03 May 2009

A Bit of a Moan... on Defence.

I see it like this... with the moves in Defence, in cutting back the military, in non-existent pay equity affecting retention, purchase of redundant equipments and far more, we are clearly not learning from history. Once more we find ourselves in a situation of not reading the political terrain, and having ill-equipped and inexperienced personnel to do far more than should be humanly expected of them. In this way, we dishonour the memories and the sacrifices of those who have gone before. Once more it is not the soldiers, sailors and airmen... and in an island nation like my own, you'd wonder where on earth are the marines? but the politicians who make the decisions that see us, as a nation, repeating the mistakes of the past.

Don't speak to me of peace through diplomacy and negotiation. I'm talking about when that fails. It does happen. Are there not enough examples in the world today to make this very clear? Surely there are enough examples so very close to home (here in New Zealand). Evidently not. Maybe I am missing something.

Not everyone wants peace, some have sworn enemies, some do not abide the United Nations as the best thing since sliced bread. The geopolitical climate of just the last few years makes this eminently clear. To be blind to it is courting disaster. Accepting that such means do not always work - Heaven forbid. Its not about warmongering, or stockpiling, or entering some sort of arms race, but simply providing adequate means by which to train, and fight if necessary, should that be the only avenue. That we can consider our Defence needs first, our regions, and be able to function reasonably, self-sufficently, further afield with allies as required. Recent history, even from East Timor, to Afghanistan has proven those who serve are not provided for in a reasonable manner, and that reactionary behaviour in acquisitions is a potentially dangerous thing - the consequences not being the cheque signer's load to bear.

Mistral has been introduced in recent years. A French system not overly popular and only a last ditch resort for ground troops under threat from hostile aircraft. The term Very Low Level Air Defence System (VLLADS) says a lot in this regard. This acquisition was well overdue, and was only made a complete and effective system after the belated introduction of the associated cueing radar. It has been seen by previous administrations as acceptable, to acquire systems not fully functional and capable of providing their prescribed tasks to troops who might need to use them operationally, be it in the most gravest of circumstances. The Air Defence detachment of 16 Field Regiment will be glad to now have a IFF unit and other vital technologies finally.

Noted was the somewhat diplomatic response of the current president of the Fighter Pilots Association when quizzed on the current state and capacity of the RNZAF in an interview on ANZAC Day. There are plenty of examples in modern warfare, and PSO from Crete to East Timor where it is clear there remains a emphasis on excuses of financial prohibition over preparedness and acknowledgment of conflict reality.

While the previous government was quite to justify the disbandment of the Skyhawks because they were a) outdated, and b) having not ever been used operationally, despite being put on standby for East Timor, their performance in the first instance, the global recognition of its crews defeats the first argument, while the fact that crews were trained here so they could fly other nations' aircraft discounts the second point - case in point, Vietnam. Since World War Two, Kiwi pilots have flown in support of New Zealand troops in every decade with the exception of the 1980s (but here even, the author may need to be corrected).

Today, we find Labour, now in opposition, quite perplexed that their precious LAVs might be sold off, their argument being that they might be needed in the future. Surely even the most logic-deficant peacenik can bear witness to the irony there. Hey, I'm ex-Army, but I'll take a Skyhawk flying CAS for me as a light infantryman any day, over rolling in a LAV that can't even handle .50 cal rounds much less an RPG and no air cover to boot.

If required a quick look at historical comparisons from the World War Two era is enough to demonstrate the point beyond operational preparedness. Equipment is the most immediate and impacting upon those who serve. In WWII the Germans had the MP40 submachine gun. Post war, they have the MP5, which is the most popular and effective submachine gun in the West by far. On the other hand, the British had the Sten gun, which, while cheap to produce, you needed to go at it with a file when it was issued to you, and even then had major reliability issues. Kiwis, where they could, chose the US Thompson for obvious reasons beyond calibre. The German problem with wheeled vehicles over inhospitable terrain is well documented during the war.

Today, contemporary Western militaries ignore this experience and insist on the LAV type as being the future of modern mobility warfare. Iraq and Afghanistan, and the equivalent Russian experience should be enough to prove that this outlook isn't wise. Sure, any vehicle can be destroyed, but it is about mitigating the risks as much as practically possible. Bradley and Warrior IFVs have proven their worth, and the British option to deploy Warriors in war zones over wheeled options has invariably saved lives.

The reactionary yet somewhat belated purchase of Javelin in response to Kiwi Company's deployment to Bosnia is a frightening example of political ineptitude. While on peace-keeping missions it doesn't serve anyone, especially those on the ground, any good to dismiss the notion that their work is in a place of conflict. Armoured vehicles, namely Main Battle Tanks, in the shape of Serbian M84s must not have occurred to those planning as a real threat.

After years of peace-keeping and MFO work in all parts of the world with varying risks there is no excuse for not foreseeing such possibilities even on the most optimistic grounds. That a supposedly "modern" Army operated with obsolete core equipment for so long should be example enough to avoid such shortsightedness in the future. In the meantime, anti-tank crews must dismount NZLAVs in order to use the Javelin, though it be a highly effective weapon, abandoning even the limited protection the previous government so heralded of these new vehicles because no alternative armament versions (such as anti-tank or anti-air) were purchased. Silly me, there I was thinking that tanks and hostile aircraft were a reality on the battlefield of the twenty-first century, even in third world armies. Even first generation post war tanks offer more armour protection than the NZLAV.

Here's an idea, by the way, for those surplus NZLAVs. How about taking at least some of them and giving back the classic role to the Scots. It provides a armoured capacity once again for a TF unit. More importantly it can provide an armoured reconnaissance role for them. Better to up capacity than sell off vehicles and lose money. But perhaps enhancing capacity isn't on the agenda - much less reinvigorating unit pride and reinstating historical significance of a practical sort. The trend has been to disband specialist capacity (if not units themselves) and then discover that down track those skills are sorely needed.

Project Protector is well behind schedule. Not only is the project itself behind schedule, the whole concept is well behind the times. For a country like New Zealand, an island nation, with protectorates, with so many responsibilities across vast oceans, things need to be taken up a notch or three. One major responsibility of government is our national security. We can achieve this with key assets, but when they are not present, when they are not up to the job, when they put personnel lives at risk, serious questions must be asked, and then accountability taken. The latter very rarely happens so its probably pointless mentioning it. Taken to its complete course and issues dealt with we might get a big part of the way there, but this, if history is any gauge, will be an ongoing concern.

