Changing the US form of government

Has anyone considered that the US should change the way they run things? This stuff about "I vote for a person that will vote for a person to be the president"

Or the fact that states have the right to have their own laws which often are stupid and often violate the interests of the country as a whole? (See the Oklahoma bill thread)

Or the fact that in every election, only the republicans and the democrats matter, and the other guys are simply wasting breath?

And i am sure we could think about other things.
No flaming america, please(we will do that another time 😀) let's discuss issues in a civilised manner. Either propose things to be changed and propose how, or offer arguments why amerika shouldn't change.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
Has anyone considered that the US should change the way they run things? This stuff about "I vote for a person that will vote for a person to be the president"

Or the fact that states have the right to have their own laws which often are stupid and often violate the interests of the country as a whole? (See the Oklahoma bill thread)

Or the fact that i ...[text shortened]... opose things to be changed and propose how, or offer arguments why amerika shouldn't change.

Regime change in the USA
Part one

Introduction:
There's a lot of discussion, particularly in the US administration about changing the regimes in various countries, as if it's a God given right or something, to do so.
As I’ve listened and watched over the last few years, it seems to me that if any country needs a regime change, it’s the “Good ole” US of A.
Obviously it has the mightiest army in the world, the largest nuclear arsenal and quite probably the greatest naval fleet. So the chances of regime change being forced upon the US by foreign nations using violence is extremely small. Regime change will, therefore, probably have to come from within US society.

Now, when you read what I’ve read it is very hard to imagine that the average citizen in the US actually knows what their own consecutive governments are up to. Indeed, the same can probably be said about most nations; think of the vicious, yet coordinated, media assault on Arthur Scargill; the leader of the NUM (mining trade union), the human rights abuses committed in Israel by the Israeli government or the handling of dossiers about refugees by the Dutch government. You would presume if people knew what was happening they would protest against it.

So, why am I targeting the US and her citizens?
A majority of what’s happening in the world today is happening directly or indirectly because of US policies! I’m a great believer of looking at a problem, discovering the cause of the problem and working to solve that. In this respect I believe the US is one of the great causes of suffering (if you wish to call that a problem) in the world today. By tackling the greatest cause first, maybe there’s a chance the smaller causes will follow like dominos.

There are many examples of US policy, both covert and otherwise, which I could have used for this article. The mass murder of civilians in Japan in 1945 (Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki) comes to mind. But so does the arming of the Mujahadin, the bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam war and the invasion of Panama.
What I’ve done is chosen 4 examples of US policy which are easily traceable on the internet, so that everyone can see the documentation for themselves.

WHIMSC:
The US administration’s attitude towards terrorism has always carried a hypocritical air of: “Our enemy’s enemies are our friends” and the old Jesuit attitude of “Exitus acta probat (the aim justifies the means)” about it.
Some terrorists seem “good” like the right-wing paramilitaries in Colombia (1), some terrorists seem “evil” like the Sandinistas in Nicaragua (2) and some terrorists seem to change spots as the occasion permits like the Mujahadin (“Good” when fighting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and “Bad” when fighting Western imperialism).
But all forms of hypocrisy on this issue fall into oblivion in comparison with the glaring two-facedness of the US’s war on terrorism.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union the US has had to seek a new enemy. Not because the US people want a new foe, but without a new adversary the general public would not accept a large chunk of their tax revenue being spent on weapons (one of the most powerful of all lobby groups in the US) (3). And the policy makers have come up with the ultimate enemy; the opponent, which by definition can’t be defeated: Terrorism.
Communism cannot be defeated, but when no more countries practice a communist doctrine, one can assume that the war against communism will no longer need pursuing. Terrorism however is a method of combat, and the stronger the US becomes qua military, the more enemies who will have to resort to terrorism to fight it. This in turn leads to more spending on weapons, which makes the US stronger, etc. The weapon industry is laughing all the way to the next third world country that needs invading.

The hypocrisy however is not in this self perpetuating industry, it is in the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, or WHIMSC for short. WHIMSC, formally known as the School of the Americas (SOA…which incidentally is the Dutch abbreviation for a venereal disease) is a training ground for terrorists; in the State of Georgia, USA.
Not only does this “School” teach such subjects as: torture, execution, blackmail, and the arresting of relatives of those being questioned (4), not only does it have an impressive list of former students: Gen. Hernan Jose Guzman Rodriguez, Gen. Hector Gramajo, General Rios Montt and Manuel Noriega, but WHIMSC costs millions of dollars each year and is funded by the US tax payer.
Not only is US tax revenue being spent on fighting terrorists, it is at the same time being used to create terrorists.

The Khmer Rouge:
Pol Pot swept to power in Cambodia in 1975. His Khmer Rouge or “communist party of Cambodia (later the Democratic party of Kampuchea)” reportedly slaughtered 1.7 million civilians during their four year reign.
The Vietnamese army liberated Cambodia from Pol Pot’s reign in 1979. (5)
When they chased DPK (Pol Pot’s party) out, they quickly realised that there was no way they could help the people themselves (Vietnam being under a heavy US embargo), so naturally they turned to the UN. The UN said: “No can do.”
So, what on earth was going on there?

To start with, when the Khmer Rouge was ousted, a new government was installed in Phnom Penh, the US and China (6) blocked the new government from the UN and made sure that Pol Pot’s man retained his UN seat. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were already known, world wide, for the atrocities they committed, thanks to the John Pilger film “Year zero”, which he filmed in 1979.
The US financed the Khmer Rouge rebels (terrorists anyone?) for the grand sum of 80 million dollars over a 6 year period (1980 to 1986). These rebels were training in secret on the Thai border. To make matters even more cynical, the US government the World Food Program to hand over 12 million dollars worth of food to the Khmer Rouge rebels.
Okay. Let me up the stakes on this some more for you: The CIA was training the rebels and helping to carry out missions against the sitting government in Phnom Penh.

One can obviously only speculate on the reasons for the US doing this. But it seems fairly obvious that by dragging Vietnam into its own “Vietnam war”, the hope was to destabilise Vietnam so the US would extract its revenge and gain a firm foothold in the region.

Regime change in the USA
part two

This is one example of manipulation of the UN to serve US purposes. Here’s another classic example:

UN sanctions on Iraq:
After the first gulf war, severe sanctions were put in place on Iraq. It started with a complete trade embargo and after a year was “mellowed” down, so that the Iraqi regime could sell oil for food. (7)
During the gulf war however the US forces used massive quantities of depleted uranium on Iraq. Arguably, Iraq in the 90’s was more radioactive than Hiroshima after the nuclear explosion (9). This led to massive increases in the child cancer rate (8) in Iraq. Hospitals were full of sick and dying children and there was not enough medication to treat them. Doctors, UN officials, various journalists and experts from various other fields called out to the UN to either ease the trade embargo or to let in various cancer-treating drugs (like morphine for pain, etc.).
The US and Britain vetoed each attempt to get the medication through (10). This led to an increase in child mortality. 500.000 more children died of cancer from 1990 to 2000 than did in the 10 years previously (8).
The US and British governments knew that this was happening, yet they continued to deny help.

From Wikipedia:
Genocide is defined in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) article 2 "as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:" Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part (Bold letters by me); Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. The most widely known example is the Holocaust (the genocide of Jews and various other groups during World War II by Third Reich and its collaborators).

Outsourcing the US car industry:
The US is famous for its cars. Ford, DaimlerChrysler and General Motors, for example. Literally thousands of men and women depend on the car industry for their livelihood. But since the 1990’s the industry has seen cutback after cutback and workforce layoffs are the nightmare of the day. This is especially true in the Midwest, where the auto industry was largest (11).

So, have Americans stopped buying cars? No. The average sale of cars in the US has went up over the years, even in spite of ever increasing oil prices. The cars are just no longer being made in the US.
The global market has made it possible to produce cars wherever the multi-national wants. Why on earth (how appropriate) make a car in the US where the average wage in the car-making industry is 25 dollars an hour, when the same car can be made in China, where the average car-making wage is 50 US cents (12)?

