Sean951 said:
[
Thing is, Nazis were actually Nazis. It's a lot harder to demonize a group in today's world unless they actually start going genocidal, like the Nazis, because everywhere has internet now. The people would be able to look into the actual facts of the case from multiple view points.
I also disagree about the idea of a East/West war. I see the fall of the communist party in China as far, far more likely. The only way we see an East/West war is if the West steps in to help the uprising, but that is unlikely. Russia might not actually like China, but they hate the idea of interfering in other countries. That's why they abstained from the vote on Libya and part of why they fought the UN so much on Syria.
Well, yes and no. This is where the issue of media control comes in, and arguements about whether the media is left or right wing dominated. In general the left wing dominates with a peace at any price message/agenda so finding anything that promotes a group in a nazi-like light is very difficult, and when it IS found you'll see a lot of damage control being done to paint it as something else, or the media simply not covering it. You'll find plenty of stuff pretty easily about say Muslim rights and decrying bigotry against them despite the war, but while it's out there you'll have a much harder time finding anything covering things like the stoning of women, or various anti-US/Jewist rants when they can't be easily pinned on a fringe.
Likewise spin enters into it, with say the current media mostly tending to promote the US as the bad guys for the sake of promotin git's own agenda and derailing war and the demonization of enemies. If say a unit of marines engage a group of insurgets in Iraq or Afghanistan and a stray bullet flies into a building and hits a baby, your likely to see articles like "Muslims protest US Marine shooting baby" rather then an accurate coverage of how the baby was shot, and you might not even have any kind of comments from the marines in question as generally speaking the military doesn't get involved with the media on such matters, so silence is going to be spun into acknowlegement and turned into a Muslim-sympathy anti-war piece.
The thing is that the Internet isn't really something that nessicarly prevents wars and the kind of thing we saw with the Nazis by making information availible, but because it allows information to be controlled, and right now we have the control largely in the hands of people who seek to prevent war by basically whitewashing the bad guys and covering for them.
This issue is also incidently at the root of goverment efforts (some of which were riding in the NDAA), to limit the media's coverage of such incidents. While rife for abuse in the way it has so far been presented (and thankfully hasn't passed) there is a valid point to the simple fact that with all of the information technology availible right now, there is still no way you could tell if there was some guy out there as bad as Hitler and the Nazis, since even in the best case there wouldn't be enough people agreeing on it to paint a clear picture. Right now you see so much anti-war sentiment because it's comparitively hard to find anything else without looking into more fringe media. Today if World War II was brewing again you'd probably have half the people in the US insisting Hitler was a great guy and all of these stories about Jewish massacres were bunk, not because they loved the guy, but because the media covering it would want to prevent the war (and to be honest, there were isolationists during World War II with very similar sentiments, who wanted to keep the US out of it, but the goverment stepped on them).
Indeed, it's interesting to note that the alleged "Internet Kill Switch" was in part conceived for this reason, the goverment basically trying to get the right to shut down a lot of this information exchange if it ever had to compartmentalize, propagandize for it's defense, or lay down facts.
The Communist party in China is unlikely to fall because of it's own strongarm tactics, brain washing, and of course the simple fact that as pathetic as it is, China is the more prosperous than it's been in a very long time. What's more China's military build up is in part fueled by promises by the goverment to the people that China is going to invade and colonzie other nations for living space, and avenge the trivialization of their culture at the hands of the west, and "crimes" going back to the Opium wars and beyond. You see this stuff leaked from speeches behind "the Bamboo curtain" periodically, but it's given very little attention because it doesn't match how those generally guiding the media want things to be seen.
I don't say the war is inevitable for no reason. Either the US and it's allies throw the first punch for economic reasons, or not only will our nation(s) collapse under their own weight, but when the Chinese have gotten their military ready and can't delay it any more, they will start invading other nations with their new navy, and their various anti-missle/anti-satellite technologies (look up say China, Anti-Satellite, Lasers), and if the US and other big nations are in an economic shambles from promoting peace and letting that happen? Yeah, it's going to be nasty. It's all a matter of who throws the first punch.
I'd love to see China collapse the way the USSR did, but it's a differant kind of situation, and half the problem is that China isn't running on empty the way the USSR was.
