ljm2002
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-13-07 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
| 27. And I think you are the one who is splitting hairs... |
|
...because what I am talking about is framing the argument.
If, as you say, that occupation is just war by another name, then I would say, let us use the name that is most likely to garner support for our position.
People will rally 'round a "war president". They will not rally 'round an "occupation president".
Okay sure that was a silly example. But the point stands. War has certain connotations. If we don't "support the troops" in the "war effort" we can be painted as unpatriotic. But if it is recognized as an "occupation", and worded as such, then our failure to support the mission is a lot less susceptible to such twists.
It's okay -- we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.
:hi:
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread