Regime Change Watch

This discussion is closed.
Jamie
Badges: 18
#41
Report 13 years ago
#41
(Original post by Bismarck)
You call intimidating and arresting the opposition, firing opponents from government jobs, trying to stack the courts, and refusing to hold a referendum for dubious reasons, democratic?

And how is Venezuela one of the most stable democracies in South America? Didn't a certain officer try to overthrow the government about a decade ago? I don't recall seeing that many coup attempts in most other countries in the region.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/ame...es/1229345.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4274483.stm

"Economic, social and political tensions led to an indefinite strike on 9 April by supporters of the opposition, an alliance built around the business sector, the principal trade union and private media interests, who demanded the immediate resignation of President Chávez. On 11 April, a mass opposition demonstration met pro-government protesters in the vicinity of the presidential palace. As demonstrators, Metropolitan Police, National Guard clashed, 20 people died as a result of gunshot wounds, and over 60 others were injured. In the ensuing crisis, senior military officials forced President Chávez from power and placed him in detention. Following the Coup d’Etat, a de facto joint civilian-military administration was established under the opposition leader Pedro Carmona, head of the Employers Association, FEDECAMARAS. The de facto government issued draconian decrees, inclusing the closure of the National Assembly, and the summary dismissal of the Supreme Court, the Attorney General and the Human Rights Ombudsman (Defensor del Pueblo). [At which point America announced official recognition of the govt] Police carried out raids on a number of homes of supporters of President Chávez. Amongst those arbitrarily detained were a Minister and a National Assembly deputy. There was widespread condemnation of the unconstitutional and summary removal of President Chávez, the illegal detention of his supporters, and the arbitrary powers assumed by the de facto government. This, coupled with the increasingly determined efforts of President Chávez’s followers to secure his release and return to power, led to the resignation of the new government and reinstatement of President Chávez on 14 April. The civil disturbance during these four days left at least 50 people dead and many more wounded. The government and opposition have continually accused each other of masterminding the violence for political advantage over the last year. "

America is pissy for several reasons. THe leftist policies of Chavez which have popular support oppose big business and are somewhat reminiscent of communism. This seems to be a growing fashion in the region (something america says shows destabilising effects). Venezuela is selling tis oil preferentially to Cuba, Brazil, S.America and then Carribean countries preferentially rather than on the open marke, thus losing itself some money but helping these countries massively with energy problems.
They are also making some Mugabe esque moves too unfortunately - renationalising some of the massive spanish and american (and brit) owned ranches which were practically given away by previous governemnts in reutrn for certain kick backs.

Their economy is making a big turnaround because of reforms, not going backwards.
LC01
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#42
Report 13 years ago
#42
You cant keep a majority group repressed forever. Let them stand up and fight for thier democracy, thats how it was gained in Britain. Democracy can only happen when the dictatorship is taken down, this usally means war, but that war is better to be fought as a civil war rather than an invading army. I dont want world police, not sure how many people do.
0
TheVlad
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#43
Report 13 years ago
#43
(Original post by LC01)
You cant keep a majority group repressed forever. Let them stand up and fight for thier democracy, thats how it was gained in Britain. Democracy can only happen when the dictatorship is taken down, this usally means war, but that war is better to be fought as a civil war rather than an invading army. I dont want world police, not sure how many people do.
It took centuries to happen in Britain. Are you prepared to wait that long for the rest of the world?
0
MMA
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#44
Report 13 years ago
#44
A civil war is better than an invading army but there will always be extreme cases where intervention and regime change is needed. Especially when such activities as genocide are taking place. I certainly don't agree with regime change unless there is going to be a huge loss of life- as who is going to judge which regimes are worthya nd which aren't.
0
LC01
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#45
Report 13 years ago
#45
(Original post by TheVlad)
It took centuries to happen in Britain. Are you prepared to wait that long for the rest of the world?
yes.
0
technik
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#46
Report 13 years ago
#46
(Original post by MMA)
A civil war is better than an invading army but there will always be extreme cases where intervention and regime change is needed. Especially when such activities as genocide are taking place. I certainly don't agree with regime change unless there is going to be a huge loss of life- as who is going to judge which regimes are worthya nd which aren't.
often civil wars are about or end up in genocide type activities...i dont see how you can say a civil war is better than an invading army.
0
TheVlad
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#47
Report 13 years ago
#47
(Original post by LC01)
yes.
That's cool. I personally, would take a pragmatic approach: I wouldn't interfere just for the sake of it except if it would be really useful to me if one side rather than another won.
0
LC01
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#48
Report 13 years ago
#48
(Original post by technik)
often civil wars are about or end up in genocide type activities...i dont see how you can say a civil war is better than an invading army.
Its better because its their people fighting for what they want, as apposed to an invading army which might not serve the interests of the people.
0
Mr_H
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#49
Report 13 years ago
#49
(Original post by LC01)
Its better because its their people fighting for what they want, as apposed to an invading army which might not serve the interests of the people.
but it is much less mediated and controlled. as was said earlier... civil war can so easily lead to genocide stlye actions, as one side wins and the other is purged. more often than not, the external force will be mediated by someone, such as the UN, who even if the cant stop the war, would be able to enforce fair treatment of those left after it, and prevent genocide etc.
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#50
Report 13 years ago
#50
(Original post by MMA)
A civil war is better than an invading army but there will always be extreme cases where intervention and regime change is needed.
Maybe. But civil wars are horrid things and leave deadful scars for years.

A couple of years ago I was in a bar in the beautiful town of Vicksburg in Mississippi (if you ever get the chance do go)....anyway, this was in late June and I asked someone there what the town normally did for July 4th celebrations.

I was interested to learn that up until releatively recently the town had boycotted July 4th, not because they were anti-independence but because July 4th was the date on which Vicksburg fell to the yankees in the later civil war.

So, memory lasts a long time, and even then I was told that some of the old southerners of that town would not celebrate anything on July 4th.

Sorry to bore but it struck me as interesting.....guess you had to be there.... :rolleyes:
0
LC01
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#51
Report 13 years ago
#51
(Original post by Howard)
Maybe. But civil wars are horrid things and leave deadful scars for years.

A couple of years ago I was in a bar in the beutiful town of Vicksburg in Mississippi (if you ever get the chance do go)....anyway, this was in late June and I asked someone there what the town normally did for July 4th celebrations.

I was interested to learn that up until releatively recently the town had boycotted July 4th, not because they were anti-independence but because July 4th was the date on which Vicksburg fell to the yankees in the later civil war.

So, memory lasts a long time, and even then I was told that some of the old southerners of that town would not celebrate anything on July 4th.

Sorry to bore but it struck me as interesting.....guess you had to be there.... :rolleyes:
I think they would have been more pissed off if that was the day an invading army took them over though.
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#52
Report 13 years ago
#52
(Original post by LC01)
Its better because its their people fighting for what they want, as apposed to an invading army which might not serve the interests of the people.
civil wars leave seeds of mistrust and hate for decades.
Jamie
Badges: 18
#53
Report 13 years ago
#53
(Original post by LC01)
You cant keep a majority group repressed forever. Let them stand up and fight for thier democracy, thats how it was gained in Britain. Democracy can only happen when the dictatorship is taken down, this usally means war, but that war is better to be fought as a civil war rather than an invading army. I dont want world police, not sure how many people do.
of course you can keep the majority down. By splitting them up, denying them effective communication, and through superior weapons.
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#54
Report 13 years ago
#54
(Original post by LC01)
I think they would have been more pissed off if that was the day an invading army took them over though.
I don't know. I got the impression that they hate the yankies a lot more than the Brits who were actually an occupying force that they fought against just a matter of decades decades before the civil war. And with good reason for some.........the elderly folks in that part of the world remember their own grandparents telling them about how they were starved to death/robbed/brutalized/raped by their "own countrymen"
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#55
Report 13 years ago
#55
(Original post by Howard)
I don't know. I got the impression that they hate the yankies a lot more than the Brits who were actually an occupying force that they fought against just a matter of decades decades before the civil war. And with good reason for some.........the elderly folks in that part of the world remember their own grandparents telling them about how they were starved to death/robbed/brutalized/raped by their "own countrymen"
mmmm, nothing divides communities more because you never know whether the next door neighbour might secretly be a yankee supporter...
With the red coats/any occupiers or foreign army its often a bit more clear cut
bret
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#56
Report 13 years ago
#56
(Original post by foolfarian)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/ame...es/1229345.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4274483.stm

"Economic, social and political tensions led to an indefinite strike on 9 April by supporters of the opposition, an alliance built around the business sector, the principal trade union and private media interests, who demanded the immediate resignation of President Chávez. On 11 April, a mass opposition demonstration met pro-government protesters in the vicinity of the presidential palace. As demonstrators, Metropolitan Police, National Guard clashed, 20 people died as a result of gunshot wounds, and over 60 others were injured. In the ensuing crisis, senior military officials forced President Chávez from power and placed him in detention. Following the Coup d’Etat, a de facto joint civilian-military administration was established under the opposition leader Pedro Carmona, head of the Employers Association, FEDECAMARAS. The de facto government issued draconian decrees, inclusing the closure of the National Assembly, and the summary dismissal of the Supreme Court, the Attorney General and the Human Rights Ombudsman (Defensor del Pueblo). [At which point America announced official recognition of the govt] Police carried out raids on a number of homes of supporters of President Chávez. Amongst those arbitrarily detained were a Minister and a National Assembly deputy. There was widespread condemnation of the unconstitutional and summary removal of President Chávez, the illegal detention of his supporters, and the arbitrary powers assumed by the de facto government. This, coupled with the increasingly determined efforts of President Chávez’s followers to secure his release and return to power, led to the resignation of the new government and reinstatement of President Chávez on 14 April. The civil disturbance during these four days left at least 50 people dead and many more wounded. The government and opposition have continually accused each other of masterminding the violence for political advantage over the last year. "

