It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why isn't the War on Terror as Successful as the War on Drugs

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by 00PS
If the War on Drugs is propagated as a huge success, why isn't the WOT more of a success in the eyes of the Propaganda machine


That's actually a good question. I would have to guess that the reason for this comes from the fact that it's very difficult to hide anything as Complex and Destructive as a War while it is still in peak motion. Even with it being half way across the world there are just certain things that are almost impossible to hide either from direct observation of in-directly.

For example, things like Requests for more and more Money, Supplies, Troops, etc. People notice these things and wonder why they are needed and soon realize there is really only one answer to that which is that all the previous Money, Supplies, Troops, etc. have all been used but the War is still not over.

Another answer to your question would be that regardless of how much spin they try and put on a lie that big, it simply will never be enough to hide the stench. They will however keep trying regardless of how long it takes just as long as it is working on someone, even just a minority. After all it's our money they're spending to brainwash us so they don't care how much it costs or that it is a waste of time and money. Just look at how long they've had to create their massive web of lies surrounding the Drug War. In comparison the Terror War hasn't had as much time to pound it's propaganda into your mind, but give it some more time and it should start to numb your senses very soon.




posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
This is like compairing apples and oranges. There is no "War on Drugs". It is just business.


Just like there is no war on terror right? really, there isn't- it's just business



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Yes Mojom...it's all about the spin

If the WOT was successful then it would have to have an end and that
really can't happen as you've stated

A war on drugs can never end because it's out of the public eye.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Actually, I would disagree. I think the War on Drugs has been much less successful, because people WANT drugs. Very few people want to grab a box of grenades or a dirty bomb in order to liven up a weekend party, and those that do are considered societal deviants. Whereas someone wanting to take a quarterbag to a party to share in a social circle is a lot more acceptable to the public.

I can only imagine that a narcotics officer's only reward for a major drug-bust are a few half-hearted cheers, followed by a lot of people having to find a new source, who is only too happy to take over the new business demand.

Terrorism, on the other hand, is not a market good. It is not something that sane people would ever want to buy. Just imagine the most basic terrorism: a single person assassination. Now ask yourself how many people you know who are genuinely willing to act as an assassin, versus how many you know how occasionally sell some of their weed. The only place where terrorism is likely to ever be popular is where there is a high demand for it.

Vegan restaurants don't survive long in Texas, for the same reason.

So we see a lot of terrorism in nations with lots of discontent and few luxuries. People participate in it because they have nothing left to live for, and nothing to distract them from that fact (like TV and internet porn).

Terrorism is big news, extremely visible, and hard to deny. One carbomb can make worldwide news, while an entire network of coc aine dealers can fuction efficiently and unnoticed for years at a stretch by even local police. It's not that there's more terrorism--in fact, I'd be willing to be that for every 1 terrorist there are thousands upon thousands of people dealing drugs--it's that it's just that much more noticable.

In fact, people have been saying The War on Drugs has been a failure since 1999.

This doesn't neccesarily mean the War on Terrorism has been a screaming success, because it's really hard to say that just because something didn't happen, that it would have if not for policy. I honestly don't know if the War on Terrorism has helped or hindered our efforts towards peace, there are equal points for both sides, but I know I've yet to wake up to even so much as a carbomb on the local news since it began.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Umm...lol..isn't this pretty obvious?

The War on Drugs are funded by easily capturable, easy to find crooks and thugs. They are not a hidden group bent on destruction of the Western way of life.

In fact, they thrive off the western way of life.

-wD



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Legalizer, you and the others know the real. I commend y'all for that.

As for the people who think that EITHER "war" was or is a success, all I have to say is...


Well, I guess I was laughing, not talking.
Anyway, I know why the WOT will be more successful than the WOD. And the answer is...Americans are being dumbed down more effectively than ever! Isn't it ironic that the tests are now HARDER, yet the students weren't doing well on the OLD tests?

