US Anti-Police Protests and Riots Thread II

[Ifreann]

The police are one of those organisations that should, if they're doing their job properly, want to make themselves redundant.

well to be honest i think most police officer think this but you know how we are irrational and stupid so the police will always be there until humans eat a big ole whopping piece of humble pie.

If anything I would say that I believe the opposite. Most people who don't wear a badge would, probably, agree that the police should be working to put themselves out of a job. But most people who do wear a badge, they think themselves an absolute necessity to society. Or at least, that's what I think people think.

[Vassenor]

Looks like the National Guard is starting to abuse Geneva Convention protected symbols now too.

In open defiance of US law, too.

[Gig em Aggies]

Looks like the National Guard is starting to abuse Geneva Convention protected symbols now too.

In open defiance of US law, too.

most likely there just medics I mean why would a National Guardsman try to impersonate a Red cross member?

[No State Here]

This picture’s making the rounds, thoughts?

[Galloism]

This picture’s making the rounds, thoughts?

(Image)

I’m generally against violent threats AND massacring old sayings.

[Loben The 2nd]

This picture’s making the rounds, thoughts?

(Image)

Clearly the fault of cops.

[Greater Miami Shores]

This picture’s making the rounds, thoughts?

(Image)

Clearly the fault of cops.

A different take, Clearly not the fault of cops.

[Loben The 2nd]

Looks like the National Guard is starting to abuse Geneva Convention protected symbols now too.

In open defiance of US law, too.

Geneva protected symbols?

[Valrifell]

Looks like the National Guard is starting to abuse Geneva Convention protected symbols now too.

In open defiance of US law, too.

Geneva protected symbols?

It's in violation of international and US law to do that, is the point.

[Loben The 2nd]

Geneva protected symbols?

It's in violation of international and US law to do that, is the point.

Yes but what part of international law is being violated at that instance?

[Shazbotdom]

It's in violation of international and US law to do that, is the point.

Yes but what part of international law is being violated at that instance?

The Geneva Convention makes the Red Cross Symbol a protected symbol hat cannot be used for anything other than official Red Cross actions.

If they are using it for anything other than a Triage center for injuries, then it is against the Geneva Convention, of which the US is a Signatory.

[Loben The 2nd]

Yes but what part of international law is being violated at that instance?

The Geneva Convention makes the Red Cross Symbol a protected symbol hat cannot be used for anything other than official Red Cross actions.

If they are using it for anything other than a Triage center for injuries, then it is against the Geneva Convention, of which the US is a Signatory.

I’m certain someone, somewhere is upset.

[Shazbotdom]

The Geneva Convention makes the Red Cross Symbol a protected symbol hat cannot be used for anything other than official Red Cross actions.

If they are using it for anything other than a Triage center for injuries, then it is against the Geneva Convention, of which the US is a Signatory.

I’m certain someone, somewhere is upset.

Well, if it really wasn't used for any sort of official Red Cross situation, then the US could face stiff sanctions from the International Community, including and not limited to ICC Charges for the violation of the Geneva Convention for anyone involved in the decision to put up that tent.

[Loben The 2nd]

I’m certain someone, somewhere is upset.

Well, if it really wasn't used for any sort of official Red Cross situation, then the US could face stiff sanctions from the International Community, including and not limited to ICC Charges for the violation of the Geneva Convention for anyone involved in the decision to put up that tent.

Annnd how was it used in this situation?

[Greater Miami Shores]

The Geneva Convention makes the Red Cross Symbol a protected symbol hat cannot be used for anything other than official Red Cross actions.

If they are using it for anything other than a Triage center for injuries, then it is against the Geneva Convention, of which the US is a Signatory.

I’m certain someone, somewhere is upset.

A different take from a right wing perspective, it looks like leftist protestors are upset. The National Guard is preventing protestors from moving forward, The National Guard has police shields and helmets on, the one who took one of The National Guard's shield has committed a crime. I don't support violence from the right or the left.