America is pissy for several reasons. THe leftist policies of Chavez which have popular support oppose big business and are somewhat reminiscent of communism. This seems to be a growing fashion in the region (something america says shows destabilising effects). Venezuela is selling tis oil preferentially to Cuba, Brazil, S.America and then Carribean countries preferentially rather than on the open marke, thus losing itself some money but helping these countries massively with energy problems.
They are also making some Mugabe esque moves too unfortunately - renationalising some of the massive spanish and american (and brit) owned ranches which were practically given away by previous governemnts in reutrn for certain kick backs.

Their economy is making a big turnaround because of reforms, not going backwards.

Just written a piece entitled ' Are political classes in Latin America fighting within the state or for it'. I used Venezuela for purposes of illustration. the case here is complex. opposition and government support claim an illegitimacy on the part of each other. 2002 obviously damaged the credibility of the opposition and the confidence referenda have further weakened them structurally and hurt their claims to constitutional legitimacy. however, chavez is no angel. the constitutional assembly which drafted the Bolivarian Constitution was appointed and went beyond its remit, but then again so did a group of 55 Anglo Saxon men in the Philadelphia summer of 1787.

Venezuela will not descend into civil war. chavez is gaining full control of the state as institutions fall beyond the grasp of opposition movement. that doesn't hinder the case that can be made for invasion. Failed states present less of a problem in terms of our persuing an activist foreign policy. Where there is a vacuum of power, war will produce a faction who will fill it. It is in the free world's best interests to make sure this faction is not a Taliban, save having to confront the enemies of liberal democracy once they have established a successful but rogue state as is the case in North Korea. And here is the distinction. A rogue state in a Hobbesian sense must necessarily be a successful one in order to stifle democratic forces at home and pose a threat to the West. like in the old Soviet bloc, their grip on power can remain for decades and the threat to our intwined interests and values will remain, unless we actively seek to do something about it. In the case of the cold war, Reagan could not allow detente to continue, but in realising the inherent inferiority of non-democratic systems he was able to actively trump the regime in Moscow by challenging it to the arms build up.

The war on terror is different. like Reagan the Bush andministration has realised the vitalness of spreading America's ideals as a means of securing its interests. In nations such as Iraq, the balance of power meant there would be no chance of a civil war and the only way of securing that country from tyranny is through invasion. By all means, in systems where there are sizable opposition groups we should sponsor the violent overthrow of non-democratic or even democratically elected regimes which usurp the rights of their people if a replacement akin to our own values is waiting in the wings. Yet where this is not the case, the desirable aim of regime change must be achieved by our own action. The West has at its disposal unprecedented military muscle. The challenges which face us must involve regime change as reform either takes too long, causing suffering and posing a security threat, or can never be enacted within an inherently corrupt system.

Soz 4 the length, biut thats my take on something i feel very strongly about.
0
Person
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#57
Report 13 years ago
#57
Sure. We should be invading democracies. Because they are left wing. Let's have another few Pinochets and a Batista or two.
0
bret
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#58
Report 13 years ago
#58
(Original post by Northumbrian)
Sure. We should be invading democracies. Because they are left wing. Let's have another few Pinochets and a Batista or two.
i knew what the response was gonna be to that post. the traditional left does not understand America's mission. A democracy which usurps the rights of its people is hardly worth the title. Hitler was elected as you know. if it was the case that we should invade left wing democracies don't you think Brazil would be the first on our list. No, Lula not only has a mandate but also the legitimacy which Mr. Chavez so lacks. i don't think Venezuela should be in our sights any more than much of the old Eastern Bloc, perhaps even less.

We should be the active supporter of freedom everywhere and if a democratically elected leader oversteps his mandate, he is just as legitimate a target as a Saddam if his abuses of freedom are on such a par. one cannot sell oneself into slavery.

on allende-pinochet: this was wrong. allende, whilst an authoritarian to a point had not shown cause for violent removal. We replaced him with an even more brutal despot who whilst respecting our interests did not respect our ideals. but we must realise that now our interests and ideals are inseparable and friendly monsters abroad, as it came to be seen on 9/11, sonner or later come to our shores. the only excuse for nixon was that his peripheral project in Chile, whilst cynical, destructive and self-interested was part of a larger and more vilal struggle against an enemy we can only thank has been destroyed. not the proudest of american moments and but we could debate this till the cows come home.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you chained to your phone?

Yes (105)
19.48%
Yes, but I'm trying to cut back (222)
41.19%
Nope, not that interesting (212)
39.33%

Watched Threads

View All