Emerg Services Spin Off Thread For Observations On Protests Against Law Enforcement

[Casey_03]

<moderator edit: this post has been moved to a new thread, in order to keep this thread: Confusion Over The Hate Of Police By Some Veterans? on-topic. Feel free to refer back to that thread, or just read it to get up-to-speed>

I considered making a new thread to post this, but figured this article would be interesting specifically to many who commented on this original thread, so here it is: The Black Body Count Rises as Chicago Police Step Back

I'm not sure if I agree with the author completely, but I have heard similar arguments from Chicago cops before (although, to be fair, Chicago cops aren't the most unbiased observers when it comes to this topic).

If it's true that the police pullback caused by popular protests has resulted in more gun violence, I don't think that should negate the arguments made by protesters. In other words, I think there is a very real problem of racism (I've seen it firsthand), but I don't think spreading an anti-police message is going to solve that problem. Far from it, it's really only going to make matters worse, especially after Dallas. I guess I'd say that there needs to be a middleground, and it seems like no one has been able to successfully find it yet. Racism should be addressed, but not by claiming all cops are inherently racist, or villifying the police department. And there are a lot more problems than racism, probably much bigger problems (training comes to mind as one).

 

[Anarchy]

It's like this my friend... you have not seen oppression until you have wandered down the streets of Fallujah, Baghdad, or Ramadi, so unless you have, do not speak to me as if you know oppression, or have witnessed it first hand because you have not

In the p!ssing contest of who has seen oppression, I see your Fallujah, Ramadi and Baghdad, and Raise you a Luanda and the big minefield that is Angola;) I also have mainland Chinese and Romanian extended family.

But I guess those people don't matter to you do they?

Strangely enough my best pal at school thirty whatever years ago was from Baghdad, his parents were still there, and his brother was fighting in the Iran Iraq war. I knew a few of the ins and outs of Iraqi history (2,500+ years of it), and a little bit of Arabic with an Iraqi accent, before most Americans could point to it on a map, or comprehend that it was more than a half hour drive from London.
Add in a friend who's sister jumped off a highrise building rather than endure another night of NATO terror bombing of Belgrade...

Saddam had been courted for years by both sides in the cold war. Both sides helped maintain his regime. His sin was to offer to take Euros instead of united state $ as payment for oil - he threatened the petro dollar system and the ability of the fe'ral regime in america to print wealth for itself
Likewise, Khadaffi was talking about a gold dinar - and "democracy" got taken to Libya as well.

I care - but trust me on this one, War, killing people and destroying lives, homes, businesses and infrastructure, is a very strange way to show that you care

and giving billion$ to cronies and large donors of the US regime (Halliburton, Brown & Root etc) to "rebuild" or even to take control of the infrastructure, and big and unsupportable "development" loans to the new regime that will be payable for generations by the inhabitants of the new vassal state, are also very strange ways to care.

We gave those people hope.

by building human pyramids out of them in Abu Ghraib?

Well I put an end to that bullshit, me and a few hundred thousand of America's sons and daughters. You can sit their from your safe and comfy computer chair and talk to me about anarchy but in an anarchy state you would be eaten alive by the wolves. Lt Col David Grossman said it the best (I'm paraphrasing) The sheep don't like the sheepdog until the wolf comes along. They don't like him because he looks an awful lot like the wolf and makes him nervous.

Just remind me how that's going now?

