Subject:
|
Re: Special Identification for Arab Americans?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 27 Sep 2001 07:06:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
199 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Why isn't this a war? Does a war have to be with a country? bin Laden
> > declared war on *us* explicitly. We had a war with the Barbary Pirates, they
> > weren't a country.
Barbary Pirates indeed. Lets start by looking at the bigger picture:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4259186,00.html
From the 1st para:
==+==
The attempt to make out that the suicide terrorists had somehow declared war
and that America and its allies were entitled to wage war in return is legal
nonsense.
==+==
Scott A
>
> I'll take a shot at trying to figure out what LFB meant...
>
> I think what is being suggested is that the term "war" is cheapened when
> used in the manner it has been for the last three decades or so. I am
> referring to phrases like the "war on drugs." I mean, really, who is
> engaging in anything like real war against drugs? Rhetorically it has the
> effect of mesmerizing people into thinking that some sort of devastating
> action is about to be performed that will rid us once and for all of this
> problem -- the sad reality is that drugs continue to be a problem in every
> level of our society. Why? Because you can't wage war against an enemy you
> can't grab by the throat and choke to death. The perceived problem of drug
> addiction is more of an idea, or a culturally measured phenomena. I expect
> some cultures wouldn't give a damn if some of their people wanted to get
> high all the time -- wasn't the peace-pipe filled with hemp or marijuana?
> In the fifties I am told that the 3 Martini lunch was pretty standard
> behavior for most folks -- and one of my elders reports that people were far
> less high-strung and thereby more relaxed than they are now in the age of
> caffeine. The idea of addiction clearly depends upon precisely what is
> considered "reasonable use" for the thing that is considered "reasonable to
> ingest" and that is a culturally relevant issue that moves to and fro on an
> unseen scale.
>
> The idea of a "war on terrorism" is almost as slippery. Yes, the government
> can point to some of it's former tools and allies and claim "There, that's
> the bad guy we want to get!" But where is the enemy? Is he here amongst us
> in the Arab population of the U.S.? Is the enemy my neighbor? Does the
> enemy teach my kids their ABCs? Is that the enemy working at the pharmacy?
> Etc. Etc. Etc. Lot's of stupid things seem reasonable when predicated upon
> the empty rhetoric of vaguely worded resolves.
>
> Meat is something you can sink your teeth into. Smoke is something you
> couldn't grasp in your hands any more easily than the air we breath. The
> word "war" sounds like something you should be able to sink your teeth into,
> but what if it turns out to be as elusive to chew upon as smoke might be?
>
> I think the president's rhetoricians have put their finger on the
> mesmerizing effect of the word "war." I mean, I know it makes me feel like
> I just sat on tack! For others, I know it makes them think we are DOING
> SOMETHING -- anything to make the sadness of 9-11 go away. It feels like
> meat in your belly even though it is actually just a placebo to cure
> anxiety. Of course, it's just a word and can do nothing of it's own.
>
> I don't see all kinds of others countries jumping on this bandwagon. I see
> support for whatever whacky thing we want to undertake in response to this
> tragedy -- more of a good neighbor policy from these others, "Sure, go ahead
> -- we support what you're doing!" . I just hope we come up with something
> more meaningful and less vacuous than a "war on terrorism." To me, that's
> just the empty rhetoric the government uses when they can probably achieve
> nothing in actuality.
>
> Anyway, even if LFB doesn't go for this -- I thinks it's interesting to
> think about.
>
> -- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Special Identification for Arab Americans?
|
| (...) I'll take a shot at trying to figure out what LFB meant... I think what is being suggested is that the term "war" is cheapened when used in the manner it has been for the last three decades or so. I am referring to phrases like the "war on (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
