This guy decided he needed to be a troll and drop about twenty “America will invade anywhere for oil” memes from about 20 years ago here. You know, because “‘Murica bad.”
What imperialistic oil adventures has America been on since GW? Because I’m positive that we went all in on domestic production, and also haven’t invaded another country, or gained any new territory. It seems like your comment is also outdated.
This meme contains a common accusation from 20 years ago, but I think it’s odd that it is being posted in 2024, long after it became clear that whatever the purpose of the invasion of Iraq actually was, it wasn’t to obtain oil wealth.
Well, yes - George W. Bush appears in retrospect to have been sincere. Some of the other powerful supporters of the war did profit from it, but at the expense of American taxpayers rather than Iraqis.
He initially accused Hussein of being in league with Al-Qaeda too. He pressured the shit out of the intelligence community to corroborate his story. When they refused, it was switched to what you just described. People give Bush too much credit. He was just very dumb.
Also this is like the fourth “US NEEDS OIL” meme I’ve seen today lmao. Domestic production is at an all time high, and very little oil produced in the Middle East even comes to the states. But we shouldn’t let facts get in the way of this weird meme campaign
It was to remake the area Pax Americana as dictated by the the neo con “Project for a New American Century”. Basically republicans making it up as they go along and assuming destabilizing an entire region would somehow stabilize the larger picture.
“ In 1998, Kristol and Kagan advocated regime change in Iraq throughout the Iraq disarmament process through articles that were published in the New York Times…”
Basically they’d been lobbying for the Iraq war since the Clinton admin but normal people saw how fucking stupid of an endeavor it was.
It took 9-11 and a Dick Cheney led psyops campaign to finally make it happen.
The result…?
Chaos, dead soldiers, no real benefit to US, a destruction of our image abroad, a waste of trillions of dollars etc… no real remaking of the region and the “morality” of this new century now belongs to MAGAtes and trump actively arguing he is a dictator who can stay in office indefinitely and kill his opponents.
Way to go republicans… Also now we have idiots spamming stupid memes that show they can’t tell the different between the 90s and their own asshole.
It was the same with the original development of the country.
The difference is apparent when compared to Canada.
In Canada the pioneers were led or joined by the police, the newly created Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Law and order arrived either before or with the new pioneers.
In the US, it was the other way around. Pioneers went west without any officials, police or law enforcement. Pioneers dealt with everything by the force of a gun. Whoever had a gun was the one with power and controlled everything … you could be a good moral person and lead a community or you could be a gang leader, decrepit, immoral and unjust, as long as you had a gun, you could do whatever you wanted.
Yeah. The US is a huge area with a relatively low population density and abundant natural resources. It participated in both world wars, and was nearly the only country to not take any real damage from either of them.
There hasn’t been a war on US soil since the US civil war. There has barely even been any damage to a US state. In WWII they bombed Pearl Harbor before Hawaii was a state, invaded the Aleutian Islands before Alaska was a state, and one floatplane launched from a sub tried to set fire to the forests around Oregon and failed.
The countries that had been superpowers in 1900 were recovering from mass casualties and massive damage after 2 world wars.
It’s no surprise that in Europe one of the only countries not to participate in WWII was Switzerland, and they’re also rich today.
Defunding them and diverting those resources into social services that have been shown to actually give back in meaningful ways to the communities and safety/effectively deescalate tense situations without committing atrocities while perpetuating systemic hate-based violence.
There does need to be someone with a gun I can call if someone is literally breaking into my home intent on murdering my family. But outside of those extreme and fringe outlier circumstances, society would be much better served by well-funded social workers and emergency first responders who are trained to resolve conflicts while actually helping those in need of it without threat of eminent deadly violence.
Reality is and always should have been cops do cop things. Locally. Traffic shit should be department of transportation. etc. etc.
Make local cops walk local beats and only focus on the community safety and suddenly things get better. ‘Us vs Them’ is a pretty easy thing to spin when they only are a corrective force with a chip on their shoulder.
Proper training, education, and being held accountable for your actions will filter out the bad blood quickly enough.
Defund is frankly a word that was selected poorly. It implies punishment. It only amplifies the ‘Us vs Them’ narrative on both ‘sides.’
ACAB? No. Problem with corruption and a system that spits out at best tight lipped accomplices and at worst zealots brandishing ‘might makes right’ ideals? Yep.
There does need to be someone with a gun I can call if someone is literally breaking into my home intent on murdering my family
well-funded social workers and emergency first responders who are trained to resolve conflicts while actually helping those in need of it without threat of eminent deadly violence.
