|
Post by khyron1144 on Dec 29, 2003 23:25:52 GMT -5
I've heard it said that it's a big tactical mistake to devide your resources by fighting a war on two fronts because the gains you make on one front will be made up for by losses on the other. Yet, the U.S. has committed itself to just such a war:
A war on terrorism and a war on drugs.
Two very different fronts dividing up resources that could very nicely be put into either one.
Think of it like this: We could use our nation's vast law enforcement, intelligence, and military bureaucracy to increase the security of our nation by ensuring that terrorist's don't hit us again, or we could use it to arrest cancer patients who smoke dope.
Given the choice between the two of them, I know which one I'd pick.
Why do we have to make a choice? Why can't we do both? Because we have a finite amount of resources in terms of man-power and funding, and while we could try to stretch them out and spread them as far as they can go, such thinking will ensure that neither one is done as well as it could be.
And just to make my position perfectly clear: I don't want to see another pot-head arrested or even dealers, until we have dismantled every terrorist organization that might wish to strike us.
|
|
JSUN
Squire
Posts: 136
|
Post by JSUN on Dec 30, 2003 3:40:41 GMT -5
Just some thoughts on the topic. The way I see it, it comes down to Ethics and Ideology. Its because of these that the war on Drugs and the war on "terrorism" will never be won.
Look at the war on drugs. Is it ethical to allow Alcohol and tobacco companies to reap the rewards of addicting, poisoning, and killing people while punishing poor Afgani's and columbian's for just trying to survive? As well, how can a government justify making some drugs legal and others not? Certainly Alcohol is by far the biggest culprit for death, pain, and suffering. Yet there it is, in abundance!
The second problem, is supply and demand. As long as there is a demand there will be a supply. We only need to look and see how prohibition failed. People still consumed their booze andto make matters worse it strengthened the criminal underworld.
Put all the money into enforcement and it drugs will never go away. It will only make the criminals richer. Fighting drug cartels is a sinkhole for money. Its not addressing the real reasons, like poverty. Ever wonder why Pablo Escobar, (the biggest cocaine lord of his time), was so well loved by his people? Cause he built them all homes with the money from drugs and employed them all as workers.
The war on "terrorism" The situation here is that there is no real enemy to fight. No army to face off against. Here its definition and ideology.
The way I see it you cannot defeat an idea. Once it has formed and found like minded believers it will continue to exist in some form or another. Root it out, attempt to destroy it and eventually it will rekindle and resurface.
Second, I have not seen, in my opinion, a really valid definition for a "terrorist". After all, how do you define a terrorist as opposed to a freedom fighter? How is one good and the other bad? Both act in an identical manner. Neither are uniformed soldiers (usually), both use armed resistance, guerilla tactics, and will freely attack military and civillian targets. As well, both struggle against an opressor of some sort. Simply adding more people and resources will not put and end to terrorism because the real problems are not being addressed. Its just a temporary band aid that will eventually run out. How much of a nation's budget should bet put towards fighting a phantom opponent?
JSUN
|
|
|
Post by khyron1144 on Dec 30, 2003 16:58:50 GMT -5
Two things: How to to tell a terrorist from a freedom fighter- Terrorists are conservative Islamic Fundamentalists who think of America as the Great Satan and are learning how to fly planes and build bombs.
Freedom fighters are reform-minded folks, who want to change their own country possibly through violence, possibly not.
On my actual thoughts on the war against terror- I'd be glad if this weren't being fought as an actual military operation. It'd be better if it was a war on global poverty that allows malcontents to be malcontent enough to want to bomb us. It'd be better if it was an effort to get free of the need for foreign oil that forces us to trade with and occupy a region that hates us. But since we're fighting it like an actual war, we might as well put more of our eggs into that basket and, say, redirect the DEA's agents and funding to rooting out the terrorists that want us dead. The sooner this war on civil liberties that allows things like The Patriot Act to get passed ends, the better.
Why do I get the feeling that almost everyone is in agreement with me?
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Jan 3, 2004 21:38:25 GMT -5
I really, really hope that was meant as ironic.
|
|
|
Post by khyron1144 on Jan 3, 2004 23:10:30 GMT -5
I was no trying to slur anyone.
My point was my definition of terrorists are those who attack outside countires and forces, unless your region is being governed by an outside country.
Freedom fighters work internally.
Those are my definitions. They probably need further refinement.
|
|
|
Post by Challenger on Jan 4, 2004 13:08:28 GMT -5
The isn't a masive difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist.
Take the IRA for example. They spent as much time blowing other Irish factions up as they did British targets for much of their history. Freedom fighter or terrorist.
Personaly my definision depends on this deviding line. A freedom fighter only fights once a diplomatic solution is rendered impossible. Once he has deliberatly (Dirrectly or indirectly) targetted a non combat person or none militery property he loses all rights and is a terrorist.
Challenger
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Jan 4, 2004 13:10:35 GMT -5
The difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is that one is on "our" side and the other isn't.
|
|
|
Post by Challenger on Jan 4, 2004 13:30:13 GMT -5
I know but sometimes it nice to try and retain my old romatised view of the world rather than my realistic one Challenger
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Jan 4, 2004 16:16:38 GMT -5
Sadly, that romanticised world view belongs in the gaming forums, not here in the Den or in the real world. How we all wish it were otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by khyron1144 on Jan 4, 2004 18:14:03 GMT -5
The intention of this topic was to explore whether the War on Drugs and the War on Terrorism can be waged simultaneously and successfully.
My position was no.
My intent was not to explore the exact definition of terrorism. Nor was it to discuss whether a romanticized world-view is a good thing or not.
|
|
|
Post by Challenger on Jan 4, 2004 18:36:43 GMT -5
My possition is no
Simply because a war on terror is a bloody big waste of time, time much better spent figuring out why these people are pissed and fixing it. (Please note I am by no means a comitted anti war protestor but if Iraq was about terrorists then I'm president of the USA) If you want an example see Northern Ireland. You can't fight terrorists like a regular enemy, nor can you just give into them. You need to remove their powerbase from under them. (ie make the people their recruiting from happy and don't give the terrorists an excuse to recruit more.)
War on Drugs however should be fought and won. Drugs destroy lifes and kill people. Smoking sould be baned too but what you gonna do, it ain't happening but two wrongs don't make a right so lets get to dealing with whats fixable.
Though I agree that its a war you can't fight head on. Its like a weed, kill the plant and its regrows kill the root its gone for good.
Guess that goes for both. Fighting either drugs or terrorism head on is unproductive. It has to be done but regardless what you do it will keep coming back. (Note thats not to say it shouldn't be fought, dealers still need to be arrested and terrorists still need to be defended agaist though attacking a country because it has terrorists inside it is a waste of time money and men) We need to be targetting the root of both problems.
Challenger
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Jan 4, 2004 21:26:59 GMT -5
I agree with Challenger. To say that we are waging a war on either drugs or terroism is really not the right term. You cannot wage a war on an idea. To be honest, I don't know exactly what we are doing to "wage war" on drugs, but we are certainly not doing a good job at trying to battle terrorism. We have to stop this at the source, we can't just keep trying to chop off the terrorists we can see and assuming eventually we'll get it all. They'll just grow right back, so to speak, unless we pull it out at the roots, and that means finding WHY these guys hate us so much. No, I am NOT on their side. I am NOT defending them. I just think there is no way we can kill them all. We need to find another way.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Jan 5, 2004 8:10:52 GMT -5
To be honest, the War on Drugs has been a complete and utter failure. Total. 100%. After nearly 15 years and billions of dollars, the drug trade in America and worldwide is still flourishing and healthy. There has been no significant reduction in trafficking nor have addiction rates dropped. The "War on Drugs" is a farce.
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Jan 5, 2004 8:58:16 GMT -5
Now, as I've already said I don't know too much about this, but I think the best way to combat the drug trade would be similar to the way I think we should go about trying to get rid of terrorism. We need to try and encourage people not to get addicted. I know, I've seen the ads, but apparently they don't work. If we manage to make drugs less attractive and cut down on the number of people buying then we can kill the trade by eliminating the demand. I think the media needs to get more involved, and I don't just mean anti-drug commercials. Movies and TV shows need to stop glorifying drug use. But most importantly, folks, talk to your kids. My parents did, worked for me. I've been drug free for 22 years now.
|
|
|
Post by Loki3 on Jan 5, 2004 18:31:06 GMT -5
That has to be one of the strangest (trying to be PC here) comments Ive read in awhile here.
Bottom line is this..........
WAR ON DRUGS
Ime with Hussar here. Utter Failure, Needs serious reform, and frankly in MY opinion I think the problem lies in our judicial system NOT the people who investigate and arrest those that violate it.
We dont PUNISH people who violate the law in the USA, we are more concerned about there "rights" and we are more concerned about the rehabilitaion aspect instead of punishing........... Those in Jail get Free High School and College, they get 3 square meals a day, they are housed kept warm in the Winter, made sure they have there blanket and pillow, and receive medical care for free WHENEVER they need it.
YET. !!!
There are kids in this country that go to bed hungry, and US LAW ABIDING CITIZENS that die and become more sick because they have to choose between food, and there Medicine. Gee should I buy my cancer meds today or do I pay my electric bill and buy some food........
Decisions that NO, NONE, NADDA American citizen should have to make. Its a LITERAL DISGRACE.
WAR ON TERROR
OH GIVE ME A BREAK, for decades the USA has told other countries like Israel, Germany, Spain, the UK, Russia, to practice Moderation whenever there was a terror incident on there soil. It FINALLY happens to us and we Americans stand up wave our flag that frankly most havent even thought about doing........ and demand we get those mean evil terrorist......
BS. TWO-FACEDNESS is what we practice. Sorry I call em as I see em. I frankly am tired of hearing about 911 guess what we just got a dose of whats been going on all over the world for decades. YES it was a trajedy..... Yes we need to remember it, But wheres the copability of our own Goverment here...
Why are US Citizens not asking WHY it happened. I will tell ya why. It happened because our LAZY, LOBBY driven politicians let it. THATS WHY.
If I sound too radical sorry but I hate it when we invade countries.... Afhganistan, Iraq..... And why because of the "WAR" on terror, and then a bus load of Israeli school kids gets blown up and we say the the Israeli's............ excercise caution...... BUL* SH*T is what that is, and the most smelly kind because we in the USA dont like to practice what we so often preach.......
Does terrorism need to be addresed HECK YEAH it does...
Do we need to ensure the safety of our people at home, yes we do.
But we dont need to do it at expense of other things that frankly are dripping with the smelly stench of non-attention, and lack of resolve to do what is needed to ensure it ceases or at least is curtailed.
And to clarify before it gets addressed here. I use the Israeli example because over 10,000 of there citizens have been killed by "Terrorist" in the last 20 years.
3,947 Americans have been killed int that same amount of time.
|
|