Americans are now expected to buy US cars, drive US cars, repair US cars and stick “made in the USA” stickers on US cars, they’re just not allowed to make them anymore. How ironic that the global expansion of the beloved capitalism (after the defeat of communism) can make such large profits for the multi-nationals; the average price of a car has not dropped in the US due to the cheaper labour costs, yet undermine the people who are supposed to benefit; whole communities have become unemployed due to their bosses drive for profit.
And will it end when the Chinese catch up? No. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, both basically run by the US administration, are busy ensuring that countries that loan money do as they are told (13). They must privatise and open their internal markets up to multi-nationals. This will ensure cheap labour for decades to come!

Conclusion:
It would be simple enough to state my own conclusions here. They must be pretty obvious. Equally obvious is that some of the facts I’ve presented could be questioned using other resources. However, I’m sure that per subject I’ve touched upon, that if you look objectively and hard enough you will find enough material to substantiate (or in the least justify) my claims.

It is, though, up to you to draw your own conclusions. And remember the conclusions of the Nuremberg trials whilst you’re doing this: Standing by and watching is a form of guilt and “just obeying orders” is no longer and excuse!

(1) http://www.narconews.com/Issue37/article1281.html
(2) http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1430305,00.html
(3) http://www.themoderntribune.com/weapon_industry_influence_on_policy.htm
(4) http://www.soawne.org/SOAFacts.html
(5) http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/pilger4.html
(6) http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/UncleSam_PolPot.html
(7) http://www.un.org/News/ossg/iraq.htm
(8) http://www.casi.org.uk/
(9) http://www.greens.org/s-r/20/20-12.html
(10) ttp://www.geocities.com/iraqinfo/sanctions/holocaust.html
(11) http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jan2001/auto-j16.shtml
(12) http://www.detnews.com/specialreports/2004/driven
(13) http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051121/timerman

Originally posted by shavixmir
Oh, I wrote an article about this, a couple of years ago... let me see if I can find it for you.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Oh, I wrote an article about this, a couple of years ago... let me see if I can find it for you.

Originally posted by shavixmir
[b]Regime change in the USA
part two

This is one example of manipulation of the UN to serve US purposes. Here’s another classic example:

UN sanctions on Iraq:
After the first gulf war, severe sanctions were put in place on Iraq. It started with a complete trade embargo and after a year was “mellowed” down, so that the Iraqi regime could ...[text shortened]... etnews.com/specialreports/2004/driven
(13) http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051121/timerman[/i][/b]

Originally posted by flexmore
Obviously you have been aware of (and presumably monitoring answers to) this question for some time ...

What is the answer.... ?

Or is it just one big joke 😀

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
nice article. however my inquiry is more in the form of should america change their form of government, like another electoral system, or change from a federation to something else(and what would the else be?).

how would the americans respond for example to the federal government having more authority to intervene in state matters?

Originally posted by shavixmir
I don't think the form of government is the cause of the problem. Changing it, ain't gonna change anything.

I think that the multiparty system of government has many major flaws. One of them is that it often seems to result in the election being a choice of two undesirable people put forward by their respective parties. (this certainly happened in Zambia).
The candidates often seem to be chosen by a relatively small group of people - often with business interests in mind.

I dont have a much better solution, but I do think that a lot less focus should be put on the election and a lot more focus should be put on giving people a chance to influence government in an ongoing fashion. It should not be a case of 'elect someone into power then leave him to do what he wants'. It should be more like 'elect someone into office then tell him what to do every step of the way.'

There should be more focus on bodies like parliament, congress etc than on the presidential election.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
oh i should have been clearer. i am not addressing the "america is a jerk" issue. i don't claim that changing the electoral system would stop it from interfering in other countries affairs. i never intended this thread to bash america again for its foreign policies.

i am simply asking what would the implications are of changing the form of government, why and if should they change it, and change it into what.

Originally posted by shavixmir
I know you're not.
But, considering the problems the US faces, I don't think that changing the government is an issue.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
to suggest america should stop interfering so grossly in world affairs or to start having a health care system or better(and free) education might be too much. we don't want the americans to break their necks in trying to bigger changes.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
Has anyone considered that the US should change the way they run things? This stuff about "I vote for a person that will vote for a person to be the president"

Or the fact that states have the right to have their own laws which often are stupid and often violate the interests of the country as a whole? (See the Oklahoma bill thread)

Or the fact that i ...[text shortened]... opose things to be changed and propose how, or offer arguments why amerika shouldn't change.