If we do things properly, then no one should have a need to break in to your house (because everyone's material needs would be met), and if you've given someone reason to kill you, calling someone with a gun to kill them isn't going to solve anything. If they're mentally unwell, calling a person with a gun is even worse.
The second option you gave is more than enough 99.99% of the time.
Some degree of community defence might be imperative, but it should never be one person with one gun who is in charge of "enforcement", but everyone would be trained and everyone would have access, and in a time of real need (like an external and violent threat to the community) those ready and available can do what is needed, but again - killing someone isn't it 99.99% of the time.
We have this many places in Europe. The police are not even allowed to wear guns in Norway (and frankly do not need them) unless there is some special intelligence or something making a reason for it. That does not absolve the need for state controlled monopoly on violence. It only means that is should be limited and wielded with the utmost care.
Not saying the concept of police is bad, but the situation here is that some cops have been such assholes that all the good cops quit. Now only the worse individuals remain, and they protect each other so they fear nothing
To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
That might describe a good cop, but it doesn’t describe the system that makes good cops, let alone how that system might come about. All this allows us to do is sigh at every horrendously violated point.
Much worse for who? Who does the police actually benefit today? and who is it harming? do you care about those people? The police are not even legally required to protect you, and don't in practice, why do you think they do anything to benefit society? Why are you so desperate to maintain the boot on your neck?
Thousands of people and organisations have answered your question in great depth over the years, all you have to do is be willing to set your obvious existing bias aside, and look.
My point is: if police were completely abolished, conservatives and the far right would feel very unsafe and immediately form militias that enforce their values. That would be much worse for everyone who doesn’t share their values, of course.
I get that in many countries, police is badly regulated and you might say that this wouldn’t actually change much, but I’d rather seek more accountability for police, compared to a complete abolishion, leaving a power vaccum that’ll be filled by right wing militias with zero accountability.
Divesting seems good to me though, much of the police is certainly overfunded (due to law and order populism) and does useless shit (like the war on drugs), while education, social workers and programs against poverty are severely underfunded. Changing this would surely help a lot with crime reduction and other issues.
Thanks for the links by the way, I will look more into them when I have more time to see if my concerns regarding abolishion are addressed.
I have many friends and family who have joined the Scottish Police and given years of their lives to serving their communities, risking their own lives and health. Should I say fuck them too?
I joined the police for six months before deciding it wasn’t the career for me and got back into charity work. Are you saying Fuck Me now or just for the six months I was in? Did my fuckery expire?
How can thousands, millions of people doing a job be reduced to such a binary sentiment.
You’re a fucking idiot. I live in a small town up in the mountains in Europe, and some absolute fucking dimwits like you have been going round spraying ACAB on stuff
Our two policemen and two policewomen are the genuinely nicest folk you’ll ever meet and do loads and loads of good for the community. When they’re not busy they volunteer to deliver free meals to the elderly and help out at the charity shop
Tarring everyone with the same brush is something simpletons do, which is probably why they didn’t accept you into the police 😂
While acab is probably too generalized a term to apply to ALL police forces in the world… Interpreting acab in absolutes is also kinda silly and needlessly pedantic.
If I were to say all Nazi are bastards… Would we be making the same arguments? Surely there were Nazi that were forced to join the party, surely there were Nazi giving years of their lives to serving their communities, risking their lives and health.
The point of ACAB is to highlight the inherent and institutional failures of policing actions native to the vast majority of western democracies. Where police are primarily utilized to protect property and institutional power, rather than protecting the most disadvantaged communities in our society.
Trouble with that theory is that I think regular people won’t hear something like ‘All Cops Are Bastards’ and immediately think ‘well they probably don’t mean all cops’. It literally says it there.
Maybe because I’m Scottish living in Scotland I’m separate from the US side of the movement/argument but knowing so many good people in the service who have probably done more for their communities than some people spray painting on walls it just sounds so blatant. If it was a different slogan then I doubt people would have an issue with it but not everyone hears all the details about what it apparently means online or whatnot, they just see the words.
No desire to be pedantic at all, just explaining why a lot of folk won’t get behind the message.
ACAISAETOSOOSBTNOTPI or All Cops Are Inherently Supporting And Enforcing The Opressive Systems Of Our Society By The Nature Of The Policing Institution doesn’t quite have the same ring to it though.
I mean I get it, “ACAB” sounds a bit like an over-reaction and I wouldn’t use that term to talk about Belgian cops, but within leftist circles like lemmy I think it’s an acceptable shorthand since 90+ percent of people already understand The Discourse™ on some level.
