It's both worrying and refreshing that reactionaries of today are comfortable enough to just say "Yeah, so what if we did?" instead of the usual weaseling.
I mean, what was a good alternative? Let the USSR overthrow the governments instead? Install a far left authoritarian state?
Would those people really have been better off? Would the US be better off? Would the world be more stable?
What I see a lot with the left is “well if it can’t be perfect we shouldn’t do it”, ignoring the fact that doing nothing is actually a worse outcome than intervening.
I would suggest doing some research on those and NOT relying on Wikipedia. But even then, your last 2 links even disprove your point.
The Arbez coup was an attempt to prevent the USDR from gaining a foothold there.
The Brother Sam operation didn’t even happen - “The operation was thus deactivated before it had any physical effect in Brazil”
The Chilean coup happened before the CIA actually got involved. But regardless that coup was done because Allende refused to follow the Supreme Court “the Supreme Court publicly complained about the government's inability to enforce the law of the land”
So using the “democratically elected” hides the fact the situation was far from democratic at the time of the coup.
> The Arbez coup was an attempt to prevent the USDR from gaining a foothold there. [sic]
Rubbish, but even if it were true, so what? Who gave the US the right to decide what happens in other nations?
> The Brother Sam operation didn’t even happenthe operation was thus deactivated
If it was deactivated, then it sounds like it happened. You can't deactivate something that hasn't already been activated. The fact is that it did happen. Oh, sure, the supplies weren't delivered and the land invasion was never launched, but the ships did leave port. Moreover, can you be certain that word of this operation wasn't sent to the Brazilian opposition to reassure them an give them confidence? All of which is moot, of course, because what I wrote earlier was, "[to] Not support coups d'etat against democratically-elected leaders [was an alternative]". Whether or not it had "physical effect"--whatever that is--this was clearly support.
> The Chilean coup happened before the CIA actually got involved
I would suggest doing some research on those and reading further into Wikipedia. Right there after the first paragraph in that section, the article quotes the 2000 report which says, "[The CIA] had ongoing intelligence collection relationships with some plotters" (among other things), which again constitutes "support."
> regardless that coup was done because Allende refused to follow the Supreme Court
Only the coup plotters know why the conducted a coup and I'm not convinced they've told you. But if it was because "the Supreme Court public complained" well Heavens to Betsy! Oh no! The Supreme Court "complained" did it? Well now, that is serious. That definitely automatically grants the U.S. the right to decide the matter.
Please.
> So using the “democratically elected” hides the fact the situation was far from democratic at the time of the coup.
That's not a fact. That's a matter of judgement (yours). That Arbenz and Allende at least won elections which were generally regarded as fair, those are matters of fact.
> Rubbish, but even if it were true, so what? Who gave the US the right to decide what happens in other nations?
So the US should sit back as the USSR does it?
> Whether or not it had "physical effect"--whatever that is--this was clearly support.
Is it wrong for the US to support on side of a conflict?
> "[The CIA] had ongoing intelligence collection relationships with some plotters"
That's not the same as supporting a coup. It's literally the CIAs job to collect intelligence, no? It's something you can do without impacting the outcome?
> Only the coup plotters know why the conducted a coup and I'm not convinced they've told you.
Read up on the conflict. Allende was refusing to follow the constitution. It's not like Chile was some stable democracy, it was teetering on authoritarianism.
> That definitely automatically grants the U.S. the right to decide the matter.
The US wasn't doing that it. It was monitoring the situation and never got involved. But if it had, would it have been wrong to pick a side?
> That's not a fact. That's a matter of judgement (yours).
It absolutely is a fact. Calling it "overthrowing a democracy" is inaccurate. They were highly unstable governments teetering on chaos. Whether the US got involved or not wasn't going to change that fact.
So again, I raise my original point - the alternative isn't a democracy and stability, it's chaos. The US can stand back and let the USSR fund the opposition and end up with a dictatorship. Is that a better outcome than the US getting involved?
> Is it wrong for the US to support on side of a conflict?
That's a question of morality. A question of personal preference is, "Would you prefer the US not support a side in an internal political conflict in another country?" to which I would answer, "Yes. I would prefer the US not support a side in an internal political conflict, just as I would prefer the other countries not support a side in an internal political conflict in the US." A question of fact is, "Was the US allowed to support a side in these conflicts." The answer is "no."
> That's not the same as supporting a coup. It's literally the CIAs job to collect intelligence, no?