[Picairn]

Well, if it really wasn't used for any sort of official Red Cross situation, then the US could face stiff sanctions from the International Community, including and not limited to ICC Charges for the violation of the Geneva Convention for anyone involved in the decision to put up that tent.

The only people who can end this is the US citizens with the power to vote and remove Trump and his minions.

The US is not a member of the ICC. In fact, with its status as the world's sole superpower, it stands above the ICC's jurisdiction. Congress under the Bush administration even passed a law essentially saying: "If the ICC puts our service members on trial then we will invade the Netherlands and destroy the ICC". And who can stop the US from doing so?

Any international organization will automatically become useless without the world's strongest nation backing it. And sanctions? Pitiful. The US has the world's strongest economy. If any nation attempts to place sanctions on the US then it can say goodbye to its own economy. That's how powerful and influential the US is.

No, it's up to the US citizens alone to end this madness.

[Hrythingland]

Well, if it really wasn't used for any sort of official Red Cross situation, then the US could face stiff sanctions from the International Community, including and not limited to ICC Charges for the violation of the Geneva Convention for anyone involved in the decision to put up that tent.

The only people who can end this is the US citizens with the power to vote and remove Trump and his minions.

The US is not a member of the ICC. In fact, with its status as the world's sole superpower, it stands above the ICC's jurisdiction. Congress under the Bush administration even passed a law essentially saying: "If the ICC puts our service members on trial then we will invade the Netherlands and destroy the ICC". And who can stop the US from doing so?

Any international organization will automatically become useless without the world's strongest nation backing it. And sanctions? Pitiful. The US has the world's strongest economy. If any nation attempts to place sanctions on the US then it can say goodbye to its own economy. That's how powerful and influential the US is.

No, it's up to the US citizens alone to end this madness.

LMFAO. Based.

[Picairn]

LMFAO. Based.

Well, you gotta do what you can, especially when you have:

• The strongest Army since the USSR collapsed.
• The most powerful Navy since the British Empire collapsed.
• The most powerful Air Force since the...? Fuck it, USAF's power is unprecedented.

[Rojava Free State]

Well, if it really wasn't used for any sort of official Red Cross situation, then the US could face stiff sanctions from the International Community, including and not limited to ICC Charges for the violation of the Geneva Convention for anyone involved in the decision to put up that tent.

The only people who can end this is the US citizens with the power to vote and remove Trump and his minions.

The US is not a member of the ICC. In fact, with its status as the world's sole superpower, it stands above the ICC's jurisdiction. Congress under the Bush administration even passed a law essentially saying: "If the ICC puts our service members on trial then we will invade the Netherlands and destroy the ICC". And who can stop the US from doing so?

Any international organization will automatically become useless without the world's strongest nation backing it. And sanctions? Pitiful. The US has the world's strongest economy. If any nation attempts to place sanctions on the US then it can say goodbye to its own economy. That's how powerful and influential the US is.

No, it's up to the US citizens alone to end this madness.

The US would have to nuke Europe. If the war was conventional and went anything like our war in Afghanistan, the Europeans would whip our broke and dysfunctional asses before invading and occupying the United States.

I frankly believe american war criminals should stand trial in the Hague whether Americans are willing to see justice done or not. I wouldnt mind if that one cocksucker Gallagher was disappeared in the middle of the night only to turn up in the Hague a few days later facing the rest of his life in prison.

[Cisairse]

The only people who can end this is the US citizens with the power to vote and remove Trump and his minions.

The US is not a member of the ICC. In fact, with its status as the world's sole superpower, it stands above the ICC's jurisdiction. Congress under the Bush administration even passed a law essentially saying: "If the ICC puts our service members on trial then we will invade the Netherlands and destroy the ICC". And who can stop the US from doing so?

Any international organization will automatically become useless without the world's strongest nation backing it. And sanctions? Pitiful. The US has the world's strongest economy. If any nation attempts to place sanctions on the US then it can say goodbye to its own economy. That's how powerful and influential the US is.

No, it's up to the US citizens alone to end this madness.

