Sunday, July 29, 2007

Rules of Engagement Kills soldiers

In guerrilla warfare, the enemy does not play fair. The enemy knows about the "rules of engagement" and seeks to take advantage of that knowledge only to make the opposing forces appear as violators. In the case of Iraq, the US Armed Forces are loosing a lot of soldiers to IED's (Improvised Explosive Devices) every day.

Which leads me to this question, what counter measures are the US government creating to protect our soldiers against them? And we are not just talking about deaths due to IED's, but also disabling injuries to thousands of soldiers. How about those HUM Vee's? Most of those vehicles are death traps in the urban war setting. And are not full armor proof.

The more governments attempt to civilize war or turn it into a so called gentleman's fight by establishing rules, the more vulnerable our soldiers become and the more creative the enemy will win small destructive battles against our armed forces. Prosecuting soldiers for war crimes will not calm or stop the enemy from working.

The story of "Blackhawk down" traveled around the world especially into the enemies hands. They learned how vulnerable a great armed forces can be in a urban warfare environment and most prospective enemies know they can not win against our technology and resources. Sorry, no head to head competitive battles in the deserts or jungles anymore. Why urban?

Because the enemy knows that we are humane and will go through great lengths to avoid collateral damage. In fact, the more collateral damage, the better for the enemy. Why? They can manipulate the victims emotionally to join opposing forces with inflammatory speeches and other propaganda.

In addition, the enemy can also frame our soldiers easily for murder. They can put our military field officers in jeopardy of court martial and the evidence appearing against them while investigating incidents. Instead, it seems good officers and or none commissioned officers and other soldiers are caught in the middle of politics becoming liabilities instead.

Rules of engagement are killing and permanently injuring our soldiers and destroying there honor and or integrity. Are there any solutions? Long term solutions does not create an itch that politicians want to scratch. Only short term solutions, the quick and easy seem to peak significant interest of politicians. Hey perhaps we can't blame politicians completely, they only do what the people demand mostly, of course the people can also include special interest groups and corporate.

Our US Armed Forces ultimately fight for each other and there own survival. They love there country, but it is the guy next to them in combat that matters most. And rules of engagement and the lack of unit support in time of need kills our soldiers and who is liable for that? --- Pall Stanley

Compensation For Slavery?

Check out this comment from the television minister about the reimbursement for slavery in America. By now we must know that our economical system of today was the beneficiary of four hundred years of slavery. Be that as it may, the dollar during the periods of slavery had tremendous value by comparison to todays economy, we all understand, right?

Where am I going with this? Today, a dollar amount could not possibly be attached to the cost of slavery. Most importantly, the people that deserve the compensation for there labor and troubles as the result of living during that period in history are no longer alive. What am I talking about? Most of my brothers and sisters of today if compensated monetarily would end up putting there reward back into the very same system that benefited from slavery anyway.

My compensation should be to view me as a man and measure my worth by my own merit. Do not make assumptions or conclusions about my outer appearance without considering the heart. Do not categorize me about the car I drive, the money in my back account, my family affiliations, the college I received a degree from, the color of my skin, and so on. Look into the heart of a person, let my merit be my ticket to opportunities in this life.

Idealistic? Even with the correct education, knowledge, skills, finances, dream team, and more, I would still have a challenging time purchasing a major league baseball team. Even if I am the best candidate for the job of being an owner, and I mean sole owner. This would be my payback, just give me a fair opportunity without bias. Comment by Pall Stanley

Friday, May 18, 2007

The Virginia Tech Killings, What Did We Learn?

The story may be old now, but the circumstances that lead to the event continues around the world. What circumstances? One might ask. How about asking the question, why did that young Korean boy kill all of those students? There are many people suffering from depression and or psychological disorders, but few of them go out and kill multiple people, right?

So, what caused that Korean boy to kill thirty students? Was it anger? Was it a rage of anger resulting from being teased? Teased, that's right, I said it, teased because he was a antisocial Korean boy that remained mostly alone? Yes, it was a tragedy that so many people, young people to be precise were killed as a result of a troubled young boy. But the question remains, why did the boy do it? It is deeper than just "psychological disorders" or a label.

The tragedy started in the mind of that Korean boy, low self esteem as a result of past negative actions against him perhaps. Anyway, what if the VT students were patient enough to mentor the Korean boy and help him to become more social. What if they put aside his existing mindset and viewed him as the man he could one day become?

If a group of students extended nothing but pure love towards him, sound advice and encouragement, do you think that boy would have killed any of the VT students? That kind of love towards another human being, a person of our society and culture, I believe would have rapidly served better than any psychological medicines and therapy sessions could ever produce.

What is the lesson? What can we learn from this situation? It's not just about this kid having psychological problems and the need for Universities or Colleges to exclude or screen out or profile like minded individuals from people does not offer solutions alone. Now obviously, there are some people that truly need to be excluded or segregated from others while getting the medicinal help and therapy before re-entry, however, was that the case with the Korean boy?

Perhaps in retrospect we will never know, but the "teasing" and even "hazing" across the nation and world must stop. People must be just as sensitive to political correctness or racial overtones as with other people's feelings. I can see it if everyone or the masses of people at VT made sincere attempts to encourage, edify, socialize, and many strategies, and if the Korean boy was apprehensive over long periods of attempts, then I can understand leaving the boy alone but teasing, I am against. That boy was a human being that obviously wanted to be accepted on campus by other students but was rejected with humility that lead to violence.

He was a time bomb waiting to explode. In conclusion, he did not know how to deal with the situation peacefully, ultimately tragically killing others and destroying his own life without the chance of redemption. Universities and colleges should educate students against teasing and create social programs to help the low self esteem or socially challenged young people to cope with others. Build them up, not allow the character assassinations that is so adolescent or shameful, yet continues in the actions of young adults. When will we wake up?

People have more sympathy for a poor stray dog or a sickly puppy roaming the streets than a troubled young boy that lacks social skills and self esteem, roaming the college or university campus in search of love, compassion, and affection as a human being. What does this say about us overall? Teasing might be funny to the crowd of people, but at the expense of other people's feelings, how can one find pleasure in that type of laughter? --- Pall Stanley

Saturday, April 21, 2007

Virginia Tech Killer, Cho Seung-Hui

What if the college peers of Cho Seung-Hui sincerely embraced the shy or quite boy with love and patiently encouraged him to be more social and start bridging healthy relationships, would this situation occurred today? I am not pointing fingers at anyone, but it's a thought.

What if Cho developed a genuine trust in some good campus mentors that could school him about relationships and people in America and of course he applied the suggestions daily with patient support, I wonder if this horrific incident could have been stopped.

What if Cho learned to make himself more approachable and others accepted him as the shy quite guy on campus, would we be having this discussion about Cho? Instead of campus students laughing or making fun of Cho, what if they gave him the support to become more socially inclined, would that be more help than what a Psychologist and drugs could offer?

Now I am NOT placing the blame of Cho's actions in the hands of his fellow classmates or campus students, I am just asking questions with the intent of offering solutions. Perhaps there could be a collective effort from college students from around the country to help anti-social types to be more social and have fun eliminating the snow balling anger.

Now I know most people are going to be too angry to think about the killer, Cho Seung-Hui, but we must deal with it. Scary fact, there are many Cho's here in America working in other destructive manners against our country and or people. We must find ways to break the resistance of these type of individuals early. Medication is NOT the solution. And most of the Cho types will slip through the cracks of a variety of profile test, so that is not the answer either.

So, what can we do today as a people? -- Pall Stanley