2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumQuestion: 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.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)Baobab
(4,667 posts)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)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)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" ?
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Baobab
(4,667 posts)Our sphere of influence.
thats what Hillary is all about preserving. Cheap oil, cheap bananas.
Otherwise incomes would have to go up.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)onecaliberal
(32,854 posts)Punkingal
(9,522 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)world by using this tactic so far.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)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)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)What complete and utter disrespect for the historical context of WWII.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)DFab420
(2,466 posts)shot himself in the head like a coward..
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)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)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)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)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.
PufPuf23
(8,774 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)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)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" .
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)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.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)angrychair
(8,698 posts)"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)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)Others are voting for her b/c of her hawk approach to foreign policy.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)I suggest you read the Obama Doctrine, it does not help Hillary's legacy but it
may help you.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)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.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Lucinda
(31,170 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)reasoning begins with a military response.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)one of our candidates.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)she advocates for in the lead up.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)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
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Third Doctor
(1,574 posts)democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)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.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)SamKnause
(13,102 posts)Response to DFab420 (Original post)
CompanyFirstSergeant This message was self-deleted by its author.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Honduras...
But, her followers assure us that "this time she'll be different".
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)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.
Red Oak
(697 posts)Eko
(7,282 posts)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)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.