Sorry for the sarcastic tone in closing but just after ANZAC Day, it seems that lessons haven't been learned and recent years in political decisions and acquisitions in Defence have not inspired a great deal of confidence, even while answers are clearly laid out before us, should we choose to open our weary eyes. At least, after so long and so many fundamental mistakes there will be a review. Someone has a lot of work to do, and its very difficult to know where to start.

Top ^

 

17 April 2009

Tony Veitch Case - Guilty of a Lesser Crime

For various reasons it did have to come to the surface again. Some of them good, some of them hideous. Yes, I'm talking about the Tony Veitch Case. If nothing else it does demonstrate just how much a sham the New Zealand justice system is. Suppose, in this regard, if you're anything like me, you're quite sick and tired of hearing about such things. This, I am afraid, is the limit of news broadcasters in this country to produce worthy news. So yes, not of any real world standard you'd have to admit. Truth is, we don't have too many things to really concern ourselves with, and we're so slow on the uptake we don't realise this equates to having a great many things to be thankful for. Thereafter, we must find something to moan about.

But of course, it does expose social issues that are constantly raised yet not doubt with. In this particular case one would the issue of domestic violence, the other of corruption in the law. The latter doesn't necessarily mean money changing hands and various pats on the back, but a disruption, loose interpretations of the rules of law to suit those put up before it. I make my statement as someone not fully informed (who ever is?) of course, but of a concerned citizen making an observation on limited information in the public domain. A dodgy proposition at best, I freely admit.

Tony Veitch admits to kicking his then girlfriend in the back while she's on the ground. The result is two fractured vertebrae, yet when she was examined it was actually four. Odd that the courts have a different a lesser number here. This very nearly can amount to a broken back. I dunno, maybe not. In my estimation, you kick someone in the back there are certain possible consequences regardless. One is, well, not being able to walk, amongst others. So, there is no charge of assault. There is no charge of grievous bodily harm (GBH) I am at a loss.

The courts on this occasion have a very interesting way of interpreting the law when it suits. But hey, I dunno the fine print much less the sub clauses which no doubt allow for a certain amount of flexibility. Veitch gets charged with "casing injury with reckless disregard". Oh, and nine months supervision, 300 hours of community service, and a $10,000 fine. On the latter, I'm sure, even with all the legal bills to date, for his half million dollar salary this is mere petty cash. C'mon, it would be if I was earning that much. That's no kind of punishment. The other two elements amount to a drop in the bucket. All this says is, its okay to kick the crap out of someone and put them in a wheel chair. Oh, and there was the five hours in a jail cell... Boohoo.

They say if you don't wanna do the time, don't do the crime. Well, its a sure bet if you're big time, you can do the crime without doing any time. Top it off, money does solve everything. Heck, thousands of people go through the court system every year, and thousands get prison time for far less. Countless people suffer far more than this man has or will. If its all because he's being made an example of because he's a celebrity, and not much of an example - the he should have thought of that before he did what he did. I make a decision not to be a criminal, not to rob banks or beat people up because they say things I don't like. But man, if I did, I'd be nailed to the wall. Just like (as much as I hate to make use of this example again) a young Maori boy who would turn around and kick his girlfriend under the same conditions.

I don't usually swear but FFS, who cares about the $167,000 paid out. Its hush money. According to both parties its not, but if the money wasn't forthcoming, you work it out. Yes, it is about acknowledging the practicality of the victim's loss of income, rehabilitation, medical expenses.

Of good character? Evidently not. But that doesn't seem to matter - so long as you have the support of high profile people anything is possible.

You might find this hard to believe but its not actually Veitch I judge beyond the basic stupidity of his actions, but a system which allows such inconsistent judgement. And please don't ramble on about suicide. You either do it or you're just vying for attention - poor me. Cripes, how about the actual victim. Same old same old, the criminal has so many problems and issues and we must help them, bugger the victim of the crime.

Top ^

 

04 April 2009

Getting Your Man, Justice, Iran ...and taking your eye off the ball.

John Barlow has served 14 years so far for the double murder of father and son Wellington businessmen Gene and Eugene Thomas. I remember seeing a episode of the New Zealand crime investigations program on the case. Something seemed fishy to me then, it still does now. But to add to that is my recent understandings (okay, I admit it is but the media from which I can base my opinions) of Barlow's wife Angela and her overwhelming support for her husband, well, makes me think even further that the way the system, justice and media predominately, is vilifying this support is dodgy as Hell itself.

First up, its not a gender thing in the slightest and this works both ways, but after 14 years, and a double, execution style murder at the centre of it all, a partner would have to be pretty darned committed, emotionally strong to still be there after so long. A willing to take the flak for going against the grain, handle the isolation and challenges of all that society as a whole brings to your door, so many things to wade through, and yet, instead of what I was brought up to believe were very positive characteristics of a human being, the justice system, the media and even the public (as much as they are thus influenced) is passively obliterating these traits as a form of naïvety, dismissing them as blindness to the legally installed suggestion of guilt.

At the end of the day, the legal system doesn't care about right or wrong. Simple. It must be seen to be doing its job. Therefore, it must get someone. It doesn't matter if you ruin someone's life, after all, no individual will be truly held accountable, and by rare possibility they are, they certainly won't get thrown in jail or loss their life. Arthur Alan Thomas is a good example of that. Shows like Police Ten 7 show the Police doing their jobs on the mean streets of New Zealand, catching the crooks, dealing with drunken teenagers... the reality is, so few crimes are solved. The serious ones, well, they become high profile, so in a supposed example to the public of how the system is working they sure as heck will nail someone. In a murder, who better to get (particularly today) than someone who is a firearms enthusiast?

Where is this going? Pretty clearly, down a road of media sensationalism, and focusing on things which don't really matter, while taking the public's eyes off that which does. Who cares about guns? When someone gets run over by a drunk driver no one takes away the booze, much less the car. It is the violence, the act which is central, and therefore should be the key to resolution. I can take up a rifle, wave it around like a mad man all day. No AOS officer is going to be going home feeling very good at all if he drills me for waving a gun around. In fact, even if I killed someone he's not going to be smiling... Get the point that it is the WILL to do violence, to pull the trigger, to drive drunk, to hit my wife... not my fist, not my car, not my gun, not my pocket knife or kitchen knife that is at fault.

The parole board hearing Barlow's case said: "His extraordinary answers to questions about the use and possession of firearms shows a completely inappropriate attitude to guns."

