Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 8/20/2004 4:13:39 PM EST
The War On Terrorism: Has It Become the Next War On Drugs?

Discuss.....
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 4:14:37 PM EST
hmmm... can we smoke terrorists?

Link Posted: 8/20/2004 4:24:17 PM EST
The way the media and politicians are playing off of the "War on Terrorism" is similar to how the media and politicians played the "War on Drugs" in the 80's and 90's. Greatly inflate the issue and then use it as a campaign tool. I'm not saying that terrorism is a nonexistent threat, but I believe they are blowing it up to be a bigger and more urgent problem than need be.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 4:28:46 PM EST
Yes.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 4:29:57 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 4:33:19 PM EST

Originally Posted By livefreeordieNH:
hmmm... can we smoke terrorists?




SURE,SMOKE 'EM ALL..........LIGHT 'EM UP WITH YOUR BLACK RIFLE.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 4:35:40 PM EST

Originally Posted By HighCaliber:
The War On Terrorism: Has It Become the Next War On Drugs?

Discuss.....



I don't see many dopeheads crashing planes into tall buildings.

ANdy
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 4:36:50 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 4:44:51 PM EST
The only relationship I could possibly see is that a lot of money and resources are being used to fight both.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 4:58:42 PM EST
Interesting concept... I'll buy in to some extent.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 5:06:22 PM EST

Originally Posted By HighCaliber:
The War On Terrorism: Has It Become the Next War On Drugs?

Discuss.....

I reject your premise outright. It's lame.
That you even ask it tells me you know next to nothing about EITHER topic.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 5:10:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By HighCaliber:
The War On Terrorism: Has It Become the Next War On Drugs?

Discuss.....



Way too early to tell.

Link Posted: 8/20/2004 5:10:48 PM EST
In a peripheral sense only. That is it will/may be used to abuse civil liberties beyond what is necessary.

Link Posted: 8/20/2004 6:02:23 PM EST
No, for one simple reason: the war on drugs is doomed to fail because DEMAND for drugs is so high and always will be. That means there's a constant high profit as long as drugs are illegal.
There is very little profit to terrorism and what profit exists is funneled back into terror. People do terroristic acts for political or religious reasons, not profit...and history has shown us that, while it takes a long time, political and religious reasons can change. Profit motives NEVER change.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 6:09:05 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/20/2004 6:10:15 PM EST by raven]
No, it's become the next World War.

www.commentarymagazine.com/podhoretz.htm
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 2:57:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By Atencio:
The only relationship I could possibly see is that a lot of money and resources are being used to fight both.



How about this? Neither is an actual war. War requires a declaration by congress. We can say that we are fighting terrorism, just as we are fighting "drugs", but neither is a war. Why is this important? Associated with these "wars" are both massive expenditures and degradation of liberty. Without clearly defined success in either conflict, there is no endpoint for the costs in money or freedom. How long has the "war on drugs" been going on?
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 3:00:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By kill-9:

Originally Posted By Atencio:
The only relationship I could possibly see is that a lot of money and resources are being used to fight both.



How about this? Neither is an actual war. War requires a declaration by congress.



Wrong. The war on terror is not just one actual war, but so far two and both have been approved by congress.
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 3:03:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By kill-9:

Originally Posted By Atencio:
The only relationship I could possibly see is that a lot of money and resources are being used to fight both.



How about this? Neither is an actual war. War requires a declaration by congress.



Wrong. The war on terror is not just one actual war, but so far two and both have been approved by congress.



More to the point, how do we know we've won the "war on terror" and can, therefore, restore our lost civil liberties, demobilize activated military reserves, and reduce spending associated with the "war"?
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 3:07:41 AM EST

Originally Posted By kill-9:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By kill-9:

Originally Posted By Atencio:
The only relationship I could possibly see is that a lot of money and resources are being used to fight both.



How about this? Neither is an actual war. War requires a declaration by congress.



Wrong. The war on terror is not just one actual war, but so far two and both have been approved by congress.



More to the point, how do we know we've won the "war on terror" and can, therefore, restore our lost civil liberties, demobilize activated military reserves, and reduce spending associated with the "war"?



I think most people in the government and the population would consider the war won if Al Quaeda and all of its associated groups was destroyed.
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 3:13:23 AM EST

No, for one simple reason: the war on drugs is doomed to fail because DEMAND for drugs is so high and always will be. That means there's a constant high profit as long as drugs are illegal.
There is very little profit to terrorism and what profit exists is funneled back into terror. People do terroristic acts for political or religious reasons, not profit...and history has shown us that, while it takes a long time, political and religious reasons can change. Profit motives NEVER change.


+1
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 3:26:59 AM EST
Yes it will, and our gubmint will be just as inneffective in fighting it. Look at the crappy inefficient gubmint run security at airports and the no security at the borders and ask yourself, " Is this what I pay my taxes for??"
Our military may or may not know how to fight a guerrilla war in another land, but our gubmint knows nothing or is unwilling to really do what it takes to protect us. Keep in mind that terrorists don't really threaten the gubmint. Its not like they are going to start a revolution. What they threaten is the general populace and the economy.
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 3:31:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By widmn:
Yes it will, and our gubmint will be just as inneffective in fighting it. Look at the crappy inefficient gubmint run security at airports and the no security at the borders and ask yourself, " Is this what I pay my taxes for??"
Our military may or may not know how to fight a guerrilla war in another land, but our gubmint knows nothing or is unwilling to really do what it takes to protect us. Keep in mind that terrorists don't really threaten the gubmint. Its not like they are going to start a revolution. What they threaten is the general populace and the economy.



So much ignorance in two little paragraphs.
You REALLY believe that threatening the economy isn't the same thing as threatening the government?
You can't actually be that naive, can you?
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 3:40:01 AM EST
Yes, in the sense that the majority of public actions are a sop to the "sheeple". The actual day to to day taking it to the terrorists is what will win this war, not strip searching blue hairs from the midwest. As far as securing our homeland, if this was so important why are the borders so porous?

Truly fanatical enemies don't count the cost, they will sacrifice themselves to hurt us. It is very hard to stop these kinds of people. A well armed populace would be a better defense than the few and far between LEO and military men and women who are tasked with this responsibility.

Lotsa show , not so much go= typical American war on something(terror, drugs, illiteracy, hunger homelessness, etc)

96Ag
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 5:35:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By kill-9:

Originally Posted By Atencio:
The only relationship I could possibly see is that a lot of money and resources are being used to fight both.



How about this? Neither is an actual war. War requires a declaration by congress. We can say that we are fighting terrorism, just as we are fighting "drugs", but neither is a war. Why is this important? Associated with these "wars" are both massive expenditures and degradation of liberty. Without clearly defined success in either conflict, there is no endpoint for the costs in money or freedom. How long has the "war on drugs" been going on?



War on drugs? Ask "Ollie North." He cooridinated plenty of flights of cocaine to Ca., Tx., and Fl. to assist the condanistas.(sp) The Dem. Congress (majority)did make "an act of Congress" prohibiting the Pres from committing monies to fund bananna republics. So, to get the money to get the guns (the guns that didn't come via BCCI), OUR gov. let the Sandanestas sell their coke in the good 'ol USA. You'll recal, that was in the Regan admin. Bush Sr. was VP then, and one of the first things Bush Sr. did when he got in office was to pardon O. North. From my point of view, when the White House condones the sale of drugs there "is no war on drugs." Ok. That was then....what difference does it make that it was GW's "Dad" that was in office then .... ?
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 6:19:05 AM EST

Originally Posted By Goshawk:

War on drugs? Ask "Ollie North." He cooridinated plenty of flights of cocaine to Ca., Tx., and Fl. to assist the condanistas.(sp) The Dem. Congress (majority)did make "an act of Congress" prohibiting the Pres from committing monies to fund bananna republics. So, to get the money to get the guns (the guns that didn't come via BCCI), OUR gov. let the Sandanestas sell their coke in the good 'ol USA. You'll recal, that was in the Regan admin. Bush Sr. was VP then, and one of the first things Bush Sr. did when he got in office was to pardon O. North. From my point of view, when the White House condones the sale of drugs there "is no war on drugs." Ok. That was then....what difference does it make that it was GW's "Dad" that was in office then .... ?



What an utter load of bullshit. You wouldn't sound credible even if you knew that it was the "contras," not the "condanistas."
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 6:42:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By Goshawk:

War on drugs? Ask "Ollie North." He cooridinated plenty of flights of cocaine to Ca., Tx., and Fl. to assist the condanistas.(sp) The Dem. Congress (majority)did make "an act of Congress" prohibiting the Pres from committing monies to fund bananna republics. So, to get the money to get the guns (the guns that didn't come via BCCI), OUR gov. let the Sandanestas sell their coke in the good 'ol USA. You'll recal, that was in the Regan admin. Bush Sr. was VP then, and one of the first things Bush Sr. did when he got in office was to pardon O. North. From my point of view, when the White House condones the sale of drugs there "is no war on drugs." Ok. That was then....what difference does it make that it was GW's "Dad" that was in office then .... ?



What an utter load of bullshit. You wouldn't sound credible even if you knew that it was the "contras," not the "condanistas."



Yes, thanks for the correction! "CRS" is setting in. If you dispute what I've said then, you should check the facts.
Just as I 'forgot the names "Contras, Condanistras," Pres. Regan (rip) said the same thing..."I don't remember.." ...... check the facts......... corruption ain't anything new.
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 6:43:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By HighCaliber:
The War On Terrorism: Has It Become the Next War On Drugs?

Discuss.....




Kids iritate me.

SGtar15
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 6:44:30 AM EST

Originally Posted By Goshawk:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By Goshawk:

War on drugs? Ask "Ollie North." He cooridinated plenty of flights of cocaine to Ca., Tx., and Fl. to assist the condanistas.(sp) The Dem. Congress (majority)did make "an act of Congress" prohibiting the Pres from committing monies to fund bananna republics. So, to get the money to get the guns (the guns that didn't come via BCCI), OUR gov. let the Sandanestas sell their coke in the good 'ol USA. You'll recal, that was in the Regan admin. Bush Sr. was VP then, and one of the first things Bush Sr. did when he got in office was to pardon O. North. From my point of view, when the White House condones the sale of drugs there "is no war on drugs." Ok. That was then....what difference does it make that it was GW's "Dad" that was in office then .... ?



What an utter load of bullshit. You wouldn't sound credible even if you knew that it was the "contras," not the "condanistas."



Yes, thanks for the correction! "CRS" is setting in. If you dispute what I've said then, you should check the facts.
Just as I 'forgot the names "Contras, Condanistras," Pres. Regan (rip) said the same thing..."I don't remember.." ...... check the facts......... corruption ain't anything new.



You made the allegation, you back it up. Post your facts, don't tell others to hunt down the source of your prattlings. That's the way it works....make assertion....back up with facts.
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 6:46:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By Goshawk:
If you dispute what I've said then, you should check the facts.
Just as I 'forgot the names "Contras, Condanistras," Pres. Regan (rip) said the same thing..."I don't remember.." ...... check the facts......... corruption ain't anything new.



First of all, it's "Reagan." I mean come the hell on. I can understand misspelling a foreign word, I can understand misspelling a hard-to-spell word, but for Christ's sake, the guy was the PRESIDENT!
Second, I HAVE checked the facts, and the fact is there is no proof that either George HW Bush or Oliver North had ANYTHING to do with drug smuggling. You're buying into the load of bullshit the Democrats put out.
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 6:51:11 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/21/2004 6:51:48 AM EST by Balzac72]
Now to actually discuss the question.....the war on drugs as its been called is nowhere near whats happening with terrorism. I've heard that "drugs will tear apart the fiber of our country and will kill our youth, bla bla bla." Personally, I like drugs, they keep me employed. Without drugs, there probably wouldnt be as many cops, judges, ADA's, or losers on the street. Plus, these druggies also manage to take themselves out of the gene pool on occassion, so we're blessed with that side effect.

Now, look at terrorism. There's no "victimless crime" like in drug use. (Excluding the people who are robbed, raped, murdered or victimized by the drug user for his next fix.) Terrorists kill innocent people for their religious ideals. They do not care who they hurt, who they murder and what they do to the world around them, since the world is inherently evil and they are only biding their time waiting for death to take them to Virginland.

Finally, to sum this up...your question insults my intellect. It pains my brain to believe that someone would equate these two "wars" to eachother on any plane or level. The only thing that may be intertwined is that the war on drugs and on terror will come together or already has come together with the poppy plant in Afghanistan.

Oh well, I'm curious to see what others write about this.
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 7:29:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By Goshawk:
If you dispute what I've said then, you should check the facts.
Just as I 'forgot the names "Contras, Condanistras," Pres. Regan (rip) said the same thing..."I don't remember.." ...... check the facts......... corruption ain't anything new.



First of all, it's "Reagan." I mean come the hell on. I can understand misspelling a foreign word, I can understand misspelling a hard-to-spell word, but for Christ's sake, the guy was the PRESIDENT!
Second, I HAVE checked the facts, and the fact is there is no proof that either George HW Bush or Oliver North had ANYTHING to do with drug smuggling. You're buying into the load of bullshit the Democrats put out.



Now, it was some 10 years after the fact but the CIA did acknowledge involvement in the drug traficking. So, GHWB = Fmr. Director of CIA and VP at the time of the traficking..... Hmmmm I 'guess' it's possible he didn't know what the CIA was doing. .... Get real!
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 8:40:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By Goshawk:

Now, it was some 10 years after the fact but the CIA did acknowledge involvement in the drug traficking. So, GHWB = Fmr. Director of CIA and VP at the time of the traficking..... Hmmmm I 'guess' it's possible he didn't know what the CIA was doing. .... Get real!



You really don't know what the hell you're talking about. When George HW Bush was head of the CIA, there were no Sandanistas or contras. As VP, he had exactly ZERO operational control of the CIA and just about zero power, period. You're the one who needs to get real and stop believing Democratic propoganda.
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 12:00:52 PM EST
I really hope not, because we sure as hell LOST the war on drugs . . . .
Top Top