You see there are 3 types of people in the world the sheep who make it through their day pretending that evil doesn't exist. The wolf who is inherently evil and preys upon the sheep, and the sheepdog who is prone to violence but is inherently good and serves to protect the sheep from the wolf. There is no other variety of human; you fit into one of those 3 categories. I am a sheepdog not a wolf...

and the sheepdog who is prone to violence but [deludes itself into believing it] is inherently good [while it commits attrocities] to protect the sheep from [so that] the wolf [that has the dog's leash can abuse them]

There, fixed it for you

You can sit their from your safe and comfy computer chair and talk to me about anarchy but in an anarchy state you would be eaten alive by the wolves.

so I should tolerate any and all abuse and worship my abuser because the abuser is really protecting me from far worse?

that is the tune that every abuser sings.

incidentally if a centralised state and a military that is funded by a first world economy and that is larger than the next ten largest militaries, is so necessary for defense.

just remind me why it had such hard times with a bunch of emaciated peasants in south Asia?
Got chased out of Mogadishu by a leftover from the Barre Regime - who has since been defeated by a mobile phone company?
and is still tied down by a bunch of third world goat shaggers and kiddy fiddlers?

all of those suggest that the centralised coercive model which you are arguing for, really isn't as strong as you think it is.

 

[RussH]

just remind me why it had such hard times with a bunch of emaciated peasants in south Asia?
Got chased out of Mogadishu by a leftover from the Barre Regime - who has since been defeated by a mobile phone company?
and is still tied down by a bunch of third world goat shaggers and kiddy fiddlers?

This comes down to one statement. The rules of engagement. Our politicians send our young men into these situations, then tie their hands behind them by stupid rules of engagement. We have a bad habit of sending our military into a war situation, then will not let them win it.

 

[Anarchy]

I'm not buying that explanation.

United state forces machinegunned over 100,000 refugees from the north, during the Korean war.

In Mogadishu, over 1,000 Somali people were murdered when the blackhawk came down. The united state has spent billions and continues to spend billions trying to impose a central gubbermint on a people who have rejected central rulers, whether by direct us involvement or via a range of regional proxies.

Vietnamese lumber is still unsaleable, it's so full of tramp iron from carpet bombing.

Contractors, drones and the reduction of whole towns to rubble, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

none of those actions suggest restraint, thousands of miles from 'murica.

I'll give a none american example to further my argument;

Northern Ireland, consisting of six largely rural counties, one and a half cities and a bunch of rural market towns. a population of about 1.5 million people, split roughly 50:50 Catholic and protestant, with a spectrum of views in each community.

Was one of the top 5 economies, with one of the top five militaries and top five intelligence services in the world, really not able to keep a lid on a fraction of one half of the population of those six counties?

sure, the shinners couldn't win, but they weren't defeated either.

I strongly suggest that the centralized model is not anywhere near as strong and effective as you've been lead into thinking it is.

Another example which does involve the united state - on the receiving end.

When imperial Japan acted to end FDR's naval blockade that was enforcing an agressive fuel embargo on Japan, the action could have been rendered even more effective by a land invasion.

Fleet Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, warned against a land invasion, but not because of fear of the united state's military. The "gun behind every blade of grass" was a reference to ordinary americans - those pee-ons who the central administration doesn't even trust to tie their own shoe laces...

 

[Sideways]

An observation (just that, nothing more) from the outside looking in (which is sometimes helpful, sometimes just plain uninformed, and this could be eithee or both of those):

The situation, so far as arguments go, seems to have come to a bit of a stand-off. I like the idea of having police (apologies!). There seems to be an argument, though, that the amount of gun-activity (for want of a better term) from the police is justified by the unruly gun-weilding poblic.

In turn, there is a large faction in the public that appears to be taking arms and/or demonstrating in increasingly public ways against a cultural bias from within the pokice force.

Both sides of the fence can (and do) have statistics to back up there position. And to that extent, I'd say that if you were to look long enough, and impasionately enough, you'd probably find that both sides have a fair qualm with the status quo.

Seems to me (:bag:) that either way you look at it, there needs to be a cultural shift across the board before people are going to believe that things have changed for the better. And given that the police are an organised (or at least, organisation) group, where a cultural shift can bee introduced in a structured way, that should probably be where the change needs to start.

