Prue's Death - Could it have been avoided

[vandergraafk]

As I conjectured in another thread, there are two sets of Cleaners: white and dark. Each is assigned to clean up problems for its team: good magic versus evil. In this particular case, the problems went way beyond the Cleaners. Here, both good and evil were exposed. Something greater was called for: a re-setting of time, an ability that only the Avatars and Tempus possess.

[ljones]

vandergraafk said:

You really don't like Charmed, do you? I mean let's see. You reject the major premise of the show and don't see why Burge would allow such a description of witches in the first place. Well, let's see: Ms. Burge had no real prior knowledge about witches (see the DVD extras accompanying the DVD package in Season 8) and apparently wanted to write a series about three sisters (Keith Topping, Triquetra). Since the WB expected something Buffy like, well why not try three sisters who happen to be witches. Of course, that entailed some research on witches, i.e., to get some of the language right. (But, apparently, scry was never used properly!) Unfortunately, it seems as if you wish Charmed had been written by a practicing witch who was writing about three witches who happen to be sisters. Oh well! Such is the life of Hollywood!

I would have had no problems with that. Perhaps the show would have eventually developed into something more complex and interesting . . . instead of devolving into mediocrity, as it had done during the last four years of its run.

The sisters have free will; but they know they also have a moral obligation to protect Innocents and not let Evil run rampant on Earth.

That is NOT free will to me. That if forcing someone to follow a certain path, due to accident of birth. I see nothing admirable about it.

[whitelightertony]

If the Cleaners had been assigned to watch the Charmed Ones since they became witches, where were they to clean up this 'little' magical mess?

It was implied that the Cleaners possessed precognition, so they probably foresaw that Tempus would reset time.

That is NOT free will to me. That if forcing someone to follow a certain path, due to accident of birth. I see nothing admirable about it.

So should the Charmed Ones have just permanently stripped their powers, so they wouldn't have to worry about helping other people?

[ljones]

whitelightertony said:

If the Cleaners had been assigned to watch the Charmed Ones since they became witches, where were they to clean up this 'little' magical mess?

It was implied that the Cleaners possessed precognition, so they probably foresaw that Tempus would reset time.

That is NOT free will to me. That if forcing someone to follow a certain path, due to accident of birth. I see nothing admirable about it.

So should the Charmed Ones have just permanently stripped their powers, so they wouldn't have to worry about helping other people?

Yes! If they didn't want to spend a life pursuing and killing demons, then yes . . . they should have done exactly what you had said. And if they want to help people, there are other ways to do that. And I emphasize the word . . . want.

[whitelightertony]

If the Charmed Ones stripped themselves of their powers and magic, then wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the entire show?

[vandergraafk]

I suppose we could place this on a different level and consider what might or might not constitute free will. At its most abstract, I suppose it means having the ability to choose or not to choose from a whole panoply of options. Very, very few of us ever have that luxury. A fair amount of capital is required, as well as the ability, perhaps, to bribe or buy off those who might thwart one's exercise of free will. So, if then, there is no such thing as a completely "free will", that everyone more or less is forced to live within constraints imposed either by nature (I cannot fly even if I will myself to; nor can I orb, much as I might like to!), by economics (oh that I were rich enough to live out my dreams!) or by politics (what do you mean I can't drive 100 mph? or who says I can't say what?), how exactly are the Charmed Ones not exercising free will? Indeed, they seem free of most economic constraints. They even can manipulate Homeland Security as well. They just have to deal with forces beyond their control: destiny, etc.

The idea that the Charmed Ones ought to follow the rules does not necessarily limit their free will. The fact that they are "obliged" to protect the innocent does not mean that they in fact must. However, if they wish to not become enamored of power - or their own abilities - for their own sakes, then they might just be reminded that these powers entail obligations. Our own rights as citizens come coupled with obligations, though many of fail to exercise them. Yes, I have the right to vote, but I should also be obliged to stay informed. For my right to vote can easily become a cudgel in the hands of any politician who would seek to mislead an uninformed electorate. Bush, anyone?

[Kit-the-cat]

Even with Prue the writing would still of gotten worse over the years

[whitelightertony]

VG, don't tell us you actually voted for Bush...? ;D

[ljones]

The fact that they are "obliged" to protect the innocent does not mean that they in fact must. However, if they wish to not become enamored of power - or their own abilities - for their own sakes, then they might just be reminded that these powers entail obligations. Our own rights as citizens come coupled with obligations, though many of fail to exercise them. Yes, I have the right to vote, but I should also be obliged to stay informed. For my right to vote can easily become a cudgel in the hands of any politician who would seek to mislead an uninformed electorate. Bush, anyone?

This does not make any sense to me. First of all, why would you compare with your right to vote with the Halliwells being born with the ability to practice magic? You are given the choice on whether to exercise your right to vote. Yet, many fans seem to believe that because they have magical abilities, the Halliwells are "obliged" to hunt and kill demons. And the latter does not sit well with me.

The only reasons I can see the Halliwells hunting and killing demons are:

*They want to engage in the lifestyle of a demon hunter

*Self defense

*When someone requests their help

People should be responsible for the consequences of their CHOICES, not for something that happened simply due to accident of birth. The idea of the Halliwells being "obliged" to hunt and kill demons because they were born with the gift to practice magic does not seem right with me.

[Kit-the-cat]

Exactly, for once i agree with you Lol

[whitelightertony]

What about a pre-emptive vanquish?

For example: in mid-Season 7, Zankou made it quite clear to the girls that he would try to kill them at some point, even after they helped him quell the Avatar threat. (BTW, this, in my opinion, was ultimately the major mistake on Zankou's part: if he really wanted to take out the Charmed Ones, he would have offered them a fake truce - - even though he'd have had no intention of actually honoring it).

So, once the Avatars had been neutralized, in your view would that have given the Halliwells just cause to vanquish (or attempt to vanquish) Zankou immediately after the Avatars were stopped and the world had been restored to normal?

Or, how about this: in Season 5's "Lucky Charmed," Phoebe foresaw, via astral premonition, her date at P3 vanquishing her. So was Piper justified in combusting the demon before he could make his move on Phoebe?

[Kit-the-cat]

i dont remember tht in Lucky Charmed

[whitelightertony]

It happens in the teaser (opening scene) of "Lucky Charmed."

[Kit-the-cat]

hmm will ave to watch tht

[vandergraafk]

I hope nobody really even could imagine vandergraafk voting for a Bushido! Somehow I always manage to vote for losers. But seriously!

Okay, whitelightertony, you are quite correct that Zankou did indicate that he might go after them one day. And you correctly wonder whether this might give the Charmed Ones cause enough to vanquish Zankou pre-emptively. The answer is undeniably and unmistakenly NO!

Consider this: in Kill Billie, Volume 2, the demon who "befriends" the Charmed Ones also indicates that someday he and his mates might come after the Charmed Ones or their offspring. That's what demons do, after all. But, why would the Charmed Ones wish to vanquish him now when he was certainly no threat and indeed had not even made any threatening gestures towards the Charmed Ones apart from a stunning blow that could have been interpreted in several ways.

Zankou might never have gone after the Charmed Ones, though we surely knew he would. When he did, the Charmed Ones acted appropriately. To vanquish him in advance certainly would have pushed the Charmed Ones even further down a path leading to the exercise of power for the sake of power itself, the accusation that ultimately was Dumain's chief argument in favor of stopping the Charmed Ones that he used to great effect with Billie.

As for the teaser scene in Lucky Charmed, premonitions have a habit of not being one-hundred percent accurate. They suggest a possible unfolding of events, one that might be averted by a pre-emptive action or some other preventative measures. Blasting the demon is one option, but should always be a method of last resort. Why not have the bouncer just keep him out of P3? Oh, that's right. That would only end the immediate threat. Demons always come back. That's what demons do. But until he attacks, there is no reason to vanquish him in advance. None!

Let me put this in a more historical context. I have heard American Congressmen seemingly baffled when many Germans spoke of re-uniting Germany within the pre-1938 borders (circa 1990 - 3). (Sorry, Poland, but you know that your occupation of Eastern Germany was compensation for your loss of territory to Russia in 1939. We may accept it, but we don't believe - not in the least - that you have any right to this territory.) "What," they queried, "isn't that saying that Hitler was right in some of the things he did?" For example, Hitler forced the French to quit the Saarland, as well as the Ruhr area. Was that wrong of him - as a German nationalist - to demand that the French cease extracting tribute through occupation of German territory in order to please the unfair peace treaty ending World War I? Yes, and I am well aware that had the Germans been victorious their terms of surrender would have been equally, if not more, onerous. Consider the Russian surrender to the Germans in 1917. But, almost any and every German at the time, even ones in exile, would have agreed with the result. Germany was whole for the first time since the Great War, a united nation no longer subject to the terms of Versailles.

Where opposition and Nazidom part with respect to the territorial question is in regards to the fate of Austria. According to Wilson's proposals, the Austrians ought to have been accorded the right to choose to join a new German nation in order to dilute even further Prussian madness. Austria was clearly denied this right and treated as an aggressor nation, which it may well have been, though the assassination of the arch-duke might have been cassus belli enough. Hitler sent his troops to occupy Austria and create a new German reich, one that had never existed before, but had been the dream of many. That he chose to use his Austrian stooges to accomplish this soured many exile, and concentration camp resident, Germans and Austrians who might have preferred a free and fair election that probably would have accomplished the same result.