I mean, I passed the TAAS with my eyes closed, it was nothing. But, I tried a few problems from the TAKS that I found in a newspaper, and man, I actually had to THINK! (guess that sounds bad
) I'm fairly intelligent
, but I had to spend a few minutes on each problem. Try that when you have a timed exam...it's no coincidence that I saw $hitloads of military recruits my senior year!
Yeah, I said it, this is to get more kids into the military.

Don't get it twisted, I ain't raggin on the military at all. It's just that I have a bunch of homies who went to the Marines/Air Force/etc because college wasn't an option for them. Anyway, back to the topic...

Both of these wars are a joke. The CIA brings in the illegal drugs to begin with, and key elements in the govt carried out 9/11. If you don't believe that, I won't call you stupid like I used to, I'll just call you brainwashed. Despite CIA documents that prove that part, 9/11 has more smoking guns than you can name.

I'll ask this and shut up. If it is PUBLIC that WTC 1 had the Feds' fingerprints all over it, why is it impossible for there to have been govt involvement in 9/11?



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeBDeviL
Umm...lol..isn't this pretty obvious?

The War on Drugs are funded by easily capturable, easy to find crooks and thugs. They are not a hidden group bent on destruction of the Western way of life.

In fact, they thrive off the western way of life.

-wD

HA HA!
Go ask the DEA how hard it is to find drug dealers...and what happens if you "take them out"....



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 09:46 PM
link   
To Quote Chris Rock (once again), "There is no money in the cure",

You take away drugs, you put companies out of business, and people out of work. Think about how many professions involve drugs.... Whether its Rehabs, Doctors, Guidance Counselors, half way houses.... it goes on...

You cant really propagate drug dealing on the internet. You can the War on Terror, from every side.... The WOT also keeps businesses in business, only thing is that it is upon freedoms that all Americans are guaranteed.

BTW the War on Drugs is not successful, more people are in rehab and also Drug ( including alcohol ) deaths are up. How is this succesfull?



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 12:06 AM
link   
I would say they are both about equally unsuccessful, and for the same reason: the unwillingness of those in charge to be as forceful as is necessary to win these wars.
For the war on terror, the only way to win this would be to tackle immigration issues, and step up the penalties for terror organization members. But that's too much work, logistically and politically.
As for the war on drugs, I'd love to see the death penalty for dealers. It's more than deserved for all the lives they have ruined with their product. If they are convicted, take them out back, shoot them in the head, and throw them in a hole. That's better than they deserve. Doing so would drive prices too high for many users, who are poor, and would make the risk of running drugs too high for the small time bastards who run the drugs. This would lead to a more unified front for drug distribution, making them easier to eliminate. Also, think of the money and jail space saved in the long term. Forget about 20yr, 40yr, life terms filling up jail cells and eating up tax dollars. Just find enough landfill for their worthless bodies.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
As for the war on drugs, I'd love to see the death penalty for dealers. It's more than deserved for all the lives they have ruined with their product.


You of course, in ignorance embraced, don't know that all illegal drugs combined kill less people annually than, alcohol, tobacco, over the counter medecines, or prescription drugs each?

Your solution for drug dealers, is my solution for ignorant extremist prohibitionists like yourself.

How does it feel to be in my cross hairs?

Kapow!

Don't worry, it will just be a flesh wound, and no you can't have a pain killer for it, I'll have to sell those to junkies to buy bullets.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 01:16 AM
link   
first point, how is it "ignorance embraced" to disagree with your viewpoint?

second point, alcohol and tabacco are much less addictive substances than illegal drugs. People choose to continue using those products. Tabacco can be addictive to a point, but the side effects take a long time coming, and the people who choose that road choose it for a lifetime. As for alcohol, there is a great need for much stricter laws there as well. OUI, jailtime, everytime. Repeat offender, LONG jail time. Not a day in jail, or a week. Let them spend five years being someone's bitch, and then they might learn. Jail time for supplying minors. I could keep going. The point on alcohol is, if a person can't be responsible with it, then that choice needs to be taken away from them, and call me what you will for saying that. I'd much rather see that then another innocent harmed by a worthless drunk.

