No Real Solution
If only the United States had been in a position to carry out regime change in China and Russia in 1948, we wouldn't be in this mess.
YouTube has blocked the campaign account of Hong Kong's only candidate for the Special Administrative Region's (SAR) head of government, John Lee Ka-chiu, citing US sanctions. Lee was selected by Beijing and is almost certain to replace current HK Chief Executive Carrie Lam, another Chinese Communist Party pick, after a May 8 …
Actually, I'd venture to suggest that most of the bad stuff that has happened in the last 80 years has been caused by our attempts at regime change. Its really a matter of perspective -- we in the West tend to think of our culture as civilization and imposed it on others where we could but many of those others objected to this. We then reacted by a program of open hostility and subversion with ongoing economic warfare which often broke out as open warfare.
Anyway, with regard to this topic I don't think the people concerned care. They have access to TikToc anyway.
I agree that most regime change has been ineffective. However, I must disagree with a lot of what you've said.
"we in the West tend to think of our culture as civilization and imposed it on others where we could but many of those others objected to this. We then reacted by a program of open hostility and subversion with ongoing economic warfare which often broke out as open warfare."
No, that's not what happened. Democracy is not a uniquely western thing. Democracy has been done in various forms in a lot of places, including eastern Asia. I'm not just talking about modern democracies there; I'm talking about areas that have been ruled with the consent of their populations. Of course, if you include most of history, this has been rare compared with the number of military dictators, but this is equally true with Europe. Similarly, the local populations tend not to object to the "imposition" of democracy. The imposition of military control, yes, but not democracy. When the local population has had the power to set their own governments, the dictators have been replaced by democracy. For example, when South Korea's dictator (supported by the U.S.) was removed from office due to public protests and a strong democracy replaced him, the people chose that model and the U.S. continued to support the country. They don't deserve any credit for creating it as they were willing to support a dictator, but neither did they impede it or act to control the resultant democracy, even as it took actions of which the U.S. disapproved.
I don't follow. France is democratic, yes. How does that argue against democracy being accepted elsewhere as well? How does that argue against Europe having a history of dictatorships, including in France, in the long-term? I don't see how this contradicts my argument.
There's no need for regime change in the USA, democracy is still the right regime (or the worst form of Government except for all the others).
They do need to meddle a lot less in other countries businesses but the big issue there is that not all meddling is bad - but who exactly decides that?
I would contend that there is actually a need for regime change in the USA.
For far too long has the political pie been carved out between Dems and Repubs, and the latter are going decidely loony.
You need another political party to shake up the house of cards you've got going over there. It's starting to smell bad.
People gets to vote directly for the next president... If we Frogs can do it with 12 candidates ( first round... and it's not the record, IIRC at some point in the 90s we went as far as 25+ candidates ) as it will be proved Sunday, I'm sure USA can do it too.
Democracy in the USA has failed due to big corporations buying the TV time of the candidates they bribe.
It's a fact that the candidate with the most money for their campaign is far more likely to win.
Money in politics has ruined our democracy, not the actual voting.
Despite large attempts by the Republicans (Restricting access to vote, changing boundaries, attempting to illegally discard voting districts, Trumps attempts to get states to lie about the results, and many Republican voters caught trying to vote twice, the actual voting has been relatively fraud free.
So, you're wrong, but thanks for at least recognising how the right wing tried to subvert the vote.
well instead of that idiotic system where somebody that got less than 50% of the voters ballots gets the top seat, USA could go to a direct system.
It works nicely in many countries... and since they're culling the candidates down to two long before the ballot day they can even do it in one round... And avoid retarded actions like Jan 6th 2021.
I think the US was in a position to do so, but fortunately was tired of war and decided against those like Patton who advocated for it. Can anyone provide any examples of enforced regime change that worked out in the long run? I don't count Germany because the people themselves wanted the change after Hitler. I suppose Japan qualifies, though it still required a people who wanted some change even if they probably wouldn't have arrived at their modern democracy if it was left up to them.
Ignoring the times there was subtle pushing (or assassination) behind the scenes, the US has attempt overt regime change something like a dozen times since. All have been failures. Even where the majority of the population wanted change, like in Iraq, the US tried to force a system upon them that didn't fit them at all. I doubt trying to force a democracy on Russia in 1945 would have worked any better, let alone trying to force one on China right after they had a revolution that would essentially tell them "what you wanted is wrong, we'll tell you what is right".
We can't know how things would have ended up, so naively assuming that they would have been better - even if the US had succeeded at those two things you suggest - is pretty stupid. Even today by sanctioning Russia and helping Ukraine defend itself we can't control all the possible results. Especially with an unstable ruler who is increasingly backed into a corner. We hope it turns out well in the end, but even if Ukraine succeeds in pushing Russian soldiers out of their country in the end, it could end up with Russia becoming a much larger version of North Korea.
We didn't learn our lesson in Vietnam, hopefully the two wasted decades in Afghanistan and Iraq will make us fearful of trying that again until Millennials are in charge of the government and think they can do it better than the Boomers did.
> I doubt trying to force a democracy on Russia in 1945 would have worked any better [ ... ]
Does anyone remember that, in 1945, and for the entire war period from 1941 to 1945, the USSR was our ally against the Axis? 
