[Vision2020] Support Military Protestors Against the War That IMplies Winning

[Paul Rumelhart]

Tom Hansen wrote:

>---------------------
>
>'War' implies winning
>
>It is this use and overuse of the term war that is the problem. We must stop
>using it so idly. I mean there is this war on terrorism, war on Iraq, war on
>poverty, on drugs, on ignorance; frankly we will never win any of them. They
>are not winnable. The war on Vietnam was not winnable. If a war cannot be
>won it should be called something else; stupid, possibly. World War I and II
>were wars. 
>
>A war is so terrible it cannot be lost. In a war that cannot be lost the
>whole country is mobilized, everything is put on the line, everything is
>taxed, everyone fights and no one makes an unfair profit from it. If we are
>unwilling to commit everything, it is not a war. A war should not be so easy
>to get into either. Lies and warmongering should not be enough.
>
>We should learn something from this waste in Iraq. For that matter, we
>should learn something from the Chinese. They know about winning. It is time
>to go home, George. Ask Rove to throw a spin on it, say we won, declare
>victory and start packing.
>
>Edward L. Parker
>Spokane
>
>  
>

I agree with this 100%.  We are abusing the term.  In fact, it's simply 
a well-chosen word that is known to push our buttons.  This pisses me 
off.  I don't like to be manipulated, even though that's all you seem to 
get in this country anymore.  If it's not the government, it's the 
media, or the corporations.  Multi-billion dollar advertising campaigns, 
viral marketing, propaganda - it's a major sign that our country needs 
an overhaul.

We let it happen, plain and simple, because we panicked on 9/11.  That 
opened the door for a lot of things that will never go back to normal again.

Paul