Another One Bites The Dust

With all the hype around Christiano Ronaldo's departure, I can't help but wonder what it would be like when Sir Alex eventually decides to retire. Because the truth is, Sir Alex is a genius. Or perhaps, Sir Alex is THE genius. Why sell Ronaldo for a couple of millions when you can keep him for one more season, win a few more trophies then sell him for 80 million pounds?

That money will buy 7 more junior Ronaldos. Surely, at least one of them will be as successful? For those who think the gap left by Ronaldo will be hard to fill, let's just say Sir Alex will fix it, probably already has. Beckham left, United was unaffected, probably stronger. Van Nistelrooy left, same deal happened. You see, United doesn't need star players. Sir Alex finds the new kid, and turns him into a star. That's how it works at Old Trafford. Ronaldo will merely be one of the many.

When Sir Alex retires, that's when the problem will arise. The man is a genius and if you don't think so, you are merely living in a state of denial. Let's hope he is as good at finding his own replacement when the time comes as he is at finding young talented players.

On a related note, this article is highly highly recommended by me. From the British TimesOnline. It's about a survey of British sports people. And it has concluded that joy far outweighs winning. Do it for the love of it, the medal is of no importance. You know how I've always championed for this, and how I loathe those who are so desperate to win, they fail to enjoy the moment. At least now I know I'm not the only one who thinks that way.
From the article,
"Sport is not a means to procure the joy of victory, sport is a joy in itself."

This is why the most entertaining football is played in the slumps of Brazil, not on your TV.

Apply that to life.

Storm The Embassy

I've decided(oh, the fickleness) that I will not write extensively about Global Health or War or anything like that on my blog. Instead, I will write on Microsoft Word and then if I wish so post them up here. This is so that I can practice writing essays(oh how terrible I am at that).

Anyway, here's something for you to think about. You decide if Iran or USA(maybe it's just Bush, but we'll wait for Obama) is the "bad guy" here.

You see, Iran's military doctrine is based of the concept of Deterrence. That is, to put it simply, "I will retaliate with my nuclear weapon, WMD, long range missles etc etc (that might not even exist), only IF you attack me first. Hence, why I build these fun stuff - to prevent you from attacking me."

However, the Bush doctrine is based of the concept of Preemptive strike. That is, "I will attack you as soon as I, triple emphasis on "I", think that you are a threat to me, or WILL BE a threat to me, doesn't matter if you really have no food to eat in your country, leave alone WMD."

So this I ask you, who is a bigger threat to world security? Who's nuclear weapons are potentially more dangerous to human kind? In other words, who should be the FIRST to be disarmed of their nuclear weapons? You can answer these seemingly complex questions, I'm sure.


In other news, Brazil trounced Portugal 6-2 last night. Amazing.

Though a Manchester United fan(Christiano Ronaldo), Brazil reigns supreme on the International stage. Love 'em. Since 1994.


TY