I would put it to you that any keenness for firearms these days is pretty much deemed unhealthy by the majority of the public, who, by default have never picked one up, and they are simply a thing of violence and bloodshed as portrayed in the movies, video games, the media at large. Much of the protracted argument comes under the banner of ideology that fails when people can't comprehend why peacekeepers are armed with assault rifles, and yet countless lives are saved as a result. Sadly it is most often under the banner of a wholly ineffective organisation which picks and choices who should to live and die under rules you and I are not privy too. But then, this is beyond the scope of the current discussion...

So, one would have to ask the question as to why firearms are always singled out. Well, if you don't know, can't work it out it doesn't really matter to you, until you hope like heck there is a nice young man in uniform standing there between you and the mad man who wants to kill you. The idea that outlawing guns or taking them off people will reduce crime is about as silly as saying outlawing booze will stop people getting drunk. Read history, eventually you'll get the point.

In the meantime, the eye is off the ball and those values of commitment and honour and respect are being slowly eroded away, in fact denigrated through the media where it is deemed appropriate by the powers that be in order to find the endgame they desire.

I propose that if two initial juries were hung those involved were not exactly convinced of the man's guilt. Twice. But low and behold, third time lucky eh, the system got their man. Surprise surprise.

So much for being assessed a low risk and being a model prisoner for the last 14 years. Hey, but then that must mean he is trying to mislead his parole board.

Of course the Thomas family don't want the man out after so many years inside because they, like the media-guided public can't for a moment consider he might just be innocent. The family of the victims, like the public want, need closure. A natural thing. And the system is is happy that works in with their need to get their man, whether he is the right man or not.

For the legal system to be seen to be working it must operate under the criterion of guilty until proven innocent. Not the other way around - which I am sure the majority of my readers, like myself, were brought up to believe.

The realms of reasonable doubt are lost to history thanks to our unbridled passion for looking forward.

Remember this - on the whole, we live in a society where, because they are representing government, the Police are considered correct, right, true, in belief and attitude and action. This is the default setting, and fair enough too. They can thus be armed - with Tasers, mace, batons, stun grenades, Glocks, Bushmaster rifles and so on. Private citizens on the other hand, who too, by default are law abiding, and should be seen in the same light pertaining to attitude and action, are not conversely permitted to carry anything that could even be constituted a weapon without due explanation and the expectation of a good old grilling.

In the meantime, while you obey the law, criminals do not and carry whatever they please. You can only wait, terrified, shuddering at the expectation of assault, rape or murder coming to your door.

So serious crime is on the rise because there is less and less you are permitted to do to prevent it. You wait and no one comes. Criminals know this and take full advantage, as well they might in these hard times, of the open door presented them.

New Israeli Leadership

The notion of profiting off violence while failing to find peace is no stronger in the world than in the Middle East.

Benjamin Netanyahu has been sworn in as PM for Israel. Back as a big player in the politics of the Jewish state. Well, he didn't really cease to be, did he? Avigdor Lieberman of the ultra-nationalist party Yisrael Beiteinu has the post of foreign minister. Ehud Barak holds defence minister, which, as the Telegraph says provides some balance. But really, my point has nothing to do with these gentlemen, the left or right of politics, but once again how people take their eye of the ball. Everyone, like a mob of sheep just rolls with the status quo view point. Once that view is normalised in society, societies at a whole, whoever wishes it, has the masses right where they want them.

It should be pretty obvious, even if you haven't been listening to the words of Netanyahu recently, what I am talking about. That being the constant focus on the Palestinian people, the Gaza strip and, to a lesser extent as a result, the West Bank. The real danger, the real concerns are not a handful of people with AKs and the odd RPG. The real problem doesn't have to do with a few strips of land in the Middle East. The focus is drawn there because it works on people's emotions, loss concepts of humanity, upon the notions of what is supposed to make us different from the animals, yet constantly reminds us that we are much less so than the other creatures of this earth we inhabit.

Those who maintain an upkeep of violence, those who ensure that those who want to vie for peace soon end up being blown apart, those who make money out of the bloodshed and pressure others into a mindset of hopelessness, away from education and towards militancy - they are the real problem. From this it is quite easy to see how the eye is constantly taken off the ball, and the real causes are not resolved. For the simple fact that too many people profit from the despair, heartache and suffering of others.

While in 1968 and 1973 the Israelis fought wars, they not once said we should wipe the Arab nations off the planet. The average Israeli wants peace, like the average Arab. Quite simple really, yet we continue to allow the radical few to dictate terms and avert any sort of long term solution to the violence. In the meantime, you have Iran advocating war. The average left wing word on the street is, well the West have thousands of nuclear weapons. But hey, it only takes one. It is the desire to use the weapon in your possession that is key. A single large yield warhead in the right place in Israel would have obvious enough results. Iran? Well, that's a different story, and there are plenty of other places in the greater Arab world that people can go if that scenario was reversed. For the Jews, it is a case of, as before, being scattered without a homeland. Sound familiar?

The US has already used nuclear weapons in anger, it is unlikely to use them again just on that basis alone. China is a waking dragon for whom, even considering the current world situation on a economic level alone, no one can know how they will react. The West must warm to it of course, for several reasons. It is the little man who wants to make a point and who has the weight to do it, the nerve to do it, that you must truly be concerned about. But, we the masses, continue to have our eyes averted for fear of being blinded by reality.

Me, I'd rather be blind than dead. Maybe we might begin to hear a little better as a result.

Top ^

 

01 March 2009

Boot Camps ...and the NZDF serving New Zealand.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4861598a11.html

My feelings on boot camp type training for "at risk" or otherwise troublesome youth has remained pretty much the same - that sure, it is something that they need, but... There is always a but. If the solution is not a long term one, if it isn't backed up with solid family education and a serious shot at the root causes to the problems at large, there is no way it is going to help anyone but perhaps a handful of every few hundred that go through such a course. Once upon a time (yes, okay, in my day) you could more often than not be motivated by such means but these days, by in large, exterior motivation does not work - the individual needs to want to change in the first place, there needs to be that inner motivation. Which, as a result, makes such courses a waste of tax payers money.

The kid that is driven to change by whatever events in their lives, will be driven no matter what. Otherwise all these things are is a place for scalawags to talk about what sort of shenanigans they are going to get up to with their mates when they get finished up. A course like this is essentially like a kid being forced to do detention for being naughty - eventually the bell rings and its over.

Compulsory Military Training (CMT) is one of those things that likewise often comes up and, in this day and age of political correctness, it is frequently viewed as something akin to fascism. Even military training itself, which it seems must be reminded is for those expecting (if they don't they shouldn't be there) to go into war zones and other horrible places, is becoming increasing soft. The primary difference to this and the boot camp idea is, you get a vast cross section of any given community, for all walks of life, all being put through the same training, wearing the same uniform, eating the same food, running up the same hills and getting yelled at just the same when their bed rolls aren't made properly. Not even sure the instructors of the training cadres are allowed to raise their voices these days?

