear in hopes of modifying population behavior. These are not Israeli actions of self defense. They know it, and they do not care.

Of course Palestinian radicals use terrorist tactics. What else is available to them? They cannot have, train, and employ an army to go head to head with the Israeli military. Israel has, with U.S. support, created a Palestinian population so oppressed, and so desperate, some of them are willing to try anything to improve conditions for their people. Unfortunately, they tend to be young and impressionable and wrongly conclude that they can achieve their aims by killing Israelis. They would be right only if they could kill enough of them fast enough. (Hmmm, sort of like our addressing the symptoms of terrorism. But we also can’t kill enough of them fast enough to prevent the production and creation of even more of them.) It is a stalemate. Israel cannot kill Arabs fast enough to secure its safety by force. They can’t nuke them all; too many live in close proximity to Israel and in Israel. The Arabs can’t eliminate Israel, as Israel is believed to be more than willing to take all near and adjacent Arab nations with it if Israel is going down. They really only have two choices: continued status quo of killing each other a few at a time, or, peaceful coexistence.

Palestinians can only achieve their aims via the support of other nations of the world, both active support and by condemning Israel’s actions against them. They also need people like you to know them. You believe they live in another century and live a religion of death. I’m sorry to judge you, but you’re exhibiting ignorance here. The few Muslims I’ve met attended high school and college; a couple have PhDs. I can tell you that they live in the same century as you and I. And they would contest your “religion of death” as being no more accurate than someone saying Christianity is the religion of death. Your willingness to classify them all as radicals and extremists might be convenient for you, but along with not being accurate, it doesn’t really serve your interests if your interests include peace in the parts of the world inhabited by Muslims. At one billion and increasing, it would probably serve all of our interests to better understand Arab people. You really need to get out and meet 100 or so Palestinians or Muslims and decide for yourself how many of them you might actually be able to reason with.

We don’t have to walk away from Israel to earn the respect of major Arab representatives. I think we need mainly treat Israel and Arabs equally, like we would be required to do if they were both states within the U.S. Equal. Without favoritism. The action would speak louder than any words of any U.S. President or Secretary of State. It would probably convey a lot of shock value, given that they’re so accustomed to U.S. opposition or at least neglect of Arab interests. The more Palestinians and Muslims I’ve met, the more I’m convinced our ideas of them are based in ignorance.

Thank you for having this discussion.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

sigh....Oh H2O...I swore I would refrain from name calling even though you are such an inviting victim......yeah....let it go...you can't help yourself.