Scot Dutchy wrote:

Fallible wrote:Are you?

Look who has turned with the mere mention of the word 'mod'.

Luckily I'm used to your unique style of waffle so I can work out what you're saying. I haven't "turned [up]" at the mere mention of the word 'mod', I've clicked on the link to a thread which is in my 'your posts' list because it indicated that someone had posted in it. I'm not psychic, and cannot tell what word has been mentioned before I click the link. If you mean I've had the audacity to comment on your inane invocation of Scot response #56 (variations on 'you're not a mod'), yes, thar's right. I reserve the right to comment in any thread I like. In this instance, I wished to pass comment on your hypocritical and inane response. If you were that bothered about people apparently acting like mods, you wouldn't think you had the authority to tell someone how to post. I don't think you are that bothered, I think you feel the need to dodge any and all calls for you to explain yourself, and this was just the number of Scot response which was easiest to make.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Sendraks wrote:Your feeling provoked is an entirely a problem of your own creating. Your emotions are your problem, not mine.

I'm making a simple request re: your behaviour in this thread. You can either take this feedback on board as an adult would or carry on as you are doing.

You are really missing Penny. She will be touched to hear it.

How do you consistently get away with such trolling? It's an utter disgrace.

Weaver wrote:

theropod wrote:I would like to see one more option. If after school officials have been notified and nothing is done, or if the bully makes it sexual, turn the kid loose.

RS

This.

And the fighting I teach my kids during grade and high school is defensive - mostly break contact drills, escapes from grabs, quick stun strikes used to gain distance, etc.

More offensive actions - breaks, dislocations, control holds, etc. - only comes when they're adults, if they want to learn that stuff.

Late to the party...
If I had kids, I'd do the same. My experience is that training builds confidence. Confident kids are less likely to be picked on. The more you understand how capable you are to get out of a situation, the easier it will be to get out of it. A one on one fight usually starts with some posturing. Having the awareness or communication to avoid it is the best solution, but if the aggressor throws the first punch, it's best to end it quickly. That may mean an aggressive push, that may mean more. The physical response is meant to get you out of harms way and remove yourself from the situation if possible. Not having these skills can make a short fight long and more dangerous.

I've avoided bad situations in my life by showing confidence and awareness. I avoided one fight when after being passive and nice didn't work, the bastard only backed off when I stood up and said if you want to fight lets go.

Scot Dutchy wrote:How do you?

Child.

Weaver wrote:
Really? Like the kinetic strikes we carried out against Iran to get them to stop their nuclear program?

Oh, wait - we didn't use any kinetic strikes there - we TALKED to them, and got them to sign a treaty.

Or maybe you refer to "hit first" as if that's common. Like in Kosovo, or Bosnia, or Afghanistan, or the Gulf War - all cases where I am just SURE you can show that the US engaged in the first use of violence, and for no reason whatsoever.

I have the image of The Soprano's "talking" to a five-and-dime owner about whether they want "insurance" or not.

For sure, the US will "talk" to those who threaten their hegemony or economic dominance. If they "listen" then all's well.

Galactor wrote:

Weaver wrote:
Really? Like the kinetic strikes we carried out against Iran to get them to stop their nuclear program?

Oh, wait - we didn't use any kinetic strikes there - we TALKED to them, and got them to sign a treaty.

Or maybe you refer to "hit first" as if that's common. Like in Kosovo, or Bosnia, or Afghanistan, or the Gulf War - all cases where I am just SURE you can show that the US engaged in the first use of violence, and for no reason whatsoever.

I have the image of The Soprano's "talking" to a five-and-dime owner about whether they want "insurance" or not.

For sure, the US will "talk" to those who threaten their hegemony or economic dominance. If they "listen" then all's well.

Which is precisely why you saw us engage in so many massive displays of military force during the talks which led to NAFTA, amirite???

Weaver wrote:

Galactor wrote:

I have the image of The Soprano's "talking" to a five-and-dime owner about whether they want "insurance" or not.

For sure, the US will "talk" to those who threaten their hegemony or economic dominance. If they "listen" then all's well.

Which is precisely why you saw us engage in so many massive displays of military force during the talks which led to NAFTA, amirite???

I don't follow the point you are making.

The US is perpetually engaged in massive "displays" of force. It has continually had a larger military machine than the rest of the world combined.

Everyone knows what happens when you step out of line.

Galactor wrote:

Weaver wrote:

Galactor wrote:

I have the image of The Soprano's "talking" to a five-and-dime owner about whether they want "insurance" or not.

For sure, the US will "talk" to those who threaten their hegemony or economic dominance. If they "listen" then all's well.

Which is precisely why you saw us engage in so many massive displays of military force during the talks which led to NAFTA, amirite???

I don't follow the point you are making.

The US is perpetually engaged in massive "displays" of force. It has continually had a larger military machine than the rest of the world combined.

Everyone knows what happens when you step out of line.

Yes, we have the world's largest military, and we use military force, and threats of force, to accomplish our national goals.

But that doesn't mean we ALWAYS use military force, or the threats of force, in pursuit of our national goals - as evidenced by things like NAFTA, which was negotiated entirely without any suggestion of the use of force if we didn't get what we wanted. And there are many, many other examples as well - because, although we have the world's largest military (in terms of projectable power and actual strike and combat ability) the world is a big place, and we simply cannot be everywhere at once - or even threaten to be.

Weaver wrote:...because, although we have the world's largest military (in terms of projectable power and actual strike and combat ability) the world is a big place, and we simply cannot be everywhere at once - or even threaten to be.

Perhaps not there yet, but certainly aiming for it!

Weaver wrote:
Yes, we have the world's largest military, and we use military force, and threats of force, to accomplish our national goals.

But that doesn't mean we ALWAYS use military force, or the threats of force, in pursuit of our national goals - as evidenced by things like NAFTA, which was negotiated entirely without any suggestion of the use of force if we didn't get what we wanted. And there are many, many other examples as well - because, although we have the world's largest military (in terms of projectable power and actual strike and combat ability) the world is a big place, and we simply cannot be everywhere at once - or even threaten to be.

Weaver wrote:
Really? Like the kinetic strikes we carried out against Iran to get them to stop their nuclear program?

Oh, wait - we didn't use any kinetic strikes there - we TALKED to them, and got them to sign a treaty.

Let's get the goalposts put back whence they came.

I am quite sure that a non-military strike was not necessary with the NAFTA agreement. And of course not everything requires immediate posturing.

But the proposition that the US sat around the bargaining table with Iran and had a friendly chat and TALKED to them and got them to see sense (what silly little Arabs they must have been) is a deeply dissatisfying one.

I still cannot grasp the analogy of the NAFTA agreement with the US talking to the Iranian regime. These were utterly different trajectories.

Of course, the US doesn't ALWAYS use direct force. At it's disposal, however, is the long history of its willingness to do so, understood by all, should threats arise to its economic hegemony which also means, unfortunately for those in its immediate vicinity, success in socialist-economic endeavours where it might transpire that such social political systems, have widespread benefits for large sections of the society. It would have been a disaster to the ruling classes if the average citizen would have seen how nice a social political system actually could be.

If only Cuba were to have been so suppliant in its commercial position, the US would never have had to punish it and blacken its name for so long. If they were as willing and ready as the Mexicans and Canadians, there never would have been a missile crisis. So for me, the analogy goes no-where.

A bit off topic all of this.

Scot Dutchy wrote:It could try and use it for peace but just does not bother.

Like we did in Kosovo, and Bosnia, and when Iraq invaded Kuwait? Like I already mentioned, to you, in this very thread?

Or like when we sent the US military to aid in recovery efforts after the Japanese tsunami, or the one in Indonesia, or the earthquake in Haiti, or for the Berlin Airlift, or after the super typhoon in the Philippines ... hell, just look at this list for the US Navy alone.

Fucking dumb-ass trolling is getting old.

(Edited to fix spacing errors)

Galactor wrote:

Weaver wrote:
Yes, we have the world's largest military, and we use military force, and threats of force, to accomplish our national goals.

But that doesn't mean we ALWAYS use military force, or the threats of force, in pursuit of our national goals - as evidenced by things like NAFTA, which was negotiated entirely without any suggestion of the use of force if we didn't get what we wanted. And there are many, many other examples as well - because, although we have the world's largest military (in terms of projectable power and actual strike and combat ability) the world is a big place, and we simply cannot be everywhere at once - or even threaten to be.

Weaver wrote:
Really? Like the kinetic strikes we carried out against Iran to get them to stop their nuclear program?

Oh, wait - we didn't use any kinetic strikes there - we TALKED to them, and got them to sign a treaty.

Let's get the goalposts put back whence they came.

I am quite sure that a non-military strike was not necessary with the NAFTA agreement. And of course not everything requires immediate posturing.

But the proposition that the US sat around the bargaining table with Iran and had a friendly chat and TALKED to them and got them to see sense (what silly little Arabs they must have been) is a deeply dissatisfying one.

I still cannot grasp the analogy of the NAFTA agreement with the US talking to the Iranian regime. These were utterly different trajectories.

Of course, the US doesn't ALWAYS use direct force. At it's disposal, however, is the long history of its willingness to do so, understood by all, should threats arise to its economic hegemony which also means, unfortunately for those in its immediate vicinity, success in socialist-economic endeavours where it might transpire that such social political systems, have widespread benefits for large sections of the society. It would have been a disaster to the ruling classes if the average citizen would have seen how nice a social political system actually could be.

If only Cuba were to have been so suppliant in its commercial position, the US would never have had to punish it and blacken its name for so long. If they were as willing and ready as the Mexicans and Canadians, there never would have been a missile crisis. So for me, the analogy goes no-where.

A bit off topic all of this.

The Iran nuclear agreement was the culmination of decades of sanctions and both direct and indirect talks. We used no military force to drive them to the table.

NAFTA was a direct counter to your claim that we always, everywhere, have displays of military force involved in our geopolitical influence operations. It simply isn't so.

I don't argue that the US does not use its military, including subtle and direct shows of force, to influence our discussions with others - that's part of what a military is all about (read von Clausewitz). But we do not always, necessarily, use our military in that way.

Mike_L wrote:

Weaver wrote:...because, although we have the world's largest military (in terms of projectable power and actual strike and combat ability) the world is a big place, and we simply cannot be everywhere at once - or even threaten to be.

Perhaps not there yet, but certainly aiming for it!

The ability to conduct remote strikes is very different than the ability to actually be there, boots on the ground.

The thing about being the world's only remaining superpower is it isn't easy. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. As I negotiate my 7th decade I find my attitude towards life in general is more and more "not my circus, not my monkeys", most of the time anyway. Sometimes it's "go fuck yourself". I think the same dynamic applies to countries, as we age we just don't really give that many fucks any longer. I believe the increasingly isolationist tendencies we're seeing in the general U.S. population is proof of that. That said, Peace Through Superior Firepower isn't going anywhere any time soon.