Now that its “VIPs” are out of harm’s way, the US can up the ante in Sudan on a “humanitarian” pretext as part of its latest anti-Russian proxy war. There’s still the possibility that it’ll reconsider, but events are quickly moving in that direction as evidenced by what a senior Pentagon official revealed to the media on Saturday about the US’ impending “mission creep”. If it goes ahead with this scenario, then precedent shows that Sudan might become the next Libya, or perhaps even worse.
"...Sudan might become the next Libya, or perhaps even worse."
Only if the Russians don't get out as quickly as possible, and that might not be as easy as it should be, particularly if there really are deep-seated conflicts of interest between the Wagner group and the Russian State. This is a really critical litmus test.
Anyway, if you'll excuse me, I wanted to say, use 'single' inverted commas for words that 'mean something like' and "double inverted commas" (quote marks) for exact words only. That way, you could give yourself another instrument to more finely tune what you mean. Consider:
"In the emerging context of 'mission creep', the Pentagon could simply warn the RSF not to impede the creation of these 'overland routes out of Sudan' just like they stayed out of the way during Saturday’s evacuation under threat of being bombed on 'humanitarian' pretexts if they don’t. The American public could easily be manipulated into supporting this action if they’re misled to believe that 'Russian-/Wagner-backed insurgents/terrorists are holding approximately 16,000 US citizens hostage in Africa'." Here it's clear that the words and phrases in single quotes (inverted commas) are there to indicate 'something like'; 'double quotes' being reserved to report the exact words someone used.
"CNN mentioned in their report that “Officials told staffers (from the State Department) that there could be an estimated 16,000 Americans in Sudan, most of whom are dual nationals.”"
Is this EXACTLY what CNN reported, or is it 'something like that'? If you consistently used 'quotation marks' or 'inverted commas' and speech marks as indicated above, I would know immediately and wouldn't have to waste time and energy looking at and reading it again to guess which is more likely; in short, adding that string to your bow makes it easier to read. I guess 'mentioned' makes it clear enough (because it would be 'reported' if exact words were to follow)... But could it be clearer (and easier)?
Not a lot of people do it like that, and in fact not even the European Commission Stylesheet (I can't remember what the hell it's called.) stands on this point. I maintain, however, it is a helpful differentiation to use.
"...Sudan might become the next Libya, or perhaps even worse."
Only if the Russians don't get out as quickly as possible, and that might not be as easy as it should be, particularly if there really are deep-seated conflicts of interest between the Wagner group and the Russian State. This is a really critical litmus test.
Anyway, if you'll excuse me, I wanted to say, use 'single' inverted commas for words that 'mean something like' and "double inverted commas" (quote marks) for exact words only. That way, you could give yourself another instrument to more finely tune what you mean. Consider:
"In the emerging context of 'mission creep', the Pentagon could simply warn the RSF not to impede the creation of these 'overland routes out of Sudan' just like they stayed out of the way during Saturday’s evacuation under threat of being bombed on 'humanitarian' pretexts if they don’t. The American public could easily be manipulated into supporting this action if they’re misled to believe that 'Russian-/Wagner-backed insurgents/terrorists are holding approximately 16,000 US citizens hostage in Africa'." Here it's clear that the words and phrases in single quotes (inverted commas) are there to indicate 'something like'; 'double quotes' being reserved to report the exact words someone used.
"CNN mentioned in their report that “Officials told staffers (from the State Department) that there could be an estimated 16,000 Americans in Sudan, most of whom are dual nationals.”"
Is this EXACTLY what CNN reported, or is it 'something like that'? If you consistently used 'quotation marks' or 'inverted commas' and speech marks as indicated above, I would know immediately and wouldn't have to waste time and energy looking at and reading it again to guess which is more likely; in short, adding that string to your bow makes it easier to read. I guess 'mentioned' makes it clear enough (because it would be 'reported' if exact words were to follow)... But could it be clearer (and easier)?
Not a lot of people do it like that, and in fact not even the European Commission Stylesheet (I can't remember what the hell it's called.) stands on this point. I maintain, however, it is a helpful differentiation to use.