NationStates Jolt Archive

on a war that wasn't showing any signs of improvement, would you stop?

Let's say your country declared a war - say, a war on terror. Just as an example.

And, let's say that billions were spent, and lots of law passed, and after a few years, nothing really changed - there were still plenty of terrorists, and still plenty of "terror" in the minds of the civilian populace.

Would you say it was time to stop?

Saw this posted online:

War on poverty is over

Re: April 22 article "In South, rates rise for infant mortality."

The story of Mississippi poverty was quite distressing. But for years, Mississippi has been the Haiti of the United States.

I would blame racism and bigotry, but we enacted tough civil rights laws to address those. I would blame inattentive government, but I'm sure Mississippi has received untold millions in federal largesse from the Great Society 1960s to the present day.

Mississippi and places like it convince me that we have lost the war on poverty, however well-intentioned we were when we started it. We need to formulate an exit strategy, declare victory and stop all governmental antipoverty efforts because doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result is nothing but fool-hardy.

The best way to "solve" Mississippi poverty might be a Katrina-style relocation program.

Can you really have a "war on poverty" or a "war on drugs" anymore than you can have a "war on terror"?

Err.

I'm not sure if it's the layers of sarcasm or BS that's confusing me, but I'll be back in a page when it's out in the open.

Err.

I'm not sure if it's the layers of sarcasm or BS that's confusing me, but I'll be back in a page when it's out in the open.

Sarcasm, dear. Sarcasm.

Would you say it was time to stop?


Yes, in regards to any "war" on an abstract concept.

That's what happens when you declare war on an abstract noun instead of focusing on specific and tangible, not to mention bite-sized objectives to take care said problems.

Funny you didn't even provide a link to that nice bit you quoted. Could easily say you made that up.

And Kimchi? The "War on Drugs" was Reagan's idea. Not a Democrat's.

That's what happens when you declare war on an abstract noun instead of focusing on specific and tangible, not to mention bite-sized objectives to take care said problems.

Funny you didn't even provide a link to that nice bit you quoted. Could easily say you made that up.

And Kimchi? The "War on Drugs" was Reagan's idea. Not a Democrat's.

Did I imply that Democrats own the "war" idea? Nope. If you note, both parties seem to be pretty good at declaring war on abstracts.

Oh, and to pwn you, here's the link to the comment:

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/05/09/9letters_edit.html

You do realise, I hope, that Iraq is an abstract concept. It is just a set of lines drawn on a map.

You do realise, I hope, that Iraq is an abstract concept. It is just a set of lines drawn on a map.

Funny, it's awful easy to hit with a bomb for an 'abstract concept'.

on a war that wasn't showing any signs of improvement, would you stop?

Let's say your country declared a war - say, a war on terror. Just as an example.

And, let's say that billions were spent, and lots of law passed, and after a few years, nothing really changed - there were still plenty of terrorists, and still plenty of "terror" in the minds of the civilian populace.

Would you say it was time to stop?

Saw this posted online:



Can you really have a "war on poverty" or a "war on drugs" anymore than you can have a "war on terror"?

Hehe I make you absolutly right. As for war on this or war on that, surly the only war we can ever make is war on people?

Funny, it's awful easy to hit with a bomb for an 'abstract concept'.

Is it?

As far as I know you can hit the ground, or buildings, or people or other real concrete things but I have yet to see or hear of anyone hitting 'Iraq".

Is it?

As far as I know you can hit the ground, or buildings, or people or other real concrete things but I have yet to see or hear of anyone hitting 'Iraq".

Considering that Iraq is, literally, the physical area (volume actually, considering airspace and undergroud and such) bound by those 'lines on a map' yes, you can hit it. That ground is Iraq. for the time being, anyways, it could get blown acrosss the border, at which point that ground is Iran.

Is it?

As far as I know you can hit the ground, or buildings, or people or other real concrete things but I have yet to see or hear of anyone hitting 'Iraq".

So in other words we declared economic sanctions on an Abstract Concept, Your Dear Leader declared that an Abstract Concept had connections to the 9-11 Attack, and then abandoned Afghanistan to invade and "bring democracy" to an Abstract Concept.

BRILLIANT!!

Considering that Iraq is, literally, the physical area (volume actually, considering airspace and undergroud and such) bound by those 'lines on a map' yes, you can hit it. That ground is Iraq. for the time being, anyways, it could get blown acrosss the border, at which point that ground is Iran.

Have you seen it, personally?

Have you seen it, personally?

Seen what? Ground?

Oh, and to pwn you, here's the link to the comment:

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/05/09/9letters_edit.html

Pwned? You couldn't even be arsed to link to it until I brought up the issue.

And citing reader comments as basis for making a political statement like "we should forget doing anything about poverty" has the same scholastic brilliance as writing a doctoral using Wikipedia.