In any case, instead of a whole heap of future criminals and young offenders, with the same attitudes, negative or otherwise, and predominately unhealthy home lives, a CMT intake has a balance in all aspects of life and therefore there is a balance to those involved.

Everyone is going through the same stuff on an equal footing and therefore, ease or trouble, everyone must contribute. It is not a place where there is collective rebellion, or an existing culture of putting others down or stealing, and any of those things are quickly extinguished by the majority of the section or platoon of which the offenders are a part. Additionally, CMT does the perhaps not so obvious thing of avoiding the stigma of singling out individuals based on their largely socioeconomic backgrounds.

I'm only talking about CMT as a basis of alternative for these boot camp schemes despite the issues of it being quite a lot more complex, socially and otherwise. Boot camp ideas are not on the whole a successful solution for such problems, whereas CMT on the other hand has shown to have conversely impressive outcomes for societies as a whole, particularly if your analysis avoids the whole idea that it for purely military ends. That is about as naive as saying that the military only has military ends. We should avoid any rapid fire government inititive that, in the end, simply sucks up taxpayers much needed money in something that has been shown countless times not to work, and put it into something that does work.

Better yet, try putting efforts into families, where, given affordable living, quality food that doesn't break the bank each week, and healthy environments which love and discipline and a sense of history and confidence, and well... I think that would be a much cheaper and more rewarding alternative for our country and our childrens' futures.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4860307a6479.html

Swazi Apparel is based just outside of Wellington in Levin. Heard about them losing a contract to the New Zealand Army for their wet weather gear, so went off and found a link. Expensive admittedly, but good stuff, and you should never short change a soldier, but it happens all too frequently as equipment short falls and inadequacies in Afghanistan and Iraq alone will attest in recent years. But that's a whole other argument. At least it seems the US congress has pulled their heads in finally and something may move for the better for those serving in the US military.

Business is going to China even before the FTA kicks in. Sure, the Army was working through a third party, but surely since the government pays them, and we pay the government, those supposed to represent us should ensure that the military, any part of it does so. There is plenty of other business for which the Chinese, a huge trading partner in anyone's language, can fully benefit from. It sure flies in the face of working for New Zealand and New Zealanders, and is not short on irony considering the announcement was made on the eve of the Job Summit.

You can't save the world if you don't take care of your own affairs first. Kiwis are being second on the list, if not last. It's really not on. For every worker how many families are dependent on that income? That means children, their education, their health, their future. No... its not on. Any attempt at rhetoric stinks right off the bat. Once upon a time prevention was better than cure.

Now days, they want you to get sick so you have to buy the medicine. In this case, its trying to find a new job in an increasingly depressing job market. So much for the brain drain and trying to keep people in New Zealand. As always, those in power, in the most secure positions, with the biggest pay packets can throw around the big words but are short on answers to practical realities. The thing that makes this doubly hard is that it is their own people, their own country. And they will quickly tell you about the cost of living in a global world. Pity they're not the one paying it. Instead, in their worst case scenario its about sucking up golden handshakes and continuing to run with corporate high rollers and all the trimmings that entails.

Top ^

 

07 February 2009

Toy Guns... and real violence.

I was going to say something about some of last year's footage of the IRB Rugby Sevens. The focus the camera seemed to have on the confiscation of toy guns. Well, unless an item is actually about alcohol consumption and real violence, it doesn't seem to rate a mention. The evil of toy guns is out there man, watch out. And there it was so long ago before the days of political correctness, and you could probably blame the Salvation Army for my love of firearms... when my brother and I were gifted a couple of plastic Lewis guns. Now there was a classic weapon. They really looked after us, me, my Mum and my little brother. And I'm sure they've never had to deal with anyone injured or killed by a toy gun ever, or even a real one... but drunken, alcohol induced violence is most certainly a different matter. Somehow I think our focus is somewhat misaligned.

But it could be mistaken for a real gun I hear you chant! Well, most of these toys badly imitated submachine guns, so, unless the AOS or the SAS hasn't been looking after their kit... ummm, even a badly trained security guard or Police officer should know better. One can kill with a sword or a knife or a hammer but no one seems to have a problem with fake cutlasses or Bob the Builder fake hammers. So, there is a serious foul up in that particular logic.

Last year I broke up a fight between two mates who hadn't even managed to get to the stadium yet. They weren't even yet fully intoxicated. They were drinking. I was dealing with alcohol and there were no guns involved. Every year there are massive numbers of people either killed or badly injured in activities or accidents involving alcohol. Assaults, drunken driving just to start with. In general players and fans are well behaved but it is a good example, this tournament.

It was the Kiwis who get red carded for trying to be boxers rather than getting on with what should be good hearted footy. Is there any real disciplinary action - no. And these players are meant to be examples for our youth. They go out, get drunk and do violence in a similar manner for such trivial things.

Someone looks at you the wrong way, someone touches you incidentally, someone looks at your girlfriend... cripes, crazy. The number of people killed or injured by firearms a year you can count on your fingers. Toy guns eh... so dangerous. I seriously think that priorities need to be looked at. Science will tell you pretty quickly, a determinedly wielded baseball bat will kill. A hammer the same, a four by two... with or without the nail.

Who decided we "needed" alcohol? Just following the logic of "but we don't need guns". Like cars. How many people drive a vehicle just down the road because they can't be bothered walking... We don't need guns because we head off to the super market these days. A rifle is a tool. I got my own food numerous times as I grew up dispelling that particular logic. And I could again tomorrow if necessary. I could also defend the lives of my family and friends in similar ways, feed them... defend my country, but that seems to have very little credibility these days.

There is a serious need for people to wake up, understand what real violence is, the core of it, what causes it and not ignore those elements which conflict with supposed civilised modern living. Sadly, that, in the lazy modern world is highly unlikely any time soon. In the meantime, we'll keep banning toy guns to make us all feel better that we're curbing bad behaviour.

Ah, the mark of a civilised society.

Top ^

 

30 December 2008

The Gaza Strip

Today is the fourth day of the IDF offensive on the Gaza Strip, as they continue to strike Hamas targets. The rhetoric is one of the intention to completely destroy the militant organisation. This will mean sending in ground troops. The experience with Hizbollah will stand the IDF ground forces in good stead, one would expect. They have most certainly caught up with the concept of urban guerrilla warfare in their doctrine and training over their traditional mechanised armoured approach of, even, the recent past.

