We need more Regime Change

[His Excellence]

So, from a purely technical standpoint, how do you expect to execute these regime changes without a bloody war or international backlash?

You must've missed this tidbit:

How is the rise of ISIS and modern-day slavery in Libya "successful"?

Not our problem.

This level of wanton disregard for human suffering makes it obvious that he's either a troll or his metric for success is too fucked to be of any worth.

[West Leas Oros]

So, from a purely technical standpoint, how do you expect to execute these regime changes without a bloody war or international backlash?

You must've missed this tidbit:

Not our problem.

This level of wanton disregard for human suffering makes it obvious that he's either a troll or his metric for success is too fucked to be of any worth.

So I take it he doesn’t care if the world is destroyed in nuclear fire?

[Federal American Union]

So, from a purely technical standpoint, how do you expect to execute these regime changes without a bloody war or international backlash?

You must've missed this tidbit:

Not our problem.

This level of wanton disregard for human suffering makes it obvious that he's either a troll or his metric for success is too fucked to be of any worth.

I completely agree. The majority of people supporting regime change against these benevolent dictators claim that they're butchers and monsters for using chemical weapons (Even though there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that they were the ones to use them, aside from word of mouth by the untrustworthy government) yet they completely ignore the fact that once these leaders are taken out, only chaos and misery will follow.

[His Excellence]

So I take it he doesn’t care if the world is destroyed in nuclear fire?

Likely not. Regimes can't oppress anyone if we're all dead.

[West Leas Oros]

So I take it he doesn’t care if the world is destroyed in nuclear fire?

Likely not. Regimes can't oppress anyone if we're all dead.

Ah. Well that’s going to happen if we start poking a stick at the Middle East starting wars.

[Gerburtsurg]

As a student of history, I would like to point out that many of the current problems in the Middle East can be traced back to Western intervention after the fall of the Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI. During the final years of the conflict, Britain approached many Arabs to ask them for help in defeating the Ottoman Empire. They agreed, in exchange for guarentees that they could form their own nations after the war. Britain, however, signed a secret deal with France to partition Ottoman lands into "Mandates". The artificially-created Mandates would later become modern-day Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine/Israel. Iraq gained independence in 1932, and the other mandates gained independence after WWII. During WWII, Iraq was again occupied by the British because of their relations with Nazi Germany. Meanwhile, the group of Arabs that the British reneged on formed the Kingdom of Hejaz. Hejaz was a moderate Islamic state, but the neighboring Kingdom of Nejd, ruled by the Al-Saud family, practiced the more extremeist Wahhabism. Becuase of the strife between Britain and Hejaz, Britain refused to intervene when Nejd conquered Hejaz, resulting in the two kingdoms being merged to form the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is theorized that if Britain had followed through on their deal with the Arabs, then the Middle East could be more moderate with Hejaz as a dominant power rather than the Wahhabist Saudi arabia, who backs terrorist groups like al-Qaeda.

In 1951, Mohammad Mosaddegh was elected as Prime Minister in Iran by a widely popular vote. During his short time in office, he nationalized Iran's oil reserves and attempted to steer away from British control of his country. However, he was deposed in an Anglo-American backed coup in 1953, and the pro-western Mohammed Reza Pahlavi was restored to power. Many Iranians felt angry and betrayed because the west had interfered and deposed the ruler THEY elected. During The Shah's reign, the government was marred in corruption and many people were brutalized by his SAVAK secret police. Eventually, the Iranian people had enough and deposed him in the 1979 Iranian Revolution. He was replaced with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who declared Iran an Islamic Republic.

There's currently a bit of a Cold War going on in the Middle East between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Saudi Arabia favors autocratic, Sunni status quo regimes, whereas Iran favors Shia republics. In many of the current conflicts across the Middle East, both countries provide economic and military support to whichever factions they align with.

Genrally speaking, sudden regime changes are never good for a country. There are many examples of how sudden regime changes lead to de-stabilization and internal strife. A great example from the western world would be the French Revolution. After the violent overthrow of the monarchy, the French Republic was established. However, there was a lot of instability and terrorism throughtout the French Republic, and the country remained in turmoil until Napoleon Bonaparte seized power.

[Great Lakes Municipalities]

Yes, it's a fantastic idea. There is one country that is in desperate need of a regime change. It's a country that has used and continues to threaten to use WMDs, that has meddled in affairs of other countries for decades and that has zero regard for international law. I'm of course talking about the American Empire (and by extension its client states in North America and Europe AKA NATO) which seriously needs to just chill the hell out and mind its own business for once.

[His Excellence]

-snip-

Wow, talk about a dose of reality. Thank you for curing my ignorance on that block of history.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

"B-b-b-b-b-but ebil diktater!"

Sᴘᴇᴀᴋ ᴏғ ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴠɪʟ, ᴀɴᴅ ʜᴇ sʜᴀʟʟ ᴀᴘᴘᴇᴀʀ!

On a more serious note, I support regime change in despotic countries if and only if we are absolutely certain the new regime will be better than the last one. Otherwise, we've thrown away thousands of lives and billions of dollars for nothing.

