Frankly, according to me, the US has no business acting as the policeman of the world. Whether a country has a good government or not is for the people of THAT country to decide. The whole concept of “REGIME CHANGE” by the US in another country is totally meaningless. What do u think?
No.
Yes, if paid very well to do so.
I think this’ll be moving to Great Debates before long.
You may agree with the policy, disagree, agree with reservations, etc., but I think it’s already been demonstrated that it is not meaningless.
I feel we do have a role, along with the international community. If 90% of the people live under a dictator and want regime change but cannot obtain it themselves then i have no problem with a foreign power invading and providing it. I’m sure the people of cambodia would’ve loved (and probably did, im not sure) love the vietnamese when they overthrew Pol Pot’s dictatorship. Governments are not infallible or above reproach, they are just a collection of the most people with the best guns. if those people destroy the countryside and the people pray for a better life i have no problem with regime change. The only problem is, 100% of the people will never agree on anything.
Well… the casualties on the US side are mounting day by day. The people are still not enjoying the “freedom”. according to reports, people are still scared to come out of their houses after 7 pm in Baghdad. (BBC World Television, report on 12th July).
Water suppy still hasnt been fully restored to places like Umm Qasr. People are dying of waterborne diseases like cholera etc. due to the lack of clean drinking water. Im still looking for meanings.
Oops, how crass of me; welcome, to SDMB, nikjoshi.
Firstly I would like non US citizens to reply to this question as yes.That IMHO would add credibility to US actions.What kind of democratic country elects its president as the one with lesser votes .Secondly why hasn’t the US supported a regime change in Pakistan in which a democratically elected govt was overthrown in a coup.The only country to have used nuclear warfare has no legal right to police other great nations with histories of thousands of years.By the way US has no support from even the UN.This war is solely US v/s others.
The authors of the constitution established the electoral college as the means by which the president is elected. It is quite possible for the winner of the electoral vote to lose the popular vote.
As for why they chose to elect the president in this manner? Ben Franklin and other founding fathers were quite explicit in their denunciation of pure democracy, for reasons stated and discussed here, and opted instead for a representative democracy, or a republic.
Welcome aboard(s), hari.
I can see this heading to Great Debates real soon.
hari, your attempt to connect America’s use of atomic weapons with its role as the world’s policeman is not germane. The United States validly used nuclear bombs to force a brutal and agressive enemy into submission. Japan’s repeated violation of nearly every war convention in the book made their attack with atomic weapons more than reasonable. It is quite possible that more Japanese lives were saved than American lives that might have been lost had we been forced to make a conventional assault upon the Japanese mainland.
The nearly psychotic levels of self-sacrifice that Japanese soldiers and citizens alike commonly demonstrated were solid reasons to rethink any ground attack upon Japan. Instead of a prolonged and hideous battle costing hundreds of thousands of lives, the Pacific theater of WW II was closed in a few short weeks with a relatively small loss of life. The firebombing of Tokyo was more destructive than the nuclear attacks. Japan’s ruthless military was stunned into surrender with one of the few persuasive forms of armed might that could possibly convinced them of their pending and ultimate demise. I have no regrets or apologies for America’s nuclear attacks upon Japan. Few (if any) military strategists have concluded that it was a bad decision.
That is alright for US.There is no one in the world who wants a regime change in the US other than the Democrats.What abt Iraq?
And yet another thinly veiled “Us should not be in Iraq” thread.
Hey…I’m all for us minding our own business and the rest of the world can go tear itself apart. What is it any of our business if Iraq is run by a murderous dictator or the Balkins spends the next 100 years in civil war or one backward Asian country invades another. Not our problem.
This is really more of a Great Debates thing. I shan’t move it there, however – there are already dozens and dozens of threads to that effect over there.
nikjoshi, please take some time to read the forum descriptions. This forum is for questions with factual answers.
Thanks.