What exactly were we supposed to do, after August 1945? Declare war on a former ally? Attack and invade the USSR? How would we have justified it?
People seem to forget that, in 1945, the Red Army reached Berlin before we did.
Churchill's Cold War speech didn't happen until March 5, 1946. What should we have done then? Start WWIII?
. Probably not.
Regardless of that General Patton was not alone in the military or government of the US believing that so long as we already have our armed forces deployed in Europe they should keep going east.
The "cold war" may not have officially begun until 1946, but "red scares" were already happening in the US in the 1930s, it didn't reach a head until McCarthy in the 50s but there would have been a lot of support for at least pushing them back into Russia and not letting them keeping half of Germany and satellite states like Poland.
"People seem to forget that, in 1945, the Red Army reached Berlin before we did."
You say this as if it means the Soviet military was stronger than the others'. Berlin is in the eastern part of Germany. By the time the Soviet troops had entered or taken Berlin, a lot of similarly important cities in western Germany had been taken by British, American, and aligned forces. I don't know what would have happened had an invasion of the USSR been attempted. I do know it would have been very unpleasant for everybody involved. It was a possibility, however.
> Churchill was ready to go for it.
Really, he was? With what weapons? And with whose money?
We - US - financed most of the UK and Soviet war effort in WWII. Not just with money, but with weapons production as well. See Battle of the Atlantic, which started in earnest in November 1939 and lasted until the end of the war.
Yes, Patton was told to stay put. You may not realize this, but the US military is always under civilian control. The US had declared war on the Axis, not on our own allies.
I've always loved the Euros' incoherent mentality about the US' involvement in Europe. Witnessed it myself when I was stationed there: Why are you 'Muricans here? Go home and leave us alone! We're doing great on our own, with your 6th Fleet (Naples, Sigonella), 7th Army (Heidelberg/Stuttgart) and Air Bases (Ramstein, Aviano). At the same time, since you're here, why don't you go to war with the USSR for us?
I don't see why you don't count Germany; they chose Nazism and were, in many cases, willing to fight for it even after seeing what that party was willing to do to Germany and its neighbors. The Nazis didn't have a 100% approval rating, and that dramatically dropped when citizens realized that war isn't fun, but the regime change had to be imposed by force. Japan was the same. Italy might have an argument for doing it themselves as they eventually deposed Mussolini, but even there it's not clear.
I don't usually support regime change. I don't support it here. Many attempts have been unjust and unsuccessful. However, in many cases, the U.S. is given a lot more credit for changing the regime than they deserve and blamed for problems of that country they had nothing to do with. Your list of a dozen attempted regime changes probably includes ones with less involvement. I can only think of a few active military engagements you could argue had that goal. Many did fail, but the problems that happened there aren't always the fault of the Americans' actions.
..."being involved in coercing, arresting, detaining, or imprisoning individuals under the authority of the National Security Law, as well as being involved in its development, adoption, or implementation."...
All this coming from the country having the largest prison population in the world, and the highest per-capita incarceration rate of all countries!
"At the election, 1,454 members of a committee dominated by pro-Beijing politicians and tycoons votes."
My old high-school English teacher drummed into me that subject and verb should always agree and I cannot escape the tyranny of his pedantry even after 50 years! Help m-e-e-e-e-e-e!
I also had problems with that sentence. But convinced myself that it could be correct because the (singular) committee is voting.
But on re-reading your quote I see that that is not what was said.
In my case it wasn't only the teacher of English but also the ones teaching French and German who drummed that into me. And now the same is happening with my teacher of Spanish (who is also a Spanish teacher).
I can't help feeling that here in England (*) you only learn these things if you learn an additional language.
(*) From my limited exposure to those north of the border I get the feeling that their education may have been different
China can ban google in china and subvert their services, but google cannot ban the self serving videos of a potential dictator.
let us not forget that these "elections" have EXACTLY ONE candidate.
that whilst before H.K had multiple political parties, they have now all been exterminated, now there are several parties ALL with EXACTLY THE SAME view points..
Like KFC having 5 shops with different names and you having to eat in one of them or you are classed as a subversive and arrested.
Then strangely you "disappear", but you get a "fair" trial where the jury is chosen by the chief executive.... and you are retroactive tried on a law that was recently introduced to suppress ANY sort of disagreement...
What they also don't tell you is currently they are closing the courts in H.K, as in stripping the buildings and renaming them.
But no press or anyone is reporting on this or anything else. except the "honeypots" like the SCMP..........
Except that none of what you are saying is actually happening. Who has been disappeared? All the arrests and trials in Hong Kong have been high profile affairs, widely reported in all the media. Which courts are they closing?
Constant disinformation about Hong Kong is really tiresome. Especially the fantasy that the protests were about "democracy & freedom", when it was mostly about anti-Chinese sentiment.
“Carrie Lam's top advisor, Bernard Chan, called the situation "unfortunate," an "isolated incident," and unlikely to affect the election.”
Unlikely to affect the election! Wow that’s some understatement. It should be ‘impossible to affect the rigged election’.
How can YouTube blocking the campaign account of the only candidate in an election have any affect?
A single vote is all that he requires, he is not going to forget to vote for himself. He won’t need to be reminded by a campaign ad on YouTube that he is standing in an election.
This post has been deleted by its author
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022