Talk:Regime change

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This says nothing about the international legal aspects of the topic (that to work towards a stated aim of overthrowing the government of a soverign nation is contrary to international law). --Daniel C. Boyer

Because, after all,
Regime change is a euphemism for the overthrow, either peaceful or via military coup d'etat, of a leader or government (regime) by another force.
The term was popularized by American President George W. Bush, in reference to Saddam Hussein's regime.
is too NPOV as it stands. --Calieber 20:07, Oct 27, 2003 (UTC)

And shouldn't it be the "policy" some other nation or nation, or entity or entities, "to support efforts to remove the regime headed by George W. Bush from power in the United States and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime?" --Daniel C. Boyer

credit the administration with sincerely seeking the good of the Iraqi people - yeah, those Baghdad firemen got some really keen fusible nylon T-shirts out of it - "The US wrecked my country and I all I got was this lousy T-shirt" - when has the US ever sought the good of the locals? - including the Kurds - although the admin promised Turkey before the war the Kurds would gain nothing - as well as seeking stablity in the region - even though some yahoo by the name of George H. W. Bush said c1998 that removing Saddam would destabilise the area... sorry to rant, but what kinda fool seriously thought it'd turn out any different than it has?

The kind who grew up as billionaire's sons surrounded by boot licking yes-men who always bailed them out and swept problems under the rug, and consequently these spoiled rich kids have never faced any consequences of their own failures and think that they can talk their way out of anything. Sorry to rant, but you're 100% right. -- Noclevername 07:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason why all references to regime change are typed in italics (like this: regime change)? Gaurav 08:22, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Would it be worth adding some non-US examples of regime change, such as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?

It would, since the lack thereof means that the article doesn't have global perspective or whateveritscalled. -Fsotrain09 17:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Regime change is actually a recurring occurrence throughout history. Any sort of conquest is often "an external overthrow of government." Sargon of Agade overthrew Lugal-zaggesi's regime in the 3rd millennium B.C.E. So are we making a distinction with this from regular old conquests? Most of the American regime changes are sort of along the lines of "replacing regimes unfavourable to our country's interests," which isn't the sort of rationale conquerors use. Brutannica 03:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I would go as far as saying that no western government has ever sought the good of the people when changing any other countries government, unless we are talking about the people in the country whom is administering the change. --SprSynJn 22:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Should this article even be here at all? It talks about "regime change" as if it is a recognized name for a general phenomenon in international relations, when in fact, AFAICT, it is just the phrase used by the Bush administration for what he wanted to see in Iraq. Are there any scholarly works about the general phenomenon of "regime change", with that name? Otherwise this entire article is original research.

I think a neutral and accurate description would be to modify the sentence criticized above as follows:

Regime change refers to the replacement of one leader or government (regime) by another.
The term was popularized by American President George W. Bush, in reference to Saddam Hussein's regime, and U.S. plans to affect such a change.

But this would arguably be original research too. --Mark Foskey 02:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm flagging it as original research. Consider:

It can be argued that the idea of overthrowing a government from the outside and replacing it with a new one built "from scratch" traces back to the Potsdam Agreement, which suggested post-World War II designs for Germany but became largely irrelevant for the era of the Cold War.[1]

"It can be argued" is a red flag for original research/analysis. Who made that argument? The citation makes no reference to the Potsdam Agreement.

[edit] A coup is regime change

I don't understand why this article is focussed on regime change via external forces. A coup is regime change, by definition! (Google "regime change" coup. While many of the hits are about externally-driven revolution, many correctly use the term regime change to refer to the changing of a regime by internal means.)

I intend to put some factual structure into this article! Starting... real soon now.

Don't be put off by misunderstanding what the US government's been on about throughout the noughties. They have actually been using the term correctly ("our desired outcome is regime change in Iraq...") despite what whoever wrote this article seems to think. 129.16.97.227 (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

...and so is revolution, restructuring, and reconstruction following a failed state! 129.16.97.227 (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm done for the moment. 129.16.97.227 (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)