Archive for August, 2009

Communication Warfare

Saturday, August 29, 2009 posted by mattadmin
The Tehran, Iran uprising this year after the disputed June presidential election sparked a new idea in future warfare. If you watched CNN or any other channel, you would have seen iReporters, Facebook posts, Tweets, and various other forms of communication coming out of Iran. The country quickly blocked access to sites in an effort to control communication coming out of the country. Iran can’t make up its mind as to whether or not it will block or unblock sites as it continues to exercise its power over its people’s freedom.
So on to the idea, if popular social networking sites can have such an impact in the media and enhance the power of the people in countries where the government attempts to suppress its people then why not consider communication warfare instead of traditional warfare? What if the United Nations had dropped supplies into Iran giving them more power to communicate? Supplies being computers, cell phones, digital cameras, video cameras, software, satellite Internet access that can’t be controlled by the country, and any other gear that could be used to increase communication and the voice of the people.
During the Iraq wars, those opposed to the war used the argument that the people don’t want the U.S. and others in their country and that may or may not be correct. So instead of dropping bombs in certain situations maybe we need to drop communications to empower the people so they can communicate what they want. Countries in wars have to take over all kinds of communications gear anyways, but ultimately we could keep soldiers and innocent people out of harm’s way and drop communications hardware instead of deploying deadly weapons.
I think it should also be said that this idea may only be part of a broader solution. When dealing with terrorists, modern tactics of deadly warfare may be required, but it would be nice to have some alternative ideas that could potentially help avoid a major war and the deaths and injuries that result.

The Tehran, Iran uprising this year after the disputed June presidential election sparked a new idea in future warfare. If you watched CNN or any other channel, you would have seen iReporters, Facebook posts, Tweets, and various other forms of communication coming out of Iran. The country quickly blocked access to sites in an effort to control communication coming out of the country. Iran can’t make up its mind as to whether or not it will block or unblock sites as it continues to exercise its power over its people’s freedom.

So on to the idea, if popular social networking sites can have such an impact in the media and enhance the power of the people in countries where the government attempts to suppress its people then why not consider communication warfare instead of traditional warfare? What if the United Nations had dropped supplies into Iran giving them more power to communicate? Supplies being computers, cell phones, digital cameras, video cameras, software, satellite Internet access that can’t be controlled by the country, and any other gear that could be used to increase communication and the voice of the people.

During the Iraq wars, those opposed to the war used the argument that the people don’t want the U.S. and others in their country and that may or may not be correct. So instead of dropping bombs in certain situations maybe we need to drop communications to empower the people so they can communicate what they want. Countries in wars have to take over all kinds of communications gear anyways, but ultimately we could keep soldiers and innocent people out of harm’s way and drop communications hardware instead of deploying deadly weapons.

I think it should also be said that this idea may only be part of a broader solution. When dealing with terrorists, modern tactics of deadly warfare may be required, but it would be nice to have some alternative ideas that could potentially help avoid a major war and the deaths or injuries that result.

Obama, Henry Louis Gates, & Sgt. James Crowley

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 posted by mattadmin

I know this post is a little late, but seeing all the hullabaloo in the news about this and President Obama’s involvement have given me cause to make a statement about the story. We all know that Obama is the first black president and I’m sure he is sensitive to issues of race as we all should be, but I think his statements that the police were “stupid” and the final “beer” meeting just send the wrong message. I think as president your response should be that if Sgt. James Crowley suspected Henry Louis Gates of possible criminal activity because of the color of his skin, then that is wrong. And if Henry Louis Gates assumed that the police were targeting him because of his race, then that is also wrong. If I could speculate for a moment, I’d speculate that Henry Louis Gates & Sgt. James Crowley were probably both wrong in this situation, and then they got to have a beer with the President.

The Start of Something Good

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 posted by mattadmin

Peotician.com’s goal is easier said than done. The goal is to discuss and devise innovative solutions to problems throughout the world. Since most major issues are debated publically, that’s where the name of the blog, Peotician, comes from. Peotician is the combination of two words, “People” and “Politician.” The reason for this is to emphasize that politics is about issues and issues are about solving problems for people, not lobbyists, financial contributors, and other distracting constituents that affect the judgments of our elected officials.

Please feel free to contact me or contribute to this blog in a constructive manner. Please don’t try to advertise or SPAM this blog as attempts will be thwarted. As always, feel free to provide ideas, opinions, and feedback.

Partly powered by CleverPlugins.com