Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DFab420

(2,466 posts)
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 01:31 PM Apr 2016

Question: As democrats are we ok using our military in enforce regime change?

Particularly in South America? If we feel like the current leader of a different country is wrong for that country are we entitled to install who we believe would be "better"?

Just taking the temperature of this board.

54 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Question: As democrats are we ok using our military in enforce regime change? (Original Post) DFab420 Apr 2016 OP
No.... daleanime Apr 2016 #1
Honduras was not unique Baobab Apr 2016 #9
Not saying we haven't done it, unfortunately.... daleanime Apr 2016 #12
Honduras was not unique Baobab Apr 2016 #10
No. liberal_at_heart Apr 2016 #2
We must be. We've attempted or done it often enough. South and Central America, Middle East. merrily Apr 2016 #3
the farm, as in our farm Baobab Apr 2016 #11
NO! KPN Apr 2016 #4
No!! nt riderinthestorm Apr 2016 #5
No, no, a thousand times no! onecaliberal Apr 2016 #6
This democrat isn't. Punkingal Apr 2016 #7
No. As far as I can see we have made a real mess of the jwirr Apr 2016 #8
No. Particularly not when hundreds of thousands die and millions are driven out as refugees leveymg Apr 2016 #13
Yes, depending upon the circumstances. Nye Bevan Apr 2016 #14
Um....Regime change on Nazi Germany? What insanity is this now.. DFab420 Apr 2016 #15
Ummmm..... did we not forcibly change the regime there? (nt) Nye Bevan Apr 2016 #16
No we didn't. We fought a conventional war and at the end of that war the leader of Germany DFab420 Apr 2016 #20
If he hadn't, we would have arrested him and tried and executed him. Nye Bevan Apr 2016 #21
You know, Nye, there was a group of Americans who assisted Hitler in his rise to power leveymg Apr 2016 #26
There were tens of thousands of people who arguably could have been arrested and tried Nye Bevan Apr 2016 #28
The tens of thousands were Bunders, and such. Small fry. What would have made a difference is leveymg Apr 2016 #34
No. WWII is an obvious exception and once could argue not a choice. eom PufPuf23 Apr 2016 #17
if it's just imperialistic meddling, obviously not. geek tragedy Apr 2016 #18
You talking about the Al Qaeda the CIA funded-trained to push the Russians out of Afghanistan? Peace Patriot Apr 2016 #48
The answers you get are predictable angrychair Apr 2016 #19
Do you support Bernie's "yea" vote for the war in Afghanistan? (nt) Nye Bevan Apr 2016 #23
As I stated angrychair Apr 2016 #33
Apparently to the DNC, so long as we're profitting, then yes. VulgarPoet Apr 2016 #22
Hillary voters are cool with it...they'll excuse her horrendous judgment. Jefferson23 Apr 2016 #24
Bernie's been known to vote for regime change: Nye Bevan Apr 2016 #25
Oh please, stop with the nonsense, they are not alike and you know it. Jefferson23 Apr 2016 #29
So Rep. Barbara Lee (CA) was wrong to vote "Nay"? (nt) Nye Bevan Apr 2016 #30
You're going to keep claiming Bernie and Hillary are alike? Jefferson23 Apr 2016 #32
Just pointing out that they have both voted for regime change (nt) Nye Bevan Apr 2016 #37
Her full record escapes you when convenient, I get that. n/t Jefferson23 Apr 2016 #38
You seem to be avoiding his. n/t Lucinda Apr 2016 #42
No, I already stated my disagreement with his vote. This is about her record overall, her Jefferson23 Apr 2016 #44
No it doesnt. It is always a last option for her. I am suprised you know so little about Lucinda Apr 2016 #45
I know beyond her campaign rhetoric, her record is quite clear..not just the votes, what Jefferson23 Apr 2016 #46
I'm sorry. Judging by your posts, I don't think you've really listened to her Lucinda Apr 2016 #49
No & Hell No. Kip Humphrey Apr 2016 #27
No progressive would approve such a thing, but plenty of Democrats shamefully do n/t arcane1 Apr 2016 #31
No (nt) bigwillq Apr 2016 #35
No Third Doctor Apr 2016 #36
In most cases, no democrattotheend Apr 2016 #39
+1 Lucinda Apr 2016 #43
No. SamKnause Apr 2016 #40
This message was self-deleted by its author CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #41
Well, if we get stuck with Hillary she has a lot of "experience" with regime change. Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2016 #47
Generally, no. Hell Hath No Fury Apr 2016 #50
Hell friggin NO, we are not OK with that! Red Oak Apr 2016 #51
The world is not that black and white. Eko Apr 2016 #52
NO azmom Apr 2016 #53
No, it never seems to work out in our best interest Mnpaul Apr 2016 #54

