Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Stop saying: "In harms way"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
State the Obvious Donating Member (561 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-15-07 05:26 PM
Original message
Stop saying: "In harms way"
I am so sick of hearing this softened phrase used to describe the tragedy of war. Of course Republicans want to soften the concept, but why do Democrats repeat this Republican-framing phrase?

George Bush isn't merely placing our troops in "harms way"...
George Bush is sending our young American men and women to WAR...WITH TARGETS ON THEIR BACKS!

We, at the very least, owe those young people who died for a lie...more honesty and integrity than they got from their Commander-in-Chief.

We owe them.

NO MORE softened phrases to describe the TRAGEDY of war. :cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-15-07 05:29 PM
Response to Original message
1. I feel the same way. This phrase infuriates me. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
k8conant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-15-07 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
2. In harm's way = in danger = at war
That phrase has bothered me for years. I hear it everywhere now. Certainly it's a euphemism gone bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
State the Obvious Donating Member (561 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-15-07 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. I agree....
but why do Democrats help Republicans... by using those words to "soften" the atrocities of war?

After viewing Private Ryan, would you say the movie was about placing soldiers in harms way?

(I'm agreeing with you....but it just seems that the TRAGEDY of this war is overlooked.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MistressOverdone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-15-07 05:54 PM
Response to Original message
4. Interesting
because to me, it is a more descriptive phrase than 'at war.' It makes it clear that there is risk involved.

Either way, not a good concept all together.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-15-07 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
5. indeed. it is a lame and ultimately disrespectful way

to refer to the danger that has snuffed out over 3,000 lives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep 01st 2014, 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC