From: Robert Comer 

>No different to the "War on Poverty" the "War on
Drugs" or the "War on
>Cancer"

Yep -- which is not really war at all.

>Works every time as we know that nowadays there ain't no cancer, drugs
>nor poverty in the US of A.

I wish!

--
Bob Comer



On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:29:13 +0100, Adam
<""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near the
bridge"> wrote:

>Robert Comer wrote:
>> Part of the problem here is that the "War on Terror",
isn't a war like
>> previous ones, the enemy is not so easy to determine, so it's far too
>> easy to just label someone an enemy.  There is no Germans, or Japanese
>> to target (though what we did to the Japanese American's is pretty
>> shameful), the enemy is just an ideal that anyway can be accused of,
>> so there *has* to be more controls on just who is labeled an enemy.
>>
>
>No different to the "War on Poverty" the "War on
Drugs" or the "War on
>Cancer"
>
>
>Find something (an emotion, disease, psychoactive chemical, or social
>state) which you can't actually have a war against & declare war against it.
>
>Works every time as we know that nowadays there ain't no cancer, drugs
>nor poverty in the US of A.
>
>Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5