Baobab

(4,667 posts)
9. Honduras was not unique
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 01:48 PM
Apr 2016

This is just the list since WWII

In the case of Honduras, it is cheap bananas we needed.

Have you ever heard the term "Banana Republic" ?

daleanime

(17,796 posts)
12. Not saying we haven't done it, unfortunately....
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 01:51 PM
Apr 2016

saying, especially as democrats, we shouldn't be supporting it. And if you want a really fun list, check out the countries that we have bombed since WWII.

Baobab

(4,667 posts)
10. Honduras was not unique
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 01:49 PM
Apr 2016

This is just the list since WWII

In the case of Honduras, it is cheap bananas we needed.

Have you ever heard the term "Banana Republic" ?

Baobab

(4,667 posts)
11. the farm, as in our farm
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 01:50 PM
Apr 2016

Our sphere of influence.

thats what Hillary is all about preserving. Cheap oil, cheap bananas.

Otherwise incomes would have to go up.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
13. No. Particularly not when hundreds of thousands die and millions are driven out as refugees
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 01:56 PM
Apr 2016

That's been happening as a bipartisan RW thing since Korea. We can't let the Cold Warriors back into the Oval Office again in 2016.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
14. Yes, depending upon the circumstances.
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 01:56 PM
Apr 2016

I think FDR did the right thing to impose regime change on Nazi Germany, for example. More recently, I think Desert Storm was arguably justified.

DFab420

(2,466 posts)
15. Um....Regime change on Nazi Germany? What insanity is this now..
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 01:58 PM
Apr 2016

What complete and utter disrespect for the historical context of WWII.

DFab420

(2,466 posts)
20. No we didn't. We fought a conventional war and at the end of that war the leader of Germany
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 02:14 PM
Apr 2016

shot himself in the head like a coward..

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
21. If he hadn't, we would have arrested him and tried and executed him.
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 02:17 PM
Apr 2016

I always thought invading a country with the goal of removing its government from power was "regime change", but perhaps your definition is different.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
26. You know, Nye, there was a group of Americans who assisted Hitler in his rise to power
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 02:37 PM
Apr 2016

This included the managing partners at the White Shoe law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell and others on the board at Brown Bros. Harriman. They went on to leading positions in the political and foreign policy establishment of the United States. It would seem to have made sense to have at least arrested them.

But, anti-communism forgave almost everyone and everything involved, didn't it? Still does. A good thing, you think?

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
28. There were tens of thousands of people who arguably could have been arrested and tried
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 02:43 PM
Apr 2016

for helping the Third Reich in one way or another. But the decision was made to only prosecute the most senior, egregious and cruel cases. Not to defend this decision but I can see the arguments for it.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
34. The tens of thousands were Bunders, and such. Small fry. What would have made a difference is
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 02:55 PM
Apr 2016

the arrest and trial of a few dozen leading Wall Street financiers and lawyers who structured the financing and rebuilding of Germany's war machine under the Third Reich. There is also considerable overlap of these people with the Banker's Plot and Merchants of Death which we got a glimpse of earlier in the 30s. But, they were let off in the interest of national unity.

"Too big to Fail" isn't a new concept, is it? At some point, there has to be accountability rather than the reward of allowing these circles, their heirs, and associates to continue running the world into the ground for their own profit and perverse RW ideological pleasure.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
18. if it's just imperialistic meddling, obviously not.
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 02:05 PM
Apr 2016

if a foreign power has declared war on us, like the Taliban/Al Qaeda did, then sure.

But it's going to almost always be the former instead of the latter

Peace Patriot

(24,010 posts)
48. You talking about the Al Qaeda the CIA funded-trained to push the Russians out of Afghanistan?
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 04:57 PM
Apr 2016

Or the Al Qaeda that took over the war against the west in Iraq after we smashed that stable regime to smithereens?

Or the ISIS we created in Libya and Syria, after smashing Libya's stable regime to smithereens and trying to do the same to Syria?

And what about the weapons we are providing to all of these "enemies"?

I'm using "we" euphemistically. I mean, Reagan, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Sec of State Clinton and her advisers, Henry Kissinger and Robert Kagan ("Project for a New American Century&quot .

Regime change HAS CONSEQUENCES. Sanders has said this time and again. And it is a lesson that Clinton will not learn. Why? Because PNAC's plan (Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld's blueprint) is occupation of the Middle East (and its oil fields) following DESTABILIZATION of the Middle East.

It's not that Clinton is stupid. It's that Kissinger, Kagan, et al, have their hooks into her and after getting so much out of her as Sec of State, intend to ride her back into the White House to finish their war (and start a few others, for instance, another covert "regime change" war against Latin America) (Kissinger!!! Henry Fucking Kissinger is her adviser! Get that? Do you even know who that is?)

Regime change HAS CONSEQUENCES to those with good intentions. The neocons DO NOT HAVE good intentions--toward "we the people" who are forced to pay for their wars and provide them with "cannon fodder" and toward other people in the world. They have slaughtered millions and completely destroyed the lives of millions.

This "imperialistic meddling," as you call it, CREATED Al Qaeda and ISIS. And is now ARMING them, to the glee of the war profiteers. I'm not saying we, the people, don't have to deal with the consequences. We do, obviously. But smashing up yet more countries is NOT the way to do it. And that's what the Kissingers and Kagans of this world DO. They SEEK destabilization. It is profitable to them and their cronies. And it's PART OF THEIR PLAN for world domination.

angrychair

(8,698 posts)
19. The answers you get are predictable
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 02:12 PM
Apr 2016

Your Clinton supporters will have a pro-intervention, pro-conflict perspective.
Your Sanders and Obama supporters will be a lot less inclined to be as aggressive or inclined to regime change.

angrychair

(8,698 posts)
33. As I stated
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 02:54 PM
Apr 2016

"A lot less inclined". The vote on intervention in Afghanistan was justified and directly tied to their material and ideological support of an attack on the United States and the murder of innocent civilians.

VulgarPoet

(2,872 posts)
22. Apparently to the DNC, so long as we're profitting, then yes.
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 02:29 PM
Apr 2016

I motion to have them send their own children and loved ones first. The military is supposed to fight in defense of the constitution; not in aggression over "business opportunities" that are really sovereign nation states. We are not a neo-colonial task force.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
24. Hillary voters are cool with it...they'll excuse her horrendous judgment.
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 02:34 PM
Apr 2016

Others are voting for her b/c of her hawk approach to foreign policy.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
29. Oh please, stop with the nonsense, they are not alike and you know it.
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 02:48 PM
Apr 2016

I suggest you read the Obama Doctrine, it does not help Hillary's legacy but it
may help you.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
32. You're going to keep claiming Bernie and Hillary are alike?
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 02:53 PM
Apr 2016

I did not support that vote...yet you know very well how Hillary looks at the
world...through a militaristic mindset.

That is what you are voting for whether you admit it or not.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
44. No, I already stated my disagreement with his vote. This is about her record overall, her
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 04:02 PM
Apr 2016

reasoning begins with a military response.

