4 ms·

> It's in the military's interest to limit the freedom and empowerment of the public as much as possible. This is an unfair view. The National Defense Strategy

> It's in the military's interest to limit the freedom and empowerment of the public as much as possible. This is an unfair view. The National Defense Strategy states: > Without sustained and predictable investment to restore readiness and modernize our military to make it fit for our time, we will rapidly lose our military advantage, resulting in a Joint Force that has legacy systems irrelevant to the defense of our people. And > Another change to the strategic environment is a resilient, but weakening, post-WWII international order. In the decades after fascism’s defeat in World War II, the United States and its allies and partners constructed a free and open international order to better safeguard their liberty and people from aggression and coercion.

brenden2 6y ago
That's what they want you to believe. If you think the US is immune from having a military take over like Nazi Germany, you're deluded.
- vajrabum 6y ago
  OK, but Nazi Germany if you'll read some history was not ever a military takeover.
  - brenden2 6y ago
    The transition was "democratic" yes, but it became a fascist state operated by the military.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- Ididntdothis 6y ago
  The military didn’t take over nazi Germany.
  - brenden2 6y ago
    In effect it did. From Wikipedia: > the German state between 1933 and 1945, when Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party (NSDAP) controlled the country which they transformed into a dictatorship. Under Hitler's rule, Germany became a totalitarian state where nearly all aspects of life were controlled by the government In this context, the "government" means the military. Hitler used military force to enforce their rein. There's no way Nazi Germany could have done what they did without absolute control exerted by the military. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany
    - Ididntdothis 6y ago
      Maybe you could say the nazis took over the military and be more accurate. Most oppression came from the SA which was a military like organization that the nazis had built up. This wasn’t a military coup like in other countries.
      - brenden2 6y ago
        You could think about it that way, but you should also know that Himmler created the SS which swore allegiance to Hitler. The SS also existed before Hitler became the chancellor of Germany. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen-SS#Origins_(1929%E2%80%9339) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen-SS#Origins_(1929%E2%80%...
        Ididntdothis 6y ago
        I am not sure what point you are trying to prove. All this stuff came from outside the regular military. So in the present you should be more worried about militias taking over than the regular military.
        brenden2 6y ago
        My point is simple: be skeptical and suspicious of humans with lots of power over other people.
- michaelcampbell 6y ago
  What, no "sheeple"?
  - brenden2 6y ago
    You're making a joke, but I find it strange that people in the US aren't more skeptical of the government, especially the military and militarized police forces. To think the US is somehow unable to become a totalitarian state is naive. In Germany people didn't think it was going to happen either, many Germans didn't believe the atrocities were even happening and some remain in denial about them today.
    - i_am_nomad 6y ago
      Part of the issue here is that the military establishment and its peripheral industries in the US are so enormous, that most people who aren’t in the military are close to someone who is, or who does business with it. We’re all already in the Army, basically.
    - Ididntdothis 6y ago
      If you take nazi Germany as an example you should be very worried about armed militias , not the official military.
    - Multicomp 6y ago
      > I find it strange that people in the US aren't more skeptical of the government....military and militarized police forces. To think the US is somehow unable to become a totalitarian state is naive. 2nd amendment supporters and small government libertarians are both examples of groups who are suspicious of large governments.
    - michaelcampbell 6y ago
      > To think the US is somehow unable to become a totalitarian state is naive. As is thinking that "it is unlikely" is somehow the same as "unable". There's broad-brush painting going on here, but I don't think it's necessarily only where you think it is.

brenden2 6y ago

That's what they want you to believe. If you think the US is immune from having a military take over like Nazi Germany, you're deluded.

vajrabum 6y ago
OK, but Nazi Germany if you'll read some history was not ever a military takeover.
- brenden2 6y ago
  The transition was "democratic" yes, but it became a fascist state operated by the military.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
Ididntdothis 6y ago
The military didn’t take over nazi Germany.
- brenden2 6y ago
  In effect it did. From Wikipedia: > the German state between 1933 and 1945, when Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party (NSDAP) controlled the country which they transformed into a dictatorship. Under Hitler's rule, Germany became a totalitarian state where nearly all aspects of life were controlled by the government In this context, the "government" means the military. Hitler used military force to enforce their rein. There's no way Nazi Germany could have done what they did without absolute control exerted by the military. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany
  - Ididntdothis 6y ago
    Maybe you could say the nazis took over the military and be more accurate. Most oppression came from the SA which was a military like organization that the nazis had built up. This wasn’t a military coup like in other countries.
    - brenden2 6y ago
      You could think about it that way, but you should also know that Himmler created the SS which swore allegiance to Hitler. The SS also existed before Hitler became the chancellor of Germany. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen-SS#Origins_(1929%E2%80%9339) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen-SS#Origins_(1929%E2%80%...
      - Ididntdothis 6y ago
        I am not sure what point you are trying to prove. All this stuff came from outside the regular military. So in the present you should be more worried about militias taking over than the regular military.
        brenden2 6y ago
        My point is simple: be skeptical and suspicious of humans with lots of power over other people.
michaelcampbell 6y ago
What, no "sheeple"?
- brenden2 6y ago
  You're making a joke, but I find it strange that people in the US aren't more skeptical of the government, especially the military and militarized police forces. To think the US is somehow unable to become a totalitarian state is naive. In Germany people didn't think it was going to happen either, many Germans didn't believe the atrocities were even happening and some remain in denial about them today.
  - i_am_nomad 6y ago
    Part of the issue here is that the military establishment and its peripheral industries in the US are so enormous, that most people who aren’t in the military are close to someone who is, or who does business with it. We’re all already in the Army, basically.
  - Ididntdothis 6y ago
    If you take nazi Germany as an example you should be very worried about armed militias , not the official military.
  - Multicomp 6y ago
    > I find it strange that people in the US aren't more skeptical of the government....military and militarized police forces. To think the US is somehow unable to become a totalitarian state is naive. 2nd amendment supporters and small government libertarians are both examples of groups who are suspicious of large governments.
  - michaelcampbell 6y ago
    > To think the US is somehow unable to become a totalitarian state is naive. As is thinking that "it is unlikely" is somehow the same as "unable". There's broad-brush painting going on here, but I don't think it's necessarily only where you think it is.