Rather simplistic view of pre-emption

zoro

OK, I've never even seen this board here before, and I'm not particularly in the mood to go throught the hundreds of pages of threads to see if this has already been brought up so apologies if it's been mentioned already

Lets say im in secondary school ... in 2nd year.

I see a 4th year bullying 1st years. beating the living daylights out of them ... and it continues for 2 more years.

I'm now in 4th year, and that ****er's in 6th year now.

He hasn't been caught yet, but everyone knows he's doing it, and he's still beating the crap out of 1st years, then 2nd and 3rd years, but now he's moved on the 4th years.

If I run up to him with a knife and gut the ****er cause i think that he's going to go after me, it's a pre-emptive strike on a known bully. Whats the difference between a playground tactic like that, and what bush did?

Or to make it more real, if i ran into another school's playground a gutted a similar bully?

*edit* also, I've been the one that's been giving him his tools of the trade

I know it's a very simplistic way of looking at it, and that bush never actually killed saddam, but it's essentially the same thing is it not?

*note* dont bother flaming me if you disagree with me, it's just a simple question ... why is it that bush can get away with it whereas anyone else in the globe would be jailed?

Daniel

Vader

If this bully was made do the things he did by a bigger bully then stopped and that bully got mad and killed him, should that big bully go to jail even though he killed a "bad man".

Do simplify international politics to this level.

zoro

huh? I'm hugely confused

Vader

Originally posted by zoro
huh? I'm hugely confused

Learn the facts about Iraq and start a serious thread. I recommend starting the ball rolling with a news article.

Geronimo will support America I will oppose geronimo if sovtec isn't busy he'll comprimise on america but hate bush, myself and geronimos posts will start getting into the 30,000 charicters then he'll go on a business trip and the thread will die.:eek:

zoro

Originally posted by Vader
Learn the facts about Iraq and start a serious thread. I recommend starting the ball rolling with a news article.

sorry i just got it this morning ... bit slow on the uptake

Geronimo will support America I will oppose geronimo if sovtec isn't busy he'll comprimise on america but hate bush, myself and geronimos posts will start getting into the 30,000 charicters then he'll go on a business trip and the thread will die.:eek:

in that case forget about it and i'll never return to the politics board again

sovtek

Originally posted by Vader
Learn the facts about Iraq and start a serious thread. I recommend starting the ball rolling with a news article.

Geronimo will support America I will oppose geronimo if sovtec isn't busy he'll comprimise on america but hate bush, myself and geronimos posts will start getting into the 30,000 charicters then he'll go on a business trip and the thread will die.:eek:

He he...

What did you mean by this though?
"he'll comprimise on america but hate bush,"

Vader

You once called me a bit harsh on my approach, and pointed out that its very unfair to generalise all americans as pro-bush did you not? You yourself are anti-bush I thought?

Maybe I got you totally wrong but I was only making a joke and so just wrote the first thing that came into my head.

sovtek

Originally posted by Vader
You once called me a bit harsh on my approach, and pointed out that its very unfair to generalise all americans as pro-bush did you not? You yourself are anti-bush I thought?

Maybe I got you totally wrong but I was only making a joke and so just wrote the first thing that came into my head.

Wasn't taking offense but just wanted a clarification because I honestly didn't understand what you meant.
Yes I'm a "Bush hater" as the American media has now decided. :rolleyes:

popinfresh

The argument that what the US has done is OK because Saddam was evil is not a valid argument. There is a lot of evil reigemes out there, why did the US suddenly decide to care avout Iraq. North Korea actually poses more of a threat to the US than Iraq ever did. In fact, North Korea made provoctative threats the the US on a few occasions. But you don't see Bush starting a war with them. And lets not forget that this war was an unjustified invasion. Bush invaded Iraq, in order to harness the oil industry in Iraq, or possibly to manipulate the world's oil stocks/prices in their favour. Was Saddam evil and Iraq will now benefit? Possibly, but only because sanctions have now been lifted. Oh, and exactly how many Iraqis died as result of Sanctions kaunched by the US?

Hobbes

Originally posted by zoro
He hasn't been caught yet, but everyone knows he's doing it, and he's still beating the crap out of 1st years, then 2nd and 3rd years, but now he's moved on the 4th years.

If I run up to him with a knife and gut the ****er cause i think that he's going to go after me, it's a pre-emptive strike on a known bully. Whats the difference between a playground tactic like that, and what bush did?

Probably none. Everyone in school is expected to follow rules, and if they break those rules they are punished. The people being bullied in question should bring the attention of the people who are in the power to impose that law. That failing then they all impose sanctions.

bonkey

One major difference is that in your "bully" situation, there is a whole stack of people/bodies in positions of genuine authority who should be asked to deal with the problem, and who have the capability to do so - parents, school principals, police, etc. etc. etc.

Bush, on the other hand, had no such higher authority. The UN - while nominally such an authority - did not have the means to deal with the issue, nor would they be as obliged to as (say) a headmaster should be for a student.

Indeed, the entire concept of Law at an international level is somewhat shaky....given that it comes from a myriad of bodies who are more reliant on nations agreeing to follow it rather than on being able to enforce it.

IT *shouldnt* be that way, but it is.

jc

The Corinthian

Might is right. Simple as that.

zoro

hobbes, bonkey and The Corinthian, i see what you mean...

in that i should have gone to a higher power to try to sort out the mess before taking matters into my own hands, but im just trying to illustrate the point that the actual mentality of it doesnt seem all that different.

i mean i could just argue that bush should have gone to his good friend god
but that'd just bring this on a whole new topic

popinfresh

And in fairness Zorro, I'd be more scared of a person who'd go up and knife somebody for no descent reason, especially if that person was accepted as being crazy and a bully themselves :dunno:

Redleslie

Originally posted by bonkey
Bush, on the other hand, had no such higher authority.

Yes he has - the Lord God Almighty.

It'd be an interesting development if he and/or Blair started believing that they're gods too. Remember Dubya, thou art mortal.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Redleslie
It'd be an interesting development if he and/or Blair started believing that they're gods too. Remember Dubya, thou art mortal.

I guess you don't remember Tonys famous promo video that got canned a few years back then?

Or pictures recently with the halo around bushes head. There are quite a few, but here are a few I found on one page.

http://unmedia.blogspot.com/2004_01_10_unmedia_archive.html

Redleslie

Originally posted by bonkey
One major difference is that in your "bully" situation, there is a whole stack of people/bodies in positions of genuine authority who should be asked to deal with the problem, and who have the capability to do so - parents, school principals, police, etc. etc. etc.

In my school, the teachers didn't like anyone moaning about being bullied or whatever. The attitude was usually "What did you do?" like the bullied person was somehow asking for it. They also tended to come down pretty hard on anyone trying to sort out the bully because I dunno, maybe they thought that upset the natural order of things.

Redleslie

Originally posted by Hobbes
I guess you don't remember Tonys famous promo video that got canned a few years back then?

Nope, can't recall. My interest in Tony began waning bit by bit after the glorious defeat of the evil tories in 97. Wassit? Anything to do with his 'guys, let's heal the world' gibberish.

Or pictures recently with the halo around bushes head. There are quite a few, but here are a few I found on one page.

It's the Chinese year of the monkey. So he's got the controversial character God and the heathen multitude on his side.

bonkey

Originally posted by Redleslie
Yes he has - the Lord God Almighty.

And when's the last time this Mr. Almighty showed himself to be an interventionist God who actually sorted out problems? Pretty poor track-record if you ask me...

In my school, the teachers didn't like anyone moaning about being bullied or whatever.

Then you go to the principal. Failing that, you report the teachers to the education authorities. Alternately, you can threaten legal action against the school if they are clearly remiss about their responsibilities to take care of their charges.

There is no end of higher authorities you can take it to....and until you have done so taking "pre-emptive action" is still always going to be inexcusable in the schoolyard situation.



Or are you saying that - given this is an analagy - that the real world has higher authorities who couldn't be ar5ed fixing things (as opposed to those who don't have the authority or remit to do so).

Vader

teachers didnt give a shít in my scool either, they were terrified of the knackers. One or two were headbutted before and so all the teachers stoped doing their jobs. There was this little thug in 4th class when I was leaving who had a social worker who came into school with him and everything.
the teachers kids (about 3 in my day) didnt go outside for break, them and their friends went into the gym.

Redleslie

Originally posted by bonkey
And when's the last time this Mr. Almighty showed himself to be an interventionist God who actually sorted out problems? Pretty poor track-record if you ask me...

I think he likes giving different sides the same tasks to accomplish then enjoys watching them compete against each other or something. As long as the job gets done he doesn't care that much. Mysterious ways you know.

Then you go to the principal. Failing that, you report the teachers to the education authorities. Alternately, you can threaten legal action against the school if they are clearly remiss about their responsibilities to take care of their charges.

Well it was a christian brothers school so it was fairly authoritarian, with teachers big into collective punishment and dealing out slaps and thumps and the like. Going to the principal was out. Teachers would have got the idea that you were undermining their authority and would have made life very unpleasant indeed. As for the education authorities and legal action, that's assuming that you're aware that those options are available. As I recall, everyone just seemed to accept that things were the way they were and if there was something wrong, it would have been fixed already. Bullies and violent rituals sort of perform a useful function in schools and help create a hierarchy. Ever seen the film 'If..'?

Or are you saying that - given this is an analagy - that the real world has higher authorities who couldn't be ar5ed fixing things (as opposed to those who don't have the authority or remit to do so).

If the higher authorities don't want to believe that something is broken in the first place, then boatrockers and barrack room lawyers are treated with suspicion, and so the Panglossian attitude prevails - 'All is for the best in this the best of all possible worlds.'

bonkey

Originally posted by Redleslie
As I recall, everyone just seemed to accept that things were the way they were and if there was something wrong, it would have been fixed already. Bullies and violent rituals sort of perform a useful function in schools and help create a hierarchy.

OK...so if people accept thats the way it is, and that its a hierarchy, then no-one is ever going to actually try this "interventionist" approach. To do so would be an implicit rejection of the status quo and "the way things are". If someone is going to do that, then they are wrong to discard what options are genuinely available until such options have been tried and found to be wanting.

If the higher authorities don't want to believe that something is broken in the first place, then boatrockers and barrack room lawyers are treated with suspicion, and so the Panglossian attitude prevails - 'All is for the best in this the best of all possible worlds.'

I asked what higher authority exists, not how one might explain its inactivity if one assumes it does exist.

Name the higher authority with genuine power who could have fixed things but didn't which the US should have turned to rather than taking unilateral interventionist activity.

jc

zoro

the aliens!