From: Jonathan Davis (jonathan.davis@lineone.net)
Date: Fri Aug 16 2002 - 03:59:02 MDT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Blunderov" <squooker@mweb.co.za>
To: <virus@lucifer.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 9:49 PM
Subject: RE: Re:virus: Combined post to Casey and Jonathan Davis.
> [Blunderov3]
> <q>
> aggression 1 A forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack)
> esp. when intended to dominate or master 2: the practice of making
> attacks or encroachments, esp unprovoked violation by one country of the
> territorial integrity of another 3 hostile, injurious or destructive
> behaviour or outlook esp when caused by frustration Merriam Webster.</q>
I use it in its primary sense of a forceful action or procedure. That
procedure has no ipso facto value. It earns designations "justified",
"right", "wrong" from its context and intention.
> Law enforcement, as far as I am aware, is not supposed to be aggressive
> in any of the above senses,
Incorrect. Forceful action is the stock trade of interventive law
enforcement. Is busting a crack house with armed police a not a forceful
action or procedure? It is. Aggression is quite a vague word that can lead
us to many misunderstandings.
>Rodney King notwithstanding. The police are
> not supposed to make arrests without some very well defined
> provocations, ie that the suspect has himself very probably committed an
> act of aggression in that he did violate the law.
Indeed. Sometimes a person may be shot simply for being a possible threat.
That is an aggressive action on the part of the police, but it may have a
defensive or protective intention (or reason).
> I think that it is necessary to be clear that "aggressive" is different
> to "robust" (which means vigorous, energetic).
As you can see above, aggressive means many things. It can describe
behaviour in animals defending their territory and well as behaviour in
animals invading anothers territory. It is neutral outside of a given
context.
SNIP (Based on cross purpose)
> [Blunderov3]
> Can we agree that central to the meaning of the word aggression is a
> lack of (proper!) provocation?
It was not the sense I was using it in. It can mean many things, including:
A disposition to behave aggressively.
A feeling of hostility that arouses thoughts of attack.
Violent action that is hostile.
The act of initiating hostilities.
Deliberately unfriendly behaviour.
Politically it usually means belligerent actions by one state against
another.
In its biological sense it is "A behavioural occurrence that is used to
defend organisms in light of attack or simulate a threat display in order to
fend off the attacker."
Medically it is "A form of behaviour which leads to self-assertion; it may
arise from innate drives and/or a response to frustration; may be manifested
by destructive and attacking behaviour, by covert attitudes of hostility and
obstructionism, or by healthy self-expressive drive to mastery"
> In the case of Iraq, the world consensus seems to be that there is not
> sufficient provocation, legally speaking, to justify an attack on Iraq.
I do not think there is such a thing as world consensus. That said, I
personally do not think an attack against Iraq is a good idea at all for a
multiplicity of reasons. Curiously, I accept the Americans reasons for
wanting to attack, I just think they could achieve their (and our) aims
differently.
> The remaining question seems to be whether then can be said to be such a
> thing as a "moral justification" for attacking another country. What do
> you think?
Hmmm. It is very difficult question. I suppose the question is "Does an
entity have the right to act pre-emptively". Tentatively, I think the answer
is yes. Can I pre-empt a certain action with a counter action - yes. Is
there on the other hand justification for an unprovoked attack on another
entity - no.
If Saddam is trying to acquire or make weapons of mass destruction,then we,
knowing as we do that he has used them against his own people and that he
sponsors international terrorism, would be literally mad to allow him to
continue his plans unmolested. Is an invasion the best way to achieve this,
especially considering the situation in Israel and the danger of Al-Quaeda?
I do not think so. But as Condoleezza Rice was quoted elsewhew in this
thread as saying "We certainly do not have the luxury of doing nothing."
She is right, we don't. What are your thoughts on the matter?
Regards
Jonathan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:53 MDT