On 4/3/2010 8:18 PM, John VanSickle wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>
>> Besides, if you want to get soldiers to shoot Americans, just don't let
>> them know they're Americans. I don't think it was ever a "strong"
>> protection.
>
> I was in the U.S. military for twenty years. Anyone trying to turn our
> military into a force for oppressing fellow Americans is going to have
> to make radical alterations to our military's culture.
>
> Regards,
> John
Hmm. Like recent, but failed, attempts to replace more balanced 
religious representatives with evangelicals, while actively excluding 
other religions, by people that have been fairly clear that they don't 
exactly think that a) all Christians, and especially b) non-Christians, 
should necessarily have the same rights, or even, in some cases, 
citizenship?

Yes, it would require a radical restructuring, but the nature of the 
animal is that it is authoritarian driven, and teaches the people in it 
to follow orders, so.. if the authority is telling you that X set of 
ideals are more important than defending the constitution itself, or 
citizens that disagree with that X set of ideals, you have a major problem.

The difficulty is, in a nut shell, such changes do not happen instantly, 
but by degrees, and it takes people not just standing up and protesting 
them to keep them from happening, but political powers **listening** to 
those protests. Its not hard to imagine several of the thing that 
changed this year going the other way, including an increase, instead of 
a rethink, of Evangelism in the military, had we ended up with McSame 
and Falin. The first of which seemed to do a 180 the moment he might get 
elected, and sided with the crazier people in his party, and the later 
of which... well, some people still seem to think she isn't one of the 
crazies herself, but some people also think that the movie 2012 was a 
documentary.

Its only necessary to get the majority looking one way, and the minority 
afraid to say anything, then mix in some "excuses" that the majority 
will believe. They might not be willing to shoot anyone, specifically, 
but they might be willing to shoot them in a properly staged situation, 
where things get violent, and the orders they **where** given **seem** 
somehow lawful, based on the majority philosophy and claimed threat 
presented as a factual one, by people making a grab for power.

In other words, you don't have to order them to shoot someone. You just 
have to arrange matters so that they won't have a choice, and it will 
*appear* to be in defense of an ideology that they have been trained 
into following, as part of their service. There are already "some" that 
would fall into that category, and have suggested so. There could have 
been more, if the trend of replacing chaplain with ones who had a 
specific agenda had continued.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message