Ever notice how they're run practically the same and garner practically the same results?
War on Terror vs War on Drugs
Ever notice how they're run practically the same and garner practically the same results?Agreed.
What's with the "NO EXIT" thing on the top of that picture?It means that both War On Terror & War On Drugs don't have exit strategy.
Well said my friend.@cyberninja said:
Well that sure beats "they hate us because of our freedom" by a long shot.more like, "THEY HATE US FUR R FREEDUMBZ!!!11!!!"
@Prince CortSether: And what would you suggest we do instead? Sit there and just let them run free?I suggest we legalize drugs and let people make their own choices.
And if we really wanted to do something about our national security because of terrorists, here's an idea, withdraw from all our bases around the world and bring our troops back home. How does protecting national security make sense if the majority of our military is in other countries and our borders are left mostly unprotected?
@Prince CortSether said:
@RainEffect said:@Prince CortSether: And what would you suggest we do instead? Sit there and just let them run free?I suggest we legalize drugs and let people make their own choices. And if we really wanted to do something about our national security because of terrorists, here's an idea, withdraw from all our bases around the world and bring our troops back home. How does protecting national security make sense if the majority of our military is in other countries and our borders are left mostly unprotected?
its not as easy as that..
illegal drugs are demerit goods.
@turoksonofstone said:
@Prince CortSether said:Ever notice how they're run practically the same and garner practically the same results?Agreed.
And cosigned
@RainEffect said:Just to clear up, I'm not American - I'm Australian, so I'm giving an outsiders opinion.@Prince CortSether: And what would you suggest we do instead? Sit there and just let them run free?I suggest we legalize drugs and let people make their own choices. And if we really wanted to do something about our national security because of terrorists, here's an idea, withdraw from all our bases around the world and bring our troops back home. How does protecting national security make sense if the majority of our military is in other countries and our borders are left mostly unprotected?
Certain drugs are illegal because they are a massive health risk. People do immense damage to themselves and pose a danger to the people around them - that is why they are illegal; for the safety of the user and people around. If we just let everyone do what they wanted, we would have 20% of Western society crocked up on Ice and other horrific drugs, which would then lead to increases in crimes such as assaults and robberies. To put it into terms a comic-book reader will understand - do you really want an Arkham City in your neighbourhood?
As for the War on Terror. It was my understanding that the War on Terror was a retaliation for the September 11 attacks. It is also the responsibility of the United States, being the most powerful country in the world, to be the police state and ensure that peace is upheld throughout countries that can't police themselves. The US is in Afghanistan because it has become a breeding ground of civilian bombings and guerrilla training camps. The Afghan Government is either too corrupt or too weak to be able to combat this, so it is the responsibility of the United States to help out.
Think about it this way, should the United States just shrug their shoulders and do nothing whilst Gaddafi orders airstrikes on innocent civilian protestors? No. It's their responsibility, as the most powerful military force in the world, to ensure that travesties such as that are stopped.
Fact: People think that NATO is responsible for all these civilian deaths in the Middle-East. At least every second day a marketplace or social structure is bombed by a suicide bomber. That is where the civilian deaths are occurring.
@Prince CortSether said:Just worry about Carbon tax and leave the world politics to the big boys, mmmkay?@RainEffect said:Just to clear up, I'm not American - I'm Australian, so I'm giving an outsiders opinion.@Prince CortSether: And what would you suggest we do instead? Sit there and just let them run free?I suggest we legalize drugs and let people make their own choices. And if we really wanted to do something about our national security because of terrorists, here's an idea, withdraw from all our bases around the world and bring our troops back home. How does protecting national security make sense if the majority of our military is in other countries and our borders are left mostly unprotected?
Certain drugs are illegal because they are a massive health risk. People do immense damage to themselves and pose a danger to the people around them - that is why they are illegal; for the safety of the user and people around. If we just let everyone do what they wanted, we would have 20% of Western society crocked up on Ice and other horrific drugs, which would then lead to increases in crimes such as assaults and robberies. To put it into terms a comic-book reader will understand - do you really want an Arkham City in your neighbourhood?
As for the War on Terror. It was my understanding that the War on Terror was a retaliation for the September 11 attacks. It is also the responsibility of the United States, being the most powerful country in the world, to be the police state and ensure that peace is upheld throughout countries that can't police themselves. The US is in Afghanistan because it has become a breeding ground of civilian bombings and guerrilla training camps. The Afghan Government is either too corrupt or too weak to be able to combat this, so it is the responsibility of the United States to help out.
Think about it this way, should the United States just shrug their shoulders and do nothing whilst Gaddafi orders airstrikes on innocent civilian protestors? No. It's their responsibility, as the most powerful military force in the world, to ensure that travesties such as that are stopped.
Fact: People think that NATO is responsible for all these civilian deaths in the Middle-East. At least every second day a marketplace or social structure is bombed by a suicide bomber. That is where the civilian deaths are occurring.
@RainEffect said:LOL.@Prince CortSether said:Just worry about Carbon tax and leave the world politics to the big boys, mmmkay?@RainEffect said:Just to clear up, I'm not American - I'm Australian, so I'm giving an outsiders opinion.@Prince CortSether: And what would you suggest we do instead? Sit there and just let them run free?I suggest we legalize drugs and let people make their own choices. And if we really wanted to do something about our national security because of terrorists, here's an idea, withdraw from all our bases around the world and bring our troops back home. How does protecting national security make sense if the majority of our military is in other countries and our borders are left mostly unprotected?
Certain drugs are illegal because they are a massive health risk. People do immense damage to themselves and pose a danger to the people around them - that is why they are illegal; for the safety of the user and people around. If we just let everyone do what they wanted, we would have 20% of Western society crocked up on Ice and other horrific drugs, which would then lead to increases in crimes such as assaults and robberies. To put it into terms a comic-book reader will understand - do you really want an Arkham City in your neighbourhood?
As for the War on Terror. It was my understanding that the War on Terror was a retaliation for the September 11 attacks. It is also the responsibility of the United States, being the most powerful country in the world, to be the police state and ensure that peace is upheld throughout countries that can't police themselves. The US is in Afghanistan because it has become a breeding ground of civilian bombings and guerrilla training camps. The Afghan Government is either too corrupt or too weak to be able to combat this, so it is the responsibility of the United States to help out.
Think about it this way, should the United States just shrug their shoulders and do nothing whilst Gaddafi orders airstrikes on innocent civilian protestors? No. It's their responsibility, as the most powerful military force in the world, to ensure that travesties such as that are stopped.
Fact: People think that NATO is responsible for all these civilian deaths in the Middle-East. At least every second day a marketplace or social structure is bombed by a suicide bomber. That is where the civilian deaths are occurring.
I should be pissed off, but I'm laughing. That was hilarious. I miss Kevin Rudd - our government's a mess.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment