NationStates

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.

If you want to start WWIII than go ahead...

Edit: What I mean to say is those Dictatorships have somewhat the backing of Russia and/or China. If we something to rash like change NATO from defensive, the outcome could be full on global war.

Fifth Imperial Remnant wrote:If you want to start WWIII than go ahead...

World War Three will never happen. Actually that's a lie. As long as dictators and terrorists pursue WMDs and attack the West, it could begin at any moment. Read up on the Democratic Peace Theory.

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

Ascysia wrote:The US, UK, France and allies have been successful in regime change in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq,

No. We were not.

Successful regime change involves a successful transition as well.

We fucked Afghanistan by going into Iraq and letting the Taliban recover and regroup, we fucked Iraq by betraying the Awakening Councils for Al-Maliki, and we fucked Libya by doing absolutely nothing to maintain stability after overthrowing Gaddafi's government.

I'm a supporter of regime change, but it has to be done right.

In the long term, yes, I agree. But it's not the most realistic option as of now to wage war on that many fronts, lest we have too many foes united against us. Fueled by the most primitive instinct, of course, survival.

Wars are also expensive and the US (and its allies) can't afford too many of them.

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

Saudi Arabia is a strategic ally against Iran. They're not perfect, but they have the manpower and technology on them to help us. Once we stabilize the Middle East, we use our newfound democratic allies to deal with Saudi Arabia.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Ascysia wrote:The US, UK, France and allies have been successful in regime change in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq,

No. We were not.

Successful regime change involves a successful transition as well.

We fucked Afghanistan by going into Iraq and letting the Taliban recover and regroup, we fucked Iraq by betraying the Awakening Councils for Al-Maliki, and we fucked Libya by doing absolutely nothing to maintain stability after overthrowing Gaddafi's government.

I'm a supporter of regime change, but it has to be done right.

Afghanistan and Iraq were major successes, and Libya may look like it was bad but it wasn't us who started a civil war and prevented any nation building from happening.

Nah, you just gotta treat them like kids, remind them who is boss from time to time. There is no point in toppling a skrub, then you have a mess : (

By forcing countries to do what they do not want to do is not the best way to do things, in my opinion. If you force everyone to accept liberal democracy, that's like forcing any other ideology on people.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Ascysia wrote:The US, UK, France and allies have been successful in regime change in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq,

No. We were not.

Successful regime change involves a successful transition as well.

We fucked Afghanistan by going into Iraq and letting the Taliban recover and regroup, we fucked Iraq by betraying the Awakening Councils for Al-Maliki, and we fucked Libya by doing absolutely nothing to maintain stability after overthrowing Gaddafi's government.

I'm a supporter of regime change, but it has to be done right.

Eeh, I kinda doubt It can be done right thru direct foreign intervention. Financing opposition movements (that aren't as bad as the statu Quo, aka Venezuela) yeah, but not just slapping up some tanks in the name of freedom

The East Marches II wrote:Nah, you just gotta treat them like kids, remind them who is boss from time to time. There is no point in toppling a skrub, then you have a mess : (

If we deal with them once and for all, there's no need to constantly remind them who's boss. If we keep doing that, tensions with Russia and China will get worse. We need to deal with their allies and shoot the bear's limbs, not poke its belly repeatedly.

Ascysia wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:Nah, you just gotta treat them like kids, remind them who is boss from time to time. There is no point in toppling a skrub, then you have a mess : (

If we deal with them once and for all, there's no need to constantly remind them who's boss. If we keep doing that, tensions with Russia and China will get worse. We need to deal with their allies and shoot the bear's limbs, not poke its belly repeatedly.

Thats a damn good way to kill millions and millions.

Austria-Latvia wrote:By forcing countries to do what they do not want to do is not the best way to do things, in my opinion. If you force everyone to accept liberal democracy, that's like forcing any other ideology on people.

Its completely different. The only way we can usher in an eternity of peace is by enforcing democracy and dealing with anti-democratic radicalism and terrorism.

Yymea wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:No. We were not.

Successful regime change involves a successful transition as well.

We fucked Afghanistan by going into Iraq and letting the Taliban recover and regroup, we fucked Iraq by betraying the Awakening Councils for Al-Maliki, and we fucked Libya by doing absolutely nothing to maintain stability after overthrowing Gaddafi's government.

I'm a supporter of regime change, but it has to be done right.

Eeh, I kinda doubt It can be done right thru direct foreign intervention. Financing opposition movements (that aren't as bad as the statu Quo, aka Venezuela) yeah, but not just slapping up some tanks in the name of freedom

Financing opposition is one way to do it. Financing opposition paramilitaries to start a war we can then get involved in? Now that's a much better idea.

Ascysia wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:Nah, you just gotta treat them like kids, remind them who is boss from time to time. There is no point in toppling a skrub, then you have a mess : (

If we deal with them once and for all, there's no need to constantly remind them who's boss. If we keep doing that, tensions with Russia and China will get worse. We need to deal with their allies and shoot the bear's limbs, not poke its belly repeatedly.

Yeah m8, you gonna actively suppress a shithole where there are bunch of small ethnic militias that all hate you? That sounds like trillions down the drain. If you want to deal with the Russians and Chinese, a couple of trillion could buy us a brand new shiny fleet!

Ascysia wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:Nah, you just gotta treat them like kids, remind them who is boss from time to time. There is no point in toppling a skrub, then you have a mess : (

If we deal with them once and for all, there's no need to constantly remind them who's boss. If we keep doing that, tensions with Russia and China will get worse. We need to deal with their allies and shoot the bear's limbs, not poke its belly repeatedly.

But the bear isn't going to let you do that, is it?

Kernen wrote:

Ascysia wrote:If we deal with them once and for all, there's no need to constantly remind them who's boss. If we keep doing that, tensions with Russia and China will get worse. We need to deal with their allies and shoot the bear's limbs, not poke its belly repeatedly.

Thats a damn good way to kill millions and millions.

Millions may need to die to ensure peace. You need to look at the bigger picture.

Ascysia wrote: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.

And YOU get millions of casualties! And YOU get millions of casualties! EVERYBODY GETS MILLIONS OF CASUALTIES!

Ascysia wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:Nah, you just gotta treat them like kids, remind them who is boss from time to time. There is no point in toppling a skrub, then you have a mess : (

If we deal with them once and for all,there's no need to constantly remind them who's boss. If we keep doing that, tensions with Russia and China will get worse. We need to deal with their allies and shoot the bear's limbs, not poke its belly repeatedly.

In order for this to happen, we would have to get Russia and China on our side to do it. North Korea is a prime example.

Or y'know, we could stop shovelling the lives of young adults into the meat grinder of interventionist wars. Not to mention the untold billions wasted on making Iraq and Afghanistan such trash heaps.

Ascysia wrote:

Kernen wrote:Thats a damn good way to kill millions and millions.

Millions may need to die to ensure peace. You need to look at the bigger picture.

You need to consider your math. Starting a war preemptively is more costly than the status quo, because the authoritarian regimes aren't killing people as fast as a war would.

You also falsely assume that one war would be the end of it, and wouldn't create other issues. Long term economic failure, long term refugee crises, instability that leads to further violence, overextension of national resources to deal with a non-native issue.

Bad idea is bad, and you should feel bad.

Done gently and not all at once, it could work. But a sudden and forced change in regime can cause chaos on the government.

Annexation gets the same desired result with less short term political disarray.

Western-Ukraine wrote:

Ascysia wrote:If we deal with them once and for all, there's no need to constantly remind them who's boss. If we keep doing that, tensions with Russia and China will get worse. We need to deal with their allies and shoot the bear's limbs, not poke its belly repeatedly.

But the bear isn't going to let you do that, is it?

They didn't stop us from bombing Syria twice. What can they do? Bad economy and a much weaker military. They couldn't stop us invading Syria, Belarus or Iran, they could only stop us invading them (at the moment anyway)

The East Marches II wrote:

Ascysia wrote:If we deal with them once and for all, there's no need to constantly remind them who's boss. If we keep doing that, tensions with Russia and China will get worse. We need to deal with their allies and shoot the bear's limbs, not poke its belly repeatedly.

Yeah m8, you gonna actively suppress a shithole where there are bunch of small ethnic militias that all hate you? That sounds like trillions down the drain. If you want to deal with the Russians and Chinese, a couple of trillion could buy us a brand new shiny fleet!

The goal is to cut off their allies, then we can deal with China and Russia straight on. We can't attack Russia directly right now, that's prime opportunity for China and the DPRK to invade Asia, and for Iran to attack Israel. All we need to do is bomb these ethnic militias until they submit, peace through strength. We need to stop being weak just because there's a threat of starting another war.

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.

Telconi wrote:Or y'know, we could stop shovelling the lives of young adults into the meat grinder of interventionist wars. Not to mention the untold billions wasted on making Iraq and Afghanistan such trash heaps.

People are always willing to throw young soldiers into the meat grinder when they aren't one of those soldiers.