[Reformed Houn]

America needs a regime change

[West Leas Oros]

America needs a regime change

Luckily, we can change that without provoking a war that violates international law.

[Kernen]

Yes I consider myself an expert in the field of military strategy and foreign policy due to the extensive hours I've dedicated to researching them. I'm well read in the field, and have devoted hours to reading works by Kissinger and others.

Good lord. An armchair general. You guys are always a riot.

I've spend hours and hours reading fantasy novels, but I am neither an expert in creating them nor have I learned an ounce of swordplay. I've spent hours and hours (and hours and hours and hours) reading a huge variety of legal treatises, cases, and textbooks. I might be something of a resident expert in US civil law compared to the unwashed masses of NSG, but I'd get laughed out of a courtroom if I told the judge I consider myself an expert in law.

Come back when you're considered an expert in military strategy and foreign policy by the experts in military strategy and foreign policy. Until then, this discussion is a one-man circlejerk.

[Municipalist Councilist Republics]

A week or so ago, President Donald Trump bombed Syria after claims that the dictator Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons on civilians - a warcrime. Trump was not being strong when he did this. Immediately after, he fell back, and now President Emmanuel Macron is doing his work to ensure America continues to play a role in Syria. This brings a new discussion to the table: whether its time for regime change in Syria, or not? But its not just Syria we should be discussing. Across the world, there are numerous dictators who need to be taught a lesson. The US, UK, France and allies have been successful in regime change in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq, and I think its time we take it a step further and continue regime change in . Today there are several countries still ran by anti-western dictators, and we must act as a unified force to take them out. I will list them below.

Myanmar, Syria, Yemen, Iran, Belarus, Cuba, North Korea, Palestine and Venezuela.

In the interests of spreading democracy, free markets and liberty, I believe that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation should end its status as a defensive organisation, and transform into what it should be: a military organisation for liberating the downtrodden victims of totalitarianism. What do you all think? Is it time we shown Russia and China that we're not to be messed with anymore? Or should we sit by idly as authoritarianism runs rampant, and human rights abuses are committed by the allies of our enemies?

My personal opinion is that we need to funnel more money into the military and immediately move in to take out dictators trampling on civilians.

What if we just stop trying to change the world with military interventions?
By the way, even if these countries are dictatures, most of them are not a danger for their neighbours or the rest of the world.
Finally, free market kills each year more people than did the wars which occurred in the last decade.

(sorry if I did grammatical mistakes, I'm not a native english speaker)

[Underdark Cave]

"B-b-b-b-b-but ebil diktater!"

Sᴘᴇᴀᴋ ᴏғ ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴠɪʟ, ᴀɴᴅ ʜᴇ sʜᴀʟʟ ᴀᴘᴘᴇᴀʀ!

On a more serious note, I support regime change in despotic countries if and only if we are absolutely certain the new regime will be better than the last one. Otherwise, we've thrown away thousands of lives and billions of dollars for nothing.

They will always be worse.
People never react well to foreigners telling them what to do.

[New Vaduz]

A week or so ago, President Donald Trump bombed Syria after claims that the dictator Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons on civilians - a warcrime. Trump was not being strong when he did this. Immediately after, he fell back, and now President Emmanuel Macron is doing his work to ensure America continues to play a role in Syria. This brings a new discussion to the table: whether its time for regime change in Syria, or not? But its not just Syria we should be discussing. Across the world, there are numerous dictators who need to be taught a lesson. The US, UK, France and allies have been successful in regime change in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq, and I think its time we take it a step further and continue regime change in . Today there are several countries still ran by anti-western dictators, and we must act as a unified force to take them out. I will list them below.

Myanmar, Syria, Yemen, Iran, Belarus, Cuba, North Korea, Palestine and Venezuela.

In the interests of spreading democracy, free markets and liberty, I believe that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation should end its status as a defensive organisation, and transform into what it should be: a military organisation for liberating the downtrodden victims of totalitarianism. What do you all think? Is it time we shown Russia and China that we're not to be messed with anymore? Or should we sit by idly as authoritarianism runs rampant, and human rights abuses are committed by the allies of our enemies?

My personal opinion is that we need to funnel more money into the military and immediately move in to take out dictators trampling on civilians.

Depends on what replaces the outgoing regimes.

I've been to Burma back when it was a hell of a lot more unstable than it is now. If the disproportionate military influence was ever removed as a factor that country could balkanize and degenerate into civil war. There must be a political transition that's all inclusive and satisfies most of the country's disparate ethnic and religious groups.

[New Vaduz]

Yes I consider myself an expert in the field of military strategy and foreign policy due to the extensive hours I've dedicated to researching them. I'm well read in the field, and have devoted hours to reading works by Kissinger and others.

Good lord. An armchair general. You guys are always a riot.

I've spend hours and hours reading fantasy novels, but I am neither an expert in creating them nor have I learned an ounce of swordplay. I've spent hours and hours (and hours and hours and hours) reading a huge variety of legal treatises, cases, and textbooks. I might be something of a resident expert in US civil law compared to the unwashed masses of NSG, but I'd get laughed out of a courtroom if I told the judge I consider myself an expert in law.

Come back when you're considered an expert in military strategy and foreign policy by the experts in military strategy and foreign policy. Until then, this discussion is a one-man circlejerk.

I'm inclined to agree. Let's see how well Ascysia does at OCS or whatever equivalent he can get through, then I'd be a little more receptive to his dictating to us about how much of an expert he is on military strategy.

[Pope Joan]

Man, if you're gonna list dictatorships, add Saudi Arabia to the list, US allies ain't goody two shoes lol

Agreed. Morality and human rights have nothing to do with international politics, they are merely a convenient pretext for the assertion of power.

[Kyneland]

I hotly disagree. Regime changes bring nothing but chaos and instability. Although horrible regimes exist, forceful regime change is no excuse to allow thousands more to suffer because of supposedly “good intentions”.

Besides, “regime change” is just code word for imperialism.

[Pope Joan]

I hotly disagree. Regime changes being nothing but chaos and instability. Although horrible regimes exist, forceful regime change is no excuse to allow thousands more to suffer because of supposedly “good intentions”.

Besides, “regime change” is just code word for imperialism.

Yes, which is why Human Rights Watch is a convenient tool for the CIA

[Lockdownn]

Afghanistan can be solved easily, however the problem is liberal millennials being too scared to go to war and protesting over drone usage.

Or maybe the fact that many people don't want to be born just to die in conflict.

[Valentine Z]

Let's just take Myanmar for example:
A big part of the problem there is that the government doesn't seem to actually control the military.

So you can get rid of the government, and install a new one. But your new government is going to be less legitimate, being the puppet regime of a foreign nation. Which means that the problem you have, that the government isn't really in control, is just going to get worse.

Regime change might be appropriate on a case-by-case basis. It isn't a catchall solution.

We need to invade Myanmar and completely save the country. Aung San Suu Kyi is allowing genocide to happen.

Several pages off, but given that that's my country, I have to point out the fact that there have been peacetalks over and over: https://www.rfa.org/english/news/myanma ... 65007.html

It's not that she's allowing it, it's a bit complicated in the sense that like what Dogmeat said, our military is an entity on its own, with limited control on it from our new government; if any, it's the army that controls a big part of the government. We too would love the military to stop this nonsense, but err... they're a bit touchy with that.

Invasion is not a good idea. Any form of violence will end as badly as 8888 Uprising.

EDIT: But I don't want to derail it, so, let's get back to Regime Change. In short: It's going to be very, very messy, and it's most likely a lose-lose. Thousands to millions will die, the regime overthrow might not be successful, and war resources will be heavily depleted.

[Albrenia]

In theory, I like the idea of Regime Change. Toppling cruel dictators and letting the people govern themselves and have access to all the rights and privileges that come with modern life.

In practise, it seems to do nothing but kill vast numbers of people, give rise to just another flavour of evil to fill the vacuum, and do very little long-term good.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Fun fact, the US has supported dictatorships that liked the US, same for European countries that had colonies. And when the US did go tobwar, it caused numerous war crimes. So there's no reason to make an "us vs. them" stance when both sides are equally evil.

Dictators are bad, of course. But like Albrenia said, regime changes cause too much damage and looss of life, especially when foreign nations are involved. They aren't the way.

[Valentine Z]

Fun fact, the US has supported dictatorships that liked the US, same for European countries that had colonies. And when the US did go tobwar, it caused numerous war crimes. So there's no reason to make an "us vs. them" stance when both sides are equally evil.

Dictators are bad, of course. But like Albrenia said, regime changes cause too much damage and looss of life, especially when foreign nations are involved. They aren't the way.

And as I have said, heavy losses on both sides - both in terms of casualities, and resources. And even after all that, the regime might still be around.

It's not exactly easy to overthrow a dictator a la Call of Duty or Battlefield or Medal of Honour. Serious implications can happen after "saving the day".

[Oil exporting People]

The only reason why they left wasn’t because of international law, I’m sure they made it seem like it was but it wasn’t, but because they where losing. The Soviets where losing, they where having food shortages at home, and Eastern Europe was acting up again. That’s why they left, they where stretched too thin. The international community bit was just to save face.

If Afghanistan has happened in the 1950s the Soviets wouldn’t have given a shit about the international community

Not agreeing with him about the international law aspect, but with regards to the course of the war, that's historically incorrect.

By 1984, Pakistani ISI, which was the main force supplying and training the Muj, estimated the Soviets and Afghan Government would've reduced the Muj to non-existence beyond a local policing issue by 1986; American aid changed the equation. Still CIA assessments into the late 1980s found that the Soviets had still managed to more or less win, as evidenced by the Battle of Jalalabad following their pullout. What really did in Communist Afghanistan, however, was the loss of Soviet aid and the political infighting between the Parcham and Khalq factions, which served to spook the Non-Pashtun figures within the regime such as Abdul Rashid Dostum, commander of the 53rd Division, who later defected as a result to the Muj.