3 ms·
The US has historically and currently benefited much more from unstable governments. Why do you think they've invested so much in making governments unstable? E
by mushbino 5y ago
The US has historically and currently benefited much more from unstable governments. Why do you think they've invested so much in making governments unstable? Especially if they're "unfriendly" to US business interests
- mlindner 5y agoHistorically is different than currently. Historically the fight was against the spread of communism and so we propped up dictatorships all over the world that would prevent the spread of communism in their countries (which often backfired). Currently that is no longer the case because communism is basically dead for all intents and purposes.
- NicoJuicy 5y agoThat's Russian propaganda. The West/ US interventions were always supported by the population, that's why the amount of casualties from US/West military is so low. In many cases there are barely boots on the ground and the actual work is done by civilians protesting en masse. ( They were already protesting before interventions). It doesn't mean there are no casualties, but that's mostly lowered by the interventions ( by lowering authoritarian military strength)
- mushbino 5y agoThis is one of the longer wikipedia articles I've come across. It's hard to imagine the US population had much say in the matter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...