No, it's not the CIA's job to share intelligence with the plotters, which I believe it did. It's also not the CIA's job to supply the plotters with weapons and encourage them to commit a coup as they did in 1970, something to which I don't have to resort to believe because the CIA itself says that it did do those things. It goes on to say that its support of a coup in 1970 probably led the 1973 plotters to believe they had the CIA's blessing.
> Read up on the conflict. Allende was refusing to follow the constitution. It's not like Chile was some stable democracy, it was teetering on authoritarianism.
Read up on basic logic, and while you're at it, read up on basic physics. If Chile was "teetering on the authoritarianism" then evidently it hadn't yet succumbed to authoritarianism. The coup plotters didn't have the ability to see into the future, like the precogs in "Minority Report." Moreover, again even if the plotters said why they did it, that doesn't mean we know why they did it.
> The US wasn't doing that it. It was monitoring the situation and never got involved.
Tell that to the CIA, which wrote in 2000 that it did get involved in the Chilean coup (for instance).
> It absolutely is a fact
"far from democratic" is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact.
> Calling it "overthrowing a democracy" is inaccurate
Who has called it "overthrowing a democracy"? Who are you quoting? It can't be me because I never said that. Although...I would if you asked me my opinion on the subject.
> they were highly unstable governments teetering on chaos
That's debatable, but even so, again if they were "teetering on the edge" of chaos then evidently they hadn't yet lapsed into chaos. No one can predict the future, not even you in 2024 and not even US politicians in 1954 or in 1973.
> So again, I raise my original point - the alternative isn't a democracy and stability, it's chaos
That's not a point. That's an opinion (yours).
> The US can stand back and let the USSR fund the opposition and end up with a dictatorship. Is that a better outcome than the US getting involved?
The USSR funding the one side in a political conflict was every bit as legal as the US funding the other side in a political conflict. That that would end up with a USSR-favored dictatorship is theoretical because it didn't happen. What did happen was that they ended up with US-favored dictatorships after the coups. So my personal opinion is that yes, it would've been a better decision in 1954 or 1973 to stop short of supporting those coups, and allow the USSR to continue to wield its influence.
> "Yes. I would prefer the US not support a side in an internal political conflict, just as I would prefer the other countries not support a side in an internal political conflict in the US."
It's not an internal conflict if the USSR is already supporting one side, is it?
> No, it's not the CIA's job to share intelligence with the plotters, which I believe it did.
Sorry, but "which I believe it did" holds no weight with me.
> f Chile was "teetering on the authoritarianism" then evidently it hadn't yet succumbed to authoritarianism.
When the elected leader is already violating the constitution, it's no longer a democracy, is it?
> Tell that to the CIA, which wrote in 2000 that it did get involved in the Chilean coup (for instance).
You're going to need a source for that. From the FOIA releases, the CIA states it didn't even think Pinochet had the ability to lead a coup. The CIA was basically an observer.
> That that would end up with a USSR-favored dictatorship is theoretical because it didn't happen. What did happen was that they ended up with US-favored dictatorships after the coups.
Are you suggesting the USSR would support a democracy? Do they have a track record that demonstrates that? I haven't seen it.
> It's not an internal conflict if the USSR is already supporting one side, is it?
Yes, it's still an internal political conflict.
> Sorry, but "which I believe it did" holds no weight with me.
Suit yourself. I'm not trying to persuade you.
> When the elected leader is already violating the constitution, it's no longer a democracy, is it?
No, it's still a democracy. In America, the Right believes President Obama violated the Constitution and the Left believes Trump did the same, yet few on either side would claim America ceased to be a democracy.
> Are you suggesting the USSR would support a democracy?
I'm not suggesting anything. I'm stating two facts. First, you don't know what the USSR would've done. Second, in both Guatemala and Chile the US did support dictatorships.
> Do they have a track record that demonstrates that? I haven't seen it.
Have you seen a track record of the US supporting democracy? Not in Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Haiti, Cuba, Indonesia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, you haven't.
Yes, constructing a justification through surgically extracted shallow gotchas (but ofc told in an authoritative way like any good gaslighter would do) in each case and ignoring the general pattern - it doesn't exactly end at 3 occurrences - is definitely the epitome of research.
Again with the made up quotes. No one in this thread has said, "if it wasn't for the US, these people would be living in a democracy."
Anyway, you don't know that these are the only two options. You don't know that the USSR would've installed dictators like the US actually did, though I consider it unlikely as there's no evidence they even tried.
> The options are basically US-aligned dictator, or USSR-aligned dictator.
It's a textbook example of it, just like this follow up. But I expect nothing else from a user that for years and years always, with no exceptions, no matter the subject, sides with wealth and power. Utter contempt is all I have for you.
