Hard vs Soft Diplomacy

 

So, I’ve been negligent on blogging about the presidential elections. I could come up with a spin and say that I have been wisely waiting for some of the turbidity to clear up, but it would be just that, a spin. Truth is that I have been trying to clarify my thoughts and maintain a modicum of fairness. Admittedly, this is very difficult for me, partly due to a few facts….first off; the war on Islamic Jihadists is to me, the most important aspect on which we need to focus. That being said, it is my belief that we need to let loose the dogs of war. We have to quit treating this as a police action and accept that it is a war. War is an ugly thing; it is the point in which our society shows its darkest side. It is also responsible for our freedoms, our success and our safety. Regardless of whether you might feel the war in Iraq was justified or not, I think that what we need to focus on is the fact that we are there and we need to finish it. We need to finish it in such a way that when we leave we never have to come back, and in such a manner that creates a chance that we have a true ally in the area. If we leave prematurely, according to General Petraeus, we will undo everything we have accomplished there. That would not only be unfortunate, not only would it demean the sacrifices of great people like Cpl Jason Dunham, Sgt Rafael Peralta, or many more. It would be catastrophic for us.

Sun Tzu wrote:“So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will fight without danger in battles.
If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.
If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself.”We would all agree that if we can utilize diplomacy rather than war, it is better for all. The problem is that in order for there to be diplomacy, there has to be a common ground between the warring factions. That is “soft diplomacy”. “Hard diplomacy” starts with the concept that one never negotiates from a position of weakness. That is to say, you do not engage in diplomacy until you have your foot firmly planted on their throat. I prefer the latter, but accept that there are situations that call for the first type (USSR/USA diplomacy of the 80s). So, going back to the soft diplomacy concept vis-à-vis the war on Jihadists, where is the common ground? Can we find one? Let’s start with the previously mentioned Sun Tzu quote…..our enemy is not Al-Quieda, or the Taliban, or

 

Iran or Hezbollah or Hamas. Our enemy is all of the above and all other factions that espouse the Jihadist perversion of the Islamic faith. In that version of Islamic faith, the starting point is that all infidels (that’s us) should either be:

a) Killed

b) Enslaved or

c) Enslaved and converted.

That’s it. To them, there is no other choice. That is what is called an impasse in negotiations. From that fundamental stance, there is no opportunity for common ground…unless we are willing to be enslaved or killed by the Jihadists. So, logically, hard diplomacy (if any diplomacy at all) is the way to go. Additionally, looking at the culture of our enemy, tells us that they view talks of treaties and peace as weakness from their enemy. In their mind, it is all or nothing. You can tell this mentality through their tactics (different from strategy). There isn’t a much clearer statement of “all or nothing” mentality than strapping a bomb to your chest. Applying a very basic version of “know your enemy”, tells me that there is little to no room for negotiations. It tells me that one of the biggest mistakes this administration made was not informing our populus of what our enemy was like, and what tangling directly with them meant. If the Administration had explained to the populus and its representatives that tangling directly with Jihadists meant a loooooooooong commitment to action and it required operating from the “take no prisoners” mentality, the Administration would have discovered that we, as a society, lack the stomach to carry this out. Commitment??? Have you checked our divorce rate???

Another fact that makes it difficult for me to maintain an objective viewpoint is the fact that I believe in Democracy and Capitalism. It makes 100% sense to me that given the fact that 97% of us depend on a company or corporation for our employment and income, that if the company or corporation is paying less in taxes they will be able to maintain their doors open and afford to pay us more. I also believe that we, the employee dictate our worth. We do this through our work ethic, our education, our business savvy. I also believe that the government that governs least governs best. It is also obvious to me, that 99% of the programs that the government runs are jacked up beyond belief (Medicare/Medicaid/ Social Security ring a bell?). I believe that lower taxes on both the corporations and the individual promote and stimulate the economy. I believe that increasing taxes on either is detrimental. I believe that hand-outs are bad, as they create and encourage a dependent atmosphere between the people and its government. Let us remember that ours is supposed to be a government Of the People, By the People and For the People. That does not describe a dependant relationship. It describes government is there to serve US, not to CONTROL us.

In short, voting for a candidate that does not understand the difference between strategy and tactic, that does not recognize that the “War on Terror” does not have a geographical border, that socializing anything is the wrong answer, that “the surge” worked, that our Military Strategy has been since after WWII built around the concept of being able to fight a war on two fronts, that there are times to talk and times to just destroy your enemy, is an impossibility for me.

