According to TFD.com, a euphemism is "an inoffensive expression that is substituted for one that is considered offensive". A current example is the term collateral damage. It was created by politicians as a way to desensitize the American populace regarding civilian deaths in war.
The term does this by promoting the idea that such deaths and injuries are inadvertent. According to this theory, civilians are not the main target, but sometimes are caught up in the hailstorm of bullets, missiles and advancing armies.
There is one tiny problem with this theory -- It's patently untrue! According to the United Nation's Human Development Report 2002, civilians account for over 90% of ALL casualties in war. That's better than 9 in 10!!
There are only two rational explanations for this horrid fact: 1) ALL of the military forces in the world are completely inept or 2) Civilians are INDEED an acceptable military target and there's nothing inadvertent at all about their deaths.
In other words, collateral damage isn't a mere euphemism -- it's a bald-faced lie!
The term does this by promoting the idea that such deaths and injuries are inadvertent. According to this theory, civilians are not the main target, but sometimes are caught up in the hailstorm of bullets, missiles and advancing armies.
There is one tiny problem with this theory -- It's patently untrue! According to the United Nation's Human Development Report 2002, civilians account for over 90% of ALL casualties in war. That's better than 9 in 10!!
There are only two rational explanations for this horrid fact: 1) ALL of the military forces in the world are completely inept or 2) Civilians are INDEED an acceptable military target and there's nothing inadvertent at all about their deaths.
In other words, collateral damage isn't a mere euphemism -- it's a bald-faced lie!
Gen Curtis LeMay used to say that if the US lost World War II, he would be tried as a war criminal and hanged for his strategic bombing of Japan.
ReplyDeleteNow, are you inferring the US is accepting Iraqi civilian deaths as "acceptable" collateral damage, or are you making a general statement.
Because, I would have to have you hold your feet to the fire on this one. Because I can find doctrine which does not allow nor authorized civilian deaths as collateral damage. There are stringent rules for commanders to prevent collateral damage, as documented on CNN. The Armed Forces are not allowed to attack mosques. Specifically, my sister, an army reserve nurse from Southern Oregon(not active duty), treated the civilians that were wounded, during the spring 2003 OIF offensive. The soldiers and Marines specifically avoided military contact with civilians, and when it occurred, they would put themselves in harm's way to medevac these same civilians. My sister would have anecdotal stories of the Marines and Soldiers coming back to the combat support hospital to render additional assistance. Put my sister before a mike, and it can become public record. Finally, our culture no longer allows such actions, as it did during WW II and Curtis LeMay.
Also, these soldiers and Marines are not the same as the Viet Nam generation. So you shouldn't compare the two.
drivermax pro crack
ReplyDeleteavs video editor crack
dark souls iii download
powernand revolution gps4 free download