What's the argument against a military dictatorship?

What's the argument against a military dictatorship?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=9W0adhqYY6E&feature=youtu.be
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

All of those are goddamned Globalist stooges.

They know the score. They probably know more than the president. None are more qualified to defend and govern.
They are only globalist insofar as they support US world hegemony.

>They are only globalist insofar as they support US world hegemony.

>US hegemony

>China set to overtake the USA within 10 years
>USA BTFOd by goat herders in Afghanistan and a bunch of inbred Saudi mercenaries in Syria
>Being BTFOd by North Korea
>China building islands in the worlds most gas rich sea
>Phillipines falling to terrorists
>Mexico owned by narcos and anti-American populists
>President of France almost ripped off DJT's arm in the G20
>Venezuela, Mexico ruled by anti-American populists
>Brazil, Colombia, Argentina falling to communist governments
>AIPAC and (((House of Saud)))) dictating middle eastern policy
>Canada PM irl sweety posting his southern neighbours
>On a path to zero influence worldwide
>Jews have turned even the American people against a strong America

They should all hang for failing to defend the USA against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Always falls and fails, like any nation, only it happens quicker and it never recovers to he the same as before

They are bunch of fags, "Mad dog fag hag no wife Mattis" wants trannies in the military

These people wouldn't even remotely know how to set effective business regulations.

something something...democracy foppery and whim.

>They should all hang
Why hang those unable to fulfill an impossible task and not the ones inventing said impossible tasks, like Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol, John McCain and all of AIPAC?

Military dictators try to govern a country with the same kind of discipline they govern the military. They think this is the "right way" of doing things, but it doesn't actually work. A efficient civil administration can not be obtained by just telling people what to do.

A military dictatorship is a very weak and unstable system of government. Violence and repression happens not because the system is strong, but because it isn't.

A military dictatorship does not have a clear of way of handling the succession. Who elects the successor? Why should people trust them?

US hegemony means the Washington consensus, i.e. neoliberalism, i.e. Jewry.
Are you fucking kidding?

ZOG is controllled by jews and jews profit from wars. But jews are never on the front lines.

A military dictatorship is a military government, not a political one.
Politicians should be subservient to an impartial military rule than ensures the rule of law and the protection of the national interest as paramount, free of ideologues.

There is none. #AmnestyDon says he "loves our generals."

You can't run a country like you run military.

You can and they have.

Reality. How many successful modern juntas can you name?

They only ever failed because they faced US opposition, placing their national interest over US internationalist interest.
A US military dictatorship would render that point moot, as it would disable globalism from the root.

Well these ones are Boomer scum but it could work with younger leaders and a Hitler

Name succesful military dictatorships. And please stop uttering one sentence quips, you're the one making an extraordinary argument, its up to you to convince us.

Generals can always be sacked and that keeps them in check. If you take that away they'll become assholes.

>muh right to use drugs, get abortions, have sex before marriage, practice atheism, and get free stuff from the government

>US opposition
What the fuck are you talking about, US backed dozens of military dictatorships, for example Argentina and Spain during Cold War.
>and it would disable globalism
American military leaders are literally the most globalist neocon people in America. How can someone be so divorced from reality?

As previously stated most military juntas fail due to international sanctions, exclusion and subversion by US-led NATO. Making US a junta itself that withdraws from NATO would render this point moot.
>stop arguing in a way that inconveniences me
No.

>trusting the yankee empire
>ever

If I was dictator I would deport 99.9% of Mexicans and blacks and liberal cucks. Then build a strong border wall. After that, I'd just make it a democracy again.

There is literally nothing wrong with globalisim

Dictatorships were only propped up as a tool by US intelligence to oppose Soviet influence. Since the USSR collapsed this argument is no longer applicable.

Chileand Iran was a bretty gud example. A few European ones in the 20th century.

Imo, colored countries need authoritarians to keep their bullshit and stupidity under wraps. Africa and Mexico would benefit from a moderate dictator.

youtube.com/watch?v=9W0adhqYY6E&feature=youtu.be

And that's false.
Let's see:
>Chile in 70's/80's
Backed by Americans, literally a coup organized by CIA.
>Brazil in 60's, 70's and 80's
Backed by Americans, helped by Americans.
>Argentinian military dictatorships
Backed by Americans.
>Spain during Franco
Backed by Americans.
>Turkish military dictatorships
Backed by Americans.
>Pakistan
Backed by Americans.
>Greece
Backed by Americans.

So where are those military dictatorships that failed because ''US-led NATO'' subverted them? What the fuck are you talking about, go read some history.

>Establishment figure should always be questioned, they don't have the public good in mind!
>Unless they wear a uniform, then they should be unfailingly obeyed.

its the worst of both worlds imo
endless wars with domestic neglect. at least with the current military we have.

