I briefly met someone yesterday evening who supported Britain’s decision to look for the famous weapons of mass destruction, as a diplomat in Washington. He looked weary, with his glass of white wine in one hand, and his wife in the other. He kept saying he took full responsibility. It was, i guess, his way of saying game over. But ending the game is not easy. This morning our former British diplomat will click on the newspaper link and read about "the 100th British serviceman" to die this year in Afghanistan.
"Serviceman"... I recently learned that in America soldiers are defined as "aid workers".
Reading the Portuguese newspaper is also fascinating these days - it gives you the feeling that we should all stop worrying and love the shield. Which, trocado por miúdos, could mean many things, namely: we should all stop worrying and love yet another document signed by the big guys in... Lisbon.
Everyone seems to be in a sort of hangover state regarding the war that we do not speak of. But I wonder why people even drink to forget it in the first place. Yes, it is true the WMD's fiasco appalled the world. This was an unjust, unfair and unreasonable war. But if you look back in time a little, you'll find that the last "just", "fair" and "reasonable" war was with Germany in the 40's, and even that is debatable. The late George Carlin jokingly thought the US went to war with the Nazis because, as he charismatically put it once, "they were trying to cut in on our action". All the populace needs is a good reason really. Reason. Ehhm... let me think... Jews are getting killed - go to war! Communism is gonna spread everywhere if we don't stop it from spawning over here and over there - go to war! Saddam was involved in 9/11, and he has WMD's - go to war! All we want is for somebody else to tell us there is a transcendental "why" for waging it. "Oh, we had to drop the A-Bombs because Japan wouldn't surrender!" I remember my mom telling me that when I was a little kid. And to this day, nobody ever talks about how Japan had been hoisting the white flag for days - only Truman wouldn't have any of it. He wanted to drop the bomb. That would be America's decisive growl as the first uncontested heavyweight super power. Is that a good enough reason for killing 200,000 people? Hardly. These are all bad reasons for going to war. There is no good war, just as there isn't any bad peace. But as long as we have a "reason" to hold on to back home, we're happy. Take Obama. Nobel Peace Prize winner while waging two wars. Hitler got a Peace Nobel too, that's how credible the prize itself is. But you know, Obama is doing for the image of the West what NATO has done to promote Western terrorism as "spreading freedom". A new face on the war/terror against "terror". What is that, exactly? Who are they fighting down there, really? Who are the bad guys this time? Al-Qaeda? Al-Qaeda is not a place in Afghanistan, it's a worldwide organization, with many independent cells. All we need is a new face, a new blanket, so that the harsh reality underneath doesn't harm our sensibility. Previous capitalist interests can be upheld again. Like "servicemen" and "aid workers" for soldiers. "Soldier" evokes destruction. While "servicemen" and "aid workers" seems like they work for some non-profit organization that's building schools and hospitals in a far away place. That it's promoting democracy and freedom. But they both mean the same thing. I kinda like "aid workers" and "servicemen" better. And I'm sure you do to. Doesn't it seem more civil? That's how Obama looks to the world. Just hear the guy talk. He's so fluent. So charismatic. So diplomatic. But the candy he's selling has been sold before. The only difference now is that it's sugar-free. But you know what - it tastes just as sweet...
ReplyDeleteEveryone seems to be in a sort of hangover state regarding the war that we do not speak of. But I wonder why people even drink to forget it in the first place. Yes, it is true the WMD's fiasco appalled the world. This was an unjust, unfair and unreasonable war. But if you look back in time a little, you'll find that the last "just", "fair" and "reasonable" war was with Germany in the 40's, and even that is debatable. The late George Carlin jokingly thought the US went to war with the Nazis because, as he charismatically put it once, "they were trying to cut in on our action". All the populace needs is a good reason really. Reason. Ehhm... let me think... Jews are getting killed - go to war! Communism is gonna spread everywhere if we don't stop it from spawning over here and over there - go to war! Saddam was involved in 9/11, and he has WMD's - go to war! All we want is for somebody else to tell us there is a transcendental "why" for waging it. "Oh, we had to drop the A-Bombs because Japan wouldn't surrender!" I remember my mom telling me that when I was a little kid. And to this day, nobody ever talks about how Japan had been hoisting the white flag for days - only Truman wouldn't have any of it. He wanted to drop the bomb. That would be America's decisive growl as the first uncontested heavyweight super power. Is that a good enough reason for killing 200,000 people? Hardly. These are all bad reasons for going to war. There is no good war, just as there isn't any bad peace. But as long as we have a "reason" to hold on to back home, we're happy. Take Obama. Nobel Peace Prize winner while waging two wars. Hitler got a Peace Nobel too, that's how credible the prize itself is. But you know, Obama is doing for the image of the West what NATO has done to promote Western terrorism as "spreading freedom". A new face on the war/terror against "terror". What is that, exactly? Who are they fighting down there, really? Who are the bad guys this time? Al-Qaeda? Al-Qaeda is not a place in Afghanistan, it's a worldwide organization, with many independent cells. All we need is a new face, a new blanket, so that the harsh reality underneath doesn't harm our sensibility. Previous capitalist interests can be upheld again. Like "servicemen" and "aid workers" for soldiers. "Soldier" evokes destruction. While "servicemen" and "aid workers" seems like they work for some non-profit organization that's building schools and hospitals in a far away place. That it's promoting democracy and freedom. But they both mean the same thing. I kinda like "aid workers" and "servicemen" better. And I'm sure you do to. Doesn't it seem more civil? That's how Obama looks to the world. Just hear the guy talk. He's so fluent. So charismatic. So diplomatic. But the candy he's selling has been sold before. The only difference now is that it's sugar-free. But you know what - it tastes just as sweet...
ReplyDeleteThe relationship between a US president and the rest of the world is the same as the one between a magician and his audience. We all know he is not about to do "magic", but a trick. Our eyes are nonetheless bewitched by the expert hands of the illusionist. However, if the real forces making the solid objects float around him are revealed through a mistake, the trick is over, we feel insulted and will probably want our money back. A beloved president is always a good magician. He entertains the audience of nitwits who would rather witness a convincing trick than be blatantly tricked.
ReplyDeleteThat's why Bush causes a hangover. With Obama everyone feels fine =)