when radical right wingers,who lean towards an authoritarian,dogmatic way of approaching certain subjects,yet will attempt to disguise their bigotry,prejudice or hatred under the banner of "free speech",or nationalistic pride" and even sometimes "common sense" (because in THEIR world view,thats what it is to them:common sense).

they receive pushback,and rightly so,because you have to allow them to express their ideas in a public forum for the diseased and twisted philosophy to be exposed for the shit ideas they were in the first place.

but if you disagree with their philosophical viewpoint,and deal with that disagreement by shouting them down,calling them horrendous names,disrupt their chance to express those ideas you disagree with,and in some cases..engage in violence..you lose the moral high ground,and whatever solid argument you had to either destroy,or at least reveal their position for the shit idea you think it may be.will be automatically dismissed by those looking from the outside in.

because you have engaged in tactics that lessen what could have been an extremely important point by becoming the very thing you state you oppose.

you do not fight authoritarian fascism.....with authoritarian,and sometimes violent...fascism.it does not work,in fact the only thing it does it weaken your position and make you look like the very thing you are opposing.

in the free market of ideas,philosophies,ideas,viewpoints,political positions all need to be openly aired in this market to be either accepted as 'good' and "worthwhile" or "of substantial consideration",or be rejected for the shit ideas they are,but they need to be openly spoken and/or written in order for people to even consider those ideas.

when you shut down any and all opportunities for a person to even SPEAK about these ideas,and using tactics that can only be considered "bullying' and "shaming".you shut own any and all conversation without the idea itself being challenged,and BOTH sides go to their respective corners still convinced of their own "righteousness",and nothing was actually addressed.

both the ultra left and the ultra right are guilty of this tactic,and in the end we all lose,but especially those players in their particular realm of ideologies.

because now they can sit happily and contentedly in their own little,tiny echo chamber bubble with their other,like-minded people,and congratulate themselves on their own righteousness.even though they were the ones who shut down all challenge,all criticism and all scrutiny.

if your ideas,and/or philosophies cannot withstand a modicum of scrutiny or criticism,then maybe those ideas were shit to begin with.

so shouting someone down,and being so disruptive as to make it impossible for that person to even begin to articulate their position,is not a "win".you did not strike a blow for equality or justice,because you pulled a fire alarm,or violently attacked a person you disagreed with.

you lost your moral high ground,and anybody who may have been on the fence,or was simply curious and wanted to hear a differing opinion.saw how you behaved when your ideas were challenged,and they outright dismissed you and your cause.

the only people you have left in your circle are the very same people who agree with you already.so enjoy the circle jerk of the self-righteous,but do not delude yourself for one second that you are "right",or have struck a blow for "justice" and "fairness".

i have been accused of being "anti-sjw", a 'closet bigot" and (this is my favorite) 'a cis-gender white privileged oppressor".

as if the goals i seek are not dissimilar as everybody elses:equality,fairness and justice.

but when i point out the wrong headed tactics of attacking innocent people just trying to listen to a persons opinions,which may possibly be:racist,bigoted and antithetical to a fair and just society.that is when i am attacked,and it is done so with the most arrogant of presumptions,with little or no evidence to back up their personal attacks upon me.

because i had the audacity to question the tactics of the protesters,and defended that speakers right to free speech.

you are free to express whatever little thought pops into your pretty little head,and i have the right ridicule you relentlessly.you are free to espouse your opinions and philisophical ideologies,but you are NOT free from offense.

because,ultimately,in the free market of ideas,if your ideas are shit.someone WILL call you out on them,and if you think the tactic of shouting people down,disrupting their lecture and/or attacking the attendees somehow makes you "right" or your cause "morally justified".it does not.it just makes you look exactly like the people you are disagreeing with,and not for nothing..it kinda make you look fucking stupid.

so let those people talk.
let them make their ill-thought arguments.
allow them to spew rhetoric and propaganda,and do what should be done in a free market of ideas.

destroy their argument,with logic,reason and a sense of fairness and justice that appeals to the majority of us.

and i mean,come on,let's be honest.there are certain portions of the population that are true believers.you are not going to change their minds but for those who are NOT fundamentalist,dogmatic thinkers,use your brains,talk to them,destroy those who propose ill-thought and bullshit arguments to reveal them for the sychophants they are.

don't be attacking them.
do not engage in violence,or disruptive behavior.
because then you lose any credibility before you have even begun.

that's my .02 anyways,take it for what it is worth.

Are you really suggesting that if one is not personally physically attacked by those wishing to extinguish free speech with violence as they hijack another political party into fascism, one has no right to stand up and complain that they do it to others?

Cranial rectosis detected.

Except in this case the rule was created specifically to protect members of the senate from cries of racism.

When fascism and totalitarianism take over and the rules are written by bad people for bad purposes simply saying "rules are rules" is naive and dangerous.

Still waiting on some specific examples from you on how Obama "ruined" the country (or for you to admit you were wrong). Your words have no weight so long as you run away from the slightest hint of a counter argument. I can see why you like Mitch's move here, it's exactly the sort of thing you'd pull.

You fear words because you are wrong, Bob. If you stopped to pay attention you might actually have to reevaluate your position and you're too much of an intellectual coward to do that, aren't you? Prove me wrong, by the way, let's see an open discussion, rather than your usual drive-by commenting followed up by hiding in the basement from any cogent dissenting argument.

@bcglorf
you left out that anwar had worked for the CIA and NSC as a consultant,and that in his earlier days as an imam was critical of al qeada and was very pro-american.

look,i am not arguing the fact that anwar did become radicalized,nor am i denying that his shift in attitudes (which was mainly due to americas handling of the iraqi war) had become not only critical,but had gone from condemnation to calls for violence,and praise for violence.

which brings us to the fort hood shooter nidel hasan who was an avid fan of anwar al awlaki,and DID have a correspondence with awlaki.which when examined,was pretty fucking one sided.it was apparent that hasan was attempting to get in the good graces of awlaki who,evidenced by the email correspondence,had no real relationship with hasan.though awlaki did praise hasan,and his violent actions.

so i do not get where 'the emails are closed".just google nidal hasan and anwar al awlaki emails,and you can go read for yourself.

and as for these emails as justification..i really do not see your logic in this respect.

so if someone becomes a huge fan of mine,and emails me constantly because we met ONCE and now they think we are buddies and share common interests (which,maybe we do),and that person perpetrates a violent act.

am i responsible for that act?

and here is where the crux of the discussion REALLY is:
maybe i AM responsible.
maybe i am guilty of inciting violence.
maybe i should be held accountable,because not only did i keep this mans violent intentions to myself,which resulted in death,but then praised his actions afterwards as being the will of god.

there are ALL possibilities,and they are valid questions.
they are legal questions,and maybe there should be a legal accountability.

should the proper pathway to a legal conclusion be:
a.a remotely piloted drone that targets my phone and launches a missile murdering (assasinating0 me,along with innocent by-standers?

or.

b.working with the yemeni government to bring me into a secure facility to be questioned,and possibly charged with inciting violence and prosecuted in an international court of law?

do you see what i'm saying?

the question isn't if anwar al awlaki,as a prominent imam,was vocally against american foreign policy,or that he openly supported violence in the form of terrorism.

the question is:
how do you address that situation,and prosecute the legalities?

because as scahill posited:how do you surrender to a drone?

could anwar al awlaki be guilty of EVERY charge the US accused him of?
quite possibly.
but we will never know because he was assassinated,as was his 16yr old son.

even your counter argument is speculation based on loose affiliations,and tenuous connections.

you will NEVER be able to supply a concrete,and verifiable accounting of anwar al awlaki's guilt,because you CAN'T..he was assassinated.

and THAT is the point.

now let us take this a step further.
let us examine how this can be abused,and watching trump consolidate executive power by surrounding himself with departmental loyalist,loyal only to him,we can begin to see the beginnings of trumps "soft fascism".

now lets take how you made your argument,and supplant a different scenario,but using the same parameters.

do you SEE how easily the drone program could be used to quickly,and efficiently remove opposing political players from the board? dissenting and opposing voices simply painted as violent enemies of the state that were in need of removal,because of the "possibility" that they may one day actually incite or cause violence?

the state can now murder a person for simply what they say,or write but NOT what they actually DO.

anwar al awlaki didn't actually kill anyone,didn't perpetrate any acts of violence.he simply talked about the evils of american empire,the mishandling of the iraq war (which he was originally in support of) and praised those who DID engage in violent acts of terror as doing the work of god.

should he have been held accountable in some fashion?
i think there is case to be made in that regard,but instead of going through proper channels,and adhering to the protocols of international law,he was outright assassinated.

and just how easily this can be abused is incredibly frightening.

again,i understand we approach things from different angles,but you have to see the danger in this practice,and how easily it can be misused to much darker and sinister purposes.