Lucinda

(31,170 posts)
45. No it doesnt. It is always a last option for her. I am suprised you know so little about
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 04:04 PM
Apr 2016

one of our candidates.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
46. I know beyond her campaign rhetoric, her record is quite clear..not just the votes, what
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 04:06 PM
Apr 2016

she advocates for in the lead up.

Lucinda

(31,170 posts)
49. I'm sorry. Judging by your posts, I don't think you've really listened to her
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 05:03 PM
Apr 2016

Last edited Wed Apr 6, 2016, 05:36 PM - Edit history (1)

speeches or read her comments about the military actions that have occurred since she was elected to congress and a cabinet member.

Her preference is always for peaceful resolution to conflict.


"...So our military and civilian forces, working alongside one another in many places, experience immediate conflict and crisis. But we also work together to try to reduce the number of places where we need to have that kind of response, because sending American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines into harm's way is not a decision that any president makes lightly. So at the State Department, our diplomats work around the clock to do everything we can to exhaust all other options. So a second key element of our smart power agenda is using diplomacy to prevent conflicts and resolve disputes before they become crises that could demand military intervention.

Let's look at one prominent example from the headlines: our ongoing efforts to apply international pressure on the Iranian regime. Now President Obama has made it clear that he is determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and that all options remain on the table. But we believe there is still time and space for sanctions and diplomacy to work.

So we are preparing for another round of what's called the P-5+1 talks -- those are the permanent members of the Security Council: the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China, along with Germany and the European Union -- for talks later this month, but not an open-ended session for both parties to talk around each other without ever coming to any agreement. We expect to see concrete commitments from Iran that it will come clean on its nuclear program and live up to its international obligations.

And in the meantime, we are maintaining a full-court press against the regime, enforcing the most comprehensive package of sanctions in history and further isolating Iran from the international community. This sustained pressure is bringing Iran's leaders back to the negotiating table, and we hope that it will result in a plan of action that will resolve our disagreements peacefully.

Working hand in hand with our diplomacy efforts, the third D of smart power is development: investing in the long-term foundations of human security and stability. Now of course, our development work is rooted in our values. We think it's wrong that people die of preventable diseases and conditions that have no place in the 21st century. But development is also an essential and equal pillar of our national security strategy. We want to help countries become more self-sufficient so they can be stronger partners to help us take on shared challenges. Broad based economic growth fosters human dignity and helps build more stable societies.

And not only research, but human experience, suggests that as many as 40 percent of countries recovering from conflict revert to violence within a decade. But when they grow their economies and raise people's income, the risk of violence drops substantially. And there is no better way of doing that than introducing free-market principles, encouraging entrepreneurship, creating conditions for men and women to see the results of their own labor in rising incomes and better opportunities for their children.

Now, when we look at development, we start with the basics. What do we want in our lives? Because it's not so different from what others seek. When a child dies from hunger every six seconds in the world, we want to do more to make sure mothers and children get enough to eat, especially during that 1,000 day window from pregnancy to two years old when malnutrition can permanently undermine a child's development.

So our Feed the Future initiative is helping countries develop their own plans to improve agricultural output. In order for children to get enough to eat, farmers need enough to sell, and families should not have to worry where their next meal comes from. So our goal is not just to intervene in crises, like famines, but to try to help farmers improve their own yield. We're looking for that day when countries no longer require outside aid to nourish their own people. And we also want to avoid conflicts over food resources, and foster a stronger, more productive population in our partner nations.

Our Global Health Initiative treats diseases while improving health systems because we want countries to take more responsibility for delivering health care to their own people. So that may mean in some places working to curb tuberculosis or other neglected tropical diseases, providing life-saving HIV treatment for 6 million people by the end of next year to lay the foundation for an AIDS-free generation. By working to really listen to the desires of other countries and bring them to the table as partners, we can actually accomplish more with the same resources.

