Not support coups d'etat against democratically-elected leaders?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Brother_Sam#Developi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
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.
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 happen the 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.
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?
