Stinky The Clown
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-25-06 10:52 AM
Original message |
Tuesday Morning 'Fun With Words": "Sustainable Ceasefire" |
|
I love how these shitbrids are so adept at using words to say one thing while meaning the exact opposite.
Today's words are: "Sustainable Ceasefire"
Chew on them for a second ..... why the need to insert the qualifier 'sustainable'? It sounds so benign, doesn't it? But isn't the notion of sustainability inherent in virtually all but a few special case cease fires?
What this new phrase means is not the same as what you and I and every reasonable person who hears it first thinks it means.
No, I think this new phrase means that a ceasefire will be deemed *by them* to be sustainable only after Lebanon, Iran, and Syria have been engaged in battle and bombed back to the Stone Age.
Make no mistake. Words matter a WHOLE lot to these people. 'Sustainable' was not a throwaway.
|
tanyev
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-25-06 10:56 AM
Response to Original message |
1. And it's funny how she throws out the phrase "international force" |
|
like it's going to happen. "Imaginary international force", maybe.
|
Clark2008
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-25-06 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. Coalition of the Willing. |
liberal N proud
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-25-06 10:57 AM
Response to Original message |
2. In the meantime Israel can keep killing innocent people? |
gratuitous
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-25-06 11:10 AM
Response to Original message |
4. By insisting on a "sustainable" ceasefire . . . |
|
The Bush administration sets up the Perfect as the mortal enemy of the Good. "Nope," they intone, "this ceasefire agreement is not sustainable; let the slaughter continue." All the while, any metrics that would enable the combatants to find that elusive (illusive) sustainability are flatly refused to be defined, because there is no bright line that makes a ceasefire sustainable or not sustainable. There are always reasons a ceasefire agreement might not hold; and the Bush administration is famous for its one percent solutions. If there's even a 1% chance that a ceasefire agreement might not hold, then it's not sustainable, and the slaughter not only can continue, it must continue. For otherwise, how can we achieve a sustainable ceasefire if the parties are not properly motivated? Mere self-preservation is not enough.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat May 04th 2024, 06:18 AM
Response to Original message |