I am tempted to make a poll but then, I vowed never to do one.
Anyway, when having discussions on the whole Iraq thing as to under what conditions would an Iraq invasion/intervention have been justified, I’ve received some interesting replies which I will now list:
Under no conditions as war is evil (man)
if the UN had agreed
if WMD (preferably nuclear) had been discovered
If a direct link to terrorism and AlQaida had been discovered
If Iraq had invaded us first (or been proven to order terrorists attacks)
if Saddam had been an evil dictator who slaughtered heaps of his own people
if it was Al Gore who was president instead of Bush and his dodgy oil company connections
if any Democrat had been president
If Ralph Nader had been president
If a coalition of Arabic countries had performed the intervention.
if a coalition of any countries so long as the US wasnt part of it had performed the intervention.
if Iraq had no oil whatsoever (or any other resources of value)
if there was no popular insurgency to kick out the US
if there was no insurgency made up of a combination of foreign jihadists and sunni factions killing American troops (and most everyone else)
if Saddam was an evil twisted bastard who had slaughtered scores of his own people
If it hadnt made the west larger terrorist targets
If Iraq becomes a peace-loving stable democracy and a beacon of liberal secular humanism in the Middle-East
If the entire Middle East becomes a peace-loving secular democratic region and joins the EU
If London hadnt been bombed
if the US would bloody do the same to Myanmar, Iran, North Korea and half of subsaharan Africa
Doesnt matter as the US are in now and are obliged to fix up the mess they’ve made
Doesnt matter so long as the US get out NOW (and damn the consequences)
Ok, I made some of them up myself.
Lots of interesting comments from my last entry and thanks dangerfield23 for pointing me to moodgrapher. What a great concept!
Anyway, rather than responding individually to each comment, I thought I’d post another entry with some of my other thoughts on blogs, especially with regard to possible professional consequences of blogging in the public domain.
I’d first intended my blog to be a notebook and a way of breaking out of my writer’s block. It rapidly became an op-ed column and I’ve been enjoying writing it enough that I am still writing at least a couple of entries every week.
I did think about the consequences both personal and professional of being in the public domain. But in retrospect, it was the uncontrolled nature of public domain publishing (even if my audience would be very tiny) that attracted me to blogging and which maintains my writing interest today.
However, one of things I hadnt quite taken into consideration was the friends functionality and that the content from their blogs would invariably form a refrain to my own entries. As my friends list grew, it became obvious that there would be a bit more crossover than I’d first anticipated, that in fact, as uncontrolled and anarchic self-publishing filter free is, the linking of journals through friends list made it even more so.
At that point, I thought about the convenience of the friends list function, the social affirmation trading aspects of it and weighed it against possible professional repercussions. Having given up a long time ago on ever being accepted by the mainstream corporate Australia (or indeed mainstream Australia) as one of the boys, it wasnt too difficult for me to shrug it off.
So, I continued writing and growing my friends list. There are evident disjunctions of course but I think the pseudo-collaborative mosaic that results from one’s friends list and one’s blog adds interest and depth dar more than a single blog on its own can.