And one particular principle throughout these programs is our focus on women and girls. Why? Because experience and, again, piles of evidence show that if we want to expand economic opportunity and growth, improve national health and education, promote responsible governance and democracy, we need to involve women at every step. And here at VMI -- (applause) -- in the 15 years since female cadets joined the ranks and the ratline at VMI, I think you've seen how women have made unique contributions to strengthen and honor this institution. We simply cannot leave half the population behind anywhere if we're going to make progress together.

So using these principles of smart power, we are working with our military to support security gains and foster long-term stability, to solve problems and defuse crisis situations, and we are emphasizing development as a means to prevent conflict from taking root over the long term. And we recognize that in order to deploy these tools of smart power at this time, we have to reflect and respond to the dramatic global changes that are sweeping the world and that have changed the way we have to do business.

So we've taken a hard look at the structure of the State Department and USAID. We've taken a look at our approach and our basic capabilities. Now, some of you may have heard of the Quadrennial Defense Review. That's the Department of Defense's effort every four years to align its resources and organization with its strategies and demands. I saw firsthand how effective the QDR was when I served on the Senate Armed Services Committee, so we stole that idea for the State Department. And in December 2010, we released the first-ever Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review -- the QDDR.

And since then, we have worked to break down the silos that too often build up between offices and agencies, to equip ourselves to deal with the long-term global trends. For example, when I arrived at the State Department, I realized that energy security was certainly one of the defining challenges of our time. So I created a new bureau in the State Department filled with experts and diplomats who lead our government's work to ensure a stable, affordable supply of energy as we transition over time to a clean energy economy.

We also improved our focus on the essential elements of building democratic, secure, and just societies. And our counterterrorism and law enforcement programs are now housed side by side with those that defend human rights and promote opportunities for young people. Our new Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations is working to improve our ability to prevent violent conflict and respond when crises break out. And we're strengthening our leadership and our Civilian Response Corps to make it more flexible and expeditionary.

Today's civilian experts are as likely to wear work boots and cargo pants as business suits and loafers. They function in some of the most remote and least governed places on the planet. They work as a unified force -- development experts, agricultural specialists, democracy and human rights advocates -- to advance America's core interests.

Now, part of doing business differently means using new tools to engage more people in more places, and reaching beyond governments to talk directly to people. This is what we call 21st century statecraft. So our ambassadors are now blogging, and yes, tweeting. Every embassy has a Facebook page. And we're doing more than just talking. We're listening and hearing from communities we've never been able to reach before..."

More here about Smart Power

democrattotheend

(11,605 posts)
39. In most cases, no
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 03:00 PM
Apr 2016

But I won't say an absolute no, because I do believe we have not only the right but the responsibility to intervene when a dictator is committing mass genocide or other egregious human rights violations.

Response to DFab420 (Original post)

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
47. Well, if we get stuck with Hillary she has a lot of "experience" with regime change.
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 04:08 PM
Apr 2016

Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Honduras...

But, her followers assure us that "this time she'll be different".

 

Hell Hath No Fury

(16,327 posts)
50. Generally, no.
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 05:18 PM
Apr 2016

Any attempts at "regime change" for a reasonable purpose (N. Korea, for instance) should take place via sanctions & international pressure, not the military. And the only ones who should have a say in who steps in to take the place of any leader who steps down due to such pressure should be the people of that country.

Eko

(7,282 posts)
52. The world is not that black and white.
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 06:37 PM
Apr 2016

It would be nice if it was, but its not. Mostly no is my response with the understanding that history shows it to be ineffective most of the time but sometimes necessary, and every 10th blue moon it works out alright.

Mnpaul

(3,655 posts)
54. No, it never seems to work out in our best interest
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 07:15 PM
Apr 2016

and it doesn't seem to be spreading democracy in any real way.

Not in my name. If you haven't viewed this movie, it is a must see. It is narrated by Elizabeth Mongomery and a real shocker.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Question: As democrats ar...