Regime Changes?

  • Thread starter Pierre E. Trudeau
  • Start date

Do you support Regime Changes?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Unsure, Undecided

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters

Pierre E. Trudeau

Ousting leaders and replacing them with ones more friendly to American interests has been a part of U.S. foreign policy for decades. It is one of the Bush administration's overarching obsessions, first in Iraq, perhaps in Syria and in Iran, as that country continues to push for nuclear weapons.
But while the latter is in Washington's cross-hairs, even more so given its possible involvement with Hezbollah, regime change in Iraq has proven that sometimes dictatorial power can hold a country together, while suddenly removing it risks the onset of civil war.

According to leaked information in an article published in The New Yorker, last April 17, 2006, sources inside the U.S Military say combat troops are already operating in Iran, tagging targets for future bombing missions and buying the co-operation of local tribes.

So the question is... do you support regime changes? I ask this due to the fact that it is this foreign policy under previous Conservative American Administrations that has created dictators and monsters that to some extent rivaled Adolf Hitler. Most notably Saddam Hussein, Augusto Pinochet and Osama bin Laden. All of which were leaders of tribes opposed to regimes who's interests did not match foreign U.S. policy. All of which were also supported, militarily (primarily through U.S weapons and subsidized grants of money).

I am not going to put answers in your mouths. I want to ask an honest question and ask honest answers. Yes, No, Not, sure undecided are the answers but feel free to explain your answer. Too many extremists on here post polls with answers that are too black and white.


For a Free Scotland
I don't oppose regime changes because they're in compliance with all actions of a nation-state, namely the forwarding of agendas on the world stage. Humanity enjoys crafting the world to suit itself, and that interest is not lost when politics are involved.

Sure, I don't particularly like the fact that a lot of terrible rulers have emerged through actions relating to the US and its foreign policy, but I realize that there really isn't a way to stop it, as it is a typical and logical part of any political machinery.

Answer: I don't oppose it, but I don't support it. I am neutral, but I understand the logic and advantage that it provides.

Richard Owl Mirror

The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend ?

That has been the constant drum beat throughout time.
My personal preference is regime change through true democracy.
The danger in that is it fosters nationalism, which can lead to conflicts with one's neighbors.

The pertinent question regarding regime change is:
How can an outside influence decide what path is best for a people to embark upon?


Valid points made above. Where I have a problem with the concept of forced regime change is that I really can't think of an example where it was a success. Regime change, in our world, seems merely to be a way to rape another country of it's resources. That it profits someone is not a measure of success to my mind. I feel the concept of State fails when it's driven by unenlightened people, and those are the kind that repeatedly rise to power - ie; "those who seek power are those who should not have it." Please name me a country that had American-style democracy forced upon it, and subsequently became a prosperous, truly democratic nation.

I am much more of the mind to let countries and people evolve at their own pace. Ideology is a far stronger force than might, and much longer lasting.


Vote: Yes.

I support regime change, in principle.

Largely through non-violent means, but force to be used when it is apparant the people need it (ie people under a dictatorship who can't rise up). However, only at the right time, for the right reasons, by the right people, using the right means, ect ect.



For a Free Scotland
Many political thinkers have said that regime change and revolution is not only necessary, but should be constant. Not all regime changes are justified, but any regime is bound to grow corrupt and ineffective given time.