This defines my views completely.

Yes, it is. It's an extrapolation from analogy, by which means it is possible to prove that black is white.

Eh, black is white isn't exactly what it's getting at. America certainly doesn't hold the patent on warring. While war isn't necessary in every case, I believe strongly that when it is it should be executed with full support of the nation involved.

For those against the current conflict, what would you have done ? I know the obvious is bring them home, but would you be comfortable leaving Iraq in a lurch?

Secondly Iran. What are peoples' feelings on what I see is inevitably going to happen? Is Iran a threat to the world ? Would military action in your view be appropriate and if so why do you feel that way?

While the idea of support is solid, there is also a thin line you walk by suggesting that there is no place for dissenters. Speaking broadly and not about this specific conflict, the voices of dissent are needed as a check. It is all too easy to have conflict spiral out of control if there is nobody questioning what the hell is going on.



I will not address the question of Iran as threat. I will, however, address the current situation. It is simply not in the best interest of the US to extend itself yet again. The best course of action is to try to make the case to the rest of the civilized world why Iran should or could be viewed as an immediate threat. Unfortunately, the US has, through the Iraq conflict, put itself over a barrel as far as the credibility of its intelligence and it's motivations. This will make it very difficult for the US to influence International sentiment, which is absolutelty required to align with US action regarding Iran.

I prefer to think of overly aggressive males prone to making war as Romper Room toddlers, and myself as Miss Kendra.


--and I see Lecktor, and I see Aaron, and I see Kiamat, and I see Stankleberry---

Awesome! I try to stay just the right amount of aggressive so I have a reserve Turbo Boost of Aggression when I need to scare the bejesus out of someone.

I have my two cents... *deposits*

That plane that went down in that field, they said the passengers took it down fighting the wolves. But if you seriosuly just think about it, that was the last plane and alot of people think it was heading for White House. I am not trying to be a troll or start anything but just think about it...the Pentagon, Twin towers had already been hit, and there was a third plane still in the air. It was shot down, I won't try to lie to myself or anyone else. There was more than enough time to scramble jets to intercept it, we are talking about the HQ of all of America here, they probably didn't even blink.

Second. Iran is next...look at that guy, he banned all Western media! Everything! No American movies, music, games, shows, etc. He also thinks the Holocost of WWII was a "myth" created by Americans. Ontop of that now he is ignoring the UN and re-starting is nuclear refining programs to try and build "a clean source of energy!". That doesn't sound right, he talks all that shit about us, bans us, makes fun something like the Holocost, and then says he wants to "peacefully" work on nuclear tech. He is going down.

you actually believe that crap?

I too have wondered why in the hours of the 9/11 attacks that the most capable of Air Forces in the world was not on top of every plane that was off course or not responding to Air Traffic Control.

This is an honest question, not a slam at any politicians or servicemen or anything like that; it is simply a long standing curiousity of mine. Any pointers would be appreciated.

It always amazes me that everything we talk about has to digress into a discussion on the 'Flawed' war in Iraq. I didn't see this post as a justification for war, so much as a praise for law-enforcement protection on all levels (Something we "sheep" of society seem to take for granted on a regular basis).

Also, is the article an over-simplification? Maybe, but aren't most analogies? I loved the part about we expect our safety assured with things like air bags in cars & fire alarms in schools, but get pissed off at armed guards in places like schools and airports. Personally, If I knew the guy sitting next to me in church was a cop & he's carrying, I know it'd make me feel safe (no that I ever don't feel safe at church, but hey...this is a weird world we live in)

great read, Lek....I truly enjoyed it.

I would have not invaded in the first place. You know, stick to trying to stabilize Afganistan. You know, where the fella who masterminded those couple of skyscrapers in New York going down is hiding?

yeah -- funny about that huh. Probably wouldn't have given into Bin Laden's demands to remove US military presence from Saudi Arabia but then that's just me.

That having been said, that wasn't really the question he was asking.

BIG difference between an alarm and a gun toting individual.

If you knew the cops I know, you wouldn't be so certain of your safety. They are not wolves, they are hyenas. But, then, they wouldn't be caught dead in a church.

The answer to the question is we are making the situation far worse. I agree with Murtha -- draw the troops back to the periphery.

Yea....because an alarm is REALLY going to scare away some dope-up gun-toting psychopath....

I mean, look at how many people come running evreytime a car alarm goes off...right?

With regard to the 'aggressive males' commentary - and yes, it's obvious - males traditionally are the ones to make war - but *why* is this?

Let's think about it. Many, many generations of males and females have gone by.




Have females been forced to breed with aggressive males *so* frequently, that all of the males are aggressive now? (not entirely likely, I think - *some* men stayed behind with the females while the rest went a-viking)

Do aggressive males intimidate the other males so effectively that only they breed? (again doubtful, but likely a small factor - some males never 'get any')

Have females found advantage in raising male children to be as misogynistic and aggressive as their gladiatorial fathers, even at the expense of their collective daughters? (if so - a strange twist)

Is it inherent to the biology of males? (careful - this one has scary societal implications!)


