This defines my views completely.

1. What makes you think I don't own a gun?
2. This is exactly what's wrong with most people's view of Law-Enforcement in this society. They are not there to "pick up the pieces". They are there to serve and protect. This is the kind of viewpoint that makes it impossible for the police to go after someone who "looks" suspicious. They have to wait for the guy to actually commit the crime, first. How about focusing more on stopping crimes from happening, instead of "picking up the pieces" afterwards?

Sorry, forgot to post it.

http://hematite.com/dragon/policeprot.html

For the most part these sorts of disagreemts are arguments over the trade-off between freedom and safety. Because we are all individuals, we will all think that the ideal balance is where we say, but most others will disagree.

Consider the absurd conditions on either extreme:
Complete freedom with no safety. People roaming the streets killing each other indisciminantly
Complete safety with no freedom. Citizens locked into guarded padded cells and cared for with nutritious food and medical attention.

Demaguages on both sides will try to pitch their opponents views as being farther to the extreme than they really are.

The real solution is to reach a compromise, which is what we usually have. Both sides will constantly be trying to move the balance to their ideal point, but that is a good thing. We need to keep evaluating where the balance between freedom and safety should be and be ready to adjust that as needed.

This means we need both:
ability to react to changing events quickly and take pro-active measures to ensure safety
and
the need to evalute the uses of power to prevent and correct abusues of power

When all else fails, call the Shagy D. A.

Nice post ZuZu!

I thought it was.

He asked how I would have handled current conflict - my answer was, "I wouldn't have ever have been boneheaded enough to start it."

You are right, he could have meant "okay, you're made President RIGHT NOW. What do you do?" Which is, I admit, a much harder question.

Agreed.

I worded it incorrectly. I should have said, what would you have them do now? There are follow on questions also. Just saying hell yes bring them home now isn't really reasonable.

Wow, kinda makes a person think twice about calling the police for any reason.

I've been thinking about this thread and the original post. The original article is a dreadful oversimplification of humanity. Only 3 "kinds" of people and never an overlap? No renegade sheep? No authoritarian "sheepdogs" who are as cruel as or even crueler than some wolves (wolves in sheepdog clothing)? As much as I would like to embrace this simplistic view of humanity, I cannot. There are way too many shades of gray, and people do change - and not always for the good.

Human nature is... greedy, for lack of a better term. Look at history. How many peoples are no more due to invading forces? How many belief systems have been converted or co-opted? Someone is always wanting to take over the world and make it what they want - everyone else be damned. Utopia means so many different things for so many different people...

I'm rambling now. I've also become distracted by a very cute 2 yr old who wants his mommy.

We just had a national vote there. One of the questions should have been "would you like us to leave now?" and we should have respected the answer.

I have an idea that fits perfectly. I don't know if it has been tried before, but I'm sure it will work. Poor people commit more crimes. More poor people are minorities. We should impose mandatory detainment of all minorities who aren't in the right neighborhoods. Problem solved, no more suspicious people.

I am sure you have a better solution and I am eager to hear your plan for increasing police clairvoyance.

I generally agree with Lecktor's post. It reflects the broad base of society.

However, it fails to address a more prevasive problem. There are wolves in sheep's clothing, pretending to be sheepdogs.

Lots of them.

I accept that.

Wow...First we get the whole "Unjust War in Iraq" diatribe...and now we've thrown in Class Warfare to boot (way to go...Chance!)

Here's an even better Idea...The Police are just a bunch of White-Supremist Biggots anyway, so lets' get rid of the whole lot of them. Then we'll never have anybody wrongfully arrested or, as in California, wrongfully executed (Even if they did kill a bunch of innocent people). How's that...

(See, I can play the extremist game, too)

Seriously though, I actually believe there can be a balance (as Zuzu posted) between freedom & safety. I just feel that law-enforcement as a whole gets a bum rap. Are there bad cops? sure there are, but I gotta believe they're the minority (They are the only once that get the attention, though).

There are jerks and assholes in every profession in the world, why should cops be any different. I just refuse to let a couple of bad apples spoil my view on the whole bunch. (But you go ahead & be a pessimist if it makes you feel better)

And, just out of pure curiosity, what if they had answered "no"?

I know a lot of people to whom the phrase "respect their wishes" has "as long as they happen to agree with what I already have decided" tacked on un-said to the end of it.

I'm not suggesting you personally are this way, Chip, but I think it's far too easy to /guess/ what might happen, but hard to actually /know/ what would happen, and we shouldn't assume it's always the one we think it is.

My personal view is that we should stay and clean up the mess we made, but not if they'd rather take their chances on their own. Had we given them the chance to choose it would have made me feel better that we're actually there to give them the freedom to make their own choices and not just putting window dressing on a grab for resources and strategic base locations.

Well, Kevn is right in principle. A cop's sole legal duty is to arrest lawbreakers. Your well-being doesn't actually enter into it (save insofar as outright neglect and such can bring lawsuits).

"To Serve and Protect" is not the motto of most local police departments.

That analogy was alright, but nothing ground breaking. You cannot water down a subject matter like this into a message board posting. But I noticed someone who saw past the analogy...



What it all boils down to is: Watch your back! Nobody else is!

Interesting thing is, If you look at our history we've NEVER done that. I mean, we still have troops in Germany!!! I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just wondering why, with this conflict (and actually, ever since Vietnam if you think about it), people expect a 100% pullout of our troops and expect it to be done immediately. Even if we said we were going to withdraw, It'd probably take the better part of a year (maybe longer) to pull out completely.

Germany was an aggressor. Iraq, after being pummeled in the first Gulf war, was not. Our presence in Germany has been a stabilizing force. Our presence in Iraq has been just the opposite.

The thread certainly did have a purpose. As stated in the thread subject "This defines my views completely." I fully expected dissent and ridicule when posting it. It is completely predictable on these forums.

This is true. Withdrawal should be handled delicately and not rushed.

That is purely a matter of scope and perspective.


Germany became what it did because of the crushing pressure placed upon it after its defeat in WWI.

When it finally rebounded, there were obvious social ramifications. The Marshall Plan was a 'no brainer' when looking backward from the late 1940's, or even today.

And until the Soviet Union collapsed for its own reasons, the 'stability' of keeping troops in Germany was a very shaky kind of stability. Just one Cuban Missile Crisis away from being utterly unstable - far less stable than no troops there at all, on either side.




"Iraq", as we call it, is the remnant of a loose aggregate of British colonial districts, just like other 'countries' in the region.

The idea of the nation of Iraq is not obvious; many in the region dream of a Pan-Arabic state, while others dream of independence. Maintaining the status quo was the least politically damaging choice for the Bush administration, but it did nothing to solve the inherent social conflicts there.


The keen observer would note that even when when the United States was in open war with Iraq, it also protected the region too. At NO point was the United States willing to let Iran, or any other nation take the region.

So - when will the United States cease to be politically and militarily involved?

When there is no oil in Iraq or there is no fossil fuel economy, whichever comes first. Something to contemplate while topping off at the station.

The bastard!

My point isn't "Class Warfare" is wrong. That would be a bit out of left field.

My point is that preventative law enforcement, like the kind of stopping people without proper motive or evidence (as implied by demonizing a viewpoint "that makes it impossible for the police to go after someone who 'looks' suspicious", is ridiculous.

Cue P.K. Dick.

fin