AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA STOP MAKING SENSE MY HEAD ASPLODE

War On X == Advancement Of X

_{/plus thousands on innocent casualties}

make me some tea: STOP MAKING SENSE

you might ask yourself...

Someone is trying to get on someone's good side.

"I KEPT MY MOUTH SHUT FOR 8 YEARS BUT HEY, NEW GUY, NEW SONG!"

Pathetic.

/Provide links if he said otherwise, I shall recant!

Maybe we should combine the two into a super awesome War on Drugs and Terror? In fact, combine the War on Poverty with that mess and you'll have Voltron--and how can that be bad for anyone?

Procedural Texture: War On X == Advancement Of X

/plus thousands on innocent casualties

I was told there would be no math.

Procedural Texture:
/plus thousands on innocent casualties


Why would you bet money on casualties? sick sick man.

DeathByGeekSquad: Someone is trying to get on someone's good side.

"I KEPT MY MOUTH SHUT FOR 8 YEARS BUT HEY, NEW GUY, NEW SONG!"

Pathetic.

/Provide links if he said otherwise, I shall recant!

Roughly true, though it is worth noting that the British Government stopped using the term "War on Terror" more than 2 years ago (they just did it quietly, so as not to piss off still-President Bush and co)

holiday_inn_in_cambodia: Why would you bet money on casualties? sick sick man.

Ah, I see what you did there, you clever monkey.

Typical brown-nosing, gutless Bushie. Only decides to emulate the truth when it doesn't matter. Even though he is garbage, he is an order of magnitude above the rest of them.

Just me, or is the last paragraph the only interesting part of that article?

Spez: Just me, or is the last paragraph the only interesting part of that article?

It would be interesting if it were accurate.

I am sure Olmert runs the US.

I think the War on Poverty is about to get a fresh offensive.

To be fair, since the war on drugs, new designer drugs have not been hitting the marketplace like they were in the 80s-90s. Sure the ones that were coming out are still around and prevalent, and sure you can go pretty much anywhere and find someone dealing, but the creation of new drugs seems to have been halted. Near as I can see.

Mangoose: To be fair, since the war on drugs, new designer drugs have not been hitting the marketplace like they were in the 80s-90s. Sure the ones that were coming out are still around and prevalent, and sure you can go pretty much anywhere and find someone dealing, but the creation of new drugs seems to have been halted. Near as I can see.

Why do you need new drugs when you already have monkey tranquilizer?

/just sayin'

Does it feel as if the world suddenly regained so much senses lately?

Mangoose: To be fair, since the war on drugs, new designer drugs have not been hitting the marketplace like they were in the 80s-90s.

What are you saying, we need a War on Designer Drugs? I get by on CIA cultivated heroin fresh from the Afghanistan and big pharma blue pills. Its all much better now than the days of popping white blotter back in the 80's.

Seriously dude, you ever met a meth addict?

liam76:

I am sure Olmert runs the US.

Nah, he doesn't run the US, just certain aspects of your foreign policy.

We need to have a War on Declaring Wars on Abstract Concepts.

Since most farkers don't support the "global war on terror," how would you pursue terrorists? Treat is as strictly a law enforcement matter? How does the country deal with sovereign nations that support or fund terror?

/Isn't looking for a flamewar, just interested in other ideas.

The Scutt-Farkas Affair: Since most farkers don't support the "global war on terror," how would you pursue terrorists? Treat is as strictly a law enforcement matter? How does the country deal with sovereign nations that support or fund terror?

/Isn't looking for a flamewar, just interested in other ideas.

Farkers are after a nationwide love letter campaign to emplore Islamists to stop poking us.

The Scutt-Farkas Affair: Since most farkers don't support the "global war on terror," how would you pursue terrorists? Treat is as strictly a law enforcement matter? How does the country deal with sovereign nations that support or fund terror?

/Isn't looking for a flamewar, just interested in other ideas.

Well, for a start, I wouldn't do it by invading an unrelated country whilst already engaged in a long haul campaign vs guerillas with a penchant for IEDs.

The Scutt-Farkas Affair

Since most farkers don't support the "global war on terror," how would you pursue terrorists? Treat is as strictly a law enforcement matter? How does the country deal with sovereign nations that support or fund terror?

how about defining what "terrorism" actually means for starters? Even in America, every agency in the United States government with a counter-terrorism mission uses a different definition.

United States House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, State Department, FBI, DOD, etc. all have a different definition. So what the fark is terrorism?

then look for real causes, dont politicize it. what really causes terrorism? its not them "hating our freedom" thats for sure...

/ya rly

I would be fine if they got rid of the War on Drugs

I work at UChicago medical center. The institution just fired two vice presidents and put a hiring freeze on all medical departments. And they plan on cutting the non-physician staff by 10%.

They're feeling the financial crisis like everyone else. There nothing else to it.

Sorry, wrong window. =(

"The more we lump terrorist groups together and draw the battle lines as a simple binary struggle between moderates and extremists or good and evil, the more we play into the hands of those seeking to unify groups with little in common,"

You don't say.

sparkmysmeg: Mangoose: To be fair, since the war on drugs, new designer drugs have not been hitting the marketplace like they were in the 80s-90s.

