Miserable failure

[leejo]

http://www.nationalreview.com/script...0604180719.asp

In 1971 President Richard M. Nixon prevailed upon Congress to pass the National Cancer Act, effectively declaring war on a leading cause of death in the U.S. The goal of the National Cancer Act was to discover a cure by the year 1981, a notion that today seems almost as naïve and dated as the disco outfits we were all still wearing back then. In his declaration of war on cancer Nixon pledged that, “The same kind of concentrated effort that split the atom and took man to the moon should be turned toward conquering this dread disease.”

[Rincewind]

I declare war on boogers. Not as bad as cancer, but the leading cause of embarassing moments at work.

I know, I know. This is not where you want this thread to go

[TychoCelchuuu]

I think as satire, it doesn't work so well because it misrepresents the opposing position. It says

It’s time to face the fact that the war on cancer is over, and that cancer has won.

I have never heard anyone say that Iraq has "won." We kicked their asses. Few people speak in terms of winning or losing (except the president. See: "Mission Accomplished" banner, etc). Mostly we're looking at the war in terms of how it should continue, to what degree America should stay involved.

Does anyone still deny that America embarked on this so-called war without a well-defined plan for achieving victory? To say nothing of an exit strategy.

I mean, come on. That's not even an accurate analogy. An exit strategy is something you need for a real war, not for a war on cancer or anything like that. And obviously you have to plan the freaking war before you go in.

This war has been waged with an almost willful ignorance of the nature of the enemy we face. Remember laetrile, the miracle cancer cure extracted from apricot pits? Remember oatmeal’s putative preventative properties? The so-called cancer “vaccine”? All came to nothing.

It doesn't make sense to pair that first sentence with the rest. That's comparing the nature of the enemy to the evidence for going to war in Iraq, which are completely different. It could be argued that the military was unaware of what kind of opposition we would face when we got there (didn't expect such a virulent insurgency), but that's entirely seperate from the issue of military intelligence, and an administration that was more receptive to evidence that backed up its desire to go to war than evidence that suggested Iraq had no WMDs.

Then there’s the unilateral aspect of the current struggle. Instead of enlisting the aid of trusted allies such as France and Germany to form a coalition of like-minded powers to fight this disease, we arbitrarily declared war on cancer like the arrogant superpower we are. Not even the United Nations was consulted, much less asked for its permission. No wonder the whole world hates us.

Again it's not an entirely applicable metaphor. Curing a disease is something that, with or without the help of the international community, is something that stays within your borders. You don't screw up anyone or anywhere else. Invading another country is completely different. We're dropping millions of pounds of bombs in Iraq; if we had to bomb another country into oblivion to cure cancer then we'd best seek international approval first.

The main argument against waging war on cancer, of course, is that it’s just too difficult. Sure, it would be nice to live in a world without cancer — or rainy days, for that matter — but it just doesn’t seem plausible.

The only people who believe this about the war on terror are defeatists. The majority of those who oppose the Bush administration's conduct don't take issue with it because they want to live with the terrorists, but because they think that going after Iraq when Osama bin Laden hated Saddam as much as we did was a distraction from what we ought to have been doing, and they think that invading Iraq is a great way to create more terrorists and destabilize the region.

Lastly, this endless war on cancer has been a distraction from the real enemy: heart disease. Heart attacks kill more Americans than cancer, yet there’s been no talk of a “war” on heart disease.

I know it's kinda silly to be discussing this thing like it was a literal opinion piece, but there have been plenty of people who have called for heart disease to be eliminated before we focus on smaller but more popular diseases like cancer.

Meanwhile, untold billions have been frittered away on this un-winnable cancer war, money that could have been spent beefing up security at our ports, on our borders, or wherever Rep. Cynthia McKinney might attempt to enter a federal building next.

This is no joking matter; 22 Chinese people just arrived in the Port of Seattle via cargo crate without anyone knowing. Luckily, we caught them, but those could easily have been 22 terrorists (or 21 and a dirty bomb). I don't care what you think about Iraq; our country isn't safe enough yet and it's hard to argue that if we weren't in Iraq we'd have untold billions to spend on other things.

[Rincewind]

Originally Posted by TychoCelchuuu

it's hard to argue that if we weren't in Iraq we'd have untold billions to spend on other things.

Like eliminating boogers?

[Renagade]

boogers?

Definetly.

Get rid of them all!
~Renagade

[Diceman]

I'd like to declare war on declaring wars on things that are not nations. I mean, all this declaring war is purely political hyperbole which does nothing to clarify the underlying complexities of any given issue, be it cancer, drugs, terror or Christmas.

Tycho is absolutely correct (if I may paraphrase here a little) - the war metaphor is rarely appropriate to deal with the situations and problems that actually challenge us.

The spin-induced G-forces that surround such articles as Miserable Failure would make for superb satire, if the casual (and oftentimes, inappropriate) analogies weren't being applied in an attempt to make for a very literal argument against discussing the merits and detriments of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the "War on Terror" in general.

And anyone who says differently is like Hitler.

[icky]

Gas is a far more serious workplace issue than boogers, IMO.

I don't think we should try to stifle the release of gas anymore. We have grown as a society, and it is time for us to step forward and embrace the fact that all humans produce gas. Gas release should be something which is done with pride in the workplace, as it is in the house of a married man.

So if you step into my cubicle at work and smell something foul, do as many men have done in private since the beginning of time, and say "GOOD ONE!"

We can make the world a better place, one fart at a time.

What was the topic again?

[Chappie]

Originally Posted by icky

Gas is a far more serious workplace issue than boogers, IMO.

I don't think we should try to stifle the release of gas anymore. We have grown as a society, and it is time for us to step forward and embrace the fact that all humans produce gas. Gas release should be something which is done with pride in the workplace, as it is in the house of a married man.

So if you step into my cubicle at work and smell something foul, do as many men have done in private since the beginning of time, and say "GOOD ONE!"

We can make the world a better place, one fart at a time.

What was the topic again?

OMG, now that is funny........I chuckled outloud!!

+rep to icky...if we had +rep...

Chappie

[AMosely]

Fill in the blanks with your favorite untangible wars (as Diceman said, declare war on declaring war on untangibles)

- We should never have gone to war on ___ in the first place.
- The very idea that we could ever control _____ is emblematic of a type of hubris only Americans are capable of.
- How exactly does one wage war on a (untangible)?

"Wake up, America. It’s time to admit defeat, apologize to the world, and seek a diplomatic solution to our differences with (diseases, drugs, tactics, religions). Only then will we have the resources, the manpower, and the national will to tackle the truly noble causes that we face."

This is a great concept. Run with it.

[Beatnik]

Originally Posted by AMosely

Fill in the blanks with your favorite untangible wars (as Diceman said, declare war on declaring war on untangibles)

- We should never have gone to war on ___ in the first place.
- The very idea that we could ever control _____ is emblematic of a type of hubris only Americans are capable of.
- How exactly does one wage war on a (untangible)?

"Wake up, America. It’s time to admit defeat, apologize to the world, and seek a diplomatic solution to our differences with (diseases, drugs, tactics, religions). Only then will we have the resources, the manpower, and the national will to tackle the truly noble causes that we face."

This is a great concept. Run with it.

Very well said.