I'd like to write a little bit of content, since it's been a few days, but I don't really have anything to say.

Another work week. Another paycheck today. Though this was friday, the term "weekend" has become meaningless. My days off will come later.

Another paycheck means that I can get rid of another little chunk of car debt. Goodie.

I like lasagna. That's what I had for lunch today. We had tons of it at the deli that nobody had bought. After 7pm, everything hot is half price, so I loaded up. Yummy.

It's been cold outside lately. Very cold.

In Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, I've been reading to the part where -- having annexed Austria without a fight -- Hitler manages to also get Czechoslovakia handed to him on a silver platter by the French and British governments, who were so intent upon avoiding war at all costs that they were willing to betray their neighbors to appease the monster. (Which strangely parallels certain aspects of the B5 plot at end of Season 2, which I recently finished watching.)

Thinking about modern times.... Saddam Hussein has, on occassion, been compared to Hitler. Both brutal dictators apparently set upon conquest. Despite my general opposition to the impending Iraq war (which hasn't changed), I have to wonder: Is Bush trying to do what the pre-WW2 French and British would not, and cut down a dictator before it becomes too late? If so, is he right to do so?

Due to lack of sufficient information, the only answers I can genuinely come up with from where I stand are: Maybe, and maybe.

However, there is a key difference in my mind. After Kuwait, Saddam Hussein has not taken any aggressive action against other nations. Because of the way Iraq was driven out after the Kuwait invasion, Saddam should realize -- if he's got half a brain -- that any repeated attempt would be met with similar retribution. So far, he's been smart enough not to. Aside from the allegations that Iraq has weapons, there is no indication that Saddam intends to use them in acts of aggression.

My main point is this: Until Iraq takes definitive action against other countries, any pre-emptive attempt to stop them with military force make US the aggressors. (If you want to argue that Saddam as a leader has abused his people, and depose him for reasons of domestic human rights of Iraqis, then that brings an entirely new sphere of debate on issues such as what comprises national soveriegnty, other regimes around the world which are just as bad that we haven't touched, etc etc etc)

Anyway, interesting stuff to think about. I need sleep. Another work shift in less than 12 hours. Plus I should to do laundry tomorrow morning first...

I'm out.