Seen what? Ground?

Kimchi's moving the goalpost. You're disqualified from commenting if you've never physically set foot in Iraq now.

:rolleyes:

Is it?

As far as I know you can hit the ground, or buildings, or people or other real concrete things but I have yet to see or hear of anyone hitting 'Iraq".

Substitute "Sadaam's elite guard" for "Iraq."
Then, a month or so later, substitute "insurgents."
A year or so later, substitute "anyone who doesn't look like us and is shooting at us."

Considering that Iraq is, literally, the physical area (volume actually, considering airspace and undergroud and such) bound by those 'lines on a map' yes, you can hit it. That ground is Iraq. for the time being, anyways, it could get blown acrosss the border, at which point that ground is Iran.

O ye of little comprehension. Iraq is an abstract concept in the same way that any nation state is an abstract concept. It is a name that we give (or was given by others) to a region. The physical area is no more Iraq than Mars is Barsoom. It is a collection of river plains, deserts, scrubland, etc. that has been artificially and completely abstractly designated a name. You cannot make an Iraq, you cannot grow an Iraq, you cannot move it around, weigh it, see where it starts and finishes, distinguish it from other objects in the universe. It is abstract.

The point of this is to make it clear that war, in nearly all of its forms, is waged against an abstract concept. In fact, as war itself is an abstract concept, it would be difficult to wage a war against anything real. This being the case, war on poverty makes as much sense as does war on Iraq. (War on terror is a different case as terror is an emotional state, and may not even be abstract)

The next question is which of these two wars has cost more?

Substitute "Sadaam's elite guard" for "Iraq."
Then, a month or so later, substitute "insurgents."
A year or so later, substitute "anyone who doesn't look like us and is shooting at us."

Or even "anyone who doesn't look like us" and forget about the shooting bit (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6641843.stm).

well the difference between the two is that the war of poverty has been won before its just that in fact the US government hasn't done anything to solve the problem of poverty (much like the areas affected by Katrina)

a war of terror however is unchartered waters and the thing where fighting has only been popular since the 1970's

Kimchi's moving the goalpost. You're disqualified from commenting if you've never physically set foot in Iraq now.

:rolleyes:

No, you're wrong again.

I'm saying that if you haven't been to a place, it only exists in the abstract.

O ye of little comprehension. Iraq is an abstract concept in the same way that any nation state is an abstract concept. It is a name that we give (or was given by others) to a region. The physical area is no more Iraq than Mars is Barsoom. It is a collection of river plains, deserts, scrubland, etc. that has been artificially and completely abstractly designated a name. You cannot make an Iraq, you cannot grow an Iraq, you cannot move it around, weigh it, see where it starts and finishes, distinguish it from other objects in the universe. It is abstract.

The point of this is to make it clear that war, in nearly all of its forms, is waged against an abstract concept. In fact, as war itself is an abstract concept, it would be difficult to wage a war against anything real. This being the case, war on poverty makes as much sense as does war on Iraq. (War on terror is a different case as terror is an emotional state, and may not even be abstract)

The next question is which of these two wars has cost more?

Artifically, yes. Abstract, no. Iraq moves all the time, as does all the other nations, that's to tectonics and what not. you can't weigh a star if only because you can't put it on a scale. Is that abstract too? And 'starts and finishes', 'distiguish from other objects'...As though they were measurements seperating out the abstract, that's what those lines are for, remember?

Yes, it's arbitrary, but it's not abstract. There's some shit there which we have, literally, defined as iraq. Much as we, again literally, defined that big-ass red rock out there Mars. And no, we can't grow a planet.

No, you're wrong again.

I'm saying that if you haven't been to a place, it only exists in the abstract.

So your school only exists in the abstract?

There's some shit there which we have, literally, defined as iraq.

No there isn't. There is shit there that we call rock, or water, or person, or brick etc. There is nothing out there that is a thing that we call Iraq. We simply define a collection of these real things as having the property of being Iraqi, when, in practice they are no different to those that we define as being Iranian, or Peruvian for that matter, Water is water, rocks are rocks, people are people, and bricks are definitely bricks. None of these are Iraq. Iraq is an abstract concept that we use as a convenient fiction to label a collection of concrete objects and material. There are nations where this is not the case. These are nations such as Australia, or Japan, where the limits of the abstract definition coincide with a real object - be this an island or a continent. This is not the case with Iraq. As you have clearly stated we define Iraq. If we need to define it it has to abstract. If it were real we would simply name it, not define it.

No there isn't. There is shit there that we call rock, or water, or person, or brick etc. There is nothing out there that is a thing that we call Iraq. We simply define a collection of these real things as having the property of being Iraqi, when, in practice they are no different to those that we define as being Iranian, or Peruvian for that matter, Water is water, rocks are rocks, people are people, and bricks are definitely bricks. None of these are Iraq. Iraq is an abstract concept that we use as a convenient fiction to label a collection of concrete objects and material. There are nations where this is not the case. These are nations such as Australia, or Japan, where the limits of the abstract definition coincide with a real object - be this an island or a continent. This is not the case with Iraq. As you have clearly stated we define Iraq. If we need to define it it has to abstract. If it were real we would simply name it, not define it.

Muh...Hydrogen is hydrogen, stars are abstract too now, are they? Iraq is a name for this collection. Much as forest is a name for a collection of trees.

So the Moon, the Sun, Jupiter, M-32 etc are abstracts....can I have what you are smoking please? I fancy a quick break from reality.

You can see the Moon.

Can you see Iraq from where you are?

No, you're wrong again.

I'm saying that if you haven't been to a place, it only exists in the abstract.

So the Moon, the Sun, Jupiter, M-32 etc are abstracts....can I have what you are smoking please? I fancy a quick break from reality.

Ahh, aren't semantics wonderful?

On-topic, I think we should have a war on terrorists, not a war on terror itself. Terror is an emotion, and you can't get rid of emotion.

Ahh, aren't semantics wonderful?

On-topic, I think we should have a war on terrorists, not a war on terror itself. Terror is an emotion, and you can't get rid of emotion.

Sure we can. From now on, you will never be terrified again. Ever. If you ever feel terror, even once, we will kill you. This way, we can destroy terror once and for all.

I'm saying that if you haven't been to a place, it only exists in the abstract.

That is such an inane statement, that I'm sure almost everyone else will also try to explain this to you:

ab·stract (āb-strākt', āb'strākt') Pronunciation Key
adj.
Considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept.
Not applied or practical; theoretical. See Synonyms at theoretical.
Difficult to understand; abstruse: abstract philosophical problems.
Thought of or stated without reference to a specific instance: abstract words like truth and justice.
Impersonal, as in attitude or views.
Having an intellectual and affective artistic content that depends solely on intrinsic form rather than on narrative content or pictorial representation: abstract painting and sculpture.

n. (āb'strākt')

A statement summarizing the important points of a text.
Something abstract.

tr.v. (āb-strākt') ab·stract·ed, ab·stract·ing, ab·stracts

To take away; remove.
To remove without permission; filch.
To consider (a quality, for example) without reference to a particular example or object.
(āb'strākt') To summarize; epitomize.
To create artistic abstractions of (something else, such as a concrete object or another style): "The Bauhaus Functionalists were . . . busy unornamenting and abstracting modern architecture, painting and design" (John Barth).

Now that I assume you have read all commonly used meanings of the word abstract, I will explain why one does not have to have gone somewhere for the place to exist.

I have relatives overseas, a mystical realm that I have never been to.. Yet, they have come to visit me and my family a few times. Does this mean there are only in my mind? That they themselves are hallucinations? Or is it possible, that when they leave the U.S, they travel back into the Void?

I will let you answer that one yourself, and I would truly enjoy reading how you manage to back up your little assertion.

on a war that wasn't showing any signs of improvement, would you stop?

Let's say your country declared a war - say, a war on terror. Just as an example.

And, let's say that billions were spent, and lots of law passed, and after a few years, nothing really changed - there were still plenty of terrorists, and still plenty of "terror" in the minds of the civilian populace.

Would you say it was time to stop?

Saw this posted online:

Can you really have a "war on poverty" or a "war on drugs" anymore than you can have a "war on terror"?

Gee, smartass, what kind of casualties or harm is the war accumulating? That may influence whether we need to stop.

And haven't we made major changes in strategy several times in the "war on poverty"?

Think your analogies through a little better next time.

Gee, smartass, what kind of casualties or harm is the war accumulating? That may influence whether we need to stop.


Destruction of African-American families, condemned to generational poverty.

And haven't we made major changes in strategy several times in the "war on poverty"?

Hasn't done any good. Are you going to claim victory?

Think your analogies through a little better next time.

Looks like I have.

Destruction of African-American families, condemned to generational poverty.

Yeah, cuz they was doing so well before the war on poverty. :rolleyes:

Hasn't done any good. Are you going to claim victory?

It has done a great deal of good. Are you going to claim no progress?

Looks like I have.

Think again.

[Remote Observer]

Yeah, cuz they was doing so well before the war on poverty. :rolleyes:

At least slavery provided them with a stable job..

It has done a great deal of good. Are you going to claim no progress?

It only helped the poor.. and what do the poor do for us? Beg us for help, thats what..

Think again.

Oh? How can I think again when I haven't thought in the first place? Eeh?

[/Remote Observer]

Can you really have a "war on poverty" or a "war on drugs" anymore than you can have a "war on terror"?
No, but I don't recall being on the side that thinks a "war on terror" is possible.