Yeah I get it, I just don’t like when things are reduced to all x’s are y’s, think that kind of polarised thinking isn’t helpful when the world has a whole lot of grey in it. Equally if someone is happy to post a comment like that online I don’t think there is anything bad about chatting it through like reasonable humans.
I mean how about instead of hyperbolizing, we actually find a good acronym that does less to push people away from our world-view? If the problem is the system, find an acronym about the system. It doesn’t have to be perfect, but if we don’t genuinely think every single cop is bad, we should stop saying it, no?
And I don’t think so, it’s just another word for progressive or any other number of synonymous words which equate to “we want to push society out of stale behaviors and encourage constant reevaluation and adjustment.
Some people just can’t handle that sort of thing for one reason or another
See, that expresses that it’s a systemic issue and that consequently some cops are bastards without damning everyone who is part of a large diverse group. It’s even a simpler acronym. Brilliant
As a New Zealander, I feel the same way about ACAB as you. I definitely have issues with the Police and I definitely think they’re a racist institution (NZ stats back that up) but ACAB is a shitty slogan IMO
How can thousands, millions of people doing a job be reduced to such a binary statement
The reason why most people (including myself) say ACAB is because of the system of policing, not the merits of any given police officer. Systems are inflexible and adverse to change. Individual good cops can exist, but once again, the system itself is the problem. A good cop can never fix the system, nor could a hundred, or a thousand. A million could, at best, give the illusion of a good system. People often say a rotten apple spoils the bunch, and I think that looking at policing from the perspective of individual rotten cops, or rotten cops “spoiling the bunch” is problematic when the system itself is rotten. And for participating in the system, yes, allcops are bastards.
Okay I agree with the idea of a rotten system as think that generally many legal or government institutions are rotten and self serving for the rich.
But the flaw in the argument from my perspective is that if all the decent people don’t go into the police, the ones with integrity, a moral compass who genuinely try to help people and do the right thing, then that leaves the bad apples.
So for going into a system and hoping to change it for the better, help/protect their community from criminals and the bad apples and make a real difference in lives, by that logic those people striving for better are still bastards and that just doesn’t feel right to me.
The counter is that the system can’t be changed due to its inherent flaws and foundations in racism and elitism. The system needs to be replaced wholesale, which as big of a proposal as that is is more realistic than changing the existing system.
I’m sorry, foundations in racism? Elitism I can see, sure. Like, doing the bidding of the upper class and stuff. And a few higher ups in the police force are really arrogant. But racism? I’ve genuinely never seen or heard of any cops being racist where I live. If anything, lots of cops here are kids of immigrants.
The actual system isn’t the problem, it almost never is. If anything what’s missing in some countries are checks and balances to keep people reigned in while they’re in positions of power.
You’re missing the forest for the trees here. And, it’s worth specifying that I’m talking the US here, I should have been clear about that before.
I’m not talking about cops, I’m talking about the system itself. Every institution in America has deep roots in racist ideology. Every single one. The constitution was written in a way that allowed for slavery. Police forces established and enforced red lining, something that is having knock on effects even today. If the policing system weren’t inherently racist, we wouldn’t have the disproportionate use of deadly force against BIPOC folks. Elitism itself in America was first for the wealthy that owned slaves, and much of our policing culture still has echoes of the force used to keep slaves in line.
There are plenty of cops that are good people, I’ve known some. But they’re still bastards because they uphold and perpetuate the system that currently exists. I always think of the line in Wreck it Ralph when thinking about this, ‘just because you’re a bad guy doesn’t mean you’re a bad guy. That’s the ‘good’ cops. They might be good people but they’re still the bad guys.
if all the decent people don’t go into the police, the ones with integrity… that leaves the bad apples
and
[good cops that] help/protect their people from … bad apples
I think this is flawed. The policing system is built in such a way that it protects the bad apples at all costs. From police unions making it difficult to get rid of the bad cops, to the laws, legal precedent, and cultural norms which make it impossible to prosecute them. In the US, police are allowed to lie to people, but they are often trusted in court, regardless if they regularly lie. The police often form a Blue wall of silence in order to protect other cops when literally perjuring themselves in the process. Qualified immunity makes it impossible for people to seek damages from individual cops when they violate their rights. While good cops might break the blue wall of silence (and they might get punished for it) and they don’t violate other’s rights and therefore are not protected in court by qualified immunity, the participation of these good cops doesnothingto address the system in the first place.
