summercomfort | (no subject)

::sigh:: so true

I read a very cool Chinese article about the War last Monday when we were waiting at the DMV. It's from the Sunday Qiao Bao, front page Op/Ed, 3/23, written by Xiao Dong. Let me see if I can give a general translation:

"For whom do the mourning bells ring?"
--Xiao Dong

As the Iraq war commences, the British/American Alliance, with their towering military advantages, will doubtlessly ring the mourning bells for the Saddam regime. However, Saddam may not be the only one to come tumbling down with the mourning rings.

First of all, the UN will fall. Formed almost single-handedly by FDR's America with hopes to avoid the fate of the League of Nations by stressing the maxim of "Large Nations as One" (I have no idea what is the proper English translation of this), and thus create a new era of world peace. However, in the following Cold War era, the UN became an American-Soviet battleground. On the other hand, this was also a form of restriction and equilibrium between the superpowers, and prevented the Cold War from evolving into a Hot War. After the end of the Cold War, the world again placed their hopes on the UN as a major protector of international peace and a center of international policies.

Even though America had personal economical reasons for war, the first Persian Gulf War was still under the flag of the United Nations, and was lead under the name of protecting territorial integrity. The multi-national support also raised the prestige of the UN. However, with Bush's one-sided preemptive strike policy this time, America treats the UN as a mere convenient pet. The UN has lost its power to restrain the US, and so lost the purpose of its existence. It can be said that with the first gunfire in the Iraq War, the Roosevelt-created UN will go the same path as its League of Nations predecessor. From now on, even if UN still maintains its name, it will be at most a cooperative committee of the strong nations, and a discussion panel for nations. The UN will probably not have the power for such an ambitious goal of World Peace. The irony that the creator of the UN is also its killer is the first layer of tragedy brought by this war.

Secondly, idealism will fall as well. Behind the collapse of the UN will be the destruction of idealism in international relations. Idealists believe that international policies must surpass the vision of the cold and bloody realists. Yet idealists have long been living in the cracks of realism. In US foreign policy, it is only during the eras of Wilson and FDR that people saw a glimmer of idealism. After the Cold War, idealists happily believed that it was time to raise the standard for idealism.

However, what we see this time is something exactly opposite. The eloquent wordplay of the politicians belies a contempt for laws, an avarice for oil, a craving for power. Bush had expressed with the bluntness of a Texan in the State of the Union address last year that he will not permit any threat of force against America. This is blatantly an attempt to preserve its superpower status and not an effort to spread its ideals. This war is a practical execution of this plan. The American hawks believe that they should take advantage of the US' current undefeatable military status to pick off Iraq, and then control MidEast oil sources and threaten the Islamic world. This way, America can continue forever in its superpower status. History isn't going forward. Instead, it is returning to the age of Yelin (this name sounds familiar. Have no idea). This is the second tragedy of the war.

Thirdly, America's role as the incarnation of truth and freedom will fall as well. Some people believe that America's power comes not only from the "hard power" of its military might, but also from the "soft power" of its righteous pursuit of justice and liberty. However, America's war has no solid basis, causing many old allies to turn their backs. Even more disconcerting for America is the wave of global anti-war movements. Not only has America lost all the sympathy and support from 9/11, it also lost its role as diplomatic embassador. The American hawks tore apart the world, but also tore apart America.

Oh, oh! should I get this? It looked really cool on TV! (haha. prob. not. Can't trust TV stuff. But it's $50 for vacuum + sewing machine!)

Heee.... decided to hop over to Catherine's LJ man-harem page, and realized it's Ewan McGregor's b-day. yay. Cute article about Ewan enjoying the man-on-man sex scenes.

"He adds: "I've never really worried about being masculine. I know it's a very popular thing, especially in America, to not want to be seen as homosexual. But I thought it was kind of exciting."
The star says there is "really no difference" between doing straight sex scenes and gay love scenes which he "loves".
McGregor, who has two kids by his wife of eight years, Eve, gets a kick out of wearing make-up.
"I wear eyeliner a lot. I just like it," he said."

::titters::
*and*, an Orly as Paris pic. ::snicker::