I was only recently saying - and I've said it several times in the past, including the 2006 situ with Hizbollah, if, in this case, Hamas didn't fire rockets into Israeli settlements then the IDF would have no recourse, no justification at all for any military action. Instead, they insist on firing off their rockets, whether home made or supplied by Iran or Syria or whomever else.

There is far more concern with the rivalries of Hamas in Gaza and Fatah in the West Bank. And then, they come together whenever it suits them, to gain support in the wider Arab world in their collective hatred of Israel, and as it is with Hamas or the Iranian leadership, going so far to declare that Israel has no right to exist. All this carry on from Hamas is enough to say they are far more concerned about their own political power and warmongering than any Palestinian civilians' lives. As I write 363 people have been killed in Gaza.

At the end of the day, one can not negotiate with extremists like Hamas, who don't give a rats about the Palestinian people, much less any Jew. And there lies the problem. Again, as I've said before, until one treats all innocents as equal nothing can ever change.

What gets me still, is all these young ones, in New Zealand of all places, walking round wearing shemagh, not even knowing their history, not knowing the culture, and passively demonstrating how much they despise Israel and the Israeli people, and passively condone extremist groups like Hamas. Yes, they do all this in their feeble efforts to champion the Palestinian struggle. Yes, I frequently wear a shemagh, a green one... and you should see the reactions I get when I explain it out the few times I've been asked.

And passive behaviour does very little indeed. Take in my key point and start telling Hamas to pull their heads in - protest the rocket attacks and I'll take you seriously. If your community was getting rocketed I very much doubt your reaction - if the capacities where in place - would be any different to those of the IDF. So, stop being hypocritical and take on board what peace actually means. A nation's government has an obligation to defend its people. No one should complain when they step up and do exactly that. No one should argue the toss about military superiority. If you do, you've never been under fire, never had anyone you love killed - and perhaps the only way you might see sense is to witness the horrors of war first hand. Heck, no one wants a Bosnia type situation brought upon their own country, their own communities.

A little analogy, a hypothetical situation to simplify it. Most of us to not have to contemplate the predicaments of the Israelis or the Palestinians so saying it is personal for you when you live in New Zealand as a New Zealander born and breed here, for example, is another sad attempt to get on the PC bandwagon and won't get any consideration from the likes of me. Before I begin, it is about the INTENT to do violence, not how effective that violence happens to be.

There is me at home, on the farm. Three or four blokes decide they want to start firing AK's onto my place from an adjoining paddock. The muzzle flash is intense as they fire from the hip, on full auto. Brass is piling up, and lead is coming in, abet inaccurately. I pick up my bolt action hunting rifle, which has twice the range, and in the right hands (mine) and mounted with a scope it is vastly more accurate than the weapons of my adversaries.

Remember that, if my adversaries decided not to start shooting, I'd have no recourse what so ever for violence, for picking up my rifle. If they were simply walking the fence armed, I'd have to start talks, at the most (and I would) start patrolling my land. This is only common sense and is considered preparedness in a sensible man's vocabulary. So yes, I can start discussing the potentially volatile situation with the local council, the Police.

You start firing those AKs and I will settle my reticle on centre mass...

This is far more an extreme situation than typically expected on New Zealand soil, but it has happened. To remove a person's individual right, or a nation's right to defend itself, to counter threats across the fence is only okay up until the time the rounds start raining down on your own back yard. Any outlook, to be sound, must be balanced, and opposing sides of any argument must be assessed fairly. Sadly, it is not the case for Israel. And that is not because people support the Palestinians. It is because they choose not to denounce the likes of Hamas.

Now, with that hypothetical situation laid before you, its simplicity not detracting as an analogy, I shall end this by saying that, while the IDF uses, to the best of its ability, precision air strikes attacking Hamas military targets, trying to avoid civilian deaths, Hamas deliberately targets civilians. As the extremist infrastructure is targeted, Hamas really wants to go toe to toe with the IDF on the ground. All in all, this situation is not a good start to 2009.

At the end of the day, the Palestinian's aren't Hamas, and with that, there remains hope. Give the power back to the people. If elections were held again today, Hamas would be history as a political power. Bless all those who continue to suffer.

Top ^

 

24 October 2008

The Real Cost of P

The Police AOS (Armed Offender's Squad) shot dead a woman yesterday (as I write) after she held up a Vodafone shop in Whangarei, Northland. She was armed with a air rifle and took one of the workers hostage.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4737094a11.html

So yeah, sure, one could argue that the Police, in the AOS should be able to ident a slug gun from a hunting rifle at 50 metres. Sorry but with so many being modeled on real rifles, and even more disturbingly, military rifles, unless you go up and ask you'd never know. If you don't want to do the time, or in this case, pay the ultimate price, don't do the crime. It is significant that several witnesses considered what the woman was holding to be a "shotgun". Even highly knowledgeable people, deeming prevailing circumstances, find it hard to specifically identify a given firearm and thereby its particular threat.

Paintball markers are even being released more and more to look like assault rifles and what not. It really gets to me this - having played the game competitively for over four years and looking to return to the the sport next year. There is no need for it, even for military and police training.

I don't accept that there needs to be a homicide enquiry here. It is very plain what happened and the Police have enough on their plate. Someone thinks they're about to be shot, if they don't act they may be dead. At some point the offender wasn't high on P. At some point they knew that just a few weeks ago a Police officer was shot and killed by an offender likewise armed with a air rifle. (I've already commented previously on the misnomer of the media considering it "high powered" - but it still kills) Like a drunk driver, they don't think about the drunk driving adverts on television when they're off their faces at the pub. Don't blame the drugs. People make choices. Sometimes they are the wrong ones. Sometimes they have tragic deadly consequences.

There is no problem here with how the Police handled this - there is a problem with where this chemical crap comes from. At the end of the day its a political issue - something the government needs to face up to and take real steps to counter it. In the meantime an already over stretched Police force just have to clean up the mess. As do our communities.

But hey, one day some whacked out P addict weilding a rifle or pistol picks on the wrong person and is going to die or end up on life support and what an outcry there will be - questions of reasonable force, brutality... victim becomes criminal in an instant, looses all rights. But that's for another day...

Top ^

 

03 October 2008

Sheep Dogs

If you need yet another example of how screwed up the laws are and how criminals know very well they are free to run riot, just look at the news today. In one incident in Auckland today a dairy owner is attacked and injured. In another, a dairy owner is attacked, stabbed in the leg, and defends himself, and ends up being arrested. I write this only after Austin Heeming gave his life defending a fellow citizen he did not know. The quandary yes, between not having the skills and dying, and having the skills (or will and frustration) and being arrested.

Reasonable force for a scared human being is a difficult thing to judge, but the Police jumped in and had this man up, taking away his innate right as a human being to protect himself and his family and his livelihood. This guy must have had a history of violent crime, or was he a law abiding citizen, working hard, day in day out? Please clarify reasonable force - these kids aren't dead, and so what if they got a smack in the mouth - far worse happens on the school yard as recent events will attest.

Talk about mixed up. Now, while you wait for the Police to turn up, criminals kill, injure and steal with impunity, because people are too scared to stick up for themselves. They are told by the authorities they must suppress their natural instincts. Wondering how many more people have to suffer and die at the hands of thugs before they can get the message people aren't going to stand for it anymore?

What follows is a quote once forwarded to the Skribblerz forum. It has a thing or two to be said about violence in society by someone who understands it. It isn't a game and the metaphors aren't about trying to be clever. Instead of thinking the world is a nice place and all roses, it paints a realistic picture, one where people must consider the risks, and their place and role in that world. It is not negative - rather it is a gauge which establishes reality, and works towards the positive. This is something I have attempted to explain to many people over the years, with varying levels of success.

In this analogy of society I am a sheepdog, and have been for all of my adult life. Some have had difficulty with this, some misunderstand it. To me it as natural as sleeping, waking up, the requirement to eat, to walk. But as I recently said to a mate, I don't expect others to understand it in its fullest form, just that it is. Sure enough, the misunderstanding must be the fangs.

04 October 2008

Another dairy owner is attacked, repeatedly stabbed. He didn't pick up a hockey stick - I don't wonder why, and the results are obvious. Horrific injuries and criminals simply do what they want. The Police are stretched to breaking point, lack resources, often suffer poor communications, are often poorly trained and we are repeatedly told not to take the law into our own hands.

How many people out there can possibly rationalise, without training, reasonable force, when they think they are going to die? This is quite an unreasonable thing to assume from the Police or anyone else, who are often not capable of applying the same rules.

Anyway... time for the yarn. I hope you are able to read it from beginning to end.

 

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: "Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another.

Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year.

Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.

I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful.? For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.

Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.

But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."

Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.
The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.

Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?

Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.

There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population.

There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.

Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.

There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke

Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.

If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

For example, many officers carry their weapons in church.They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs. Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.

I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft.Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"

Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.

Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have and idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"

It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.

Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: ...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling.

Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level.

And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes.

If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself... "Baa."

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between.

Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.

Top ^

 

17 September 2008

60 Kiwis KIA? Service... and the death of Sgt. Don Wilkinson

Where does Helen Clark get off saying that if New Zealand had sent troops to Iraq, based off US casualties of all things, we would have lost 60 soldiers by now?

Obviously the leader of the country doesn't realise that we don't operate in the same ways as the Americans. Though, that being said, it is doubly apparent that there are those who wish that we did and are going to great lengths to ensure that we do when you look at purchases like the NZLAV.

There are clear cut reasons for our ways of doing things, not least of which are historical practices which has stood us in good stead, and our inherent limitations which make a different approach mandatory.

Second of all, had we lost that man soldiers it would have been primarily due to inept government spending, ill advice over the past two administration rounds, and not spending enough in so many other areas. The PM made no comments of the 2007-8 NZDF Annual Report.

Thirdly, since the Aussies have sent more troops proportionally than we ever could, and have only lost one man to accident, and another to suicide, I am at a loss once more as to how on earth our Prime Minister comes to these conclusions. Her primary advisors in Defence, I fear, must be quite Green indeed.

To cap it all off, her statement demonstrates how much reality bites in relation to her, and her party, and how little faith they collectively possess in NZDF personnel, to do their job, despite difficult conditions, lack of essential equipment, critical manning and having very stretched resources, yet by the same government, all the same, expected to do so much. Really quite an appalling attitude. Lip service is exactly that, and particularly from your average left wing politician.

#

The Police officer that was killed recently was Sgt. Don Wilkinson. He had been in the service for nine years and was one of the most experienced officers in covert operations. He also served in Bosnia.

I am confused about one thing in this incident - witnesses claim to have heard gunshots at the time of the shooting, yet that would have to have meant they where very close to the event, and actually up and about in the middle of the night - if the weapon to have killed Wiklinson, and wound his mate, was the air gun that has been claimed in the media and subsequent reports.

One might conjecture that it is a means of making it increasingly difficult to possess arms for legitimate users of air guns, and firearms in general. No amount of such licensing, red tape or registration stops criminals getting hold of them through illegal means to use them in illegal activities.

The criminals win. And they can still invade your home, day or night, commit any number of crimes upon you, your family, your property, and you have no means of proper or practical defence... and they know it.

Not to be alarmist, but, while you work of the legalities of the rights of self defence, you die, your wife is raped, your children left with horrific memories to haunt them the rest of their days. Thanks once again for the media's dramatising things as much as possible, further increasing a negative attitude towards legitimate sports and associated past times which where once such a prominent part of our New Zealand way of life.

A soldier, in today's world of political correctness calls it Rules of Engagement and so called "safe zones" become safe havens for ethnic cleansing. Likewise, they can do nothing and must live with the consequences of those who shuffle paper, warm leather seats and argue policy many miles from the real events they judge upon.

Fine people like Wilkinson die, and criminals continue to live, continue to manufacture drugs to burn out more lives, made from ingredients got from countries our leadership choose to prioritise as trading partners. What a fine world we live in.

Some people know what it is to serve. Others make the speeches and will never know. Countless more are simply guilty of believing the facade.

Top ^

 

03 September 2008

A Clash of Civilisations

Remark on Dmitri Trenin's article (pg. 17) in News Week, To Be Free From America.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/154934

First up, the word "revanchism" which I'd not come across before:

There is definitely a point in Moscow asserting itself, making a modern name for itself. The Cold War might be over but no country as big as Russia is going to go very long without letting the world know in some way shape or form, it is indeed a player. This doesn't have to, of course, be that of military aggressor. Without surprise, in recent years, the US has seen itself being opposed by many on these grounds due to actions in Iraq. For those very much involved, and with memories of the USSR, such as Putin - a former KGB man, the encroaching of territory by the US with such a world view is going to be upsetting. Sadly, the world it seems has not moved on.

Many of the wars happening on the planet today are a result of such mentalities. As a result, nothing really changes despite the new face. In this specific case, Saakashvilli's actions into the territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, as Trenin suggests is just an excuse, in my estimation to assert these old ideologies.

There are many ways to view institutions like the UN, the EU, NATO, and my views on the former are clear well enough. The EU has its place, and NATO, operating in many other places outside its originally intended space is showing signs of cracking. Yet, ironically, in the new world, going on its established principles, it seems logical that both Georgia and Ukraine are partners. Unfortunately, for the aforementioned reasons, Russia has a bee in its bonnet about that. A country, it seems, due to the way the world was twenty odd years ago, is not free to go where it wishes and make friends as and when it pleases. When it comes to the idea of US hegemony in the world, Russia, with those who are in control today, shouldn't be expected to take a PC approach. But rather than take a more diplomatic line, a strategic one, they're being tactic, thinking of today rather than tomorrow. The Japanese were like that with their attack on Pearl Harbor. Georgia counted on the modern response to their measures of control within their territory, and what they got was a classic one.

It is obvious enough that the prevailing global situation of military power played to Russian advantage, and the US know as well as anyone, that their own place is precarious to say the least. The world hasn't woken up to the fact that, whether we liked it or not, in general terms, the US has been the stablising factor for many years, since World War Two. The one step forward, two steps back as a result of too much weight being born upon her shoulders has meant that we no longer have that security after the end of the Cold War. As a result, no, Georgia can't be assured Russia will hold its ground, and as a small, fledging nation in the new world, it evidently cannot choose its friends either.

Yet, as Trenin emphasises in his article, Ukraine is very much central to the issues at large and will be a decisive element in wherever this thing goes. Traditional thinkers in Moscow are of course going to see an Western movements, any ties, with the West as a threat to their historical claims. Internal strife in Ukraine is clearly something the Russian Federation can make use of to its own ends, as indeed any power will do - often rather more quickly than it ought - a short sighted view having short term gains, ending up as a mess down track. And as such I don't think Russia wants to be weighed down with such problems, any progress they've made in the world as good as dead. NATO allegiance might help to provide some counter to further military actions, but it doesn't stop Russia, as a recourse, stirring up trouble within the ranks of those in her favour, as they did in Georgia.

How Europe at large deals with the divide and conquer, the new world allegiances will not only be a test of its place in the world and its credibility as a player, it will also have huge consequences as to where the world goes from here. I don't desire to be alarmist, but we seem to, as a global community, have been tip toeing around, and well overdue for a big crash. While there are many other issues at large in this geopolitical minefield, it seems that the way Europe deals with this state of affairs will be the make or break in deciding the new direction of that region, if not the entire world - a clash of civilisations or a lasting peace.

No one wants to see Russia knee deep in the quagmire of full blown war. The US is neither capable of enduring, nor publicly willing for another war. Two fronts is hard enough. Thus the unease of any engagement at any level militarily with Iran. No party will benefit from either situation. Additionally, there is no sense in isolationist policy towards Russia, nor sanctions. It does no one any good. Retaliation can come in many different ways, and with The Federation having its hands on 40% of European oil and gas, it is quite clear a series of one-up-manship measures would be quite foolish. Negotiation will difficult, but it is certainly better than the alternative.

So, in conclusion my lightweight point regarding Ukraine is properly emphasised here, in Trenin's words. The Georgian situation is mere beginnings yet a solid indictor of a new world and what is to come. A warning, if we wish to heed it. Yet there needs to be will to change and the power to back it up. It is yet to be seen if the West can make good of it, or it is in fact loosing its grip. Economics, resources, ideologies (both outdated, and the all too new) are only a few of the things at stake which can either make or break the devastating consequence of a misuse of military power on a regional scale.

http://www.newsweek.com

From a Russian military perspective, it is prudent to take heed of the words of Owen Matthews:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/156314.html

Top ^

09 August 2008

Olympics

Okay, this will upset some people, but I am getting sick and tired of hearing our athletes getting labeled "heroes". Police officers can be heroes, Firefighters, those of our Armed Services can be heroes, average citizens who see a need can jump in and become heroes... but being a sportsman or woman, while they can set good examples, are not heroes. We idolise our Rugby players with nationalistic fervor, but our troops can go on international deployment, and return without hardly a word spoken. Such is the humble nature of those who truly serve others rather than themselves. Speaking of which, this is one aspect of the beauty of the Olympics which remains, a lack of big money professionalism, though huge money is now involved.

There is a huge irony in this, the 29th Olympics, where China, with its somewhat dodgy human rights record (relatively speaking to other nations around the world) embracing capitalism big time, while still having a strangle-hold on their particular brand of Communism which has made those negatives so.

Massive amounts of revenue have been cast into the coppers to make this even a huge hit and, of course, provide some leverage for China with the Western world. You would think that one would have to completely cast off the old shadows completely (and proving it is so) before being let into the club. But, such is the inherent power of the biggest population in the world. It seems that the Olympics could well be the distinct turning point for China, entering into the larger world. With the CCP still very much in power in real terms... it is worrying just what impact a newly raising superpower, holding onto these ideologies, which we are supposed to have abandoned as collective civilised nations, will have to us as a global community.

But no one thinks of such things while the fireworks are going off, and everyone is being so nice to everyone else. Everyone forgets about terrorism, about Tibet, about Tiananmen Square, or Falun Gong. The support of people like Mugabe... at the cost of the people of Zimbabwe. The spirit of the Games is needed more than ever, but even more than that, is the need to remember what the true alternatives are. With capitalism though, comes greed, and with that, if there is a dollar to be made, who cares about the things we claim to stand for? Those who have the least to make out of big business tend, as has always been, to pay the biggest price.

Still, China was awarded the right to host the Games, and as such was offered a hand by the international community. No one, no nation, is faultless. The world simply doesn't want to get its hand chewed off. That sentiment goes well beyond the three weeks of the Games. We have enough examples to remind us just how ever-changing the world is.

But for now we can all feel good for a while, more so than usual, thanks to the Games, as we taken in this illusion called peace. Maybe we all need to take Tai Chi on a daily basis. Ah, more irony. For me, I am sure I'll simply continue to learn about the nature of human kind from every avenue open to me, while hoping not to forget those lessons I've already been taught.

Top ^

20 July 2008

Killers, Tax Payers, Veitch... and a sad excuse labeled hunting.

After this Iraqi joker stabbed to death two people, one bloke who came to try and help resolve the domestic incident, and it looks like the guy's partner... well, you sorta wonder when its going to be okay for the Police to actually use their L96 sniper rifles. I mean, if you aren't going to use them, don't bother issuing them. Sorry, I'm an old soldier. Many a tax payer is now paying through the nose for a ruthless killer. But yeah, sorry, the Police job is to preserve lives, not take them. Back in Iraq, a guy like this, well, he'd get a 7.62 in the head from a SVD. End of story. Oh, New Zealand, we are so kind, it hurts.

The recent release of Samir Quntar found Hizbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah in the limelight. He is celebrating the release of this scumbag, who killed a four year old girl, smashing her skull with a rifle butt. Can you believe this? All the while Israelis weep the death of their own. See, that's the difference - you have a legitimate military defending its territory. Someone dies and they morn. Hizbollah on the other hand, they cheer not caring less for the very people they claim to fight for. They kidnap a couple of IDF soldiers and create a war... which leads to over 1000 of their own people dead. Geez, no one seems to get it.

Tony Veitch - I object to my own typing here, actually hypertexting his name... you break someone's back, in four places. F^*# scum. Big money boys, no worries... what is they say about publicity eh. Payouts. Cripes. Nah, nuff said. Deadbeat dog tucker.

Sure, there could have been stairs involved or what-have-you... if its too hot, leave the room, leave the house. Pay outs scream guilt. But, remember, we (are meant to) live by a system which says you're innocent until proven guilty. Despite the signs... I study media, understand very well how it works, and it generally doesn't work very well at all. Trial by media is not good. That's the ONLY counter I can offer from my previous paragraph. You do the crime, you better do the bloody time - real time, no payoffs. No slaps on the back. Sorry don't cut it.

Locally, hearing about the plans for "Hunting Park" in Whitemans Valley just out of Upper Hutt is pathetic. This is just like "cage" hunting they have in South Africa, for idiot people who think they're hunters. They kill animals in situations which, in my mind, makes it sport. Killing animals is not a sport, it is a necessity in life - its about living, not trophies. It is about culling pests and a challenge in the elements. It is developing the skills of survival in our children before they have no change at all, but for a supermarket down the road. It is about learning to respect the environment and learning from it. No, instead it is about money, money money. Anyone who wants to "hunt" like this needs to go toe to toe with a 200 pound boar in close country, its tusks cutting the air and nostrils snorting, with only a knife and quick wits for company.

Top ^

09 June 2008

Liquor Store Owner Shot... Police need to review their procedures.

So, while you've got plenty of AOS bushmaster totting police officers strolling the streets, you have a man who is needlessly bleeding to death from a gunshot wound. 35 minutes the ambulance was held up during this situation in Auckland. The New Zealand Police need to take a good hard look at their SOPs, their reason for being, and how it equates to saving peoples' lives.

There is a thing called an "armed escort". To put it in plain English... you escort the ambulance officers to the scene. This is why you have weapons - to protect those you mean to serve. This includes permitting others to do their job - and if necessary, risk your own life for the sake of others. Yes... I said it.

Just to make it clear - the average criminal is not that bright. But... there is a reason why they have a get-away car - to get away from the scene of the crime.

The ambulance arrived 10 minutes after the call. It might as well have not turned up at all deeming the outcome. So, while the chances of the armed offenders being at the scene of the crime are highly remote due to the above mentioned logic, rather than ensuring they are permitted to leave the site and are followed by other officers, a cordon is set up and armed police serve no purpose whatsoever but to indirectly contribute to the death of an innocent man.

There... I said that too.

This is not actually a go at the Police. This is a honest appraisal of their procedures and a voicing of concerns as a member of the public.

You don't serve the public good by setting up a cordon to hold in criminals who have already split, and keeping out those who are there to save lives. Sadly, I see this as being all about image, not practical reality. The Police have to look like they're working hard on behalf of the public. Instead it only serves to do exactly the opposite. They need to seriously reassess their priorities in these sorts of situations, and give their SOPs a good going over.

Top ^

 

Random Old Entry...

31 May 2006

Rakon, Hypocrisy, Javelins... and smelling coffee.

Last night I got handed some details on the whole Rakon deal. This is just the sort of hypocrisy we should have all come to expect of the New Zealand government, in fact, of peoples' outlook in this country. We talk about standing up for certain principles yet, when push comes to shove on the important ones we are weak, or at the very least inconsistent.

So suddenly the government wants to realise that it is party to so many different treaties and what not and is willing to bring down such wrath upon a company whom they so feverishly championed previously. It is not okay for a very successful company to be virtually the sole supplier of a key technology to the US military for GPS guidance systems, which the customer uses for missile systems. Yet, it is okay for another to exclusively manufacture nanowires for superconductors for the US Navy's next generation of warship? Yet the government permits our Army to procure Javelin ATGW systems which are designed to kill, like the aforementioned missiles? Very subjective indeed, especially for a pacifistic administration. Armoured vehicles, by in large are crewed by human beings... so... I guess, soon our soldiers won't be allowed to carry their Steyrs or Minimis onto the battlefield either because, well, they're designed, like those missile systems (with the GPS systems) to kill human beings.

What all the fuss is about...Once upon a time, the only real rule of war was to do all you could to keep yourself and your mates alive.Wake up and smell the rancid cordite, its war. And whether you like it or not, it happens. Whether you agree with a given war or not, it happens. Would you rather we went back to ancient technology, even to the 1900s and the same war is still fought, yet instead of a few thousand people, the death toll is in the millions and is a complex act of attrition?

We have the audacity to tell the Americans what to do, and yet when it comes to East Timor we want their help in heavy lift because we can't be bothered spending just a fraction of a percent of GDP more on Defence (and on the right things), because its not PC.I'll tell you what isn't PC, people dying because a country capable of pulling its weight regionally, and globally does not. Believe me, if you don't agree with this, things change when its your house being burnt to the ground, when its your kid who gets shot. By then though, its too late. And like with East Timor, people are already complaining the Army isn't doing enough. Well, go complain to your local MP.

So, back to Rakon. Are they going to force the closure of this company because they are making oscillators for US military GPS guidance systems? Put them out of work yeah. Like NZ Post is going to do, put 1000s out of work because of this new area code system, and pull in several machines at 80 million dollars to replace them. Hey, in America there is a reason they call it "going postal". Just as well we live in such a lovely place in the world. We can screw our people over, pay them stuff all, and there are no consequences. Perhaps if those lot had any sense, they'd go to Aussie. Tax cuts... No one ever thought of going on mass riots did they. Machetes, assault rifles, Molotov cocktails. Not in good old clean green peace-loving New Zealand.

Like a friend said the other day to me - she's from Germany, every country needs to experience the horror of war first hand to wake up. Someone else said, after we discussed Maus, and briefly the recent (recurrence) of events in East Timor, the world is a very small place. I would go further to say, every generation needs to experience it. Personally, I'd rather drink the coffee.