Now, would you have pre-emptively gone to war with Hitler over this brazen act? Hardly! The Western powers might have reflected on their failure to accord Austria the right to choose its own fate. After all, Austria-Hungary was dead and the Hungarians had been allowed their right to achieve an independent state. And, weren't the Hungarians just as much guilty in the events that precipitated and resulted in the Great War?

Many American politicians apparently think an attack on Hitler was justified at this time and are equally shocked to discover that many Germans do not, even left wing ones such as vandergraafk. Perhaps these were the same morons who gave Bush a blank check to invade Iraq. The point is: they were wrong about Hitler just as they would have been wrong, had they chosen to, allow Bush a pre-emptive free pass on Iraq.

There was a time and a place to confront Hitler. It was not necessarily at the time of Anschluss, the forced annexation of Austria. Perhaps the allies could have demanded that Hitler allow a vote under international inspection to determine the will of the then Austrian people. My guess: a majority would have voted for Anschluss, but one without the Austro-Nazi puppet regime in place.

The one clear and unambiguous time to confront Hitler, though, was over the Sudetenland. Again, Hitler's demands appeared reasonable. The Germans in Bohemia and Moravia were not well treated under the new Czech government. Minority protections should have been accorded them. Chamberlain lamely tried to trust Hitler by giving him everything he wanted: a rump Czech state that Hitler could easily dominate. For what, peace? Or, the absence of violence? Or, the staving off of war? Yet, at this time, the Wehrmacht was not ready for war and had the Allies mobilized to confront Hitler perhaps by threatening to re-occupy the Saarland, Hitler might have backed down and settled for a negotiated settlement of the Sudeten problem that left the Czech government capable of defending itself. (After all, Czechoslovakia had a wonderful armaments industry, one that Hitler craved and exploited once he occupied the Czech lands.)

The problem with the pre-emptive logic advocated by the Bushidos and reckless Charmed Ones is that it places the use of force as a method of first resort. Violence must always be a last option. The weapons of mass destruction can be assembled and placed in position, poised to strike, as the United States did in Kuwait prior to the dreadful invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Indeed, the pre-positioning and build-up of these forces surely convinced Saddam Hussein to allow UN weapons inspectors to enter Iraq once again in order to answer unresolved questions that Kenneth Pollack had conveniently enumerated in his book The Case for War Against Iraq.

For Saddam Hussein, this cannot have been an easy decision. In light of the uneasy cease-fire with Iran, Saddam needed to project any threat to deter Iran from putting an end to Saddam once and for all. Saddam had no clothes, but he sure had an image to upkeep. Better to let the world think that his regime was stockpiling chemical weapons and developing nuclear ones than to reveal all and let the world see that the Saddam was nothing more than a wizard, one capable of projecting illusions, but nothing more than illusions.

Well, the UN found that the emperor indeed had no clothes or weapons of mass destruction for that matter. As a result, the case for war against Iraq was eviscerated except that Cheney was hell-bent on invading Iraq and witnessing the showering of roses on the in-rushing American and British soldiers, while the French were bottling up effective, non-invasive Security Council action that might have headed off an invasion of Iraq. Rather than a pre-emptive strike, the Bush/Cheney/Blair action was an unadulterated attack against a sovereign nation, a nation led by an utterly repugnant ruler who brutalized his own Kurdish and Shiite population, but one who nonetheless yielded before international force. When, may I ask, are the American war criminals going to be taken to Nuremberg? They certainly should not be appointed to faculty positions at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. Et tu, crummy Rummy! But, then, none of the American war criminals were ever indicted for the war against Vietnam. Will I live long enough to see Kissinger indicted for war crimes against Cambodia? Will he?

[Kit-the-cat]

But The Charmed Ones should of known this for sure, after all, the girls have plenty of experience dealing with Demons. They should of at least started to prepare themselves. Which they never did!

[whitelightertony]

So it's better to wait for Zankou and the younger demon from KB:V2 to be responsible for the casualties of mortals, rather than eliminating the threat while they still can?

Both Zankou and the other demon stated their intention to come after the Charmed Ones.

If someone threatens to kidnap your child if you don't do what they want, wouldn't it make more sense for you to eliminate the threat they pose - - rather than waiting for them to actually kidnap your child?

[Kit-the-cat]

I'd get prepared.

[whitelightertony]

And put your child at risk?

[ljones]

To me, a "pre-emptive strike" seems to be nothing more than murder. I mean . . . when you kill someone or some being before they can do anything or if they are not doing anything, it just seems like murder to me.

I think by Seasons 5 or 6, the sisters were in danger of allowing their success against demons get the best of them. This reminds me of the old saying by Nietze:

"He who fights with monsters whould take care lest he become a monster. For even as you gaze into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you."