I see that the allies are expressing outrage about the Iraqi violations of the Geneva Convention, in which captured US soldiers have been shown on TV. I didn't see it, but I understand that one soldier was shown being interrogated and was obviously afraid, and another was clearly badly injured (blood was visible). I don't support this treatment of prisoners of war, but I think that the allied whining about it is hypocritical. I have seen Iraqi POWs on the TV several times in this war, with their faces clearly visible, and nobody that I heard complained about that. That too was a violation of the Geneva Convention. Then again, during the war on Afghanistan, I remember seeing POWs packed tightly in a prison. I remember seeing one kneeling on the sand, hands tied behind his back, being interrogated by a CIA officer. That was in contravention of the Geneva Convention as well. Next, we have the US prison camp, "Camp X-Ray" at Guantanamo Bay, in which the prisoners are defined as "combatants" but not as "POWs" by the US so they can be held without access even to lawyers, including people who are almost certainly not terrorists. So, allies, make up your minds: do you support the Geneva Convention, or do you only support it when it suits you?

I see people are still saying the war in Iraq is not justified, and some 150,000 to 250,000 (depending on who you listen to) marched in London yesterday on this basis. Even the pope is against it. But... I am still convinced that the war is a (relatively) good thing. Nobody is denying that the Iraqi government is causing the deaths of 150-200 people per day on average (55-75k per year). Around one family in three in Iraq has had a family member tortured or killed by the Iraqi government. Recently one witness reported seeing 30 people executed by being fed into a plastic shredding machine (a bit like a meat mincer). Another report described tortured prisoners being killed with what appeared to be mustard gas sprays, including a 12 year-old boy. And the war isn't justified? I think it is.

OK, the war has started. Good, I think: the sooner Saddam is removed from power, the sooner he will stop killing people. I see that a big anti-war rally is planned for tomorrow, but I feel that this is disloyal, and moreover, dangerous. The anti-war people have lost the fight for "peace" (at the expense of innocent Iraqis), and any anti-war rallies now will only give encouragement to the other side, and thereby increase the risks for our own troops.

Right! I've finally added some short stories to the Tucana site; they can be accessed via the Sci-Fi Novel page.

So, the war in Iraq still hasn't happened yet. Should it? And shouldn't it be a war against Iraq, rather than in Iraq? Anyway, given that Saddam is causing the deaths of some 150-200 people per day, that is, 55,000 to 75,000 per year, it seems like a good idea to me. Leave him in power for another (say) 10 years and let some 500,000 people die, or get rid of him now at a cost of say 100,000 lives (as per the official figures from the last war) and save 400,000. The arithmetic speaks for itself.

But what of the possible consequences? The end of the United Nations? Well, if it doesn't work, do we need it? Perhaps it is time to discard it and come up with a better, less corrupt and less corruptible system. After all, do we really respect the opinion of countries like China (of Tiananmen Square fame)? Or France (whose premier, Chirac, has said he will veto a war against Iraq no matter what)? Or Russia (prosecuting a very dubious war in Chechnya)? Each of which countries stands to gain from oil deals with Iraq if sanctions are lifted and Saddam stays in power, but not otherwise? What if there is a new anti-Western jihad? Well, I hope not, but we would win it in the end, at a cost of perhaps 20,000,000 lives. Not worth it, unless the risks to democracy and freedom are greater by not fighting it, of course. What are the odds of jihad? Small, is my guess, based on nothing much. So, worth it again, if my guess is right (you have to play the odds, I think, but more than my hand-waving would be needed to figure out just what those odds are).

Hmm... yes, but photos can be "art" anyway...

Well, 'tis done anyway. I think it needs the names anyway (See yesterday's blog (below) if you don't know what I'm on about). Now, I just need to decide where to host the site. Tucana is getting a bit full... Wherever it is to be, it has to be free, or already paid for, anyway.

That's a lot of anyways. Anyway... next.

Ringamoby made GBP230 in February (the previous "last month" figure turned out to be for January). Well, it is getting there, but one of the pay-per-click advertisers, Overture, is increasing its rate so I doubt that it will be profitable - I will probably have to drop them and rely on Google AdWords for my advertising exclusively. That may mean fewer visitors, but on the other hand, it seems that only about 1 in 5 visitors are coming via Overture's service anyway.

Still pondering "Sinkland"... got a few photos already. I'm wondering if I should name the continents with on-picture text, or not. Hmm... I think I should. Yeah. Then it becomes "art" doesn't it?

I'm thinking of adding some short stories to the web site today. I'm also thinking of adding "Sinkland", a page of pictures taken of the soapy continents and galaxies that form in my bathroom washbasin. I might even paint some of them...

If you're looking for windows wallpapers, http://www.nationalgeographic.com might be a good place to look. They have lots of great photos.