Support the war on *insert evil word here*!

You Might Like

Asked By: HisNameWasMatt

Who liked it? 18

Jahiegel (+)
Modern Pentathalon

Nick S (+)
Boston Coll. Eagles

RenegadeLG (+)
Colorado Rockies

Scott Senay (+)
Pittsburgh Steelers

YankeeDudeL (+)
New York Giants

mavsoccer23 (+)
Detroit Lions

Anthonyg7575 (+)
Florida Marlins

country323 (+)
Pittsburgh Steelers

PeacefulDave (+)
North Carolina Tar Heels

Yossarian (+)
Indiana Hoosiers

... and 8 other fans

Locker Room Results Skip to Next Poll »

Like it?

Support the war on *insert evil word here*!

The war on drugs. The war on terrorism. The war on *insert evil word here*.

Its amusing really. Prior to World War II (to my limited knowledge), we actually had wars. Wars that could be won. Not wars on words, wars where there will be no definite outcomes. Frankly, given the times we're living in, I think its just diluting the meaning of war, and people are using it for the sake of having no better way of phrasing something. People are stupid. So I say at least.

*** I made this to spark debate, so please, voice your opinions.***

| Closed on 06/17/08 at 05:00PM
FanIQ Pts? No | Locker Room | Multiple Choice Opinion Poll

40 Fans
	1. Opinion on our imaginary wars - (0 points)
3%	a. They're designed to raise moral.
3%	b. They're designed with no real design behind them.
15%	c. They're designed with good intent, but ultimately will have to real outcome.
3%	d. They will solve some of the world's problems.
57%	e. All they are are tools for politicians.
20%	f. Comment
	2. Do you think people have named our current war on insert evil word here what they are because they underestimate the intelligence of people and assume they will pay more attention to it because its a 'war'? (0 points)
50%	a. Yes.
28%	b. No.
23%	c. Its more complicated than that. Comment
	3. Will we ever 'win' this war on terrorism? (0 points)
5%	a. Yes.
55%	b. No.
23%	c. I don't know.
18%	d. Its more complicated than that. Comment
	4. Will we ever 'win' this war on drugs? (0 points)
0%	a. Yes.
73%	b. No.
15%	c. I don't know.
13%	d. Its more complicated than that. Comment
	5. Do you think the declaration of wars on unidentified and unclear enemies will change with a new Commander in Chief? (0 points)
20%	a. Yes.
80%	b. No.
	*6. Do you think that claiming a campaign against insert evil word here* rather than claiming an outright war on it would bring more meaning to the cause? (0 points)**
18%	a. Yes.
57%	b. No.
25%	c. Comment

	&nbp;
TOP COMMENT
#1 \| 189 days ago vindog (+)	+10 The government likes to use the word "WAR" as a way of using fear to control the masses. For instance, nobody even knew what "Crack" cocaine was until Ronald Reagan held up a bag of it and said that it was destroying America and declaring a "War on Drugs". This "war" on terrorism is a joke and made to put fear in the minds of Americans. If the CURRENT ADMINISTRATION truly wanted to declare "War" on terrorism, they would not have invaded Iraq, they would have concentrated all of the efforts, financing, and military personnel on the Al Quida Organization and Osama Bin Laden (you do remember who he is right?). When a "WAR" is declared, it is meant to scare Americans to the point of actually supporting the Government on its decisions. Trouble is though, Americans actually believe what they are told and that's the saddest "WAR" of them all.... 1. Comment 2. Yes. 3. No. 4. No. 5. Yes. 6. No.
	Was this comment...? (9)


