3 ms·

Notice how on that list none of South America countries appear after 1990s? Venezuela has been hostile to the US, yet they are still there. Brazil, Argentina, C

Notice how on that list none of South America countries appear after 1990s? Venezuela has been hostile to the US, yet they are still there. Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia have elected socialism-leaning governments multiple times during the last 30 years. Not to mention Nicaragua or Mexico, that are not considered South America. Colombia is the latest example. So they are poor because of US meddling, and not even a tiny part due to their policies? You have to try harder if you want to blame their issues on the US.

trs8080 4y ago
> Notice how on that list none of South America countries appear after 1990s? This is regime change /that we know about/. Intelligence agencies haven't made a huge habit of discussing their covert successes. > Venezuela has been hostile to the US, yet they are still there. Yes, because the international response would be quite severe if the US decided to what - destroy Venezuela? Foreign occupations and coups decimate countries who then have to deal with the effects for generations. The new regime is usually beholden to the powers that put it there (or the old one has to abide by the occupier's demands), permanently crippling the government or the economy or both. Many countries continue to suffer under the conditions created by their overthrowers, so maybe they share some blame but it's largely the longlasting effects of foreign incursions. > You have to try harder if you want to blame their issues on the US. It's really not that difficult to understand cause and effect here. If you destroy a country's economy, divide its people, cripple it's infrastructure, and install an authoritarian government, it's going to take a long time to recover.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  > that we know about I.e. there's no evidence.
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    >I.e. there's no evidence. It's not like the CIA likes to document its dark-ops in Latin Am. on wikipedia as proof for you.
    - _kbh_ 4y ago
      > It's not like the CIA likes to document its dark-ops in Latin Am. on wikipedia as proof for you. This is still not proof of anything happening, just because someone wants something to be true doesn't make it so.

trs8080 4y ago

> Notice how on that list none of South America countries appear after 1990s? This is regime change /that we know about/. Intelligence agencies haven't made a huge habit of discussing their covert successes. > Venezuela has been hostile to the US, yet they are still there. Yes, because the international response would be quite severe if the US decided to what - destroy Venezuela? Foreign occupations and coups decimate countries who then have to deal with the effects for generations. The new regime is usually beholden to the powers that put it there (or the old one has to abide by the occupier's demands), permanently crippling the government or the economy or both. Many countries continue to suffer under the conditions created by their overthrowers, so maybe they share some blame but it's largely the longlasting effects of foreign incursions. > You have to try harder if you want to blame their issues on the US. It's really not that difficult to understand cause and effect here. If you destroy a country's economy, divide its people, cripple it's infrastructure, and install an authoritarian government, it's going to take a long time to recover.

WalterBright 4y ago
> that we know about I.e. there's no evidence.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  >I.e. there's no evidence. It's not like the CIA likes to document its dark-ops in Latin Am. on wikipedia as proof for you.
  - _kbh_ 4y ago
    > It's not like the CIA likes to document its dark-ops in Latin Am. on wikipedia as proof for you. This is still not proof of anything happening, just because someone wants something to be true doesn't make it so.