i found a brand new favourite subject: Economics! why? cos it's so interesting! i mean, i never knew that the way people behave regarding scarce resources could be so fascinating. and the fundamental principles are all applicable to our daily lives, especially decision-making. it's like all of us have been using economics without even realising it. and nowadays i can't read a piece of news blindly without sitting down afterwards and considering what was being written. in a way, that's a good thing. heheh. and oh, economics have nothing to do with money. seriously. it's more of like a thinking process to uhh ... make you feel smarter. although technically it is supposed to make you smarter. haha! what the hell...

anyway, i just read the news that Obama plans to increase the number of US troops in Afghanistan by 17 000 to counter the increasing insurgency there. i don't know.. i mean, the US$787 billion stimulus package was just recently passed. and we all know that the US is actually in heavy debts. i mean, to employ 17 000 more troops there. sure, for short-term, it might appear that there's more manpower for the military to take charge of the situation there. but think about it. should 17 000 more lives be risked? the situation in afghanistan has been the same for years - it doesn't seem to show any sign of letting up or improving. maybe the taliban is more or less eradicated, but it only seems to give rise to more insurgent groups. in a way, the more troops added, the more insurgency occurs. there's no doubt that it is entirely impossible (and i dare say evil) if the US completely pull out of the country. after all, the afghanistan military is still in the process of being built albeit at a very slow pace. so surely they require guidance and assistance from US and NATO troops before they are able to take on the insurgents on their own.

i have no idea why i'm thinking this, but what if more afghans are joining the insurgent groups as compared to the national military? wouldn't that sort of render all this effort rather, well, useless? okay, to be honest, the first thing that struck me when i read the news was, why is the US risking the lives of 17 000 more soldiers and risking their already shaky monetary situation in order to finance these soldiers? of course, common sense decress that it was to help out in afghanistan as per the request of the NATO commander (and the US sent 3000 troops shorter). but really, is there any way that the insurgency issue there in afghanistan be countered without making use of more troops?

okay, know what? i shall go think about that last part. seriously. there has to be another way to tackled this problem...

@ 6:16 AM