PDA

View Full Version : americans language has changed.....why?


abdul
Jul 17, 2003, 05:31 AM
no, i dont mean Americans do not speak English, (eventhough the spelling is different in some cases) but that the military are use to call the people who attacked the US soldiers 'saddam supporter', but now are calling them ba'athist supporters'

no big difference you may think, but by keeping on calling them Ba'athest supporters, that may fool the American people once again, as there is more than one middle eastern governemnt called the Ba'athest party.

Am i hust talking **** cos im tired or is there a logic to what i am saying?

Ugg
Jul 17, 2003, 09:57 AM
I'm sure that they don't want to see Saddam's name in the press anymore. By using Ba'athist, they can also clamp down on the party and its members harder than they have been.

IJ Reilly
Jul 17, 2003, 10:53 AM
Word games are being played. The administration is steadfastly refusing to use the term "guerilla campaign" to describe the insurgency in Iraq, though some of the military top brass have already recognized it as such, and are starting to use the most accurate language they know to describe what they are facing.

patrick0brien
Jul 17, 2003, 04:26 PM
It's classic propoganda. Public, mass phychology.

And unfortunately/fortunately it works. This discussion is an illustration of that.

bobindashadows
Jul 19, 2003, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Word games are being played. The administration is steadfastly refusing to use the term "guerilla campaign" to describe the insurgency in Iraq, though some of the military top brass have already recognized it as such, and are starting to use the most accurate language they know to describe what they are facing.

I would think the administration doesn't want "guerilla" used because people will think of Vietnam. Sure, this really is nothing like Vietnam, but that doesn't stop independent newspapers like The New York Times and the Washington Post† from calling Afghanistan a "quagmire" three weeks in, and now raising the idea that Iraq is the same. We may be in Iraq a few months longer than expected, but we already crushed the oppressive government, now we just need to rebuild the nation. Which IMO is going to take a lot longer if we don't get some other nations in there.

†Disclaimer: heavy sarcasm implied

abdul
Jul 21, 2003, 11:50 AM
some other countries???? im sure that the US didnt want to go via the multilateral route of the UN! also australian, british and US soldiers are currently there. Didnt donald rumsfeld said that they can do it their own....whats wrong now??

i would call it a guerrilla war eventhough you may disagree, as more US soldiers have died in this conflict compared to the first gulf war, last time i counted it was 154 and i think another two and and iraqi interpretor were killed in their vechicles today.

The coalition which was arranged included weak countries which had no real power economicall or militarily. The UK and OZ were the only semi-strong countries. Spain in weak economically and also its military isnt renowned.

the coalition included mainly countries that would need financial support from the US sometime in the future such as the eastern european counties.

Everyother country realised the mistakes of helping the US in Afghanstan, didnt they take control of the government practically straight away, and then now have only kabul....one city which is semi-safe.

the lesson to be learnt is these countries are big, maybe not compared to the US, Russia, china and canada, but still have millions of civillians to put it simply who dislike the US for various reasons.

mactastic
Jul 21, 2003, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by bobindashadows
I would think the administration doesn't want "guerilla" used because people will think of Vietnam. Sure, this really is nothing like Vietnam, but that doesn't stop independent newspapers like The New York Times and the Washington Post† from calling Afghanistan a "quagmire" three weeks in, and now raising the idea that Iraq is the same. We may be in Iraq a few months longer than expected, but we already crushed the oppressive government, now we just need to rebuild the nation. Which IMO is going to take a lot longer if we don't get some other nations in there.

†Disclaimer: heavy sarcasm implied

How long were you expecting us to be in Iraq?

Sayhey
Jul 21, 2003, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by abdul
...no big difference you may think, but by keeping on calling them Ba'athest supporters, that may fool the American people once again, as there is more than one middle eastern governemnt called the Ba'athest party.

Am i hust talking **** cos im tired or is there a logic to what i am saying?

I think you are right that there is a significance to the change in phrases. It goes along with the saber rattling done toward Syria. Rumsfeld and his buddies would love to expand the war into Syria. It doesn't matter that the Ba'athist party in Syria has been at odds with Saddam's party for decades, because most Americans are ignorant of the history of the Middle East. As long as the sound bites for TV work to advance an agenda the truth doesn't matter.*

Take a look at the latest BBC report on Bush's threats towards Syria at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3084213.stm (http://)

*heavy, heavy sarcasm used.;)