The newspaper says, says, say ... it's true?
Remember my random explosions into the Popmart intro? Well, I haven't had the urge to break out into Pop Muzik lately. We're making progress, people!
Made a really cool new icon last night. I'm using it for this entry, so check it out. I love finally knowing how to animated GIFs.
You know, voice conversations are fun and would be a whole lot better if there were no echo and no delay. But I've discovered if I turn off my firewall, I can have voice conversations on AIM, albeit of substandard quality. Anyone know if you can have voice conversations with multiple participants? Also, for you ladies, deadlydenial has a sexy voice ... or at least thinks he does.
Right, now onto the serious component of this entry.
Last night there were two interesting news articles and I hope I can remember both of them. There was one about Iraq, and for 'unbiased' media coverage, it was rather ... persuasive, shall we say? At least it tried to be that way. It was about how it now turns out the WMDs have not been found, do not exist, and the intelligence was faulty. So I was watching this, and I was thinking "do the ends justify the means?" Basically, was the overthrow of Saddam Hussein alright, even if the reason used to invade an independent, sovereign country to remove him was actually in error? Was the reason in error?
Personally, I'm not sure of my stance on Iraq any more. I did support the war with a raging passion, as those of you from YTF may remember. I was the guy who yelled at the TV when people protested against it and I still think the protestors, by and large, totally missed the point and raised the wrong arguments. However ... what's happened now is a shambles. Iraq has not been managed well, it's falling to pieces in a mess of guerrilla warfare and previously contained rivalry, America has not won any friends or converted enemies into allies ... and I think history is going to judge the allies harshly no matter what they do. If they pull out, the Iraqi nation will collapse into warring factions and history will slander the USA and its allies for not finishing the job. If the allies stay, they're going to get blasted for poor management. Essentially, they're suck between a rock and a hard place.
But I've gotten off track. I agree that Saddam Hussein was a madman and the less people like him in charge of countries, the better. But on the other hand, I don't believe the ends ever justify the means. Feeding the starving doesn't mean you should rob a grocer's. Winning the Rugby World Cup doesn't justify cheating and giving the opposition food poisoning. Does removing a brutal dictator we're better off without justify invading Iraq on faulty intelligence? Indeed, it was an independent nation - it can do what it wants and make whatever weapons it feels like it. In hindsight, I'm struggling to see how that can justify an invasion - it's INDEPENDENT, people. If we apply America's logic of eliminating threats pre-emptively to the whole world, doesn't that mean a 'rogue nation' can invade America because it knows the US is going to invade it? So I've been thinking about that.
Poll
The other article ... whatever was it? It was interesting, but I can't remember. Oh, there was that thing about "American unemployment figures have improved" but people were still complaining about jobs going outside the country. 'Scuse me? If you want to live in a global community - which the USA seems to want to do - then you've got to accept the fact jobs are going to go offshore. Furthermore, I find it offensive that some think jobs going outside America is a bad thing. We need jobs here too. But as I said, if you're living in a global community, you have to live with the fact some jobs will go elsewhere, and I bet other countries will be complaining some of their jobs are going to yours too. There is a choice though. If you want to keep jobs in your country, it's quite simple - close your borders and force corporations to remain there. Sure, your economy will probably die, but hey, you'll have the jobs onshore!
I also find it intriguing how a lot of news here can be rather Americentic sometimes. It's starting to bother me actually, not because I don't care about America and not because I want to hear more local news (most of it's boring anyway), but because I want to hear about all other parts of the world. I do care about what's happening in Sierra Leone, I would rather a proper article on political riots in Armenia than just some five second snippet, and you know what? The Baltic nations are probably making some really interesting news. Though not a lot of people seem to think on a broad global scale like that, which is sad. Whatever's wrong with fair and equal coverage to all regions? It gets boring when every day you have articles from the same old places.
I have a Maths C problem solving exam today. Yay! That I haven't studied for. Hurrah! And don't care about. Hooray! Wish me luck!
Made a really cool new icon last night. I'm using it for this entry, so check it out. I love finally knowing how to animated GIFs.
You know, voice conversations are fun and would be a whole lot better if there were no echo and no delay. But I've discovered if I turn off my firewall, I can have voice conversations on AIM, albeit of substandard quality. Anyone know if you can have voice conversations with multiple participants? Also, for you ladies, deadlydenial has a sexy voice ... or at least thinks he does.
Right, now onto the serious component of this entry.
Last night there were two interesting news articles and I hope I can remember both of them. There was one about Iraq, and for 'unbiased' media coverage, it was rather ... persuasive, shall we say? At least it tried to be that way. It was about how it now turns out the WMDs have not been found, do not exist, and the intelligence was faulty. So I was watching this, and I was thinking "do the ends justify the means?" Basically, was the overthrow of Saddam Hussein alright, even if the reason used to invade an independent, sovereign country to remove him was actually in error? Was the reason in error?
Personally, I'm not sure of my stance on Iraq any more. I did support the war with a raging passion, as those of you from YTF may remember. I was the guy who yelled at the TV when people protested against it and I still think the protestors, by and large, totally missed the point and raised the wrong arguments. However ... what's happened now is a shambles. Iraq has not been managed well, it's falling to pieces in a mess of guerrilla warfare and previously contained rivalry, America has not won any friends or converted enemies into allies ... and I think history is going to judge the allies harshly no matter what they do. If they pull out, the Iraqi nation will collapse into warring factions and history will slander the USA and its allies for not finishing the job. If the allies stay, they're going to get blasted for poor management. Essentially, they're suck between a rock and a hard place.
But I've gotten off track. I agree that Saddam Hussein was a madman and the less people like him in charge of countries, the better. But on the other hand, I don't believe the ends ever justify the means. Feeding the starving doesn't mean you should rob a grocer's. Winning the Rugby World Cup doesn't justify cheating and giving the opposition food poisoning. Does removing a brutal dictator we're better off without justify invading Iraq on faulty intelligence? Indeed, it was an independent nation - it can do what it wants and make whatever weapons it feels like it. In hindsight, I'm struggling to see how that can justify an invasion - it's INDEPENDENT, people. If we apply America's logic of eliminating threats pre-emptively to the whole world, doesn't that mean a 'rogue nation' can invade America because it knows the US is going to invade it? So I've been thinking about that.
Poll
The other article ... whatever was it? It was interesting, but I can't remember. Oh, there was that thing about "American unemployment figures have improved" but people were still complaining about jobs going outside the country. 'Scuse me? If you want to live in a global community - which the USA seems to want to do - then you've got to accept the fact jobs are going to go offshore. Furthermore, I find it offensive that some think jobs going outside America is a bad thing. We need jobs here too. But as I said, if you're living in a global community, you have to live with the fact some jobs will go elsewhere, and I bet other countries will be complaining some of their jobs are going to yours too. There is a choice though. If you want to keep jobs in your country, it's quite simple - close your borders and force corporations to remain there. Sure, your economy will probably die, but hey, you'll have the jobs onshore!
I also find it intriguing how a lot of news here can be rather Americentic sometimes. It's starting to bother me actually, not because I don't care about America and not because I want to hear more local news (most of it's boring anyway), but because I want to hear about all other parts of the world. I do care about what's happening in Sierra Leone, I would rather a proper article on political riots in Armenia than just some five second snippet, and you know what? The Baltic nations are probably making some really interesting news. Though not a lot of people seem to think on a broad global scale like that, which is sad. Whatever's wrong with fair and equal coverage to all regions? It gets boring when every day you have articles from the same old places.
I have a Maths C problem solving exam today. Yay! That I haven't studied for. Hurrah! And don't care about. Hooray! Wish me luck!