There are persuasive arguments why police feel under threat. But if both sides continue to behave as is, on a "you drop your gun before I'll drop mine" basis, then there will be no change. So who blinks first? I'd say that call needs to come from the cops. As in, we'll show you that we can be accountable and fair in the way that we apply and enforce the law. In time (and I'm talking a couple of generations, not overnight), there's reason to be optimistic that the community will respond to that. Kids who grow up in an environment where police genuinely represent safety, for all, will be less motivated to riot in the street against an institution that has, in their living memory, genuinely served and protected them.

Waiting for the other guy to blink first? Tends to take a long time to resolve things that way.

And no, this is not meant to be taken as a literal "no more guns for anyone,, ever" argument. I think that the US could probably do with a few less guns per capita, but that (to me) is a completely seperate debate.

 

[RussH]

I'm not buying that explanation.

You had made the statement that the US Military could not win the various engagements, and my answer still stands, rules of engagement.
The examples you cited could easily come under the fog of war.
In Vietnam, that is an interesting statement regarding the wood, however back to point, do you know who chose the targets to bomb? President Johnson. He looked for targets that were politically correct, and not targets of strategic value.
Mogadishu we should not have been there. The country did not have any real central government but various war lords fighting each other to gain control of the country. Who were we there to fight? There was no clear enemy, no defined battle lines.
Even then our military could have ended the fighting, but it would have cause massive loss of life.

Our military has been, place in unwinnable situations by our politicians, and have not been given a clear mission.

 

[Anarchy]

You had made the statement that the US Military could not win the various engagements, and my answer still stands, rules of engagement.

my main point was

that the centralised coercive model which you are arguing for, really isn't as strong as you think it is.

and your arguments are in full agreement with it - we're agreeing

do you know who chose the targets to bomb? President Johnson. He looked for targets that were politically correct, and not targets of strategic value.

he was the commie in chief, the dear leader in all matters temporal.

Mogadishu we should not have been there. The country did not have any real central government but various war lords fighting each other to gain control of the country [the warlords are remnants of the Said Barre's regime, and they are still trying to live parasitically in the area around Mogadishu, they don't have any traction outside of the Mogadishu area]. Who were we there to fight? There was no clear enemy, no defined battle lines.

again, a complete mess, driven from the centre, as you rightly point out:

Our military has been, placed in unwinnable situations by our politicians, and have not been given a clear mission.

and for what purpose were they put into those positions? no one is going to try to invade America - whether it has a central (fe'ral) gubbermint or not, if any centralised power tried, they'd find what Admiral Yamamoto warned of, a gun behind every blade of grass. Why were Americans in Korea, French Indochina, Somalia...

 

[RussH]

and for what purpose were they put into those positions?

There are a lot of reasons. Our national security is not just inside our borders. It also includes the free flow of oil, the ability to station our troops in places where American interest and lives could be in jeopardy, or being in a place to help defend an ally, as determined by mutual defense treaties. At other times it really is humanitarian. We will put our soldiers in harms way to try and protect the defenseless
Yes, I know, in these situations there has been collateral damage, the loss of innocent life. However we, at least, try to defend those who cannot defend themselves.

 

[Anarchy]

Our national security is not just inside our borders. It also includes the free flow of oil, the ability to station our troops in places where American interest and lives could be in jeopardy, or being in a place to help defend an ally, as determined by mutual defense treaties.

which is glossy packaging for policies of imperialism and mercantilism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism. If the price is right, people will sell to you, which strongly implies that uncle sam intends the cronies to get resources on the cheap, by threatening violence.

At other times it really is humanitarian. We will put our soldiers in harms way to try and protect the defenseless.

I was an avid newspaper reader for about 30 years, and I've read claims about humanitarian use of military force, for example the embargo on Iraq, or military support of the organ harvesting ethnic Albanian gangsters in Kosovo - but I've still to see a remotely plausible example. Here's one of the more egregious ones on turf that uncle sam claims. the fatal church burning was said to be to save children who were being abused.

Waco Branch Davidians images on Photobucket (first photo, top left)

<Moderator edit to remove attached image. If you believe this is done in error, please open a help ticket>

Yes, I know, in these situations there has been collateral damage, the loss of innocent life.