The US would have to nuke Europe. If the war was conventional and went anything like our war in Afghanistan, the Europeans would whip our broke and dysfunctional asses before invading and occupying the United States.

I frankly believe american war criminals should stand trial in the Hague whether Americans are willing to see justice done or not. I wouldnt mind if that one cocksucker Gallagher was disappeared in the middle of the night only to turn up in the Hague a few days later facing the rest of his life in prison.

Despite having a lower population, U.S. has a significantly higher GDP than EU, and a ridiculously higher percent-of-GDP military budget (like 2x actually).

How would they beat us in a conventional war

[Rojava Free State]

The US would have to nuke Europe. If the war was conventional and went anything like our war in Afghanistan, the Europeans would whip our broke and dysfunctional asses before invading and occupying the United States.

I frankly believe american war criminals should stand trial in the Hague whether Americans are willing to see justice done or not. I wouldnt mind if that one cocksucker Gallagher was disappeared in the middle of the night only to turn up in the Hague a few days later facing the rest of his life in prison.

Despite having a lower population, U.S. has a significantly higher GDP than EU, and a ridiculously higher percent-of-GDP military budget (like 2x actually).

How would they beat us in a conventional war

We literally couldn't beat a bunch of jihadists with rusty AK47s. Shit, right now we're losing a fight against a virus. The US can't fight a wasp nest these days. Being able to win a war against the EU but not the Taliban is like lifting 500 pounds but being unable to lift 5.

We're a has-been nation, comparable to 1800s china.

[Cisairse]

Despite having a lower population, U.S. has a significantly higher GDP than EU, and a ridiculously higher percent-of-GDP military budget (like 2x actually).

How would they beat us in a conventional war

We literally couldn't beat a bunch of jihadists with rusty AK47s. Shit, right now we're losing a fight against a virus. The US can't fight a wasp nest these days. Being able to win a war against the EU but not the Taliban is like lifting 500 pounds but being unable to lift 5.

We're a has-been nation, comparable to 1800s china.

Keyword is conventional war. We ripped Saddam to shreds. It's insurgencies that we're bad at fighting.

[Trollgaard]

We literally couldn't beat a bunch of jihadists with rusty AK47s. Shit, right now we're losing a fight against a virus. The US can't fight a wasp nest these days. Being able to win a war against the EU but not the Taliban is like lifting 500 pounds but being unable to lift 5.

We're a has-been nation, comparable to 1800s china.

Keyword is conventional war. We ripped Saddam to shreds. It's insurgencies that we're bad at fighting.

Well said.

Rojava, do your homework.

[Atheris]

We literally couldn't beat a bunch of jihadists with rusty AK47s. Shit, right now we're losing a fight against a virus. The US can't fight a wasp nest these days. Being able to win a war against the EU but not the Taliban is like lifting 500 pounds but being unable to lift 5.

We're a has-been nation, comparable to 1800s china.

Keyword is conventional war. We ripped Saddam to shreds. It's insurgencies that we're bad at fighting.

Indeed. The United States is the world's greatest power if it ever comes to conventional war.

The United States is bad at fighting insurgencies because the US has only had to fight insurgencies so many times in its history. In fact, the only ones I can think of off the top of my head are North Vietnam (which wasn't even lost because we were fighting an insurgency, just because the administration decided against bombing the North) and Iraq.

Edit: And Afghanistan, technically, but the Taliban aren't really a threat to many at this point. We wiped them the fuck off the face of the earth.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

And sanctions? Pitiful. The US has the world's strongest economy. If any nation attempts to place sanctions on the US then it can say goodbye to its own economy. That's how powerful and influential the US is.

This would be true if the US economy was half or more of the world economy. Maybe you think it is (actually it's about a quarter) but I think you've made the classic American mistake of thinking a plurality is a majority.

Of course sanctions against the US would have limited effect, unless they were somehow global. Even a sanction by the EU and China simultaneously would still leave the US with plenty of suppliers and plenty of markets. There would be severe disruption for a few years but the US would not be driven into permanent poverty like smaller nations under very broad sanctions.