“I suspect had Poland requested and received assistance in turning back the Germans there would have been calls for regime change. In Berlin in German.”

The ignorance of some of these posters is astounding.

No wonder they take the views they do.

Hey read a book about the German invasion of Poland. It might surprise you to find out that it triggered WW2.

There are peaceful ways to let citizens within a country know we support them and will pressure their destructive leaders until they no longer have control or use unacceptable methods of governance. When force feels necessary, a truly global peacekeeping force is far preferable to a war-like invasion.

Do regimes hold their citizens hostage? Well, yes. I feel held hostage right now. I have the right to vote and the supposed freedom of speech but I cannot effect a regime change here because the regime controls too many of the mechanisms that would enlighten us as to what’s really going on. And the people with the most money are benefitting. So our system of unjust governance is not likely to change. And we’re not likely to ever give up our inimitable cache of nuclear weapons.

So, if another country with enough firepower decides that we need regime change, is it okay for them to attack and invade us? Will you welcome them if your family members were killed along the way?

You are so worried about human rights in Iran. Are you equally concerned about human rights in Iraq, Panama, Nicaragua and Grenada – 4 places in which we were directly responsible for the removal of a sovereign head of state?

Why not start with those four countries, and once things are great for citizens of those states, then you can start worrying about the rest of the world.

One place I would vote for humanitarian intervention would be Zimbabwe, but that’s not on our agenda for some odd reason…

Don’t tell me “regime change starts at home”. I don’t care for the current White House, but mine is not a knee jerk bumper sticker liberal reaction.

It’s funny, actually what Reza Pahlavi is saying is that regime change does start at home. So, let the people of Iran be empowered to create changes in their OWN country.

The more we talk to these mullah dictators the more we give them legitimacy. Let’s sanction the government. Ban the mullahs from traveling around the world, stop their bank accounts and all the ficticious businesses they own outside Iran.

The point is that by allowing the people of Iran – those who live in Iran – to feel that we are on their side, and by side-lining the regime we (and the rest of the free world) will be advocating a more representative government for the Iranian people.

I am not a neocon, but the only way to stand up for human rights in Iran is to allow the people have their voice. Today these voices are stifled. If you don’t belive me starting reading some of the blogs coming out of Iran. Go to http://www.hoder.com for a complete list.

We are not doing the Iranian people any favor by allowing the regime to play this negotiation game. It is the Iranian people who suffer the most. See http://www.rezapahlavi.org for more. At the end of the day the current regime is holding its citizens hostage.

I agree. There are more appropriate words for rice.

I suppose this poster would have been happy not to see regime change in Germany Russia, or Italy in the 1930′s.

‘Regime change’ in Panama was illegal and history has shown it to have been simply a ploy by the Bush administration to eliminate a political nuisance, with perhaps thousands of civilian deaths a byproduct.

I would highly recommend a show on revisiting the Panama invasion… in it are all the seeds of today’s foreign policy disasters with many of the same players (Cheney, Powell, Eliot Abrams, and more).

It’ll be interesting to see the propaganda mill return as Noriega comes due for release next year. He was simply demonized as was Hussein and Clinton since… not to say that Noriega and Hussein were angels by a long shot, but they were no Hitlers. Interesting that the administration occasionally tries to pin the Hitler tag on Hugo Chavez and on the current leader of Iran, who lucky for him has an unmemorable name for westerners…

If anybody is a Hitler today to his people my vote goes to Mugabe in Africa, but he’s allowed to rule merrily on…. no oil or Canal or pointed remarks to American presidents or their friends.

When we get involved in ‘regime’ change or maintenance in other countries, we are usually controlled by our fears – of ‘communists’ , ‘terrorists’, you name it. We don’t really think about what would be best for the people of that country in the long run. We claim humanitarian motives, but they are really self-serving. We don’t ever repair the damage we’ve done, or spend enough time in one place to insure that a functional government is underway.

It is best if we stay out of other countries unless they ask for our help. And then we should stay in an advisor capacity. Let the UN or some non-govermental, non-State affiliated non-profit help with an internal transformation of a country.

We aren’t entitled, simply because we have the most destructive weapons and more money, to tell everybody else what kind of governance they should have. Certainly, the world would be well served if we, and all other countries, actually paid attention to human rights abuses everywhere and found ways to stand up to the abusers and help the disempowered gain power. But it is not some universal truth that our form of government, our approach to an economy is the best. We just use that as an excuse to get what we want for ourselves.

Here is a country that is a major supporter of terror in middle east. Almost all the terror in that region started after this regime took hold in 1979. They want to openly destry their neighbor.

What’s wrong with regime change?