|
tough to parse the language barrier, but the exercise of it left me with a thought.
How much of the nuance of the debate stateside is lost in the translation? Most people that i know of on both sides hold there positions for well considered, carefully articulated reasons. If those are not being communicated across the language barrier, it seems that all you're left with is the rudimentary force of the sensus plenerius of the words themselves.
"We fear that Saddam's suspected weapons of mass destruction may be given to Al-Queda operatives to be used in attacks against innocent civilians"
becomes
"We think Saddam will bomb us"
Right or wrong, the former is defensible and carefully articulated. The second is brutish and foolish. How much of American's internal conversation gets reduced to the same level?
-sm
|