No, we're far superior to them. That's why we're still around and the Nazis are in the dustbin of history.
You have favellas too? Perhaps we should try to focus on the question of why/how the US military/industrial complex intimidates the elected government of the United States? And how it gets away with it.
Oh yes, that's right. Obama was afraid of the military at one point. I don't know anything about a coup though, and if there was danger of such a thing, well, it appears tensions have cooled down by now. In any case I think Obama got over his fear of the military after he lost his patients with, oh dear I forget who, Petraeus(???) because he was an insulting ass who got reassigned soon afterwards.
Our Constitution prevents such power to our Government.There is no proof other than fear that Obama would face a military coup. But our Constitution does allow us the right to file grivences and protests against them. But would our Founders appose a toppling of our Government should they become oppressive?Lets look at the Declaration Of Independence "whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute new government"-Thomas Jefferson
Quote from link by Awryly: President-Elect Obamas advisors feared in 2008 that authorities would oust him in a coup and that Republicans would block his policy agenda if he prosecuted Bush-era war crimes, according to a law school dean who served as one of Obamas top transition advisors. University of California at Berkeley Law School Dean Christopher Edley, Jr., left, the sixth highest-ranking member of the 2008 post-election transition team preparing Obama's administration, revealed the team's thinking on Sept. 2 in moderating a forum on 9/11 held by his law school (also known as Boalt Hall). Edley sought to justify Obama's "look forward" policy on Bush-era lawbreaking that the president-elect announced on a TV talk show in January 2009. But Edley's rationale implies that Obama and his team fear the military/national security forces that he is supposed be commanding. It suggests also that Republicans have intimidated him right from the start of his presidency even though voters in 2008 rejected Republicans by the largest combined presidential-congressional mandate in recent U.S. history. http://www.justice-integrity.org/in...h-if-he-prosecuted-war-crimes&catid=44:myblog If you bother to read the article a little further, you'll come across this: Swanson's blog recalled that accountability under the law was a top concern of Obama supporters, as illustrated by the incoming administration's own 2008 poll of supporter suggestions. Here is Swanson's description of the Obama transition: They had questions from ordinary people for the President Elect submitted on their website and voted up or down. The top question at the end of the voting had come from Bob Fertik of Democrats.com and it was this: Will you appoint a Special Prosecutor ideally Patrick Fitzgerald to independently investigate the gravest crimes of the Bush Administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping? Not only was the answer no, but it had to be inferred because President Change U. Wish refused to answer the question. Ive always assumed I could guess why: a president wouldnt want previous presidents subject to the rule of law, because then he would be too. Just this week I was suggesting that allowing the Justice Department to enforce laws against Cheney could save Obamas electoral prospects at the risk of seeing Obama, too, land in prison some day. I have no doubt that this really is a factor. However, we now have an account from someone involved in the decision process way back when. Why am I not surprised?
How does that change the probably accurate premise that Bush was protected by his military/industrial cronies?
