2008 Woodie Awards
Heading toward Cold War II
Yusuf Al-Siddiq
Issue date: 1/17/06 Section: Forum
- Page 1 of 2 next >
I "Googled" the word "nuclear," as I often do when researching topics of interest.
The news results that came back were shocking. I found stories within the last 20 hours filled up the first page. I would say "nuclear" runs neck-and-neck in frequency with the word "war" in the news.
The two words have other parallels as well. Both are used to strike fear in the hearts of readers. Both are usually great attention grabbers.
If you use the two in sequence, it usually spells Cold War. Everyone knows how good the current administration is at getting us into wars. According to Infoplease.com, countries with nuclear weapons capability include Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, Russia, United States and Israel (unacknowledged). The site states that North Korea and Iran are seeking nuclear weapons.
In August 2005, U.S. intelligence estimated Iran would possess nuclear weapons in the next decade, according to U.S. State Department and TIME magazine.
I saw this headline to an article posted on CNN.com: "Iranian leader insists on right to nuclear research Ahmadinejad: Iran won't be intimidated."
I can pick out several things wrong with this headline.
First, "right to nuclear research." Whose job is it to decide whether they have the "right"?
I am not saying whether or not they should have the damn nukes, but who is handing out the tokens?
Second, the word "intimidated." I am no linguist, but to me intimidated is just a soft word for bully. The United States and Europe have done it before. Let's not deny what is going on here: another Middle Eastern country subdued by the political and persuasive military power of the West.
Another pattern I have noticed is the inability to differentiate between research for military use or other use.
The United States has a tendency to join forces with whoever is necessary to keep nukes in the hands of the more tame governments. I assume this includes Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, Russia and Israel.
The news results that came back were shocking. I found stories within the last 20 hours filled up the first page. I would say "nuclear" runs neck-and-neck in frequency with the word "war" in the news.
The two words have other parallels as well. Both are used to strike fear in the hearts of readers. Both are usually great attention grabbers.
If you use the two in sequence, it usually spells Cold War. Everyone knows how good the current administration is at getting us into wars. According to Infoplease.com, countries with nuclear weapons capability include Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, Russia, United States and Israel (unacknowledged). The site states that North Korea and Iran are seeking nuclear weapons.
In August 2005, U.S. intelligence estimated Iran would possess nuclear weapons in the next decade, according to U.S. State Department and TIME magazine.
I saw this headline to an article posted on CNN.com: "Iranian leader insists on right to nuclear research Ahmadinejad: Iran won't be intimidated."
I can pick out several things wrong with this headline.
First, "right to nuclear research." Whose job is it to decide whether they have the "right"?
I am not saying whether or not they should have the damn nukes, but who is handing out the tokens?
Second, the word "intimidated." I am no linguist, but to me intimidated is just a soft word for bully. The United States and Europe have done it before. Let's not deny what is going on here: another Middle Eastern country subdued by the political and persuasive military power of the West.
Another pattern I have noticed is the inability to differentiate between research for military use or other use.
The United States has a tendency to join forces with whoever is necessary to keep nukes in the hands of the more tame governments. I assume this includes Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, Russia and Israel.