I'd be very sceptical as to whether those are flaws, features or the innevitable consequences of the centralised model.

 

[Neverthesame]

What I'm trying to understand is what would be different if it was a bunch of people carrying a different flag, running about doing all this?

Whether it's a Union Jack, Stars and Stripes, a hastily scrawled A with a circle around it, hammer and sickle or hell, even a bloody maple leaf?

It's always going to be people. Always. Untill there are no more people. Irregardless of how noble the intentions the first person had. Someone invariably will come along and f*ck it up.

It was mentioned earlier about Iraqi prisoners being stacked into pyramids. That's wrong.

When the Iraqi militants (I don't really care what country their from, it's just one example.) Set up bases of operation, conveniently located next door to a primary school. Knowing full well that someone is going to drop a bomb anyway.
That's wrong.

Why does it matter what side they are on? What difference does it make?

Is it possible that maybe people kill one another for stupid reasons?

That maybe arguing about what stupid coloured banner they sit under is ultimately f*cking pointless?

Whether it's Amercan, Iraqi, Israeli, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish. All of these things are just distractions from the fact that people are being killed, every day for....?

We're all people. Some are good, some are shit. Most, myself included. Are just dumb as posts, trying to get one day to the next without having to spend so much energy hating everything, and fearing everything else?

I'm just rambling now I suppose. Bah! Going to bed now.

 

[Anarchy]

Is it possible that maybe people kill one another for stupid reasons?

It is,

The points I'm making are:

1) central government makes war more likely to happen, to be poorly defined in terms of aims objectives methods and victims, and more destructive and deadly.

without a central state, which can place the costs of a huge military and its military adventures onto a whole population, then the people who actually want the war would have to pay for it and recruit the people to do it themselves, out of their own pockets.

In a situation where the individuals who want a war have to pay for it out of their own pockets, war might still occur, but it is a lot less frequent, and when it does occur, it has very clearly defined aims and clear objectives, For example the taking of a manor or an estate in a dispute over an inheritance.
When rulers can make other people pay for their aggression, they're a lot more likely to indulge in it, rather than peaceful and just alternatives, and to indulge with poorly defined aims eg "a war on terror"

There is also a clear case for claims for damages against the disputants if they cause any damage or expense to other parties, when it is clear that a war is private, for example "the king's war" or "Cecil Rhodes' war" - it's only really since the French revolution that it became common to disrupt trade and relations between the inhabitants of the areas claimed by warring nobles, kings or states.

For a relatively recent example, in the war of 1870, Prussian officers paid the French hotels that they stayed in, in full. The target of the military action was the French state, not the people who lived in France.

2) With a centralised system, idiocy and entitlement are institutionalized.

Russ has already pointed out the utopian idiocy of the idea that person or one small group of people can wisely decide on all matters for everyone, over a very large area, with his example of LBJ.

That system also contains a very dangerous blurring and obfuscation of interpersonal boundaries and personal responsibility for actions.

If I tell someone to go somewhere several thousand miles away to kill people and to bomb homes and workplaces, I'd hope and expect to be told in no uncertain terms to f*** off!

If you told me to go several thousand miles from home, kill and bomb - would a jury accept that as good reason, if i did go kill and bomb?

We are ordinary people, so those examples really do look absolutely ludicrous to us.

but dress the ordinary person up in some ritualised obfuscation, and

and are they a semi divine leader who can contradict the very strong prohibition against killing that every human culture and religion expresses?

and do the murderers who obey them get transformed into heroes?

If they do, then why?

 

[RussH]

Russ has already pointed out the utopian idiocy of the idea that person or one small group of people can wisely decide on all matters for everyone, over a very large area, with his example of LBJ.

My example was not to show the "wise" but the stupidity that LBJ used in choosing bombing targets, politically correct instead of valid military targets.
You can diss centralized systems all you want, but as long as this world produces Hitlers, then someone will have to stand against them, and that takes a military.