"well,he said nasty things about us and had a lot of friends who were on the terror watch list"

is simply NOT a valid enough excuse to simply murder someone.

there are protocols and legal procedure for a REASON,and anwar al awlaki may certainly have been in breach of international law and therefor possibly SHOULD have been prosecuted under those terms.

but we will NEVER know,because he was killed.
by an american president.
a nobel peace prize winner and constitutional law professor.

anwar al awlaki was an american citizen,his SON was an american citizen,but due to those abominations:MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012.obama had the power and authority to assassinate them both.

where was there right to face their accuser?
habeas corpus..gone...a legal right that dates back to 1205 a.d by the BRITISH..gone.
innocent until proven guilty....gone.
the right to provide evidence in your defense...gone.

all the president has to do..and DID in this case,is deem you an "enemy combatant" and BOOM..dead.

i really hope you reconsider your attitude in this case my friend,because this shit is fascism incarnate,and now trump has his chubby little fingers on the "fire" button.

god help us all......

Obama never acted so infantile and rude to Faux news, even though they are much worse about spreading fake news. He answered their questions and gave them many (>11) interviews where they consistently asked loaded bait questions, hounded him about fake scandals, taunted, insulted, and rudely interrupted him over and over, he even sat down with Oreilly again after papa bear was such an insulting disrespectful asshole the first time. He did call them out a few times, but mostly just ignored the insanity they spew.
Trump, on the other hand, can't let any slight go without becoming unhinged, and he retaliates like a 2 year old at any perceived enemy, and fawns over anyone that compliments him. CNN had the audacity to report an unflattering but important story about claims being made about the president elect and so they'll be blacklisted for his administrations term (imagine if the same story was about Obama, any news organization not talking about it would be called apologists and left wing propagandists that should be strung up from the nearest tree) Such transparent hyper narcissism, so easily exploited by others much smarter than he, makes him incredibly dangerous for us all.
Singling out a news organization that's not been friendly to you as liars and treating them as enemies is a clearly recognized Nazi tactic they used in their rise to power. It should be watched carefully lest this behavior evolves into totalitarian fascism.

@ChaosEngine
agreed.
context matters and i think being a decent human being plays a large role in that dynamic.

people tend to attempt to break down complex ideas and/or ideologies into more easily digestible morsels.this "twitter speak",in my opinion,is largely responsible for the decay of human interactions.

we all are biased.
we all hold prejudices,and preconceptions based on our learned experiences.
which are subjective.

we see the world through the lens of our own subjectivity and even the most open minded and non-judgemental person,when trying to sympathize/empathize with another person, will use their own subjective understandings in order to understand that person.

this tactic,which we all employ,will almost always fall short of true understanding.

so we rely on words,metaphors,allegory etc etc in order to communicate fairly complex emotions and experiences.

what brendon o'neill is pointing out,is that when we start to restrict words as acceptable and unacceptable,we infantilize our interactions.

words are inert.
they are simply symbols representing a thing,action or emotion.
it is WE who apply the deeper meanings by way of our subjective lens.

i am not trying to make something simple complicated,but bear with me.
a rock will always be a rock,but a cunt has a totally different meaning here in the states than in britain.(love you brits,and cunt is a brilliant word).

the problems of culture,region,nationality or race all play a role in not only how we communicate but how that communication is received ...and interpreted.

so misunderstandings can happen quite easily,and then when we consider that the persons intent is by far the greatest metric to judge the veracity of the words being spoken,and just how difficult it is to discern that intent....this is where nuance and context play such a major role,but we need to have as many tools in our language box to express oftentimes very difficult concepts,multi-layered emotions and complicated ideologies.

