Anti-Globalization's Argument is Too Weak

My opinion on globalization was initially indifferent, partly because I only had a vague idea of what it was (on account of missing some school). I was expecting to agree with the "no" side, because I thought it was all about outsourcing. I was mostly wrong about that, and as I began reading the "no" article, the first thing I noticed was how weak the arguments sounded. The article claimed that globalization promoted issues such as terrorism, global warming, nuclear increase, spread of disease, distain between religious groups, and weaker international institutions and global financial system. While there are many apparent reasons to oppose globalization, the article fails to look at the "big picture." I consider something to be good if the ends justify the means. If the majority of the world populations lives are improved, than I see a little terrorism and spread of disease as an unfortunate side effect that affects a minority of the population. They would suffer, but for the good of the whole.

However, as I support globalization in theory, I abhor the way it is currently put into place. For successful globalization, the interaction between countries must be between all 1st, 2nd, and 3rd world countries, not America vs. the rest of the world. One country alone simply cannot accomplish this feat, especially when it has problems within it's own borders which just add to the burden.