Posted by Teufelhunden11 @ 8:56 am EDT | Permalink | 14 Comments

First Round of Presidential race opinions

First off, please remember these are my opinions. They are not meant to hurt or insult anyone, but if you have thin skin you might want to skip onto the next blog

As I am sure this will come to no surprise to any of you who know me, I am voting for McCain. However, this decision was reached after some thorough research and some (for me) deep thought. As the time progresses, and based upon the reactions I get, I will post more and more information on this subject.

For now, I am going to pose a rarely expressed question out here:

In your view, what (if any) are the requirements or pre-qualifications to be President of the United States? Is it as simple as the Constitutionally outlined minimum demographic requirements (age, birthplace)? Or is it a more in-depth group of traits and achievements? For me it is the latter. While Obama meets the demographical requirements, I see him lacking tremendously on all other aspects. I kind of look at this as a job interview. Both candidates are, in my mind, interviewing for the positon with the voters as the "hiring authority". That being said, I had to start somewhere...and I decided to start with this basic question......

As President of the Untied States of America, the individual will be granted access to the most sensitive and highest classified information of our government. Presidential level access is at such a high level of clearance it is unbelievable (justifyably so). So.....given that I hold a clearance, I am very familiar with the adjudication process; and I know that there are aspects of Obama's life that would siqualify him for a Secret clearance...nuch less a Presidential level clearance. What aspects you ask? Well, alot of it concentrates on his associations. You see, there is a standard form that whenever you apply for a clearance you have to fill out, and there are questions there about every aspect of your life. The one that I concentrate on in this case is something along the lines of: Have you ever associated yourself with any individual or group that is intent on overthrowing the government of the United States or is unfriendly to the same?" Well....enter Jeremiah Wright. Now, statements like the ones he made weekly from his pulpit, statments like "Not God bless America, God DAMN America", or "The US of KKK", or the statement accusing our government of introducing AIDS as a weapon to destroy the African American population do not sound like the types of statements uttered by a USA loving individual. The level of involvement and support the Obamas had within that "church" , and with Jeremiah Wright specifically (he married them, baptized their kids.....) make it extremely hard for me to believe that Barack had "never heard him speak like that". For God's sake, Wright sold all his speeches on DVD. Kind of hard to miss, in my opinion. If that's not aggagious enough, let's add William Ayers to the mix....a known terrorist and long time associate of Obama's. These two associations (specially the latter) would make it impossible for you or I to obtain a Secret-level clearance....imagine meeting the requirements for a Presidential level clearance. In short, Obama doesn't meet one very critical requirement for Presidency...you can't very well Preside without access to the most vital info, now can you?

Posted by Teufelhunden11 @ 7:05 pm EDT | Permalink | 13 Comments

What is the point of having a beta demo????

I know right off the bat that I will get a crapload of flack for saying this, but I'm used to that.
First let me say that I enjoy COD4. It is a good game. Notice, GOOD, not GREAT. It has a decent fun factor and if you game with the right crew there could be loads of strategy.
All that being said, I am disappointed with Infinity Ward.  Maybe it is because I view things in a slightly different light? I think that whichever industry a company is in, they should strive to deliver the highest possible product for their customers (I know...what a concept). I also think that used to be the standard. Look at most companies today....gone are the days where "the customer is always right" applies. Why? I believe it is all the public's fault. Either they abused the concept (scamming the company), or we have become too complacent; allowing the companies to take advantage of us. Companies, specially in the software business seem to have developed the mentality that it is OK to deliver a subpar product, since they can always "update" it. How long did IW have to develop, test, re-test COD4? How many programmers did they have on payroll? How many testers did they have on staff? How many of us participated in the beta? Yet, they could not have the logical, deductive foresight to understand that not having the capability of a migrating host night be a bad idea? The fact that we complained time and again about the accuracy (lack thereof) of the sniper rifles and ACOG scope went utterly unnoticed? By the way....how is it that an ACOG scope diminishes accuracy???? (I'm referring to the stats shown when you equip the ACOG). Did their consultants have no experience with ACOGs? From first hand experience I can tell you that up to 300 meters the Trijicon ACOG (the one depicted on the game) is gold for accuracy. Zero that puppy in and you can have keyhole shots ad nauseum.
Back to the point.......for over two months we have been waiting for a patch. A patch that should never have needed to be there...if IW would work with the mentality that they should deliver a solid product to begin with. Are you really going to tell me that the issues that are prevalent on COD4 were completely unforeseeable??? To me, the issues are directly related to the basics of online gaming. By now everyone in the industry should know to have migrating hosts. By now, everyone in the industry should know that if you make an FPS the gamer expects accuracy from their weapon. And the excuse that their patch did not pass MS's screening....are you shitting me?? Does MS keep the information of the requirements for patches a secret? I seriously doubt it. I am fairly certain that MS lets all their developers know: This is the coding that needs to be used for patches, this is what you can have in a patch, this is what you can't have in a patch. Again, basic proper prior planning, and attention to detail will prevent this stuff.
I might understand these issues if this were a start-up company. I might understand if this were IW's first rodeo on the 360. Neither applies. Remember COD2? How long did we have to wait on a patch for that game? Anyone? Over 3 months! Sound familiar? Maybe they should address COD4 before they start working on COD6?????
My point is that IW has no reason or excuse to not have:
a) Put the game out correctly to begin with (except the profit margin faced by meeting the deadline) or
b) Gotten the patch out already!