and,unfortunately,there are attempts to legislate speech.

of course well intentioned,and reasonable sounding,but like any legislation dealing with the subjective nature of humans,has the possibility of abuse.

case in point:http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/

a new canadian addendum to their human rights statute.on the surface this is a fairly benign addition to canadas already existing human rights laws,but there is the possibility of abuse.

a psychology professor from university of toronto was critical of this new addendum,and has created a flurry of controversy in regards to his criticism.

which you can check out here:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/301661-this-canadian-prof-defied-sjw-on-gender-pronouns-and-has-a

now he was protested,received death threats,there was even violence and a new internet star was born affectionately labeled "smugglypuff".

see:http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/smugglypuff

i agree that free speech cannot be viewed with an absolutist mindset.absolutist thinking leads to stagnation and a self-righteous fundamentalism,so we NEED the free flow of ideas...even BAD ideas..even offensive and racist..because this brings all those feelings/thoughts/ideologies into the market of ideas to be either absorbed or ridiculed and ultimately ostracized for the shit philosophy they represent.

i WANT to know who the racists are.
i want to know who is bigoted or prejudiced.
i want to know who is holding on to stupid ideas,or promoting fascism dressed up as nationalistic pride.

and the only way to shine a light on these horrendous and detrimental ideas is to allow those who hold them openly state who and what they are...so we can criticize/challenge and in some cases..ridicule.

we should be free to say whatever we wish,but we are not free from challenge or criticism.
we can say whatever pops into our pretty little head,but we are not free from consequences.
we are also not free from offense.

i know this is long,and i hope you stayed with me,and if you did,thanks man.i know i tend to ramble.

but we can use the banning of gorillaman as a small microcosm of what we are talking about here.

i felt that we,as a community,could take gorilla to task for his poor choice in verbiage "nigger prince" and i attempted to make the case by using his history,dark humor and bad taste to add context to his poor choice of wording.

bareboards felt it was a matter for the administrators to deal with.i am not saying her choice was wrong.just that we approached the problem from different perspectives.

now gorilla decided to become the human torch and flame out.which threw my approach right out the window.

but the point i am making in that case,is that bad ideas,bad philosophies,bigotry and racism will ALWAYS reveal themselves if we allow that process to ultimately expose bad ideas/shit person.

the free flow of ideas is the proverbial rope that ultimately hangs all shit ideas.

thanks for hanging kids.
love you all!

@newtboy
i think you are being a tad over-zealous in your commentary.
now you know i agree with you on pretty much all aspects of police:brutality,malfeasance,hubris,fascism etc etc..

but we both realize that for the majority of police officers it is a job,and one they take seriously.statistically this is just a plain fact.

so i am struggling to understand your rage induced commentary directed toward a cop who is simply saying "please,comply".

that is pretty sound advice when dealing with an agent of the state who is not only authorized to use physical force,but carries a gun.

i found his advice pretty non-controversial.

your obvious points non-withstanding,because your points are accurate and have caused incredible misery,but his advice is also just as sound,and if it could deter even just one police beating.wouldn't that be worth it?

i am telling ya man,izzo is a pretty straight up guy for a cop,and he addresses pretty much every point you brought up on his channel.i know some of those points he makes you will disagree with,because i disagreed,but this man will surprise you on a bunch of points.i know he surprised me.

here is a video of him talking about his impending termination.he knew it was coming because he exposed corruption in his precinct:
https://youtu.be/-4TpcIPKj_E
*edit:i should post this video next round,give it a watch newt.

he has one video where he talks about quotas,and the reason why they are supposedly "non-existent".they do not call them quotas,but they are penalized if they give out too many warnings,or write a lower cost infraction.

trust me man,put aside your cop hate and check this dude out.you can still disagree,but he does give a solid representation of a cops perspective.

Here is the problem, Mr. Schlosser is a journalist, not a Nuclear Scientist. He does not understand, or has chosen to ignore for propaganda reasons, that an unarmed warhead is EXTREMELY unlikely to perform the exact sequence of events that need to take place to have a nuclear reaction happen.

