Seen from outside the U.S.: Does the left really have to succumb to the abuse of language implicit in the term "defense" as it used above? I note that John Pilger in his new "Hidden Agendas" is very careful about putting this word in quotes - "defense". Do you U.S. lefties all say defense, when you discuss that abomination; the bloated, cruel, fascistoid, chauvinist American war machinery? Are there not better terms?
The euphemistic language used concerning the machinery of death and destruction is an interesting topic. I remember an interview with a helicopter pilot that had taken part in the completely unneccessary mass massacre of Iraqi soldiers fleeing on the road out of Kuwait towards home in the final phase of the war. He quite calmly spoke about how he "engaged" the Iraqis with his automatic cannon. In Norwegian, the word "engage" is used for what you do when you ask a person to dance with you.
We also have the newspeak use of "take out" (a tank, a house, a human being), which to me sounds like something you do when you go out on a date, or open the fridge.
(If someone can contribute with specific examples of military newspeak and euphemisms, please do. I would like to collect them).
Trond Andresen