third point, illegal drugs are, by and large, highly addictive. Once someone is hooked, they are at the mercy of the drugs, and their life is often ruined. These drugs have little to no good side, and enormous downsides. As for small time herbs....I'm of mixed opinions on those. Everyone I have known to be an habitual pot user has had negative effects from this. But as long as it's not harming anyone else, I don't care. The problem there is the potential for it to become like alcohol, where it does begin to harm others. For other herbs, (and I'm talking herbs, not highly processed plant, but just pulled from the ground, plucked from the plant, etc.) most of them pose no harm to anyone but the individual who uses them. Want a trip, take a ride with sally. Heck, it's even semi-legal, and the worst it might do is scare you. Much better than shooting up with something that might kill you.

Forth point, prescription drugs, well, all I have to say there is, no one makes anyone take those, they are taken by choice. The illegal sale of them is no different than any illegal drug, the legal uses of them are a matter of pharm company issues, etc, and an entirely different issue.

Final point, just because there are worse problems than illegal drug use does not change the effects of illegal drug use and the need to take action to prevent it. Murder is a worse problem than theft, yet I'd just as gleefully chop off the hands of thieves as hang murders. If a person chooses to harm society through illegal acts, then they are of no use to society, and need to be removed from it. They chose to take the action, so you won't see me shedding a tear when they pay the price.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 01:28 AM
link   
One, the war on drugs is not successful.

Two, such clocks are purely fiction.

Three, internet use must be getting interesting in China these days.


[edit on 05/3/30 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
second point, alcohol and tabacco are much less addictive substances than illegal drugs.


You're either ignorant or a liar. Every study ever conducted show that lab rats become just as addicted to nicotine and caffeine as they do to heroin and coc aine. Chemically the substances are nearly identical. Actually nicotine has a higher addiction threshold than coc aine, and the same as heroin. And I suppose you think marijuana is highly addictive as well?


There's no point in debating this, either you care enough to do your own research, or you're a sheep being led to intelectual slaughter, there's no middle ground. You're advocating the murder of businessmen. If they were born in Westport and not Bridgeport, they'd be selling cars and houses and energy futures. You are misinformed, and dangerous because of it.



The point on alcohol is, if a person can't be responsible with it, then that choice needs to be taken away from them, and call me what you will for saying that. I'd much rather see that then another innocent harmed by a worthless drunk.


That's the point with all drugs. If you can't be responsible, you're not an adult. Adults are not injured in way by using marijuana responsibly, therefore they should be allowed to use it. Besides a rotting septum and some heart arythmia coc aine falls into the same category. Steady heroin use has never killed anyone, it's the dirty skag, and the incredibly pure skag unknowingly injected in high quantities that kills. These problems would dissapear with appropriate legalization and legislation.



third point, illegal drugs are, by and large, highly addictive.


So are legal drugs, including the pharmaceuticals you pay out the nose for. But you've been trained to believe this is somehow not a double standard. That's called brainwashing my friend. You've been owned.



Once someone is hooked, they are at the mercy of the drugs, and their life is often ruined.


You're blaming the substance when you should be blaming the abuser. That's malarchy. People are responsible for their own actions, period. "The devil made me do it! The drugs made me do it! My parents didn't love me!" Bull#. You are a human being, you have free will, and if you're not strong enough to excercise it, you will pay the consequences. This issue is all about dodging responsibility for decisions made and later regretted. I'm a smoker, and I made peace with that a long time ago. I take responsibility for my actions, and I expect every other citizen to do the same.