Yes, he is fully correct in that we have had numerous 'butt-clenching' moments in which we could have started WW3 due to a malfunction or human error. But in the other cases he mentions, such as the bombs that landed on Spain, the lightning bolt on the tower, and the wrench on the rocket, the chance of the warhead going up while being unarmed is infinitesimal. They simply don't go 'boom' because of a collision or explosion. Now you could have a 'dirty bomb' type incident where the radioactive materials could be spread and come into contact with humans, but that is about it.

The cases that have been officially listed as Broken Arrows were because they involved an active bomb, like the one in Florida. Everything else he mentions in this video is his 'belief' and is conjecture.

Now, before I get unloaded on, I wish we didn't have nuclear weapons. I don't agree with Trump that we should renew the arms race, I think he is nuts since we have more than enough weapons to blanket the cities of the world more than a couple of times. If you add all the nukes from the Big 3 (USA/Russia/France...yes, France) there are enough to cover every single inch of the world.

The problem is, who bells the cat? If we give up all of our weapons, we are at risk. I wish we weren't, but we would be. If we bring down our numbers gradually, there are still other countries that may not, like North Korea. How do we trust the other country is actually following through? In a perfect world, we would all lay down our weapons and sing kumbaya, but as Heinlein wrote: "...Anyone who clings to the historically untrue and thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never settles anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms."

PS...Yes, I know Starship Troopers is a controversial novel with overtones of Militarism and Fascism. However, there are quotes that ring true no matter what 'ism' people attach to the overall story. If you doubt that, look at the utter disbelief and depression that overcame liberals when Trump won. "He simply was supposed to, it was impossible, not like this, we have no hope, etc" were the feelings of the people who gave him no hope of winning. I, having lived and read enough to get a fair picture of how fucked up we are as a species, had little doubt he could pull it off. We elected a former Wrestler as governor, a former actor as governor, and a former actor as President. We overlook mass genocide in other countries. We ignore climate change. We spend hundreds of billions on defense and less than 10 on space exploration, all the while living on a planet that is already critically overpopulated (and is growing almost exponentially).

Here's the thing. If all his past "fuckups" as you put it were supposed to completely discredit him as a canidate, why the hell did the following happen:

a) Be allowed to Run
b) Get nominated for the Republican nomination
c) Win the Election

We knew all the shit in his past, but you know what? He was still voted in not by fellow Republican politicians, but the people who saw that Trump could do what the people in DC can't do. That's one thing you, I and everyone else needs to accept. If this was "Such an issue that should have disqualified him from running and instead he should be in Jail," Why is he not in jail? Legit question because whatever that you might respond to that could be the same reasons why people feel like Hillary should be in Jail but still isn't.

"Republicans would be embarrassed to admit they'd backed a candidate that spent more of his first four years in jail than in the office. It would blow up the party and they're too self-centered to do that."

What's there to be embarrassed about? They never supported Trump to begin with! If it was a case where they were singing his praises, then the "grab them by the pussy video" came up, that would be embarrassing. Instead, they didn't show their support for Trump and then when that video came up, those who didn't support Trump basically doubled down on their "No supporting Trump."

The Republicans aren't going to act all "cheerful" now that Trump has won. They are cautious as all hell now more than ever. Even Paul Ryan calls Trump's win the "Most unprecedented win in the history of our country." The Republican party already strapped on the suicide vest the moment Trump accepted the nomination, and that vest isn't going to come off just because he won. They are going to watch him like a hawk and impeach him the moment he screws up. Impeaching Trump for if he screws up is not the same as "the party blowing up," but if Trump makes constant failed policies and they decide to stand by Trump, that is just watching the boat sink with all passengers on board.

Trump is not your average politician. As such we can't assume that should action be taken against Trump, that won't be average either.

What he needs to do now is prove that the trust that has been to put him by the people was well placed and that he will do the things he promised to do. All what the Republicans can do is just watch him carefully.

Sorry for the wall of text, but the only reason why I'm infuriated is that people honestly think we're turning into a fascism when really it would be easy to prevent such things from happening. Especially if there was no party loyalty to begin with.

(oops, missed a few)

I guess there's no channel for protectionism, isolationsim, or fascism is there. How about appeals to ego, racism, and hatred? Is there a channel for Trump already? *Fear is good enough. It's the currency he trades with.