You should never assume a leader actually knows shit about what they're doing, because that's very often not the case.

Military philosophy is the opposite. "Shut up and follow orders".

They all collapsed before Soviet Union, and American support never ceased.
None of those dictatorships were successful. Chile only bloomed after Pinochet surrender power, though I guess stopping communists was a good thing.
Iran was not a military dictatorship, nor was it successful. There's a reason why Shah was deposed even though literally everyone and their mother tried to destroy Islamic revolution. I mean, both Soviets and Americans supported Iraq in 80's.

See:
From the '90's onward these were no longer needed. These regimes were always destroyed by their creators because you don't leave behind loose ends and the US never formally, emotionally and ideologically supported these nations as friends or allies. They were pawns, to be turned on when their usefulness ran out, because if you haven't noticed, the US tools against the Soviets had a habit of turning dangerous.

Not to mention that in 90% of cases smart people in the army aren't at the top.
People who are at the top are usually fucking faggots and sycophants.

Your argument would make sense if they didn't all collapse BEFORE Soviet Union.
And you have ZERO proof for your claim anyway, meanwhile there's shitload of evidence of US support and even organization.
Funny thing but military dictatorships were quite literally a tool of globalism.

The Shah was ousted by leftists and Islamic groups.

Sometimes dictatorships are more beneficial in the long run. If Trump rose up and took full power and removed 99.9% of shitskins, Jews, and undercover commies it would be great. Sure, destroyed infrastructure and the inevitable economic downturn would suck, but it'd be a temporary measure for a better future. Like the Shah, Pinochet fought off a much greater threat. Yeah, life sucked for a lot of people, but it'd be worse under commies and theocrats.

Hence why many coups have historically been performed by colonels and lower ranking generals.

There's very few dictatorships that were successful. I can only think of Singapore in modern period. And it was more of an ''informal'' dictatorship.
If you want the best argument against dictatorships, just look at Argentina. They were among the richest countries in the world in early 20th century.
>One of Galtieri's closest allies, the head of the First Army Corps, General Guillermo Suárez Mason, was named Chairman of Yacimientos Petrolíferos Fiscales (YPF), at the time the state petroleum concern, and the largest company of any type in Argentina. Suárez Mason's turn at YPF would help result in a US$6 billion loss for the company – the largest recorded corporate loss in the world, up to that point.[10]

Just one example. You can't run a country like you run the army. These people even if they have good intentions don't have the experience and the tact to do so.

Same as any dictatorship m8. Even the military or the most charismatic of candidates can become corrupt.

None. In fact, if Gen. Mattis were president, every communist and daesh in America would be exterminated within 5 second.

If you look into his eyes, you can see the enemy souls he's consumed.. I honestly can't imagine a war genius of his caliber being the single most powerful man on earth. Fucking glorious.

I'm not saying they're all good. But they can be beneficial and in an morally stretching sense righteous. I'd rather have no commies and Islamic extremists with stricter rules than a "wonderful diverse paradise" I'm in right now.

To where?

Mexicans and other Latinos to Mexico. Blacks to Liberia. Liberal whites to Canada or if their traitorous enough their beloved gulags.

Officers from the academies are faggots. All senior officers are from the academies.

>(((Wolfowitz)))(((Kristol)))nable
The fuck is going on with my echoes

This anime was p redpilled

An Absolute Monarchy, in my opinion, is more interesting.

This or Oligarchic Republics like Syria, Gaddafi's Libya or the dozens of Republics seen in Africa and the Middle East

As Bolsonaro (Ourguy) would say, the Error of the Brazilian "Dictatorship" (Many people here do not consider Dictatorship, because it only came to be called Dictatorship with the entry of the Fabian Socialists in Power and later with Lula) was Torturing and not killing.

The Military Intervention in Brazil in 64 was already calculated and requested by the people.

Joao Goulart was having constant meetings with the president of China at the time and on his return from one of these, the military considered to shoot down his plane, but they preferred to take his power when he arrived here,

In addition, the entire population was entering into social unrest and this led to a rift in Brazilian society. Between the Pro João Goulart and the Pro Intervention. This also happened in the military institutions.

In times of crisis of Brazilian governments, social unrest is clearly seen. In 1898, the Resistances calling for the Return of the Monarchy. In 1930, one of these led to a Civil War between the Integralists and the Oligarchic Central Government. In 1939 in another Integralist uprising counting on the Participation of the Imperial Family and now recently, in 2016, to the Impeachment of Dilma

Did Operation Condor influence? Undoubtedly, because of the guarantee that if the military did not overthrow John Goulart, American troops invaded Brazil through the Northeast of the country through the district of Rio Grande do Norte, but affirm that everything was architected by the USA and given of hands kissed to the Brazilians it's kind of abusive

Gittum bowa!