On Jul 1, 10:11 am, C J Campbell
wrote:
On 2007-07-01 04:55:18 -0700, "Blueskies" said:







"PPL-A (Canada)" wrote in message
oups.com...

By whose definition is this situation a WAR as you say ... some
arbitrary fiat by some politicians in the 1980s? I think calling this
kind of activity a war is insulting to the armed forces personnel that
have fought and died for real causes in the last century. The so-
called war on drugs is political posturing and always has been. To
expand on this point, the public in the last decade or two is being
increasingly deceived into a false sense of righteousness about any
disagreements that politicians might have with any group, be they
foreign or domestic, by the deceptive and devious use of the word
"war" in order to justify to the public political activity that really
bears no genuine resemblance to war whatsoever, but merely meddling in
another sovereign nation's politics, or, what is worse perhaps,
justifying ever greater intrusions into the privacy and freedoms that
we used to understand as being rights in an open and free society.

Well stated, thanks!

I would suggest you read "How to Stop A War" and "A Quick and Dirty
Guide to War" by James Dunnigan. This is a war by any reasonable
definition of the term.

So I am to understand that we are supposed to defer to the definitions
of, and ideas about war propogated by a person whose job and primary
claim to notoriety is design and authoring of war GAMES (that's
right ... board GAMES)? That's what James Dunnigan does right? You
know what they say about the man who has a hammer can see only nails?
I hope this makes my point.

I don't believe there's any reason to summarily drop the whole canon
of western philosophers', political scientists', military theorists'
thoughts about war (not to mention definitions set forth in
international law) in deference to some war GAMER ...

Sorry ... you gotta try better than that ... conflict (no matter how
angry you are at the other party) DOES NOT always equate
philosophically, legally, or ethically to a situation to which it is
appropriate to use the term "war".

I maintain my original position. "War", as it's coming to be used, is
a euphemism that is increasingly being deployed by devious politicians
to justify in the public conciousness any number of highly suspect
activities both domestic and international. This tactic, swallowed
whole and regurgitated to us by our increasingly uncrital media, is
gaining power as our populace loses touch with aging veterans who have
actual experience of genuine war.

No war game designer is going to change my mind on this. It's
absurd. Legal problem, social problem, international jurisdictional
problem, all true of the drug trade. War however it is not, except by
the flimsy definitions required to justify many of the inappropriate
responses to it by politicians, police, and military.

I also still maintain that any society that has handed over many of
its freedoms to the police (secret and otherwise) and military, and
perceives itself to be in a constant state of "war", has allowed
itself to become a police or military state.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -