Vertical Horizon

I know you want an explanation, a reason, anything to settle that tugging emptiness inside you. I know my words aren't comforting... I know knowing I am happy won't be any consolation. However, you'll always be in my heart and if nothing that makes me smile. For this I am grateful you are in my life.

"He's everything you want,
He's everything you need,
He's everything inside of you
That you wish you could be.
He says all the right things,
At exactly the right time,
But he means nothing to you
and you don't know why..."

Forever and always part of my heart belongs to you....

I would sing to you...

Janice, Wei Lan -- Never let you go

the rain, just never seems to bring
the joy, I feel the same,
everlasting pain of my loss remains

My heart, can't seem to learn to part
the hold you left your mark
all that I dreamed of now it seems so stark

Tho I told myself won't hold my breath
a part of me was dying
there is nothing left for me to do now, but give in

If you gave me, one chance to tell you how I was feeling
I would sing to you and tell you I won't live my life without you
if you gave me, one chance to tell you how I was feeling
I would hold your hand and look in your eyes and ya know, I'd never let you go

The way, you left me on the train
I don't know what to say
I remember everything of that day

I can't, believe we'd never dance
I just need one more chance
to share the sunset our one last romance

Tho I told myself won't hold my breath
a part of me was dying
there is nothing left for me to do now, but give in

If you gave me, one chance to tell you how I was feeling
I would sing to you and tell you I won't live my life without you
if you gave me, one chance to tell you how I was feeling
I would hold your hand and look in your eyes and ya know, I'd never let you go

Do people only have one "great" love?

Actually, no, don't answer that. Perhaps there is no "great" just "pretty good" or "bearable". Or perhaps its not just "great", it's "extraordinary", "I would give you the t.v. remote amazing".

Either way...

We only get one dance, one look, one kiss, that's all we get, Just... one shot, to make the difference between "happily ever after," and "oh? it's just some person I went to some thing with once.".

Eventually that's what people do. They leap, and hope to God they can fly, because otherwise you just drop like a rock, wondering the whole way down, why in the *hell* did I jump?

But here I am falling, and the only one that makes me feel like I can fly... is you.

Cheers,
-A

Seriously?!

WTF? Ok, I'm sorry, but I'm downright pissed right now and feel I must get it out on paper. BLOOOOODY... seriously.

When a friend tells you "... wondered how seriously i take you, and i said not so much" what the hell is that suppose to mean? Especially if its someone you actually care about.. especially if that person is someone who always says how much they appreciate your friendship etc, whom you've given advice to previously and them appreciating it and ... WTF? Ok seriously, I don't even know how to response to X person. I am lost for words.. and probably more hurt that I can express right now. Actually no, I am hurt, I'm crying damn it. Love if fleeting. That one sentence has shook my world. Thank you for completely making me conscious of every friendship I have now. THIS IS WHY I AM NOT OPEN WITH PEOPLE. You asked me why? Now you know.

I think perhaps, its that "take you seriously" part that I really cherish in friendships. If you don't take me seriously then why would I waste my breath on you? I'm sorry, but I think that just ruined a friendship. I don't think there is really anything person X can say that will recover from this one sentence. I don't really think there is any other way to take that.

Ok, I'm just going to let myself wallow in this for about 30 seconds and move on. Person X really doesn't deserve much more than 30 seconds.

-A

OSWar(e): One Death is a Tragedy, a Million is a Statistic

A Recent Composition I wrote for my Fourth Year Seminar: The Operating System of War
Please Note: It was a response to a book - PostModern War (by Hables Gray)
-------------------------------------------------------------

As far back as our childhood games, we have been taught that power is an influential asset. Who and what we have power over enables us to identify ourselves with a certain group, the type of leader we become and ultimately, it demonstrates our personal importance within the social sphere. The appearance that power can be gained, given and coerced into giving and similarly be easily or forcefully taken away parallels with our fear for ambiguity. . Throughout history, there has been evidence of power struggles between the primarily dominant western civilizations and the Eastern and African civilizations, perceived to be exotic and barbarian. This is demonstrated in the 1700s when Britain colonized India; in the 1800s when France colonized Africa, through a military foray into Algeria, and colonizing the land of the natives that once controlled North America. The development of the nuclear arms race in the second half of the 1900s demonstrated that power was no longer rooted in capturing other countries but in the uncertainty that at any time a nuclear bomb could obliterate an entire city; power laid with advanced and destructive technology. This uncertainty in ultimate destruction led to the accumulation of more weapons, and the increased amount of weapons lead to more uncertainty; it becomes a seemingly justified but frivolous cycle of arms buildup.

America is an adolescent compared to European civilizations built on enormous volumes of bloody history through conquering and occupation. In contrast, America was modeled on a Republic after independence. America was a promise of a monarch-free modernity away from traditional European politics and culture. Thousands of years of history enable nations to stir passion and drive more easily than a nation with a lack remembrance of what occupation and conquering feels like. To rally up the support of a young nation like America is especially difficult when America is made up largely of immigrants. A united America is rooted largely in their obsession with freedom. However, freedom is a fickle friend, Political freedoms are not absolute, nor are they permanent. Freedoms granted in times of peace can be subtracted in times of war. However, governments must make war popular to gain moral support and restricting freedom is always unpopular with the masses. Democratic governments need to make war acceptable to the people and the dehumanization of war is the solution. Dehumanization convinces the public to support war and the soldiers to fight the war. The application of technology to war has improved soldiers’ performance in completing their missions. This is accomplished by technology’s role in dehumanizing fighting. Most soldiers are inherently reluctant to kill people, by dehumanizing the enemy technology makes it easier for soldiers to kill. The evidence that most modern states have become modern war states (Gray 110) is unmistakable in modern politics and economy of the 21^st century. As technological advances de-mist the fog of war, the idea that wars can be rationalized through technology becomes a veil pulled over the eyes of the public redefining what is moral, just and virtuous in post modern warfare.

The development of technology progresses synonymously with the redefinition of the rules of warfare. Where previously, one army would shoot first and while reloading get shot by the opposing army, modern warfare seeks to create high-tech, low intensity conflict. In addition, armies used to fight for symbolic victories, instead of incinerating entire towns, armies would claim the town hall as a sign of victory. Modern warfare boosts catch phrases such as industrialized killing, balance sheet wars, strategic bombing, collateral damage, flight crews and soldiers as inventory, dehousing and network centric warfare. These phrases aspire to justify war as moral by constructing war as a business-like operation. We are made to believe outcomes can be predicted, targets can be accurately eliminated and ultimately war can be efficient. These terms were popularized from the rationalization of war through numbers demonstrated by the Kennedy administration during the Vietnam War when Robert S. McNamara accepted the position for the 8^th Secretary of Defense for the United States. The Vietnam War was the first war fought on a electronic battlefield based on cost/benefit analysis; it was the first post-modern war. Prior to his position on the U.S. cabinet, McNamara had worked as an analyst during WWII making strategic bombing more efficient and popularizing the use of cost/benefit analysis. It is during this time that modern war catch phrases were pioneered and this dehumanized rhetoric of technique reduced the enemy to quantifiable abstractions therefore making collateral damage strangely lifeless and distant (Gray 136). Cost/benefit analysis is beneficial for making decisions in warfare however reduce living, breathing people to statistics and numbers making killing morally easier. Operations research analysis (OS), Operations analysis (OA) and Systems analysis (SA) became scientific methods to predict the outcome of decisions in warfare. Though scientific research did make precision bombing a reality, an astounding increase accuracy and decrease civilian causalities could not be further from the truth (Gray 141). In fact, data was biased in WWII to convince people of the efficiency of new technology. There was a lack of reports on missiles and bombs that did not make their targets, which is presumed to the majority of them. Precision bombing was still at its early stages however, more precise bombs could mean more of them being used causing more causalities rather than less.

The justification that modern war, through scientific research, can lead to strategic bombing with less collateral damage is easily a believable myth. However, this was a tactic used by the military to justify the mammoth military research spending during WWII and through to the Vietnam War. In the movie The Fog of War, McNamara relives his tales of the bombing of Japan during WWII and is astonished that “so many cities were already burned to the ground before nuclear bombs were even dropped”. The strategically planned firebombs on Tokyo, Kobe and Osaka, just to name a few, were leveled before nuclear bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. What were the rules to this war? Nations possessing technology often have a ‘god-like’ complex because technology can lead to ultimate destruction of both sides. There is a very thin line to abusing the power of technology. As McNamara pointed out, if the U.S. had lost the war many generals would be have been charged as war criminals. A win justifies that the actions taken were morally right. This logic is flawed because not everything that wins is moral or right. But because a win means power, power holds a more significant position in our society and therefore we forgive those that would have seen to the absolute destruction of Japan. Rational individuals are capable of total annihilation but through the justification of war and through numbers and balance sheets, the actors in war have looked past the increasing body count and grouped all deaths into a single number on a balance sheet enabling the on-going justification of war despite evident immoral actions. As Joseph Stalin famously said “one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic”.

If one could rationalize war through numbers, balance sheets, statistics and cost benefit analysis, then certainly the use of horrific weapons could also be rationalized. In 1980 through to the mid 1990s, the Geneva Convention was called upon to restrict the use of certain conventional weapons which were considered “excessively injurious” or that have “indiscriminate effects”. This stems from the Geneva Conventions called upon in the 1949 and again in 1977 to determine certain Laws of War (jus in bello) that were acceptable practices while engaged in destructive conflicts. However these laws are only applicable to countries that have consented to abide by them. Countries who have not consented can act as they please with discretion. Weapons deemed inappropriate included non-detectable fragments, landmines, incendiary weapons, blinding laser weapons and explosive remnants of war. Specifically these weapons include bayonets with serrated edges, dum dum bullets and napalm, surprisingly the section on incendiary weapons does not include the use of white phosphorous. The United Kingdom sought to justify the use of dum dum bullets on natives because ‘they don’t react to wounds the same way’. The United States validated the use of white phosphorous and napalm on the Vietnamese in a similar manner. And in Winston Churchill’s secret memo, he sought to rationalize the use of poisonous gas in Iraq as a ‘scientific expedient’ and that ‘it is absurd to consider morality on this topic (poisonous gas) when everybody used it in the last war without a word of complaint’ (globalization, pars.3). Churchill’s justification is the most puzzling as it implies that it is acceptable to make a region of Iraq inhabitable and destroy thousands of lives in the name of peace and expedient war.

Remembering that in ancient war, armies fought against armies, often in remote locations with specific rules of procedures. The idea of stepping outside of these rules of procedures was seen as barbaric and immoral. Society shifts from organization of soldiers to organization of the system of war battling on cost benefit analysis which changes the ideas of what is right and just in wars. This shift causes alteration in what is moral in the laws of war. As McNamara handsomely puts it, “human fallibility and human rationality will destroy nations’. Rationalization of war through science is not a bulletproof strategy to a virtuous war, nor is it an approach that will prevent us from total annihilation. Rational men can choose to destroy populations, cities and countries. The U.S. came incredibly close to total destruction during the Cuban Missile Crisis; the Kennedy administration had order a 182 Tonne warhead to be developed and Castro had ordered missiles to be ready to be fired. Rationality through science will not save us but destroy us at the end; a cycle of rationality through science and science funded by the military and the military needing rationality in war fuels the need for new technology. We are in dire need of a strong sense of traditional moral rights to be able to stop the bureaucracy of war lead by rationalization through science.

The way we have come to view morality in terms of war has been skewed by allowing ourselves to give excuses to cause more destruction in the name of power and peace. Developments in technology help to eliminate casualties on the side of the U.S. but to say that missiles have ‘low-intensity’ outcomes would be a blatant lie. The rationalization of war through science specifically by numbers and balance sheets and the idea that technology will solve all military problems, has led to a redefinition of what is moral, just and virtuous in post modern warfare. No matter how we justify the peace created from war, the causalities accumulated and the numbers of injured veterans is evidence of the devastating effects of modern technology in post-modern warfare. The United States had already made preparations for WWIII and IV, why prepare if national policy dictates prevention strategy from another world war? It seems that what politicians say and do are two very different things and perhaps explanatory of McNamara’s 7^th piece of war advice: believing and seeing are often both wrong. McNamara relents “In order to win a war, is a nation morally justified in killing 100,000 civilians in one night but instead to lose hundreds of thousands of American lives in an invasion by Japan?”, lucky for McNamara, the U.S. won the second world war because if they had lost many U.S. officials would have been charged for war crimes.