If anyone deserves a bullet in the head it's those people who continually rely on others and pass the buck, shift the blame, and dodge responsibility. From dead beat dads to crack heads who use their cravings to justify burglary and armed robbery. They're the detriment to society, not the goddamn drugs!



These drugs have little to no good side, and enormous downsides.


Food coloring. Antibacterial Soap. Fluoridated water. The list goes on an on. You are not thinking rationally, or you haven't been given all the information. Well, tough. Take responsibility for your lack of knowledge, and spend some quality time educating yourself. The mentality in which you are indulging is inexcusable, innapropriate, and it hamstrings our entire society. Please correct your malfunction.



Forth point, prescription drugs, well, all I have to say there is, no one makes anyone take those, they are taken by choice.


WHAT!? We're told we'll die without them! 'Sick' people are forced to take psychoactive medications like Prozac on pain of imprisonment! No drug dealer has ever put a gun to a persons head and forced them to buy drugs! They are reacting to demand, pure and simple. Your world view is very, very strange to me. It's like you think people should have their decisions made for them by some looming corporate/legislative/religious entity...oh...n/m...I get it.



The illegal sale of them is no different than any illegal drug, the legal uses of them are a matter of pharm company issues, etc, and an entirely different issue.


Why is this a different issue? Because you say so? Uh-uh, it doesn't work like that. Drugs are drugs are drugs are drugs. Any other viewpoint is propaganda influence reality distortion for the benefit of the corporate caste.



...yet I'd just as gleefully chop off the hands of thieves as hang murders.


So this is what you're about? Lemme tell ya' pall, you're a dying breed. Your kind are going extinct like the dinosaurs, and it's about time.

[edit on 30-3-2005 by WyrdeOne]



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Adults are not injured in way by using marijuana responsibly, therefore they should be allowed to use it. Besides a rotting septum and some heart arythmia coc aine falls into the same category.


You haven't seen the lives ruined by coc aine tha I have and though the impact is less visible, I have seen cases of lives that have been very much damaged by marijuana abuse. Being an adult really is not the issue. There really is no such thing as a responsible user of illegal substances. The responsible respect the law.

[edit on 05/3/30 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 04:07 AM
link   
Grady
How would you know what I've seen? I've had too many coke head friends to list, all of whom persisted in shuffling off their responsibility. It's their issue, they'll deal with it, or won't. Cocaine is a habit that can be broken, or never started, it's the responsibility of the individual to make the right choices.

I also knew a few responsible coke users, who have since abandoned the habit for greener pastures. I also know a couple of 'heads who collect housing assistance and food stamps in order to maintain a coke habit, and it infuriates me to no end.

And incidentally it is about being an adult. It's about taking (once again that magic word) responsibility for ones own decisions. That's what being an adult means. Too often people bitch and moan about their rights, without thought or care as to their responsibilities. The two go hand in hand, they are inseparable. You can't have one without the other.

If you're not responsible for yourself, who is responsible for you? The state? No way, it's been tried before, didn't work out too well. Every man stands or falls on his own merits, that's the way of things.

Edit because I forgot to comment on this gem: "The responsible respect the law."

Okay, so when I take power and make a law stating that all men must bow down and worship me, you'll obey? When I maintain right of 'First Night' with all newly married women, you'll encourage us all here, on this board, to gleefully deliver the blushing bride to my bedchambers? When I mandate suicide by handgun for every man over the age of thirty five, you'll grab a pistol and say a prayer? No. Insane laws must NOT be obeyed. They must be destroyed and buried deep enough that their taint doesn't affect the tomatoes.

[edit on 30-3-2005 by WyrdeOne]



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
You haven't seen the lives ruined by coc aine tha I have and though the impact is less visible, I have seen cases of lives that have been very much damaged by marijuana abuse. Being an adult really is not the issue. There really is no such thing as a responsible user of illegal substances. The responsible respect the law.


I take sort of a middle ground on this issue (big surprise, I know).

