Permission slip

George W. Bush once said, amongst many unintelligible, yet highly amusing things, "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people."

And with that he went and waged a war in Iraq, using trumped up 'intelligence', that is still being waged some 10 years later. Was there a permission slip? You can bet your life that there wasn't, because George W. didn't need one.

Some cynics will say that the war on Iraq was motivated by the great oil grab. Some sympathisers will say  that this war was waged to rid the world of a dictatorial, tyrannical leader and was a blow for freedom and democracy. I am not going to go into debating the pro's and con's of why this war was waged. I want to talk about one facet of the war that was utilised; the pre-emptive strike.

America, and her Allies, launched a pre-emptive strike on Iraq after "evidence" was uncovered that Iraq had stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). America feared that the leadership of Iraq was primed to utilise such weapons. They decided to strike first. To this day, to the best of my knowledge, no WMDs were found in Iraq.

The question that comes to my mind is, "When is it ok to launch a pre-emptive attack?" Another question that follows is, "What laws/social etiquette govern the use of a pre-emptive attack?"

Now, I know that some people around the world protested against the use of force against Iraq. Some still do. But the war went ahead, and to the best of my knowledge, George W. Bush did not get arrested for being the first person to fire a missile or drop a bomb. I can only assume that this is due to international tolerance of said actions? This is quite the precedent to set on an international level and I would like to think that the same leniency would be shown to me were I to, say, launch a pre-emptive strike on all old people on the train.

If I might take you back to my train journey this week. I was sitting on the train after a long day at work. I was reading my book, not being a nuisance or getting in anyone's way. An old lady was to be seen boarding a train and, as there were numerous vacant seats, I did not stand to offer mine. As she walked past me, she bumped my knee with her heavy bag and just kept walking. I thought she might acknowledge the accidental bump, but I was to be disappointed this day. She walked on.

My parents taught me to respect my elders, so i said nothing of her bump. My parents also taught me to treat others the way I would want to be treated. We all know the golden rule, even if we, evidentially, choose not to live by it. So does this then mean that this old lady would not mind if I bump my bag into her and just keep walking?

In my mind, she is Iraq and I am the United States of America. And I do not need a permission slip!

Bringing it all back to my earlier questions; would it be socially inappropriate for me now to launch a pre-emptive strike on all old people on the train based on this experience? If you are answering, "Yes it would be extremely inappropriate", I would have to ask why? I could tell you that the old people have Bags of Mass Destruction (BMDs) and cause an unacceptable threat to the safety of all middle-aged, white, male train passengers.  Would it then be acceptable?

Before we get too carried away, I am not going to launch a pre-emptive strike on all old people on the train. Do I feel like doing it sometimes? You bet I do. Admittedly, rude old people who think they can get away with banging into people without apologising would not be at the top of my list. That spot would be reserved for either the people who listen to music REALLY loud, or those who have those really obnoxiously loud conversations that are of no interest to anyone but projected so loudly that people have to turn their music up REALLY loud to drown them out.

I do wish to highlight here, as the purpose of this post, that a simple, open conversation will solve just about any issue. I know it's naive to think that a simple sit down would solve all of the world's problems. But it is reprehensible to think that we teach our school children to talk to a bully and tell them not to engage in a physical resolution to their problems, but we have world leaders dropping bombs on innocent people to strike a blow for freedom.

I just don't understand that logic, or lack thereof.

But then again, George W. Bush was not really ever known for clear, logical thought. This is the man who brought us such gems as:

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them." And,

"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test." And my personal favourite,

"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."