You can't wage a war on a word

Ok I will begin. You cannot wage a war on a word. Unless you can find a "word" hiding in a bush somewhere. One cannot shoot it with a rifle, blow it up with a grenade, strangle it etc, as it is a concept. Good luck refuting that! Alright I will be serious. Any war on a word is really a war on people. When I say people I mean everyone. Lets talk about the "war on drugs". For example, if a cop pulls you over he is looking into your car to see if you have drugs. Now, your not a soldier of an enemy government. Your driving home from a baseball game. However you will be assumed as an enemy until proved innocent (when he does not see any drugs). Now the real underlying issue is that the government allows some drug dealers to peddle their drugs into the market (Big pharma). This is a huge problem as if you are waging a war on drugs, these laboratories should have flash bang grenades tossed in and everyone cuffed no? See a war on something is completely irrational. The drug does not make itself (not all). People make drugs. However, when a government does not define an enemy it is going to war with, it ultimately ends up arbitrarily going after whomever it wants. Arbitrarily being the most important word here. It is reckless and endangers millions of people when you carelessly don't define WHO you are going to war with and just put a broad word as what you are fighting. Now I will discuss the war on terror. Ever since 9/11 we have had this issue with the word "terrorism". According to Webster's dictionary, the definition for terrorism is: the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal. According to Webster's, the word "terror" can have a very similar definition. Now here we have another issue. If just about any government wants to wage war on the ACTS of terror. The government must fight and destroy itself! Using logic, we can say that governments engage in violent acts that frighten people in a way to obtain a political goal. Which is terrorism. An example that comes to mind is the u.s. de-throning Saddam Hussein. I do not argue if it was in defense or not (I say not). I argue that the united states did use violent acts to scare people for a political goal. In fact, I cant think of a war that didn't use violent acts, didn't strike fear into people, and not have some political goals in mind. So if a government is to wage a war on terror or terrorism, the moment it strikes fear into people, it committed terrorism itself and must therefore wage war on itself. See, the problem is that waging a war on a word is to broad. It allows the powers that be to continue a war for as long or as short as they see fit. They have the power to pick and choose who goes to jail ( Big pharma is allowed to sell drugs, YOU CANNOT!!), or who we send hundreds of troops to (one country over another even though by definition both countries commit terrorism ex: Israel and Palestine). There is no defined enemy. The government commits the (by definition) very act it is at war with! Words and language are highly important. Words could start a war or end one. "The pen is mightier than the sword" - Edward Bulwer-Lytton. I want to thank CON for accepting my challenge! Vote PRO! Its the logical thing to do!