As drugs go, I agree that coc aine and heroin ruin lives. I've seen it happen to enough close friends and family members to know that past a certain point, the person taking it loses control. I also know people who have tried it a few times, enjoyed it, and walked away. So I suppose the failure of someone to know when to walk away lies on them, but past the point of addiction, it does ruin the life of the user. Granted, it's their fault for doing so, but I still feel that drugs which are so addictive it would cause someone to kill in order to attain it should be illegal.

However, that's really the only way I can see justifying a law against even responsible use of a substance. I cannot see any justification for the laws against weed, as the most harm it is likely to do is cause someone to watch a lot of TV and eat a lot of fast food. Since that pretty much describes the life of the average American, either everyone is smoking it, or it really doesn't do anything worse than what people already do to themselves.

As for laws themselves, let me say this:

  • There were once laws that required segregation and dehumanization of non-whites and women. The only way these laws got changed was by enough people breaking those laws.
  • There were once laws that allowed for people to be drafted into the armed forces against their will. The only way these laws got changed was through peaceful resistance to them.
  • There are countless obscure or downright stupid laws, every day, that people are not even aware of, that carry penalty of imprisonment or death, such as the famous "pliars in the back pocket being a hanging offense" in Texas, or the recently implimented "Sweet Tea Requirement" for restaurants in Georgia.
  • There are countless known laws that are broken every day by people. Do you always drive exactly the speed limit or within 20 miles under it? Do you use your turn signal 100 yards or more before you actually turn or change lanes? Do you use your turn signal for every single time you back out of a space? Can you honestly say you follow every single known law to the letter?

Of course, I'm not suggesting that people go out and start doing drugs and breaking laws. Rather that there be some understanding that many laws are either obsolete, unneccesary, inconvenient, or purely political in nature. As such, some people find feel that breaking these laws does not make the person evil, but rather is a mild form of protest against what they feel to be an injust law.

While, of course, those breaking the law while it is still a law must pay the price if they are caught (it is, after all, a law), the repeated breaking of that law in protest, by enough people, peacefully, is sometimes the only way to change it.

In the case of weed, I would be willing to bet cold hard cash that 1 out of every 3 people you know has tried it at least once. Even the most hardcore advocates against it have usually tried it at some point, though some might never admit it.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   
The war on drugs is easy compared to the war on terrorism.

first of all, you know where the drugs are.
Second, its hard to spot a terrorist.

Maybe if the terrorists smoked drugs then we would have no problem spotting them?



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by thelibra
In the case of weed, I would be willing to bet cold hard cash that 1 out of every 3 people you know has tried it at least once. Even the most hardcore advocates against it have usually tried it at some point, though some might never admit it.


I admit it.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sykojo
The war on drugs is easy compared to the war on terrorism.

first of all, you know where the drugs are.

Try finding a drug house in the jungles of venezuela..


Second, its hard to spot a terrorist.

Maybe if the terrorists smoked drugs then we would have no problem spotting them?

No it isnt...any person fighting against a government using "terror" as a means to fight is a terrorist...



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Neither have been successful. The war on terror has it's big military force behind and almost all Americans agree that something needs to be done about the terrorist and repressive regimes, so far there has not been another major attack on America so some can write that off as off as success so far. Bush says the war on terror needs to be fought on the offensive, that is fight them where they are born. The problem is going to be idenifying who and what groups are terror organizations. The coverage of neo-nazi American groups wanting to join forces with Al-qaida sounds like another front the war of terror will have to take on.

The war on drugs has too many supporters against it. The demand for drugs in America is just too high. Anyone who spends money on drugs is supporting the drug trade and against the war on drugs. There are no fronts and drugs are everywhere. The way the programs are set up leave it open to corruption and the money payoff for corrupt officials is too great to not expect corruption. All levels of drug enforcement have this problem. I think it would be much more profitable to legalize marijuana and other light drugs because the government can tax them and it would take billion$$$ away from the black market.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join