B.Basher
06-06-2007, 04:05 PM
As human beings living in the commercial ridden 21st Century, we love slogans. Everything needs to have a slogan, every product, food, movie advert, website, if it doesn't have that catchy one-liner, it just ain't top quality. That's just the way it is.
The problem is, over the last few years, this petty requirement of iconic status has manifested itself in the political world. Let's just take a look at the STILL thrown around 'war on terror' phrase. I could say it has lost all meaning following the grim and ever more public reality of the Iraq war, but then that would be to say it ever had meaning in the first place. What is the 'war on terror' exactly? Noone knows for sure, it's just a phrase. You could call it the the war against terrorism, but then that could mean anything? The 'war on terror' only applies to terrorism in the middle East. What about terrorism at home? Terrorism in any other parts of the world? Politicians attempt to relate drug trafficking to terrorism. So 'war on terror' suddenly means 'war on drug users', which make up a large majority of the US and UK, including the ever increasing casual users of cocaine, ecstasy and of course, maryjane.
The thing is, 'war on terror', which could very easily be the title of some 1950's B-movie, is nothing but a mere slogan to connote fear when placed within any political narrative put forth by our world leaders. In much the same way as those magical numbers '9/11' (way to piss on those people's memory), throwing the words 'war on terror' into the equation was always and still is Bush's main method of reasoning for most of his bullshit, even for subjects that could not be further from the phrase's supposed meaning (anyone speaking out against Bush or his strategies, in his eyes, helps terrorists, therefore they are a terrorist, therefore they are included in the 'war on terror'). The reality of this methodical manipulation of the masses is becoming more and more apparent as the failures of the past 8 years follow suit and the 'war on terror' becomes less and less as straightforward as Bush's "ultimate strategy" may have suggested (kill 'em all and go home, war on terror baby).
But that's not to say anyone really cares. Many candidates for the next election have had their own witty slogans written for them as a means of gaining popularity, as well as multiple myspace, facebook and youtube accounts, now THATS 21st Century politics for ya. :thumbsup:
My point is the Iraq war has shown just how dangerous a well placed slogan can be. Post 9/11, Bush was able to coax the majority of the country into fear just by chucking the same words into every speech. To suggest that three words are able to summarise the moral issues of an immensely complex and increasingly fragile conflict that has been brewing for decades is ignorance in itself, yet the majority have shown themselves to prefer such bliss.
The problem is, over the last few years, this petty requirement of iconic status has manifested itself in the political world. Let's just take a look at the STILL thrown around 'war on terror' phrase. I could say it has lost all meaning following the grim and ever more public reality of the Iraq war, but then that would be to say it ever had meaning in the first place. What is the 'war on terror' exactly? Noone knows for sure, it's just a phrase. You could call it the the war against terrorism, but then that could mean anything? The 'war on terror' only applies to terrorism in the middle East. What about terrorism at home? Terrorism in any other parts of the world? Politicians attempt to relate drug trafficking to terrorism. So 'war on terror' suddenly means 'war on drug users', which make up a large majority of the US and UK, including the ever increasing casual users of cocaine, ecstasy and of course, maryjane.
The thing is, 'war on terror', which could very easily be the title of some 1950's B-movie, is nothing but a mere slogan to connote fear when placed within any political narrative put forth by our world leaders. In much the same way as those magical numbers '9/11' (way to piss on those people's memory), throwing the words 'war on terror' into the equation was always and still is Bush's main method of reasoning for most of his bullshit, even for subjects that could not be further from the phrase's supposed meaning (anyone speaking out against Bush or his strategies, in his eyes, helps terrorists, therefore they are a terrorist, therefore they are included in the 'war on terror'). The reality of this methodical manipulation of the masses is becoming more and more apparent as the failures of the past 8 years follow suit and the 'war on terror' becomes less and less as straightforward as Bush's "ultimate strategy" may have suggested (kill 'em all and go home, war on terror baby).
But that's not to say anyone really cares. Many candidates for the next election have had their own witty slogans written for them as a means of gaining popularity, as well as multiple myspace, facebook and youtube accounts, now THATS 21st Century politics for ya. :thumbsup:
My point is the Iraq war has shown just how dangerous a well placed slogan can be. Post 9/11, Bush was able to coax the majority of the country into fear just by chucking the same words into every speech. To suggest that three words are able to summarise the moral issues of an immensely complex and increasingly fragile conflict that has been brewing for decades is ignorance in itself, yet the majority have shown themselves to prefer such bliss.