January 22, 2011

LANGUAGE, IT IS KIND OF IMPORTANT: WHY LIVES ARE NOT "LOST" IN A WAR

Tony Blair, the devout Catholic and very spiritual man (no, really. Stop laughing) had this to say about the killed people in Iraq, you know, that little war that we all went to go to
(a) find weapons of mass destruction

(b) fight those who attacked "us" on 9/11 (say, when is it time to finally invade Saudi Arabia? I mean, that's where those terrorists came from, right? And they were led by a Saudi, who we actually trained and... oh, my head hurts already)

(c) bring liberty and freedom to all, so that they can start cleaning up their own house, and by that we mean that Sunnis and Shiites would finally start killing each other in a civil war.

(d) bring stability to the region by...
... oh dear, Tony, Tony, Tony... after all that, you, the guy who apparently has only read parts of the bible (you know, the good parts, the parts where we are all headed for the end of times, and sorry, my man, I reject the apocalypse. And I reject Armageddon, too, unless it is done by Michael Bay and comes with a good dose of the good Bruce, you know, the Bruce who didn't just sleepwalk through his movies), he gets questioned by an inquiry panel again, and he had this to say.
"I want to make it clear that of course I regret deeply and profoundly the loss of life, whether from our own armed forces, those of other nations, the civilians who helped people in Iraq or the Iraqis themselves."
And he hits it out of the park, folks!

Now, that is the definition of a "blanket" statement, you know, the kind politicians are so fond of making when their blindness, their stupidity and their faith (yes, there, I said it. Their "faith". We can also call it an ideology, which is merely faith with the bearded old guy in the sky, and hey, I'm German, we invented both ideologies that fucked up the first half of the 20th century) kills a couple of hundred thousand people here or there.

And again, it is the language that annoys me here (the dead don't annoy me, the fact that they died makes me incredibly angry).

They are always "lost". You know, like you lose your favorite keychain. Or your wallet. Or maybe, just maybe just your girlfriend. You can lose all these things. Loss is the displacement of an object or a relationship.

People get killed. Lives are taken. They are not "lost". See, because we all know, from our proverbs, that "whatever is lost can be found again". Right? Only these lives cannot. They were taken.

They were killed.

Note that I am not saying "murdered", although we could very well make such claim in numerous instances as both the Iraq protocols and the video uncovered by WikiLeaks have shown us. Would it be too much for Tony to at least give the relatives, the mothers, fathers, spouses, children of those who got caught in a political chess game that turned into a struggle of blind ideology, wrapped in the Bush doctrine, the doctrine now still in place at the Black Barry administration...

... that chess game that turned hundreds of thousands of people, soliders and civilians alike into pawns, that turned a country into a shooting gallery..

... would it be too much for Tony to at least say it? Like this, for example?

"I regret that so many innocent people were killed. I'm sorry. I know that will never be enough, but I am sorry. We were so sure. So certain that Hussein had these weapons, we wanted to believe, we were afraid, and we fucked it up. I fucked it up."

Yes. That would be too much to say. Because it would mean an admission of guilt. And folks, a politician never makes mistakes. Or owns up to them.