do the american people really think they can change a point of view by armed force?
493880
The American people hopefully don't. The White House apparently does. All you Americans - please THINK next time you vote! (from the UK - don't worry Blair's on his way out)
1153246
Most definitely ! Reminds me of an old FDR quote during WW2.\n\nIt is a shame some Americans don't understand or support that quote. However, I think most Americans would agree.
1112154
I would say that the current government is definitely not what the majority of American people want.  The American system is not looking much like a democracy these days.  I would say the people that do support the actions of the current administration are mostly those that are still eating up the propaganda that they are being fed by the monstrous corporate machine to which the administration caters.  The USA is almost certainly headed for deeper sh*t than it is already in because of Bush's policies.  The idea that destroying a country, and inflicting such massive suffering on its people is making the world and the US more secure is rediculous.  All you have to do to see this is ask yourself what you would want done in retaliation for your family being killed in a bomb dropped on your home by another country's military.  This administration's foreign policy is making more people angry at the US on a daily basis.
1079719
Yes and no. Yes because either criticism or slamming U.S. foreign policy is seen as a one way ticket to sitting with the radical left. No, Americans tend to overcome their sensitivity with humor or do not care much for different point of views. It seems everyone tends to walk on eggshells now a days.
256909
Ideally, the interests of the military are the interests of all citizens. Conversely, the interests of civilians are the prime interest of the military.\n\nIn this non-ideal world, there seems to always be factionalization.\n\nThe biggest long-term fear that I know of is the fear that (a professional) military will put its support (even without vote) behind elected officials as their representative and thereby gain power indirectly.\n\nIt has been strongly believed for a long time that professional military eventually come to believe that they can govern better than the civilian population and may move to put themselves in charge.\n\nIn the US we have the Posse Comitatus Act: \n"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."\n\nThere are exceptions for both State Governors and our President, but the general idea is military generally not be used within the country for law enforcement. This is supposed to keep the military from becoming a powerful enforcement arm of the government with a disproportionate ability to influence the constitutionally protected choices of citizens.\n\nA secondary effect is to keep the military from being under arms while within our borders and thereby be less likely to perform a coup and put in the kind of government they want.\n\nPast General and President Dwight Eisenhower warned us to "beware of the military/industrial complex." His exact words, on the occasion of his leaving the presidency, follow:\n\n" In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.\n\n"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." (1)
532572
I doubt it. As long as there are people who are trying to live the laws and be concientious about choosing people to represent them as they see fit, I don't think that a totalatarian government would be able to take over. If everyone were to become apathetic and not care, then it might be possible, but I don't see that happening. The beauty of the US government is that each person has the right to express their own opinions and can be totally within their rights. We can't be thrown into jail for our beliefs.
591238
It has happened before.\n\nIn this day and age the military is too strong, and the reality is you would never get enough people who care enough about any given issue to have any real impact, other than a protest.
269131
Eventually?  I believe this has already occurred.  Those who think Americans live in a democracy are sorely mistaken.  There are two main forces that currently control America: The conservative corporations and the liberal media.  (Neither of those statements are intended to be a negative judgment on either group).  Those two groups are the ones with the money, and the power.\n\nI'm not sour about that.  But I do think that anyone who thinks that every person has a say is fooling themselves.  Both of these groups, over time, have gotten very good at positioning their message so that the majority of people will vote for their candidate.
873204
To answer this question, we must delve into the debate as to whether a government is REFLECTIVE of the character of the people governed, or whether it is DIRECTIVE, by which I mean that the government of a people sets its course.  Personally, I tend to believe that the government of a nation is reflective of those governed...at least it eventually gets that way.  While charismatic leaders in government DO affect the mindset of the people, lasting changes don't occur JUST because governments change.  \n\nAs evidence of this notion, look at what just happened in Afghanistan.  The U.S. took out the oppressive regime with had oppressed its people...so they turned right around and established another government: one that executes people for converting from Islam to Christianity.  So did we really help those people? \n\nLook at what happens here in the United States when one of our elected officials takes bribes, involves himself with corruption, or commits adultery.  The word of his indisretions hits the newspapers, a hue an cry is raised, and people start calling for official impeachment.  Often, crooked government officials end up in jail.  That's because at its core, the American people as a whole simply don't tolerate certain things.  True, not EVERYONE feels that way, but enough do that we have an influential trend in our country that hinders such corruption.\n\nNow compare that to the government of nations where government officials (and even cops) take bribes, the poor are exploited by the wealthy, and graft and corruption in government are practically expected.  Those things go on because, at its core, the people of that nation tolerate those things...otherwise, there'd eventually be decisive changes.\n\nSo to answer your question, no, I don't think a change in government is the answer (at least not by itself).  The hearts and minds of a nation are changed by moral trends, awareness movements, religious revivals, and sound thinking authors.  As new generations are encouraged to adopt values rooted in time-honored principles, changes occur, and the governement begins to adopt the emerging philosphy of the nation.  This brings lasting changes.\n\nTroy Fullerton\nPauls Valley, OK
776751
I'm afraid some people only understand military might.\nhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061110/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_061110174646\n\nBush knows it and tried to handle terrorists in the right way. Hard to say how the Left will respond, but we're stuck with them.