I'm curious what people think.

And oooh yes, it has a bearing upon the war issue, if you think about it.

For whatever else, that is at least an answer to the question, albiet one I disagree with.

That won't, I suspect, solve anything domesticly for more than a week or two. As soon as it's done, the people who don't support drawing the troops back yet will be up in arms as much as the people who hate the current situation are, and it won't pacify the extremists who want us out and gone this very second. And, after a handful of weeks, my gut feeling is you would start seeing the people who were initially happy with drawing the troops back start to gravitate to either of the other two camps... With either the logic is, "They are out, now bring 'em home" or "They aren't home yet, so at least let them be useful".

As Machiavelli said(Massively paraphrasing the contents of about three chapters here)... You're never going to make people happy for long, and if they view you as manipulateable of influenceable, they will be unhappy every time you aren't doing exactly what they want.

Maybe you should carry, yourself. Placing one's own safety in the hands of others seems a little bit naive. Cops are concerned with their own safety as well and don't always go rushing into uncertain situations. Cops should be a last resort in a crisis, not a first one. They come to pick up the pieces.

Because throughout history, males have tended to be the ones in the position of power to make war. Simple as that.

Look at some of the queens in Europe. Not a gentle sort of people, many of them. One of them even has a particularly foul... uh... vodka?* concoction in her name.

*I've only had one once, and I don't mix drinks like that very often... It's probably not vodka, but I can't remember what it is for sure.

That said, cops /should/ be placing your well-being pretty damn high on their list of priorities. It's what they are there for.

I'll agree with that statement in general, though.

/Lightly customized Browning Hi Power

Thanks Kendra my IQ just went up 10 points. Hope you feel better soon.

Don't be a "Don't Bee"

The police have no obligation to protect anyone other than criminals.

"Ruth Brunell called the police on 20 different occasions to plead for protection from her husband. He was arrested only one time. One evening Mr. Brunell telephoned his wife and told her he was coming over to kill her. When she called the police, they refused her request that they come to protect her. They told her to call back when he got there. Mr. Brunell stabbed his wife to death before she could call the police to tell them that he was there. The court held that the San Jose police were not liable for ignoring Mrs. Brunell's pleas for help. Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975).
[Those of you in the Silicon Valley, please note what city this happened in!]

Consider the case of Linda Riss, in which a young woman telephoned the police and begged for help because her ex-boyfriend had repeatedly threatened "If I can't have you no one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no-one else will want you." The day after she had pleaded for police protection, the ex-boyfriend threw lye in her face, blinding her in one eye, severely damaging the other, and permanently scarring her features. "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand," wrote a dissenting opinion in her tort suit against the City, "is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her." Riss v. New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. 196. [Note: Linda Riss obeyed the law, yet the law prevented her from arming herself in self-defense.]

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: ``For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.'' The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a ``fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.'' Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).

The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (109 S.Ct. 998, 1989). Frequently these cases are based on an alleged ``special relationship'' between the injured party and the police. In DeShaney the injured party was a boy who was beaten and permanently injured by his father. He claimed a special relationship existed because local officials knew he was being abused, indeed they had ``specifically proclaimed by word and deed [their] intention to protect him against that danger,'' but failed to remove him from his father's custody. ("Domestic Violence -- When Do Police Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect?'' Special Agent Daniel L. Schofield, S.J.D., FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, January, 1991.)

The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a "special relationship,'' concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. ``The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf.'' (DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 109 S.Ct. 998 (1989) at 1006.)

About a year later, the United States Court of Appeals interpreted DeShaney in the California case of Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department. (901 F.2d 696 9th Cir. 1990) Ms. Balistreri, beaten and harassed by her estranged husband, alleged a "special relationship'' existed between her and the Pacifica Police Department, to wit, they were duty-bound to protect her because there was a restraining order against her husband. The Court of Appeals, however, concluded that DeShaney limited the circumstances that would give rise to a "special relationship'' to instances of custody. Because no such custody existed in Balistreri, the Pacifica Police had no duty to protect her, so when they failed to do so and she was injured they were not liable.

A citizen injured because the police failed to protect her can only sue the State or local government in federal court if one of their officials violated a federal statutory or Constitutional right, and can only win such a suit if a "special relationship'' can be shown to have existed, which DeShaney and its progeny make it very difficult to do. Moreover, Zinermon v. Burch (110 S.Ct. 975, 984 1990) very likely precludes Section 1983 liability for police agencies in these types of cases if there is a potential remedy via a State tort action.

Many states, however, have specifically precluded such claims, barring lawsuits against State or local officials for failure to protect, by enacting statutes such as California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals.''

In other words this means the only people the police are duty-bound to protect are criminals in custody, and other persons in custody for such things as mental disorders. YOU have no recourse if the police fail to respond or fail to protect you from injury! "

Yes, I'd have been comfortable with it. Now that all the evidence points to the fact that Iraq was not a threat to us or its neighbors it illustrates to me that the doctrine of preemption is morally bankrupt.

What's the source site?