What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
125 Comments
- ThsGuyRightHere, on 04/13/2009, -4/+54Declaring war on something doesn't make it go away, all it does is perpetuate the status quo. I point to the war on drugs as clear example. Hell, my CIO used to talk about the War on Spam... we're doing a bang up job on that one too. The pro-life movement has fought for their cause like it's a war as well, how's that working out for them?
Declaring a War on x removes any notion of common ground, vilifies the other side, and makes acceptable the notion of casualties... all while doing nothing to address the problem in the first place. In the case of the war on terror, the prosecution of said war has given a whole new generation of young Arabs plenty of reason to hate the U.S. Were we to stay on the course that's been charted since 9/11, we would be fighting the war on terror 20 years from now. - wjappe, on 04/12/2009, -11/+56Do you think it will make any difference in policy? Really?
- Hetman, on 04/13/2009, -1/+31Yea it is hard to fight a tactic. It is amazing that GWB did not declare war on ambushes.
- luvliberty, on 04/13/2009, -9/+37Dropping the term "war on terror" is a great idea, dropping the constitution isn't.
- inactive, on 04/13/2009, -2/+23Smart move, that whole concept was retarded.
Terror is a tactic. A VERY effective one. It's the basis for the American Revolution. It also helped the NVA defeat us in Vietnam. And if we fight an idiotic "War on Terror" it will be the fast track to a whole lot of wasted military losses.
Focus on problems that are tangible and by extension solvable. We might as well have been fighting a War on the Color Blue, it's an arbitrary, idiotic catchphrase that has no practical endgame. - VincentThomas, on 04/13/2009, -3/+20Drop the name "war on terror", call it something else.
Close Guantanamo, open prisons in Afghanistan. - inactive, on 04/13/2009, -4/+20So the US is going to stop terrorizing the world now?
- sugarazor, on 04/13/2009, -1/+16"You can't win a war on terror, it's like trying to win a war on jealousy" - David Cross
As all evidence has shown, terrorism is best fought when a law enforcement approach is used, not a militaristic approach. - inactive, on 04/13/2009, -4/+18The War on Terror was an engineered war, designed to last a hundred years or longer. Rumsfeld made mention of this in one of his speeches, describing it as the "long war".
Anyone who has actually read 1984 would know exactly where the concept of a war on a mysterious ever-changing force came from. The Germans also used such a tactic when they declared a war on communists, who they blamed for the Reichstag fire. Replace communists with terrorists, and you get the same effect: a target which people can rally around and enough political support will be gained for the invasion of countries.
Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia (all thought of war with Eastasia has been suppressed in the people's minds)
U.S. has always been at war with Iraq (all thought of war with Afghanistan has been suppressed in the people's minds)
Osama bin Laden plays the role of Emmanuel Goldstein. al-Qaeda replaces The Brotherhood. - Hanny26, on 04/13/2009, -3/+15Dropping the war that was sold to the American public on utterly false pretenses would also be a "smart move".
- richmomz, on 04/13/2009, -8/+18Same *****; new package.
- inactive, on 04/13/2009, -5/+15The Ministry of Truth has spoken. Let us follow them faithfully!
- cambob76, on 04/13/2009, -3/+12"War on Terror" sounded retarded from the beginning. I think Bush himself probably thought it up.
- inactive, on 04/13/2009, -1/+9No, but if you remove the element that plays on people's emotions, it makes it easier for people to be rational about it. Support for the Iraq war, for instance, came largely from it being tied to the war on terror - so, even though it had nothing to do with 9/11, people heard the phrase "war on terror," associated it with 9/11, and jumped to conclusions. If no one had made a connection between Iraq and 9/11, there probably would've been a lot less popular support.
- VincentThomas, on 04/13/2009, -0/+8Even if they don't, they'll manufacture more ***** to feed us I'm sure.
- harpoonhank420, on 04/13/2009, -2/+9da da double speak?
- shniper, on 04/13/2009, -0/+7Aw. Can we still "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here"?
- chanop, on 04/13/2009, -0/+7Perpetual fear. My town is in lock down right now because someone left a briefcase in a bank. hmmm, I'm willing to bet it's anthrax!
http://poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20090413/NE ... - richmomz, on 04/13/2009, -9/+16They can call it whatever they want - but it won't change what it really is.
- dalittle, on 04/13/2009, -7/+13I like the new slogan for the conservatives. "Got Policy?" Oh, I forgot, the GOP are just whiny bitches, they don't work.
- muzfuz, on 04/13/2009, -1/+7doubtful
- nirvanix, on 04/14/2009, -0/+5No, they recently included Pakistan in their chess game. I expect a million Pakistani to be dead a few years from now judging from the trend set in Iraq and Afghanistan.
- ljoreilly, on 04/13/2009, -7/+12Its just re-branding. But it will convince some people that it actually is a "New and Improved Formula, now with more compassion crystals!"
- muzfuz, on 04/13/2009, -0/+5Speaking of which-- in countries where "terrorism" legislation wasn't introduced after 9/11 (see- patriot act, terrorism act in UK), terrorist activities are prosecuted under "organized crime" laws.
Seems to make much more sense to me than to introduce such harsh and restrictive laws that limit your own citizens' freedoms. - inactive, on 04/13/2009, -3/+8*facepalm* A clean break from a country that was taxing without representation is not a military tactic.
