Thursday, December 21, 2006

Redefining the word "war"

This is starting to piss me off. I'm amazed at how the press keeps accepting dictionary words being redefined as if they were mere slogans. We have heard about the "War on Poverty", then the "War on Drugs". We have the eternal "War on Terrorism", class and gender "warfare" and now the "War in Iraq". Pardon my repeating myself, but Websters defines war as, to paraphrase, an armed conflict between nations or states. Which of the above wars are really a war? Who's the enemy? If we can have a "war" against terrorism, should we have declared a "war" on surprise attacks December 7th, 1941?

In this context we hear the debate about winning or loosing the "War in Iraq". I've got a news flash - We won the war in Iraq. What we are "loosing" is the occupation *after* the war. You can't win in an occupation, eventually you withdraw or make the territory part of your own state. I can't see anyway that Iraq is going to become part of the United States, thus we are going to eventually withdraw. The real question isn't winning or loosing the occupation. We can debate the chaos after the occupation and how soon that will be. What we can not deny the fact that every day we occupy a state in the middle east more people die and the world becomes more unstable.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi, i was looking over your blog and didn't
quite find what I was looking for. I'm looking for
different ways to earn money... I did find this though...
a place where you can make some nice extra cash.
I made over $900 last month having fun!
make extra money now

12:24 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home