Violent forced regime change by the US?

Support the concept that the US has done it, or support the doing of it?

Just accomplished it in Haiti.

the Concept
The Powell Doctrine on use of force reads as follows:

"US troops should be sent into conflict only when vital US interests are at stake, where there is strong public support, where the objectives are clearly defined and limited, and where overwhelming force is used to accomplish the objective." (Washington Post) 2000

Yes, the US Admins. have supported direct and indirect regime change in many countries. I mean do any that are reading this support the concept of violent, forced regime change by the USA directly &/or indirectly.

Of course not.

It's called empire-building. So long as they do the emperor's bidding, he will not invade. However, if they think they can ignore the emperor, then in he comes...not paying tribute is a good way to get invaded.

Brutal Dictatorships
USA Admins. have supported brutal Dictatorships and are now supporting many.

The USA claims that America is pro-democracy yet is directly &/or indirectly responsible for overthrowing democratically elected Govts. of other countries.

Can you name such countries?

Does anyone know which brutal Dictatorships the USA Admin is supporting right now?

Do I support the concept of regime change?

I am against any country toppling some other government of its choice over questions of national interest. We dont wanna go back to the chaos of pre-WW2(or -WW1) power-politics, when war was a wholly accepted alternate appearance of "waging" international politics. I see the fact that most of the time, today's world powers at least try to get the fig leaf of some international/UN legitimacy as a sign of progress.

But I think that having the "stick behind the door" of an international military intervention is necessary and benefitial when it comes to reining in dictators' penchants for genocide, ethnic cleansing, occupying neighbouring countries ... After the 20th century with its endless mass murders within state borders, you just cant keep up the holiness of "national sovereignty" at all times anymore. When I think of Rwanda, for example, I think we gotta be looking for more intervention, not less.

And it's true that almost no international military intervention is feasible without the US. I'm certainly glad it pushed other countries into action in Bosnia, Kosovo ...

So ... summarising, I am not averse to having an international force enforcing an end to genocide, mass deportations etc when violence in any one country gets out of hand - and doing that would tend to end up effecting regime change. But I am against any one country randomly using its own military force to topple regimes it doesnt like and get in regimes it does.

But what about everything in the middle?

When Vietnam occupied Pol Pot's Cambodia, it was at least as much national interest as humanitarian concern that drove it ... and it sure didnt have any international legitimation for it. But it did stop a genocide of almost unparallelled dimensions. When does it become OK?

Depends on how bad the excess that is being stopped ... and how much better the intervention makes it.

Fundamentally, I have no problem with enforcing regime change, but I want it to take place according to a clear set of rules/criteria that would have to be laid out by the UN. But thats gonna take decades. In the meantime, I'll cut the US or any other country some slack, depending on how bad and acute the excess is that their intervention would stop, how much better they'll be making it, and how willing they've proven themselves to at least compromise in order to make it legit.

Complex
"I'll cut the US or any other country some slack, depending on how bad and acute the excess is that their intervention."

That's the complex part. Kerry is not opposed to Nation Building. Is that a code word for regime change? Kerry wants to do this multi-lateraly.

Regime change when a regime is commiting mass murder on the people within it's own country is another matter. So does that bring N. Korea into this convo?

I don't mind moving the topic around a bit.

If military intervention were possible to effect regime change in N-Korea without it getting us nukes flying overhead and Chinese up in arms, I'd be all for it.

Then there's the way to go about it of course, tho, and who gets to decide on what. The US is not necessarily always best-qualified to judge what action, strategy and timing is best when it comes to some remote corner of the world.

.

Been said before but I'll say it again,

we desperately need regime change HERE !

.

USA Regime Change
Angie, if the BushInc was re-selected would you be in favor of a violent, forceful regime change?

.

No, and I'll tell you why.

Given the immense irrefutable damage Bush has done to this country domestically and internationally, if Americans are stupid enough to re-elect him (or to allow him to be re-selected again), then they deserve what they get.

.

Angie, why the dots if I may ask?

Hmmm..
Would the millions that voted for Kerry also deserve what they get if Bush Inc. were re-selected?

I am guessing that the people that will vote for Kerry will probably be a close percentage of people that voted for gw/cheney. In other words a hefty percentage of voters will have voted for Kerry. Who knows though Kerry may recieve an overwhleming vote and beat the crap out of Bush Inc.

So, would violent regime change be in order if Bush Inc. wins by tiny margin and the Supreme Court isn't used this time?

Would the people that voted for Kerry trust the outcome,especially knowing that those voting machines are under the control of people that are rabidly in favor of Bush Inc.?

Bush is $180 to get $100 in most casinos, and you'd be surprised how good the odds makers can be, so don't plan any parties for the "regime change" here.

You already know my take on regime changes for countries like North Korea. The sooner the better.

Edit= in to is

Yeah
I was thinkin' 'bout ya Billy. Wonderin' when ya would show up to type your $.02 in.

If you believe in violent, forced regime change in N. Korea or other countries, why would the concept not be alright for USA regime change if the American people or even other ocuntries felt it was necessary because the US Govt. had become a Tyranny?

Pistoff: I know you hate Bush. Everyone knows you hate Bush. I even understand why you hate Bush. But do not put him in the same category as Kim Jong Il. That is ridiculous. You spend way more than enough time keeping yourself informed for me to have to list the differences... Concede that much.

Besides, whether might makes right or wrong... the "rest of the world (save Russia)" would be overmatched against us.

.

pistoff asked: "Would the millions that voted for Kerry also deserve what they get if Bush Inc. were re-selected?"

Good point. No, they wouldn't, but that is how it works in this country. The minority often suffers because of the stupidity and/or indifference and/or prejudice of the majority.

nimh: the dots just make a post easier to read (I think) by allowing a little more space.

.

Angie, thanks for the explanation. Personally i just find it very distracting, but there you go.

(I also dont understand people who put all their posts in bold, or in some colour font or something ... I find that more than a little like trying to shout down the other posters. This isnt, but its still distracting. But hey, perhaps thats just me. And I dont use apostrophes ;-)