21 Comments \| Sorted by Most Recent First \| Red = You Disagreed
Vote for your favorite comments. Fans decide the Top Comment (3+ votes) and also hide poor quality comments (4+ votes).
#1 \| 189 days ago vindog (+)	+10 The government likes to use the word "WAR" as a way of using fear to control the masses. For instance, nobody even knew what "Crack" cocaine was until Ronald Reagan held up a bag of it and said that it was destroying America and declaring a "War on Drugs". This "war" on terrorism is a joke and made to put fear in the minds of Americans. If the CURRENT ADMINISTRATION truly wanted to declare "War" on terrorism, they would not have invaded Iraq, they would have concentrated all of the efforts, financing, and military personnel on the Al Quida Organization and Osama Bin Laden (you do remember who he is right?). When a "WAR" is declared, it is meant to scare Americans to the point of actually supporting the Government on its decisions. Trouble is though, Americans actually believe what they are told and that's the saddest "WAR" of them all.... 1. Comment 2. Yes. 3. No. 4. No. 5. Yes. 6. No.
	Was this comment...? (9)
#2 \| 189 days ago theshrewdone (+)	(Edited by theshrewdone) +7 "Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar." 1. All they are are tools for politicians. 2. Its more complicated than that. Comment 3. No. 4. No. 5. No. 6. Comment
	Was this comment...? (6)
#3 \| 189 days ago vindog (+)	(Edited by vindog) theshrewdone wrote: "Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar." +3 or is that George Bush? Sounds exactly like what has happened in this country since 2001 1. Comment 2. Yes. 3. No. 4. No. 5. Yes. 6. No.
	Was this comment...? (3) (1)
#4 \| 189 days ago theshrewdone (+)	(Edited by theshrewdone) vindog wrote: or is that George Bush? Sounds exactly like what has happened in this country since 2001 +2 Yeah, I was going to put something like that in there...but I figured I'd let everyone else decide for themselves. It does scream of how Bush responds when questioned about the Patriot Act and other such pieces of legislation. 1. All they are are tools for politicians. 2. Its more complicated than that. Comment 3. No. 4. No. 5. No. 6. Comment
	Was this comment...? (2)
#5 \| 189 days ago Michael (+)	+3 *Terrorism has been employed in our world since the age of the caveman and with great success. The story of Goliath in 1 Samuel is Terrorism; they trot out this 9 ft. tall guy twice a day for 40 days to belittle the troops of King Saul and it works until a shepard boy who has had enough and knows the storys of a God who will stand by his people stands up and goes forth. The Vietnamese use terrorism against the French and it belittled and destroyed them and it made a near fool of the mightly Americans as well (geez, I hate having to type that). It's just that Washington refused to let us do what had to be done to defeat terrorism AND Washington still hasn't learned the lesson because terrorism is causiing havoc against us and we don't know how to destroy it. We fight it margionally, like Afganistan and Iraq. I've always said that if you want to defeat terrorism; pick one country---the largest provider of terror and pave it!!!* 1. They're designed with good intent, but ultimately will have to real outcome. 2. Its more complicated than that. Comment 3. No. 4. Its more complicated than that. Comment 5. No. 6. Yes.
	Was this comment...? (3)
#6 \| 189 days ago DiabloLoco (+)	+2 I support the war on fat ugly white chicks. Lucky for me, there are MANY other "people" that are willing to blend them in, if you catch my drift...LOL 1. All they are are tools for politicians. 2. Yes. 3. No. 4. No. 5. Yes. 6. Yes.
	Was this comment...? (2)
#7 \| 189 days ago ChristiSunshine (+)	+1 I think MOST of these imaginary wars are tools of politicians, but I think some of these wars need to be fought as well. There will always be drug problems, because quite honestly, drugs start out feeling good...and before you know it some people are hooked on them. We live in an evil world. And I believe evil will never go away. I honestly don't believe terrorism will never go away. However, I don't think that gives people an excuse not to stand up for what's right. 1. Comment 2. No. 3. I don't know. 4. No. 5. No. 6. No.
	Was this comment...? (1)
#8 \| 189 days ago DiabloLoco (+)	I don't understand why we allow Afghanistan to keep growing poppy. I know that it is a big part of their economy, but screw em! No poppy, no heroin. 1. All they are are tools for politicians. 2. Yes. 3. No. 4. No. 5. Yes. 6. Yes.
	Was this comment...?
#9 \| 188 days ago Spcham (+)	Prohibition does't work. 1. All they are are tools for politicians. 2. Yes. 3. No. 4. No. 5. No. 6. No.
	Was this comment...?
#10 \| 188 days ago YankeeDudeL (+)	George Carlin addressed this in many stand up routines. Whatever he says, I'm down w/. 1. All they are are tools for politicians. 2. Its more complicated than that. Comment 3. Its more complicated than that. Comment 4. Its more complicated than that. Comment 5. No. 6. Comment
	Was this comment...?
#11 \| 188 days ago HisNameWasMatt (+)	Michael wrote: *Terrorism has been employed in our world since the age of the caveman and with great success. The story of Goliath in 1 Samuel is Terrorism; they trot out this 9 ft. tall guy twice a day for 40 days to belittle the troops of King Saul and it works until a shepard boy who has had enough and knows the storys of a God who will stand by his people stands up and goes forth. The Vietnamese use terrorism against the French and it belittled and destroyed them and it made a near fool of the mightly Americans as well (geez, I hate having to type that). It's just that Washington refused to let us do what had to be done to defeat terrorism AND Washington still hasn't learned the lesson because terrorism is causiing havoc against us and we don't know how to destroy it. We fight it margionally, like Afganistan and Iraq. I've always said that if you want to defeat terrorism; pick one country---the largest provider of terror and pave it!!!* About the last part of that... It gets a little touchy when you start talking about just annihilating an entire country. If you wipe out a country that, say, is 90% for the training and deployment of terrorism, but there's 10% of the country that is civilians just trying to mind their own business, then aren't we in turn acting like the very enemy we're trying to stamp out? I mean, it isn't like these people make bases of operation and centralize themselves... They're all sorts of mixed up with innocents... 1. All they are are tools for politicians. 2. Yes. 3. No. 4. No. 5. No. 6. Yes.
	Was this comment...?
#12 \| 188 days ago Michael (+)	HisNameWasMatt wrote: About the last part of that... It gets a little touchy when you start talking about just annihilating an entire country. If you wipe out a country that, say, is 90% for the training and deployment of terrorism, but there's 10% of the country that is civilians just trying to mind their own business, then aren't we in turn acting like the very enemy we're trying to stamp out? I mean, it isn't like these people make bases of operation and centralize themselves... They're all sorts of mixed up with innocents... +2 Oh, I just don't have the space for all the details. Sure, If I were the Supreme Commander I would make provisions for all who want to deny alignment with the terrorist alliances to be in "X" number of places by this time otherwise they would meet the fate of the terrorists because we will not allow the Sovereign United States to be put at risk by the action of the terrorists within this country. Harsh, you bet. But it would send a message that warring factions on the people and land of the U.S. will not be tolerated and will not be bandied about in Congress or in Meetings ad nauseum. We will take immediate and powerful action if that country does not take it on our behalf. It that country takes the action you are OUR ally and we will support you beyond measure. If you don't support us we will sever ties with you and treat you as part of the problem and eradicate you along with the terrorist if you don't listen to the rules of battle that we set down. The only other path that we can take as I see it is Isolationism! 1. They're designed with good intent, but ultimately will have to real outcome. 2. Its more complicated than that. Comment 3. No. 4. Its more complicated than that. Comment 5. No. 6. Yes.
	Was this comment...? (2)
#13 \| 188 days ago