- sugarazor, on 04/13/2009, -0/+5I love how using a humorous quote makes you jump to the conclusion that I'm trying to present Cross as an "American philosopher" or "counter terrorism expert." Typical neocon strategy, attack the messenger rather than the substance of their statement. Just like with Biden's quote about no one following Bush, just call Biden a liar rather than addressing his remarks.
- Barackalypse, on 04/13/2009, -1/+6A Government power grab against its own citizens under the guise of protecting them?
- FredFredrickson, on 04/13/2009, -1/+6Of course it won't. We're too far in to drastically change policy at this point.
But it does make me feel better that they might re-brand the war into something we can get out of. Regardless of the actual situation on the ground, you can never stop waging a "war on terror" because there's no feasible way to get rid of every person on the earth who is will to commit acts of terrorism.
If it's the "war in Iraq" we're talking about, that is a war that we can leave once things are better. We should have never gone over there in the first place, and by many counts we made things worse than they were, but that is still a war we can get away from, even if it's the same war with a name change. - Samueul, on 04/14/2009, -2/+7Just like how they are saying "climate change" instead of "global warming" now...
What they really mean is "wallet change"... - VisualRhetoric, on 04/13/2009, -2/+6Freedom fries?
- FredFredrickson, on 04/13/2009, -2/+6Isn't it more "ministry of truth"-like to call it the "war on terror," which has no real enemy or attainable goal?
- EelfinnTy, on 04/13/2009, -0/+4The war on terror doesn't include pirates so they have to come up with a new phrase.
- nirvanix, on 04/14/2009, -0/+4The name must be changed because public support has dwindled. I can't wait to hear what the new name is. Maybe a "War for Change" will work?
- Radan, on 04/13/2009, -2/+6Sweet sanity! In terms of fighting terrorism this war may be one of the most pointless acts in modern history. I thought history had taught us this before it even began. For every so called terrorist one kill two more rise up to avenge his death.
- BassMasterP, on 04/14/2009, -1/+4Political correctness is destroying this country - if anything we need less of it.
- donnytomas, on 04/14/2009, -0/+3War on Terror by any other name is still baseless propaganda.
- yerdaddy, on 04/13/2009, -0/+3How can senator Clinton let slip something last week that's been in the news for a month or two?
- CrazedLeper, on 04/13/2009, -0/+3I do get the distinct feeling we haven't heard the last of WOT yet; I'm sure they'll hold on to the trademarks for future use.
- EllimistX, on 04/13/2009, -2/+5'bout tree-fiddy...
- Barackalypse, on 04/13/2009, -2/+5Its just rhetoric either way, we started with the "war on terror" moniker to rally the American masses to support the cause and now we're dropping it to try and re-frame the enemy in less incendiary terms for the purpose of public relations. If we spent as much time considering our actions as we did the words we use to justify them, maybe the Constitution wouldn't be being eroded at home and we wouldn't be occupying two countries with our military.
- rjey, on 04/13/2009, -1/+4Got a buck fifty on me.
- WasabiBomb, on 04/13/2009, -2/+5Calling it "The War on Terror" is a lot more Orwellian than NOT calling it "The War on Terror", xen. I'm saddened that I even have to tell you this.
- BassMasterP, on 04/14/2009, -0/+3It does have a practical endgame - it was used to expand the power of the government with the public's support.
A vague term such as "terror" is never used unintentionally and for exactly the reason so many people scratch their heads - because it is vague. They can fit almost anything they want under it and be justified. We basically give our rights to the government to do what they do at their discretion all in the name of some "greater good".
War on drugs, sexual predator registry - all broad names that affect unintended targets because they can fall under these umbrella terms. - FishThePirate, on 04/14/2009, -0/+3"War on Terror"
We're waging a war on "being afraid"? - WasabiBomb, on 04/13/2009, -1/+3Where did you get that from?
Just asking, is all. - Nitelite, on 04/13/2009, -0/+2Well said sugarazor. It doesn't always take an expert to present valid arguments or realize when a step has been taken in the wrong direction. I can "debate" with you all day long about topics I have zero expertise in. Will they be as well presented as one from an expert? No. But speaking to such easily recognized matters does not take a genius or an expert.
- BrutePhysics, on 04/13/2009, -1/+3I think the reason for dropping the "war on terror" terminology is to cause people to consider actions more. In my opinion, "war on terror" causes the reaction in some people to say that so and so policy is best because we are in a war on terror... national security reasons and all that.
By not referring to it as the war on terror and instead as the Iraq war, which is much more concrete, people are more likely to think more closely and impartially about the situation.
At least that is my take on it. - wjappe, on 04/14/2009, -0/+2 Like the American car companies, we don''t buy your cars because we abandoned Detroit, we were abandoned by Detroit because they make over priced lousy cars.
Just like I didn't abandon the Republican or Democrat parties, they abandoned us with broken promises, meaningless fluff and not do anything about serious issues
I'd never vote for either one of them unless they do some serious cleaning up of their act.
Now cleaning up of their act would be smart move. - sugarazor, on 04/13/2009, -0/+2Maybe you should read the studies produced not that long ago that says law enforcement fights terrorism better than military action.
Sorry that you have so little originality that you thought you had to be a jerk on the internet and resort to personal attacks rather than speak to others like an adult. -
Show 51 - 100 of 130 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is