Should the U.S. topple foreign leaders?

[Jacobtm]

I would say our military should not be used as it was in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan to topple foreign leaders we do not like.

Practically I do not think it has had good results either for us or for the countries concerned, the only people benefitting are those making money off of the war/weapons manufacture. Perhaps they serve some greater geopolitical goal, but I fail to see how creating such chaos in countries that groups like ISIS can take over helps the U.S. strategically.

Many people here have expressed the idea that Qaddafi, Assad, Saddam, or the Taliban were "bad" and thus taking them out is "good" without questioning what exactly is the situation before and after these leaders. I say it's gotten worse, in each of these four cases.

However more generally I think our military should not be used to meddle in other countries' affairs, I think it will accrue many benefits to the U.S. in terms of not destabilizing governments and giving breathing space to terrorist groups.

[Famous Mortimer]

Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya were all completely different situations.

One was an instance in which the country was harboring people who attacked us, another was a war of choice, and the third was a humanitarian intervention.

They all have very little in common and should not be lumped together.

[Clark Kent]

Obviously not all of them.

[Jacobtm]

Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya were all completely different situations.

One was an instance in which the country was harboring people who attacked us, another was a war of choice, and the third was a humanitarian intervention.

They all have very little in common and should not be lumped together.

The commonality was a stable government which was toppled and led to the country falling into civil war and chaos.

How about instead of nitpicking you address the question though.

[Famous Mortimer]

Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya were all completely different situations.

One was an instance in which the country was harboring people who attacked us, another was a war of choice, and the third was a humanitarian intervention.

They all have very little in common and should not be lumped together.

The commonality was a stable government which was toppled and led to the country falling into civil war and chaos.

How about instead of nitpicking you address the question though.

How about you answer this question: Should people be in jail? Please don't nitpick about the difference between people who are guilty of crimes and people who are innocent.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Starting with the British royal family, yes.

^^^^

[ingemann]

Starting with the British royal family, yes.

THat's sound like a wonderful idea, when they can get a Cameron as president instead, a aristocrat who have even less connection with the average Brit than the royal family and he's even family.

As for the question; sometimes.

[PJ]

Obviously not all of them.

Topple 55% of foreign leaders as a compromise.

[angus]

Generally no.  Not Saddam, for example, or Hitler, or Pol Pot, or Ho Chi Minh, but when we have popular support from the locals and a directive for safety, I think it's legit.  Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama have committed funds to arrest or execute Joseph Kony, and I think that's probably a legitimate expenditure of US tax dollars. 

[/]

Only Bibi

[Figueira]

Obviously not all of them.

I strongly disagree. The US should topple every single foreign leader. Maybe go in reverse alphabetical order by country.

[Green Line]

If it serves our interest, yes.

[ElectionsGuy]

Obviously not

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hillary helped topple the democratically elected President of the Honduras. It's amazing how terrible her foreign policy is. Obama really made a mistake by putting someone like her whose SoS tenure will be mainly remembered for an e-mail scandal, rather than give the highly capable John Kerry 8 years.

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/hillary-clinton-honduraslatinamericaforeignpolicy.html

[Leinad]

Not at all. Imperialism should be a thing of the past, not our foreign policy.

If it serves our interest, yes.

I would argue that, because this isn't a game of Diplomacy, our interests regarding foreign policy should be centered around peace. Starting wars is obviously the worst way to do that. Therefore it would never serve our interest unless they're attacking us.

Starting with the British royal family, yes.

THat's sound like a wonderful idea, when they can get a Cameron as president instead, a aristocrat who have even less connection with the average Brit than the royal family and he's even family.

I'm pretty sure he was talking about the royal family in 1776, not 2015. I might be wrong on that, though.

[Blair]

Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya were all completely different situations.

One was an instance in which the country was harboring people who attacked us, another was a war of choice, and the third was a humanitarian intervention.

They all have very little in common and should not be lumped together.

The commonality was a stable government which was toppled and led to the country falling into civil war and chaos.

How about instead of nitpicking you address the question though.

Libya was not stable at all considering half the country was in rebellion

[SWE]

If it serves our interest, yes.

So never?

[politicus]

Kim Jong-un, Isaias Afwerki, Mugabe, the top brass of the Tatmadaw, Omar al-Bashir, Islam Karimov and a few other -stan leaders. There are other bad guys out there, but it is a risky game. Often they will be replaced with someone equally bad.

[Bigby]

Hillary helped topple the democratically elected President of the Honduras. It's amazing how terrible her foreign policy is. Obama really made a mistake by putting someone like her whose SoS tenure will be mainly remembered for an e-mail scandal, rather than give the highly capable John Kerry 8 years.

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/hillary-clinton-honduraslatinamericaforeignpolicy.html

You had me until you said John Kerry was capable as Secretary of State.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Should the rest of the world topple U.S. leaders?

Preferably when Trump is elected President.

[Green Line]

If Corbyn were to ever become PM of the UK we might have to consider it.

[Mehmentum]

Obviously not all of them.

I strongly disagree. The US should topple every single foreign leader. Maybe go in reverse alphabetical order by country.

Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and Edgar Lungu of Zambia are trembling in their seats.

[PJ]

If Corbyn were to ever become PM of the UK we might have to consider it.

Dear God

[pho]

Generally speaking, we should not involve ourselves in foreign affairs unless we have a discernible national interest at stake. It's not our problem if some paramilitary group in Africa is trampling human rights, let Darfur save itself.

[Mr. Smith]

Almost never.