What is Internal Affairs?

How would American's react to external intervention in their internal affairs?

  • How would ordinary Americans react if in the other side of the world a group of powerful people decided that it is time for a regime change and let's overthrow Obama, by stirring things in the internal affairs of America and if all fails let's bomb America and impose some sanctions? The powerful people would be so devious that they would portray the internal chaos they have created into a white versus black people war and support whites from different countries to come and help overthrow Obama and they would commit all kinds of atrocities against the local people.

  • Answer:

    Well, Obama only has three years left in office. So there will be regime change soon enough. (Although not in the usage of the term meaning a coup or conquest by a foreign power.) Answering this question is pretty tough. You didn't state WHY this group was changing the leadership in the U.S. Certainly that is a factor in public opinion. Many Americans might agree. It's impossible to say since your scenario is missing elements. The overt involvement with regime change that the U.S. has been involved in (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change on Wikipedia) since Vietnam is a short list: Panama 1989 (deposing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega, sort of. The general was never the official ruler of the country) Kuwait 1991 (freeing the country from the invading forces of Iraq) Iraq 2003 (invading the country for a misguided search for chemical weapons, but also deposing the despot, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein. Libya 2011 (supporting a multi-national effort to intervene in the opposition uprising against http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Muammar_Gaddafi) Covert involvement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions) nearly always involves supporting the chosen side in an internal conflict, such as the aid currently given to opposition fighters in Syria. Outside of covert action to support overt involvement (e.g. Libya) there is a dirty history of trouble-making during the Cold War, such as arming the Contras or the coup in Turkey in 1980. But there was also support of rebel groups within totalitarian governments, like a resistance to the brutal Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, a proxy war with Cuba(?) in Angola hoping to supplant the genocidal Movement for the Liberation of Angola, and political pressure to get Philippine president http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Marcos to step down. So this is hardly a black and white issue. United States as "Syria"(As per the comment thread on the question) In Syria, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba%27ath_Party_(Syrian-dominated_faction) has held power for 50 years and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashar_al-Assad assumed the presidency in 2000 after his father, president for 30 years, stepped down. Amnesty International and Human Rights watch have long recorded the actions of his secret police and directives from the president to imprison/kill political opponents. When the Arab Spring rose up in his country, it was not met with promises for reform. It was met with defiance and oppression. The army was ordered to fire on the dissidents, for instance. This has led to a civil war, despite the political influence, step-by-step sanctions and eventually the direct support of the rebels. I don't really think that nations started desiring a regime change. France, the U.S. and so on just wanted to prevent this from escalating to a full civil war, and they failed. If the U.S. was in such a state of affairs, then rebel and neutral Americans would both be desperate for intervention from external forces, short of military invasion. A faster end to hostilities, but an acknowledgement of territorial boundaries and the need for the rebels to win their own war are vital to establishing a legitimate replacement government to correct the errors of the evil "Obama legacy" from generations of mis-rule. United States as "Black vs White" warA little hard to imagine, since the government of the U.S. keeps getting more and more diverse (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-03/politics/36209417_1_diversity-democratic-party-presidential-election), but yes, the government is still a huge majority of white men. And there is a mechanism for getting reform in the U.S. which is missing from a lot of other governments: voting in the opposition party. And which side to Asians and Hispanics fall on in this war? Neutral, I presume. I am a little unclear on what happens in this white vs black war, given that the president is black. Hypothetically, as a supporter of the black rebels, he sends the military in to defend them from whites and the war is over. (You are aware that the military exactly matches the racial make-up of the U.S., right?) So presumably the regime change is to prevent this. Kind of confusing, trying to get the white voting majority to overthrow their president so they can start a war with a minority group within the country. But heck, let's go with it. How would American's feel? Well, for the white majority, they would be thrilled. Given that this imaginary scenario sets up whites as being at war with blacks, but prevented from executing that war and associated atrocities on their targets, the outside intervention allows this. Like Bosnia, I guess. Even though the U.S. is nothing like Bosnia, but whatever. Blacks of course would hate this. Obviously. As with any war, the side who is not getting the support of external politics and sanctions dislikes the intervention because it makes their position more difficult to support. But really, this scenario is nonsensical in a lot of ways. The U.S. is a fairly homogeneous culture, despite the different racial types. More so than a country with rival Muslim sects. And minorities are not ENTIRELY disenfranchised from the government, as they are in totalitarian regimes. They both receive reasonable representation (even from candidates of different colored skin) and are able to run for office or be members of either party.

Todd Gardiner at Quora Visit the source

Was this solution helpful to you?

Other answers

We have lobbyists from many nations attempting to influence US internal policies.   As for an otherthrow of the President, you really would not want the military left in charge without a moderating force.

Al Nelson

Other side of the world? We already have Republicans here.

Joseph Boyle

Just Added Q & A:

Find solution

For every problem there is a solution! Proved by Solucija.

  • Got an issue and looking for advice?

  • Ask Solucija to search every corner of the Web for help.

  • Get workable solutions and helpful tips in a moment.

Just ask Solucija about an issue you face and immediately get a list of ready solutions, answers and tips from other Internet users. We always provide the most suitable and complete answer to your question at the top, along with a few good alternatives below.