I've largely opted out of this one. I'm not an economist or an expert in european law, so I haven't the knowledge to make an intelligent choice.

I am somewhat naturally inclined toward remaining: there was never a trace of patriotism in my soul, and the european courts at least have done some service toward protecting british freedoms, both from our government and from those corporations who'd like to own it. The common market's a good principle, and I don't have anything but admiration for the idea of a european superpower to oppose the twin fascisms of the US and China.

I never thought I'd grow up to care about immigration, but it turns out I don't like seeing millions of social conservatives marching into western europe from lesser cultures, pushing back against the progress we've made in recent decades.

There's another dimension to that question in the UK, which I don't think is well understood externally: where absolutely anyone with a european passport is allowed permanent residence here, the government keeps the figures down to appease its more xenophobic voters by making it practically impossible for those outside the EU. So, every year we tell thousands of highly skilled, highly intelligent prospective immigrants to just fuck off. Good policy.

In any event, I don't endorse unjust systems like democracy, and wouldn't vote in any referendum.

He's a billionaire. Traditionally speaking society at large accepts that people with incredible wealth are powerful.

If he's elected then by definition no force is needed and he doesn't need to try and seize the reigns. He's the president. He has a lot of parliamentary power. The reigns are handed to him on a silver platter. That said, he's still got congress to deal with, and if it's a hostile congress then he could be pushing shit up a hill.

Thank you for your fascism elucidation. I disagree that system will happen if he is elected. It's almost fanciful.

I don't believe Clinton has been charged or convicted. That's why I said she's "innocent until proven guilty".

No, not satisfied. I'd need to see links to court outcomes. But I'm not that interested so don't bother on my behalf.

As per the Oxford Dictionary the common use of naive is: showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgement. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/naive

Dictionary.com doesn't cut it for me

I have an admitted bias towards Sanders, but the fact he leads by larger numbers in all polls against Trump, even Fox's poll, I think speaks volumes about where the voting public is at. They want an outsider.

If they think that Trump's, apparent fascism will turn voters to Hilary, they are mis-reading the voting public. What is more likely to happen is voter apathy, especially among independent voters if there's even a hint of real controversy coming out just in time for the general election. Democratic turn out keeps going down, so they can't count on their base to make it up. Also, Trump has already started to change his tone, to bring down his rhetoric to appeal to the general populous. If they think they'll stick a flip-flop label to him, it won't stick. Trump is on a whole other level in the public mind for some reason.

This election is too important to let the Republicans win and I don't know if they get that or don't care because Trump has donated tons in the past to them so they are willing to take a chance with him in. We'll lose what little respect in the world that we managed to gain since Bush's wars that Obama built back up. We'll lose our bids for the Olympics and World Cup, both of which are heavily in our favor at the moment, but a Trump presidency, at least at current rhetoric levels, would turn the voting committees off, and might turn them off even if he tones the no Muslims can visit, bit off. The very perception of hate in this nation will turn them off vetting us when there are other qualified bids. Then there's the Supreme Court vacancy, it would be great to throw back the fact they wouldn't vet the moderate they asked for by name, and have a liberal as a President and take back over the Senate in one election and get a far more liberal nominee passed, at the going rate we may continue to have a court leaning to the right if Trump wins.

Would Sanders get to push much of any of his agenda? No. The Republicans and even many Democrats would push back. Congress will continue to be deadlocked against the President like it is against Obama, perhaps to even higher levels. But it will move the conversation. The fact that he wins period would show where the American public actually wants to go.

I'm seriously concerned about what's going on. It's like they want to give the presidency to Trump.

Agreed.

They managed to turn a treatise on Nietzsche's abyss and the nature of Anarchy & Fascism; into a one sided fairytale about extreme neo-conservatism vs pseudo-liberal collectivism.

& don't get me started on the fucking "eggy in a basket"!

V is supposed to be a god-damned monster, not a relatable hero.

Reading V after seeing this film was what made me truly understand why Alan Moore wants nothing to do with film adaptations.

I don't know, I suspect that when the US goes overtly fascist - perhaps sooner than anyone thought (though it has flirted with fascism for a some time) - I suspect that the US army will just fall into line.