637092
Yes, but at least 50% of the people would still think I was wrong with regard to the actions I would take.\n\nLeaders need to lead and do what is in the best long term interests of the country.  Most people have no idea what that means and are unable to comprehend what is in the best interest of the U.S. and all of its citizens (collectively).
1178617
As I read this question, the hope is not merely to convince the American people that it's a good idea to bring the troops home, but also to motivate them to action. As previous posters have suggested, mere public opinion isn't necessarily going to have a measurable effect on policy decisions.\n\nThe current state of things already suggests that Americans are unhappy with the war, but even those staunchly opposed to the invasion from the start often feel that to leave "prematurely" could irreparably harm the development of the new Iraqi government.\n\nOf course, that issue is mired in policy spin and PR - I would venture out on a limb and say that it's extremely difficult for the average American to get a good, valid sense of conditions in Iraq - stability of government and infrastructure, genuine threat assessments, etc. I can honestly say, despite spending a good deal of time trying to figure it out - I have no idea how much "we" are needed to keep stability there now.\n\nObviously, "the job is done" is a fine message to send to the American people, and it might do the convincing that the original question requests. However, it depends on where this message comes from.\n\nIf liberal or progressive sources, for example, proclaim proudly that "the job is done", while the administration does the opposite "...and we will stay as long as we're needed" - then public opinion may divide strongly along party lines about the imminent need to bring troops home. So unless this message comes from the right place, I think it will fail.\n\nSo what is the right origin for a message - one that counters policy PR spun by an administration with contrary goals?\n\nI read recently that Howard Zinn believes that messages like this need to come from the troops themselves - and in this case, I heartily agree.\n\nIf the troops themselves begin to voice *either* an overwhelming sense of dissent from the administration - i.e. "We're no longer accomplishing anything here but putting ourselves at risk", or an overwhelming sense of completion - i.e. "We've accomplished our goals in Iraq; it's time to come home"....if THOSE voices could be heard, then our troops could come home.
143124
Thats a stupid question to ask. Sory to be so blunt but look at it logicaly do you think anyone from the US Armed Forces is gonna say what were doing to anyone but the President of the U.S and the troops overseas? They don't want to be thrown in the brigs. I agree with everyone else this is the type of question to ask the gov't not Yahoo users and I know either way you will not get an answer.
1155700
Sometimes the government tells you what you want to hear. I don't even believe we (USA) are at war anymore but in occupation.
691023
What a great question!!\n\nOn the one hand, I think Americans have grown pretty cynical about the possibilities of change.  The system that has developed here is very adept at either co-opting real discontent or ignoring it -- take for example the huge protests before the invasion of Iraq.  Our government here doesn't try to repress or crush the opposition, it simply pretends that it's not there.  (Though some of us are beginning to wonder just how long that approach is going to last!)\n\nOn the other hand, most Americans are also aware, maybe only subconsciously, that they've got things pretty cushy, and rocking the boat could endanger their comfort.  I mean, hey, you got your ample supply of alcohol, your 500 channels of video-on-demand, and your vibrating armchair -- why would you want to revolt?
723517
Personally, I don't think so. I think over the years, people in power altered things to reflect their own beliefs.
1002579
yes. the people in it are close-knit and won't let you down. if one soldier is hurt, the others will stay by his side until he is back on US soil, dead or alive. the military is actually a great thing, despite what some liberal media networks want you to think.