What are you saying, we need a War on Designer Drugs? I get by on CIA cultivated heroin fresh from the Afghanistan and big pharma blue pills. Its all much better now than the days of popping white blotter back in the 80's.

Seriously dude, you ever met a meth addict?

You wanna try some Totally-Awesome-Sweet-Alabama-Liquid-Snake?

The Scutt-Farkas Affair: Since most farkers don't support the "global war on terror," how would you pursue terrorists? Treat is as strictly a law enforcement matter? How does the country deal with sovereign nations that support or fund terror?

Define terror and then we can start to eradicate it.

jonasborg: Define terror and then we can start to eradicate it.

Terror is a tactic. Now you may begin your planning...

Mr.Niceguy: The Scutt-Farkas Affair

Since most farkers don't support the "global war on terror," how would you pursue terrorists? Treat is as strictly a law enforcement matter? How does the country deal with sovereign nations that support or fund terror?

how about defining what "terrorism" actually means for starters? Even in America, every agency in the United States government with a counter-terrorism mission uses a different definition.

United States House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, State Department, FBI, DOD, etc. all have a different definition. So what the fark is terrorism?

then look for real causes, dont politicize it. what really causes terrorism? its not them "hating our freedom" thats for sure...

/ya rly

Um...THIS...THIS...and more THIS

/good jorb

Is pleased by this news.

/Flaming

Mercutio74: Terror is a tactic. Now you may begin your planning...

So we war against a tactic? Holy shiat that's stupid.

Mercutio74

Terror is a tactic. Now you may begin your planning...

and what else? just a tactic? what kind of tactic? who gets to decide when and where this tactic is or isnt terrorism?

Descartes: I think the War on Poverty is about to get a fresh offensive.

"My department is resonsible for Weather Control and the War On the Poor."
"Don't you mean the War on Poverty?"
"...Sure, let's go with that."

Mr.Niceguy: and what else? just a tactic? what kind of tactic? who gets to decide when and where this tactic is or isnt terrorism?

Well, since it's a neo-con/PNAC semantic invention (The War on Terror) I guess they do.

The Scutt-Farkas Affair: Since most farkers don't support the "global war on terror," how would you pursue terrorists? Treat is as strictly a law enforcement matter? How does the country deal with sovereign nations that support or fund terror?

/Isn't looking for a flamewar, just interested in other ideas.

When individuals and groups of mom-government individuals commit acts of terror, it is a crime. Treat it as such.

When a government commits an act of terror it is an act for war. Treat it like a war (like Afghanistan)

It's really very simple.

Procedural Texture: War On X == Advancement Of X

/plus thousands on innocent casualties

Seems everything we declare "war" on is bound to fail, too much money would be lost if we won.

\If only we had a WOT Czar, that would fix it.

SpectroBoy: When individuals and groups of mom-government individuals commit acts of terror, it is a crime. Treat it as such.

When a government commits an act of terror it is an act for war. Treat it like a war (like Afghanistan)

It's really very simple.

Afghanistan wasn't responsible for 9/11.

Mr.Niceguy:
then look for real causes, dont politicize it. what really causes terrorism? its not them "hating our freedom" thats for sure...

/ya rly

Looking for real causes is inherently political. Sure, we could change our policy to minimize potential terrorism, but think of how much that would drop stock values. No, we need to put these filthy colonials in their place and jam them full of fast food and TV so they're too lethargic to even try to engage in terroristic activities! There's the ticket.

/nothing is apolitical

Has the US been attacked since 9/11?

No

The war on terror has been successful for that reason alone.

No attacks on American soil since 2001.

Phuc Great Britian's Guardian Newspaper.

MilesTeg: Has the US been attacked since 9/11?

No

The war on terror has been successful for that reason alone.

Uh, yes. The United States has been attacked after 9/11. At home and abroad. What bizarro world do you live in?

MilesTeg: Has the US been attacked since 9/11?

No

The war on terror has been successful for that reason alone.

"Lisa, I would like to buy your rock."

/apparently speaking only in quotes in this thread
//not my fault they're so relevant

The Scutt-Farkas Affair: Since most farkers don't support the "global war on terror," how would you pursue terrorists? Treat is as strictly a law enforcement matter? How does the country deal with sovereign nations that support or fund terror?

Easy. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.

MilesTeg: Has the US been attacked since 9/11?

No

The war on terror has been successful for that reason alone.

In that case I have an giraffe repellent I'd like to sell you. Of course it works. You don't see any giraffes around here, do you?

Shrugging Atlas: Maybe we should combine the two into a super awesome War on Drugs and Terror?

"The Global War on Terror Drugs."

That has a nice ring to it!

binnster: liam76:

I am sure Olmert runs the US.

Nah, he doesn't run the US, just certain aspects of your foreign policy the largest foreign lobbying group in the US, which in turn dictates certain aspects of your foreign policy.

FTFY, pet peeve.

the best war would be the War on Aliens, and that one, i think, would be a hit politically.

The Global War on Terror, Drugs, Poverty, Smoking, and Fatties.

Instant economic recovery.