Quantcast
Corporate media of the Democrats and Republicans are pro-war, drowning out anti-war voices

Forums - Politics Discussion - Corporate media of the Democrats and Republicans are pro-war, drowning out anti-war voices

Of course both Democrats and Republicans are pro war, war brings in money and population control. Just look at the raging the democrats do within America. They say and do whatever just to stir up the people. Maybe there isnt a war right now in within America but they are doing an excellent job at stirring hatred within the American people. Hatred if left unchecked always leads to war.



我是广州人

Nearly all wars from the Vietnam War up to Syria that the US was involved with is completely bullshit, and Venezuela is likely next on the list.



Proud to be a Californian.

Donald Trump is desperately trying to get the US into a war with Iran.
No one is backing him, though.
The world is pretty confident in an integration strategy to liberate Iran rather than destroying the country to show off to the Prince of Saudi Arabia (Trump has a creepy man crush on MBS).



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Rab said:

Thank You all for your responses

I recently found this important clip from the UN Security Council high-lighting US foreign interference Worldwide, particularly with the use of violence 


While I agree with the overall message of your OP, the words of Evo Morales have no value. He has supported an authoritarian dictatorship in Venezuela and tried to change the  Bolivian Constitution to remain in power indefinitely. That's the mark of a power hungry leader with very poor morals.



Spike0503 said:
Rab said:

Thank You all for your responses

I recently found this important clip from the UN Security Council high-lighting US foreign interference Worldwide, particularly with the use of violence 


While I agree with the overall message of your OP, the words of Evo Morales have no value. He has supported an authoritarian dictatorship in Venezuela and tried to change the  Bolivian Constitution to remain in power indefinitely. That's the mark of a power hungry leader with very poor morals.

This. Both Trump and Morales have questionable positions about freedom and human rights when dictators they love are concerned.
About Venezuela, even though a war against Maduro could be morally acceptable, it would be a disaster for millions innocent civilians already exhausted by the dire economic crisis caused by Chavez and even worsened by Maduro, unless the anti-Maduro coalition manage to completely destroy him and his army in a very few weeks. The best option for Venezuela would be to kill Maduro and the most dangerous possible successors amongst his staunchest supporters without a war, unless he finally accepts to step aside.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")

A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.

TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW!

Alby_da_Wolf said:
Spike0503 said:

While I agree with the overall message of your OP, the words of Evo Morales have no value. He has supported an authoritarian dictatorship in Venezuela and tried to change the  Bolivian Constitution to remain in power indefinitely. That's the mark of a power hungry leader with very poor morals.

This. Both Trump and Morales have questionable positions about freedom and human rights when dictators they love are concerned.
About Venezuela, even though a war against Maduro could be morally acceptable, it would be a disaster for millions innocent civilians already exhausted by the dire economic crisis caused by Chavez and even worsened by Maduro, unless the anti-Maduro coalition manage to completely destroy him and his army in a very few weeks. The best option for Venezuela would be to kill Maduro and the most dangerous possible successors amongst his staunchest supporters without a war, unless he finally accepts to step aside.

I agree with you quite a bit, thank you for your support. The Venezuelan situation is very difficult. The big majority of the country is against the current regime and the electoral department is heavily corrupt, making the previous election null and void. The military prefers to oppress the people and protect the dictatorial elite. While I would never disagree that Americans are entitled to want their country to stay out of another war, the fact is that the majority of Venezuelans desperately want an escape from the hell they are living in. 

I've read about countless Venezuelans who beg the USA to invade the country. In fact the other day "#InvervencionYa" (Intervention now) became a Twitter trend. It wasn't bots or American affiliated accounts that I read sharing that, but common Venezuelans hoping and begging for change and for freedom. I'm under no illusions or fantasies that Trump and his cabinet want to intervene out of heroism or humanitarian reasons, they just want to influence the oil market in Venezuela. However, Venezuelans simply don't care about that, they just want change.



