The same reason we re-write press releases sometimes.
YOU try filling 2000 words days a week as a reporter. Especially when there’s not actually a lot to cover.
Yes, on re-reading the OP, I am quite impressed by his cogent analysis and independence of spirit. :rolleyes:
Why does he need one?
I must have missed the press conference where the president / secretary of state / secretary of defense said “Our main reason for invading Iraq is that its secular regime threatens the pipeline to the US controlled by the fundamentalist sheikdoms to the south.”
ZiggyB: you’re welcome.
Well, first, you seem to be inferring again. Nasty habit. This time, you’re inferring that when I gave possible “reasons for the war”, I was listing the official, sanctioned Bush administration statements of justification.
Bad inference.
Second, is it your position that the underlying motivation for the war was fear of regional secularization? If so, such a position might seem slightly less idiotic were it accompanied by a rationally presented argument, rather than a veiled assertion. IMO.
xenophon41: No, after you.
So you agree that the reasons publicly given are just window dressing for the true unstated reason? I’ll shake on it.
Second: my position is that, given the choice of a secular socialist regime and a capitalist oligarchy, the US will support the oligarchy, despite all its talk of fostering “democracy”. Saudi Arabia, our ally and a fundamentalist Islamic government, is threatened by the present of a (formerly) powerful secular neighbour. The enemy of my friend is my enemy. Q.E.D.
That was reasonably stated, and not idiotic. Thanks. (And yes, I agree re: “window dressing”. I’ve even used the phrase and made the argument myself.)
That’s not likely to come up. If verbosity is the reason, why “regime”?
Aren’t you lucky it won’t.
Under deadline pressure it’s very easy to just go with what you’re given. Someone says ‘regime change’…you quote them. Then to maintain consistency for the reader you end up using the word a million times yourself.
Media management. It’s an art.
Because the Dubya Administration’s marketing tets showed that “regime change” was more popular with the voters than “overthrowing a government” or “coup d’etat”.
Well coup d’etat " would have been incorrect even if they had wanted to use it. I suspect that instead of “overthrowing a governemnt” they should have instead used “overthrowing a bloody, brutal illegitimate government that will go down in the annals of world history as one of the most cruel the world has ever seen”, although that doesn’t fit above the fold so easily.
How about “overthrowing a bloody, brutal illegitimate government that will go down in the annals of world history as one of the most cruel the world has ever seen, and that we installed ourselves a few decades ago”?
Seriously, I’m amazed at how easily the American public has swallowed the term “regime change”. The rest of the world seems to get a little uneasy whenever a POTUS uses this term, as it has meant “imminent fuck-up” so many times in the past.
I know the posters of the SDMB know their history fairly well, be they on the conservative or progressive side of the spectrum. But tell me, honestly. Just how well is the general knowledge of the American public with regard to former “regime changes” gone horribly wrong? Is it taught in schools? Does the media report it without bias?
How does it work? I want to know. How can you NOT become cynical when hearing that term?
Cuz we get to regime change our own country soon!
From your lips to the ears of Allah!
What, you mean like Mossadegh/Shah, Diem/Ky, Allende/Pinochet?
Hey, that’s all ancient history, a whole 30-50 years ago. Of course most Americans have forgotten about it.
And in more recent, successful ‘regime changes’ that have inspired Wolfowitz & Co., like Marcos/Aquino, I’m not sure anyone here realizes that our direct involvement was generally minimal - that the protesters were already out en masse and we added only a modest push, rather than a full-blown invasion. (Except for Grenada, of course.)
I don’t know what they teach in the schools; I was in school from 1960-72, and at that time, ‘history’ ended with 1945. And the US media rarely remind of such ancient history as I’ve mentioned above.
Let’s see: economic freedom but not political freedom, or neither economic or political freedom. Is it really surprising that the US prefers the former?
Coldfire: by “regime change gone horribly wrong” do you mean the regime change itself not working, or the new regime not working? I can’t think of many of the former. Seems to me Cuba would be the closest to a failed regime change by the US.
“Become”? I’m so cynical, this looks good to me.