Marc Emery

[Nuc]

It's not futile to keep crack, meth, and opiates illegal. There's no way those should be legal.

And the war on terror is totally different. Apples and oranges. It's seems your making the logical jump that since one thing beginning with "war on" is stupid in your opinion, then therefore everything beginning with "war on" must be bad. Are you high?

They are both unwinnable "wars". Why is the government choosing to declare "wars" that are unwinnable?

Terrorism is such a huge term that it can never be won. War on Iraq, maybe, War on Al Quaeda, maybe, "War on Terrorism" never.

That's the comparison. Futility.

If they want to declare a winnable bogus "war", such as "War on Illiteracy" I'd be OK with that if they came up with a solid plan and stuck with it.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

They are both unwinnable "wars". Why is the government choosing to declare "wars" that are unwinnable?

Terrorism is such a huge term that it can never be won. War on Iraq, maybe, War on Al Quaeda, maybe, "War on Terrorism" never.

That's the comparison. Futility.

If they want to declare a winnable bogus "war", such as "War on Illiteracy" I'd be OK with that if they came up with a solid plan and stuck with it.

Kind of like "war on people who want to blow us up"

 

[5stringJeff]

MJ should be legal. Do a search on my posts on marijuana and you'll see my reasoning.

Other hard drugs should not be legal. Dealers should get 10+ years.

 

[Nuc]

Two entirely different things. One is winnable.

Get back to me in about fifty years. When you see I was right, you can buy me a beer.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Keeping crack illegal is not futile. Neither is defending ourselves from terrorists. You're smoking too much, herb, nuc.

 

[Nuc]

Kind of like "war on people who want to blow us up"

Then declare a war on the people who are doing it, not the act of Terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic. It will always be there, and it will be used by many different people ranging from Tim McVeigh to Osama. Terrorism will never be eradicated. That's like saying a "War on Bullets", "War on Camouflage". Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy.

 

[Nuc]

Keeping crack illegal is not futile. Neither is defending ourselves from terrorists. You're smoking too much, herb, nuc.

I'm glad you said that. The other person who has made that unfounded speculation is Archie. Are you guys related, or just think alike? Where did I say I was smoking herb?

 

[Mr. P]

They are both unwinnable "wars". Why is the government choosing to declare "wars" that are unwinnable?

Terrorism is such a huge term that it can never be won. War on Iraq, maybe, War on Al Quaeda, maybe, "War on Terrorism" never.

That's the comparison. Futility.

If they want to declare a winnable bogus "war", such as "War on Illiteracy" I'd be OK with that if they came up with a solid plan and stuck with it.

No terrorism can be defeated, not the term but the act as defined now. Some may still occur, but overall how many people in the world do you think will support endless killing effecting many vs a toke of Marijuana, which effects no one but the user (for the most part)?

 

[Nuc]

No terrorism can be defeated, not the term but the act as defined now. Some may still occur, but overall how many people in the world do you think will support endless killing effecting many vs a toke of Marijuana, which effects no one but the user (for the most part)?

I hope you are right and I'm wrong about terrorism being here to stay. Maybe I'm cynical because these are the same people who declared a totally silly "War on Drugs".

I think we should fight terrorism when it occurs and try to prevent it. However calling it the "War on Terror" I think is a mistake. They should say, "We were attacked by Al Qaeda and now we are going to take them on". Calling it war on terror almost seems to invite other groups currently on the sideline to join the fray. Better to win a lot of battles than lose a "WAR".

 

[Mr. P]

...
I think we should fight terrorism when it occurs and try to prevent it. However calling it the "War on Terror" I think is a mistake. They should say, "We were attacked by Al Qaeda and now we are going to take them on". Calling it war on terror almost seems to invite other groups currently on the sideline to join the fray. Better to win a lot of battles than lose a "WAR".

I understand your point.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I'm glad you said that. The other person who has made that unfounded speculation is Archie. Are you guys related, or just think alike? Where did I say I was smoking herb?

So you know for a fact defending ourselves from terrorists is futile?


All your semantic flim flammery is unimpressive. It doesn't really matter what we call the war against islamic terrorism.

 

[Nuc]

So you know for a fact defending ourselves from terrorists is futile?


All your semantic flim flammery is unimpressive. It doesn't really matter what we call the war against islamic terrorism.

What does this have to do with whether I'm smoking herb? You're losing your train of thought. Are you smoking herb?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

What does this have to do with whether I'm smoking herb? You're losing your train of thought. Are you smoking herb?

That was a tangential rhetorical witticism. Focus, Foghat.

 

[Nuc]

That was a tangential rhetorical witticism. Focus, Foghat.

Is defending ourselves from terrorists futile? First off, hate to get semantic on you again, but see if you can follow this. When Bush and the rest say that we should support our troops who are defending us, what is that? They would be defending us if they were here. They are there, which means that the United States is not being defended. If anything the people who are resisting are defending themselves and their country. "Defending our country" is another term I don't like to see abused.

When we should have defended ourselves, like with 9/11 and the Cole bombing we didn't because people were focussed on other things. Obviously we had the intelligence to do a much better job of defending, but somehow things got lost in the shuffle. :usa:

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Is defending ourselves from terrorists futile? First off, hate to get semantic on you again, but see if you can follow this. When Bush and the rest say that we should support our troops who are defending us, what is that? They would be defending us if they were here. They are there, which means that the United States is not being defended. If anything the people who are resisting are defending themselves and their country. "Defending our country" is another term I don't like to see abused.

When we should have defended ourselves, like with 9/11 and the Cole bombing we didn't because people were focussed on other things. Obviously we had the intelligence to do a much better job of defending, but somehow things got lost in the shuffle. :usa:

You're totally wrong. Our enemies who would be focusing on domestic attacks are focusing there instead. Plus the Iraq war is a projection of power into the region to keep regimes there scared and considering whether or not they should support terror in the first place. The best defense is a good offense. Your hang up on slogans is not indicative of great intellect.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x732283


Nuc is cali

 

[Nienna]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x732283


Nuc is cali

LOL! You may be right!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

LOL! You may be right!

may?

 

[Nienna]

may?

:rotflmao:
As soon as I saw you replied, I knew what you said!

You are 100% correct, no doubt in my mind, oh testosterone god! :hail:

Is that better?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

:rotflmao:
As soon as I saw you replied, I knew what you said!

You are 100% correct, no doubt in my mind, oh testosterone god! :hail:

Is that better?

LOL. Silly! You rock the house!