Now, go ahead and flame. Before you do though...try using logic and not allow your fanaticism or "online friendship" with IW developers over-run common sense. Again, COD4 is a good game and IW should be praised for it, however they should also be accountable for their shortcomings.

Posted by Teufelhunden11 @ 12:56 pm EDT | Permalink | 5 Comments

What a way to start my morning!!!

It is a well known fact that whenever it rains, or has rained, drivers' IQs fall by 25%. I was heading into work this morning, in a pretty decent mood, listening to the morning radio show. It had rained late last night and into the morning. Mind you, not a torrential downpour, just a persistant drizzle. Due to the road conditions I am actually driving just below the speed limit, traffic is flowing pretty well, and all was fine until........I was on the right lane, a little yellow hybrid tonka car decides to change lanes, cutting me off, and then promptly slam on their brakes because air got in their way. I had a good distance between me and the car that was ahead of me, until this tonka car cut me off. I had nochoice but to swerve to the right (into the grass) to avoid eating the donut she had sitting on her lap. As soon as I hit the wet grass, I felt the rear end of my car cut loose. Next thing I know, my front end is pointing towards the traffic I just evaded, as my car is power sliding across the grass. I could feel the momentum and wet grass sending my car back into traffic, and I knew if I touched the brakes, it would cement my fate. So I counter-steered and succeeded in straightening the car out. Then the wet grass took effect again, and the car over corrects. I counter-steer again, down shift and give a little gas. Back to looking at the traffic.....counter-steer again and car does a 180 degree turn, so that my back end is now to the traffic, and I am now fast approaching a "Do not Enter" sign and a traffic island, driver's side first. I took out the sign, and the cement traffic island stopped my movement. I drive to a safer spot and watched the woman driving the yellow tonka stuff what was left of her donut in her mouth and keep going as if nothing happened. I called the police, they showed up after 45 minutes, and initially the cop was going to issue me a ticket for "too fast for conditions". I asked him what he based this on, and he said that the tread marks on the grass indicated I was going too fast. I explained to him the whole situation, and that the tire marks were not from me applying the brakes, but from steering/counte-steering. No ticket, not at fault. But now I have to deal with getting the Z fixed.......

Posted by Teufelhunden11 @ 10:40 am EDT | Permalink | 15 Comments

Internet vs Real Life

One of the things that binds this community together is the fact that  we found refuge here from the Timmies.
Now, one of the things that erked me most about the Timmies was their magnificent ability to talk to trash and act tough. Whe I say talking trash, I don't mean the well intended satirical banter that for example, Zikan and I exchange. Or the plethora of "NoGay" jokes that are spewed on a nightly basis in my clan's forum or lobbies. I mean the "I am behind a mic and in the safety of the internet" tough talk. I foten wonder what it is that affords people that feeling of safety? Is it the anonimity?  The distance? The familiarity of their surroundings? All of the above? I tend to lean to the latter.
One thing that the new communication medium that the internet has become for us affords us is the feeling of safety that comes with knowing that as soon as you turn the computer off, the confrontation can end. It gives people the "license" they otherwise would not have. I am willing to bet that 99.9% of those that talk in such manner would not have the coglioni to do so in a face-to-face situation. This internet gives them the spine they lack. Sad, isn't it? I go by this rule: Would I say it to your face and face the consequences? If the answer is yes, I roll with it.

Posted by Teufelhunden11 @ 3:17 pm EDT | Permalink | 11 Comments