Spike0503 said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:

This. Both Trump and Morales have questionable positions about freedom and human rights when dictators they love are concerned.
About Venezuela, even though a war against Maduro could be morally acceptable, it would be a disaster for millions innocent civilians already exhausted by the dire economic crisis caused by Chavez and even worsened by Maduro, unless the anti-Maduro coalition manage to completely destroy him and his army in a very few weeks. The best option for Venezuela would be to kill Maduro and the most dangerous possible successors amongst his staunchest supporters without a war, unless he finally accepts to step aside.

I agree with you quite a bit, thank you for your support. The Venezuelan situation is very difficult. The big majority of the country is against the current regime and the electoral department is heavily corrupt, making the previous election null and void. The military prefers to oppress the people and protect the dictatorial elite. While I would never disagree that Americans are entitled to want their country to stay out of another war, the fact is that the majority of Venezuelans desperately want an escape from the hell they are living in. 

I've read about countless Venezuelans who beg the USA to invade the country. In fact the other day "#InvervencionYa" (Intervention now) became a Twitter trend. It wasn't bots or American affiliated accounts that I read sharing that, but common Venezuelans hoping and begging for change and for freedom. I'm under no illusions or fantasies that Trump and his cabinet want to intervene out of heroism or humanitarian reasons, they just want to influence the oil market in Venezuela. However, Venezuelans simply don't care about that, they just want change.

The best way to do it is to have fair oversight of their elections. Not to take over their elections, but to help them hold fair anonymous ballot elections themselves.

Military intervention/violent revolution has a good chance of escaping the pot, but they almost always land in the firepit.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Jumpin said:

The best way to do it is to have fair oversight of their elections. Not to take over their elections, but to help them hold fair anonymous ballot elections themselves.

Military intervention/violent revolution has a good chance of escaping the pot, but they almost always land in the firepit.

Ideally, I agree with you. Sadly I don't see how it can happen. The current dictatorship holds a corrupt power over the electoral service and they are not interested in negotiating  any internationally backed supervision in elections. They know they'll always win with their BS elections so they continue to dangle it over the Venezuelan opposition's heads to keep buying more time for their regime. It's the reason why they've stayed in power for so long.

That and the huge payouts they offer to the military brass to stay under the dictator's thumb.

So no, sadly I don't see fair elections happening until the regime has been toppled.



Spike0503 said:
Jumpin said:

The best way to do it is to have fair oversight of their elections. Not to take over their elections, but to help them hold fair anonymous ballot elections themselves.

Military intervention/violent revolution has a good chance of escaping the pot, but they almost always land in the firepit.

Ideally, I agree with you. Sadly I don't see how it can happen. The current dictatorship holds a corrupt power over the electoral service and they are not interested in negotiating  any internationally backed supervision in elections. They know they'll always win with their BS elections so they continue to dangle it over the Venezuelan opposition's heads to keep buying more time for their regime. It's the reason why they've stayed in power for so long.

That and the huge payouts they offer to the military brass to stay under the dictator's thumb.

So no, sadly I don't see fair elections happening until the regime has been toppled.

Peaceful regime changes by time (dictator dies) or peaceful public protest may need a longer time to reach a democracy, but result in far, far less death, destruction and general suffering on the way. So i do prefer it, although it seems cruel. But history shows again and again that actually the slower but less destructive way is usually less cruel.

Some examples:

The Franco-regime in Spain beginning in the 30s basically ended with the death of the leader Francisco Franco in 1975 (1977 were the first free elections). The most suffering happened in the establishment of the dictatorship in the spanish civil war.

In the second Iraq war dictator Saddam Hussein was toppled by military action, was arrested and executed. The number of deaths among civilians are estimates between 100,000 and 600,000 (way less soldiers died). The destruction was immensely and many were wounded or fled. In the aftermath of the war the life expectancy severely dropped. The power vacuum lead to the strenghtening of multiple terrorist organisation and to the establishment of ISIS, which added even more death and destruction. Until today Iraq is in military conflict.

In South Korea happened in 1961 a coup by Park Chung-hee, who claimed the power for himself. He was head of the dictatorship until he was shot by his secret service in 1979. The military dictatorship endured a decade more until general Roh Tae-woo allowed for real reform and democracy in 1987.

Muammar el-Ghaddafi became dictator of Libya in 1969. He was toppled and killed in Libyan civil war in 2011. In that war at least 10,000 combattants were killed, although estimates assume a higher number. The war left the country unstable and lead into a new civil war in 2014, the establishment of ISIS in the country and terrorism. Over a million people are undernourished, another million fled the country. The situation is unstable even these days.

After the chinese emperor was toppled the chinese republic with one-party-system was founded. At the end of the 1920s general Chiang Kai-shek step for step obtained more power. Under his leadership the one party Kuomintag excluded more prior included groups, especially the communists. In 1927 he lead a massaker in Shanghai to exterminate the communists. This effectively killed all the moderate leaders and lead to Mao Zedong becoming communist leader. World War II and chinese civil war lead to the defeat of Chiang Kai-shek and he fled to Taiwan and let the Republic China exist ongoing on Taiwan. He lead the island dictatorial. Only after his death in 1975 his son reformed Taiwan slowly into a democracy. This process was very slow, only with the first presendential elections 1996 Taiwan can be counted as a full democracy. But while slow this process was mostly free of violence.

In the aftermath of World War II France lost control of it's colony Indochina. The reclaimed control over the south, but the northern vietnam retained it's independence. So 1946 it came to a war, in which France tried to topple the north vietnamese government and made it again a colony. This war ended 1954 with the french loss and the independence of nothern vietnam, Laos and cambodia and loss of control from France over southern vietnam. Around half a million people died in this war. Southern Vietnam stayed unstable after the war and the western influence was retained, with more and more the US taking the place of France. In 1964 the US lead an attack to northern vietnam to also gain control over the north. This war took another decade and lead to the death of another two to five million vietnamese people. Overall this attempt to topple the government was unsuccessful, even worse: northern vietnam gained control over the whole country. After the massive suffering because of the two wars that tried to topple the northern vietnamese government, the dictatorial regime of Vietnam lead in the following decades until today to economical upswing and to relative wealth of the people.

After World War II germany was split between the winners of the war. Eastern germany under soviet control became a communist dictatorship. While this situation stayed this for fourty years, a peaceful uprising toppled the communist government in the end and brought democracy to eastern germany in 1989, which lead to reunification with western germany a year later.

So yes, Maduro is bad. But as history shows us, a war is much much worse. It may take decades, but a peaceful resolution is preferable for the people of Venezuela.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018

Predictions: Switch / Switch / Switch / MHWorld / GOW > BOTW / Switch vs. XB1 in the US

Mnementh said:

Peaceful regime changes by time (dictator dies) or peaceful public protest may need a longer time to reach a democracy, but result in far, far less death, destruction and general suffering on the way. So i do prefer it, although it seems cruel. But history shows again and again that actually the slower but less destructive way is usually less cruel.

-snip-

I'm well acquainted with most of the examples you shared. In particular I've watched and read a lot about the Spanish Civil War and the Franco regime in the aftermath. It did take decades before the country had its freedom but that was in part because the power was so concentrated in Franco's hands. When he died, his regime died with him. The other political parties quickly won decisively against his and freedom returned.

Venezuela is different. Chavez died years ago yet the dictatorship continues under another dictator and a bunch of thugs who continue to oppress Venezuelans to this day and will continue to do so if they can for decades. What about Cuba? The dictatorship there has yet to be toppled and Cubans have lived in poverty and misery for 60+ years. When will they achieve their freedom? Should they continue to wait 60 years more until someone in the military grows a conscience and brings back their democracy?

That's the same question Venezuelans would like to ask those against intervention. How many more years should they wait and peacefully protest while being beaten down, persecuted and put into political prisons? Not to mention that regardless thousands die every day by way of hunger and lack of medicines. Should Venezuela become another Cuba? I say no. So as much as I wish I could agree with you, I don't. The only way Venezuelans are getting their freedom back is if the corrupt military and the communist dictatorship is taken down. By force and with an international intervention.