New IP - Likewise, independence, security and prosperity lack definite meanings. To what extent does President Bush want independence in Iraq? Should the country become completely self-subsistent? How secure should the Iraqi people feel? Enough to be able to walk the streets at night or enough to leave the house without being shot for no reason? Prosperity would be for which Iraqi people? A fraction? All of them? Orwell explains that “words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way” (Orwell). Because his goals are not described specifically, President Bush has avoided having to bluntly display present his plans in Iraq. The His speech outlines steps towards achieving ideals, yet, how can one realize what is abstract and variable in meaning? President Bush gives has given his audience the false pretense that he is divulging sharing with everyone, his intentions in Iraq, and each move that he will make in the country. On the contrary, he tells his audience little, In reality, he reveals little, merely mentioning that he means to introduce America’s cherished values to Iraq. What methods he will use are unmentioned. Yet, by using meaningless words, President Bush has ensured that he does not need to inform the public of his tactics. Rather, his Bush’s talk of democracy and freedom pacifies the people who would otherwise question his actions in Iraq. Unfortunately, the willingness of people to accept empty words without demanding that their meaning be specified shows that a politician can mislead his audience into accepting a move they would otherwise reject. and do whatever he please, even if the public would otherwise reject.
“In our time, political speech and writing are largely in the defense of the indefensible.”(Orwell) Orwell’s speculation is supported when, in his speech, Bush further uses meaningless words describes the conflict in Iraq as a “war on terror”. Although the dictionary describes terror as “fear” or the “state of fear”, President Bush gives the word an unclear, broader significance of which no one is sure. Being Unlimited because of ambiguity, terror and democracy can be manipulated. The context in which President Bush uses the word “terror” implies evil. The negativity of the word, associated with “tyranny and murder”, is contrasted by the promising positivism of democracy, associated with “liberty and life”. Even Although neither of the words is specific in meaning, they are effective in bringing forth both evoke strong emotions of either like or dislike (use stronger/different words) from people. Bush illustrates the reaction of people to distinctly positive or negative ideals: “Whenever people are given a choice in the matter, they prefer lives of freedom to lives of fear”. Democracy is associated with liberty and considered good. Terror is bad. This simplification ensures that democracy be supported. Taking a step further, Bush ties his cause to the optimistic ideal of democracy and that of his opponents to terror. He paints America as the savior of the Iraqi people, and the terrorists as blood-thirsty, destructive murderers, intent on destruction, even though they too seek freedom, in their case, from foreign domination. By making the war into one between Democracy and Terror, good and evil, rather than one between a US-led coalition and militants in Iraq not between a US-led coalition and militants in Iraq, but rather a war between Democracy and Terror, good and evil, President Bush rationalizes his presence in the Middle East, despite being an aggressor nation. and his waging war on a much weaker country( dont know if theyre THAT weak, thinking of OPEC and stuff). He is fighting in the name of good.
Through George Bush, Orwell’s position on the ambiguity of the English language and its role in politics is shown to have serious implications. Particularily shown by the record number to reelect Bush, many accept the trivialized version of issues surrounding Iraq and fail to understand the complexity of the situation. As a result they are pacified and rendered powerless. Orwell draws an insightful correlation between something as seemingly harmless as general terms and the very stability of this world. The ability of words to influence the state of world affairs and millions of lives exemplifies the importance of communication between people and the need to strive for blunt, unambiguous terms that help uncover and convey the truth.
Possibly could say something not just about meaningless words but also about euphemisms. The English language contains many synonyms, which though useful for precise descriptions in literature and science, present the opportunity for softening the truth with less harsh equivalents (i.e. euphemisms) Never mind, the essay is good (i wrote this before i started checking the essay just as an idea and now it would just ruin the coherence).
Good job Alina, we are both proud of you.
This is a good sentence. Well done...ah, so proud of my Alina...hahahahah.
I just changed the order, nothing else...yeah, i know im picky, hey its ur fault for letting me check it.