[lbo-talk] Does "War" Imply The Foe Shooting Back?

Shane Mage shmage at pipeline.com
Sat Feb 13 17:15:00 PST 2016


On Feb 13, 2016, at 6:02 PM, MM wrote:


>
>> On Feb 13, 2016, at 4:55 PM, Carl G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu> wrote:
>>
>> The Reagan administration came into office announcing that a primary concern of US foreign policy would be a “war on terror,”

Nixon and his successors had "wars" on drugs, on cancer, on crime, on porn, and who knows what else (though now that anything at all can be called "terrorism" we only really need one such war). But Constitutionally, and thus legally, the US can have no "war" on anything or anybody at all unless the Congress has Declared War (Article I, Section 8). "war on terror" is thus as meaningless legally as it is semantically. Which diminishes not in the least its utility as a mind-stuffer.

Shane Mage

This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, kindling in measures and going out in measures.

Herakleitos of Ephesos



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list