|
Jane, let’s say the American apocalypse happens: Bush remains in office come January 2005. Not only that, let’s say that he signs an executive order granting himself martial authority, and it stays in effect for the duration of his term … which doesn’t end in 2008 because he refuses to hold election for “security reasons”. He disbands the legislature, assumes control of all three branches, and enforces his edicts with military power. The press is federalized, guns are seized, and every human baby is stamped with a V-chip at birth.
It’s 2020. 10 different attempts a revolution have been quelled because the technological dominance of the Homeland Security office allows them to isolated and eradicate anyone who gains a significant following in dissent. The country is beaten down by terror, the people unable to regain control of their own government.
At what point would you welcome the intervention of another country? Would you be content to wait it out until Bush 41 dies, and power passes to whoever marries one of the twins? Would you be content to suffer under the yoke of oppression, hoping that somehow something would change?
Say the Brits invaded for the purpose of reasserting democratic controls on the country. Say they’re successful. Surely there would be some citizens who would rebel against them, some Fundamentalists who believed that the Bush America was the amillennial Kingdom of God. Surely they would take up arms.
Would they be right to do so? If they were your neighbors and friends, would you hide them, aid and abet them? Or would you recognize the great gain to be had by aiding the invading Brits, letting them peaceably rebuild the country, and then insisting that they leave when they promised?
Not all rebellions have moral equivalency. Not all uprisings are noble. Not all “Freedom Fighters” work for the best interest of the people.
-sm
|