You and I both agree that there are many legal or governmental institutions that are rotten, but police fundamentally protect them and enforce their will. It is police who break strikes. It is the police that arrest protestors and activists. It is the police that hold the power to call legal protests illegal by declaring them riots. Fundamentally, the police protect the system that lets them be corrupt, and make it difficult to change it outside the impossible task of making change within electoral systems.
… protect their community from criminals …
Police are often an ineffective force at catching criminals. One of the best examples of this is sexual assault and rape. 70% of survivors do not involve the police. All the survivors I know did not call the police. They have good reason not to, 24% of them are arrested after doing so! If a person belongs to a group that is often oppressed by the police, such as gay and trans people, or a group that is criminalized, such as sex workers, there is nowhere for these people to turn in order to get justice.
In the event these people do call the police, odds are there will be no arrests. Only 5% of cases will result in arrest. Fewer will result in convictions and incarceration. (WATR Zine (this is a download link))
On a more ironic note, Policing increases crime. After NYC cops went on strike and reduced proactive policing, major crime reports fell.
So for [cops] going into a system and hoping to change it for the better … and make a real difference in lives …
While I wholeheartedly support trying to make a change for the better, and protecting and building community, I think police are a terrible way to do so. I think working outside the system is a much better way to materially help people’s lives. Organizations like Food Not Bombs helps people with food insecurity eat. Instead of joining the police which might make you destroy homeless encampments and make them worse off, you could instead volunteer at soup kitchens and homeless shelters. Joining an antifascist organization can help protect communities from fascists, but joining the police might make you side with the fascists and protect people with demonstrably harmful rhetoric, or worse, oppressive and murderous, fascist, intent
by that logic [cops] striving for better are still bastards and that just doesn’t feel right to me.
I still think it is fair to call them bastards. While it sucks to call someone with good intentions a bastard, ACAB points out that police as a whole is a flawed institution, and participating in it does not change that, it reinforces the legitimacy of it, and brings erroneous hope to people that it can be fixed from within, when in reality it needs drastic change if not total abolition.
Again no hate here just a genuine conversation
I genuinely appreciate this, ngl. I live in a very conservative area and when speaking about this, I’m used to discussion quickly devolving into meaningless argument
Even though I agree with all of this, it seems like this speaks more to an american perspective than to any other given country, and all your citations are from an american perspective as well. Though I think you could maybe make an argument on how the police are conventionally leveraged to protect private property, and private property is bad, and how if you were to take away the “protecting private property” element of their job description, you’d basically be abolishing the police. You could make that argument, along more universal lines, but that’s kind of contingent on people agreeing that both private property is bad, and that police are exclusively the protectors of private property, and nothing else.
In any case, I wouldn’t really be willing to make so certain of a statement on the police departments of other countries. I’ve never really heard anyone say anything bad about, say, finnish police, for example. British cops, they wear funny hats, they go “oy”, and shit, I’ve not really heard anything good about them, but finnish cops? Never heard bad about them. I also think a lot of what makes the police in america bastards, is because the prison system here is so fucked up and so punitive, and so particularly bad, compared to a lot of other countries.
I also kind of like, as an aside point. What do we do about park rangers? They’re technically cops, but you wouldn’t really hear anyone thinking that we shouldn’t have them, or that they should be actively abolished. I say this to mean, you know, as with the first paragraph, what do we really mean by “police”? You’ve given a pretty good description of the fact that the police suck, but not really why, or how they could be fixed.
I think it’s disingenuous to have a slogan that targets individuals then claim you’re just commenting on the system when questioned. If it’s about the system say the system sucks.
Think about it this way. As a cop, your job isn’t to help the community or to keep people safe or any of that happy wholesome crap. Your job is to enforce the law. That’s it. It doesn’t matter if the law is unfair or unethical, it’s your job to enforce it. Sure, maybe some people become cops without fully understanding this, but on some level, they must know.
The laws are made by politicians, and I’m certain that no matter your political beliefs, you can agree that most of them are crooked. Ergo, everyone who signs up to enforce their laws is a bastard. If somebody truly wishes to serve the community and save people, they become firefighters instead. It’s almost the same skillset and if you’re willing to become a cop, you shouldn’t be afraid of the danger either.
By that logic, all people in armed forces are bastards. Given that a lot of poor people end up in the forces because it’s their only option, I’m not prepared to say all soldiers are bastards. Similar logic applies to Police officers. Also I’m a New Zealander and our Police force is nowhere as corrupt as in the US
The main thing is it is about the participation in the system that makes all cops bastards. In my opinion, the good thing about this slogan is it starts discussions and debates about the system itself and how even “good cops” contribute to it when cops do something bad.
I’m not gonna pick a side here as I don’t wanna fan the flames, but I will say that I have a good deal of bones to pick with police oversight systems (or lack thereof).
However, this got me thinking: would you say the same thing about restaurant servers? By becoming a server in the U.S., are you not perpetuating a tipping paradigm that has systematically denied the working class billions of dollars of wages that un-tipped employees are entitled to? It’s fairly clear that a “good server” cannot fix the system by participating in it, and given that a server makes the same amount of money as a cop—if not more—it isn’t really fair to say that one group “needs” the job while the other does not.
No, I don’t think that participation in tipping culture is a good comparison to participating in the policing system.
The only accurate comparisons are: The system is harmful, a good server cannot fix it by participating in it, and servers materially benefit from it.
First, as shitty as it is to not participate in as a customer, tipping culture is, for the most part, optional. When a server indirectly asks me to tip as a customer, I could easily hit the custom tip button and enter 0.00$. That would be shitty on my part as I would be reducing the income of waitstaff who rely on tips. If I tip, I now have a few dollars less, and the waitstaff have a more livable wage. If a police officer asks me to get on the ground with my hands on the back of my head, I don’t have much of a choice. If I do, the police officer will likely arrest me, and this compliance is only coming at the threat of what happens if I don’t. If I refuse, then the police officer could shoot me (if he deems me a sufficient threat), taze me, pepper spray me, or otherwise physically force me to the ground and possibly injure me. Further, I could get in significant legal trouble for not following the orders, most often in the form of resisting arrest, or possibly getting charged with assaulting a police officer if I act in self defense, regardless if I act within the law. This problem here lies in the fact that there is hierarchic authority that a police officer has which waitstaff lack.
Second, there is something that servers can do to make the system better outside of participating in the system laid out by their boss. While not easy, and with some risks attached, waitstaff can unionize and demand better pay, such that no tips are needed. Obviously, it isn’t super likely that the union would remove tips because waitstaff like their tips, but this act will fix one part of the system, being the part that they are not paid living wages before tips. While unlikely, widespread unionization could cause people to want to tip less knowing that waitstaff are able to subsist on wages alone and therefore impact tipping culture.
Cops don’t have this ability. I’d argue that police unions are not the same as a typical labor union. Like a normal union, they provide the workers protection from being fired, and have a positive impact on wages. Unlike a police union, police officers are called to break up the strikes of labor unions. If the police union went on strike, the only theoretical way for their employer, the state, to break it up would be using another militaristic arm of the state, be it the state reserve militia, if it exists in that state, or the military in other cases. Unlike calling the police, there is significant political capital being expended when doing this.
Another point to consider with that is which cops are fired, what leads to that happening, the impact of it, and how they are protected. Often, it’s “bad cops” rather than good cops, though both is possible. The union often steps in to protect even the worst cops from being fired. The impact of a bad cop is significantly more harmful than a bad server. A bad cop is violent, often kills or maims people, and terrorizes communities. A bad server might spit in my food, let it get cold/warm, or not deliver it at all. Short of physically hitting me (which a union will not protect them for), the most harmful thing they could do is steal my credit card details. Bad cops are fully and legally able to do much worse through civil asset forfeiture.
Lastly, and most importantly, the context of the system is vastly different. I’d argue the most harmful system that is held up by a server working a job isn’t tipping culture, but wage labor (and capitalism) itself. Just like police, anyone participating in this system cannot fix it by participating in it. Unlike police, those participating in wage labor lack the power to directly reinforce it through violent action because they lack the state’s monopoly on violence that the police lovingly wield. Any harm done by a person reinforcing this system can be offset by various acts, such as creating and participating in labor unions, creating co-ops, protesting and agitating for socialism, etc.
Police, on the other hand, not only indirectly reinforce this system by being payed wages, but they also directly reinforce this system by making it difficult to combat wage labor by breaking up strikes, protecting private property, terrorizing and killing protesters, killing organizers, etc.
Worse yet, police also directly support the hierarchic structure of the state, an unjust hierarchy, and the unjust hierarchies of white supremacy, patriarchy, ableism and cisheteronormativity. Police have always been the arm of the state that has had their literal boot on the neck of black people, suffocating their communities. When the police are not the ones to harm these communities, they often don’t do that much to prevent it from happening, or prevent it from happening in the future. Let’s not forget that about 50% of those killed by cops have some sort of disability, or their historic violence against LGBTQ people, and how LGBTQ rights were only taken by clashing with the cops at Stonewall and demanding rights. While police aren’t the sole people upholding these hierarchies, they are one of the most arms of the state doing it.
lemmy.today
Oldest