6 ms·

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.

refurb 2y ago
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.
- elktown 2y ago
  False dichotomy
  - refurb 2y ago
    It's not. These countries were not thriving democracies. So saying "if it wasn't for the US, these people would be living in a democracy" is false. The options are basically US-aligned dictator, or USSR-aligned dictator. I see no issues with the US supporting the first.
    - elktown 2y ago
      > 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.
      - dventimi 2y ago
        Which is pathetic because almost certainly this person is neither wealthy nor powerful.
    - dventimi 2y ago
      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.
- dventimi 2y ago
  > what was a good alternative? Not support coups d'etat against democratically-elected leaders? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Operation_PBSuccess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Brother_Sam#Developing_the_operation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Brother_Sam#Developi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
  - refurb 2y ago
    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.
    - elktown 2y ago
      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.
    - dventimi 2y ago
      > 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 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.

refurb 2y ago

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.

elktown 2y ago
False dichotomy
- refurb 2y ago
  It's not. These countries were not thriving democracies. So saying "if it wasn't for the US, these people would be living in a democracy" is false. The options are basically US-aligned dictator, or USSR-aligned dictator. I see no issues with the US supporting the first.
  - elktown 2y ago
    > 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.
    - dventimi 2y ago
      Which is pathetic because almost certainly this person is neither wealthy nor powerful.
  - dventimi 2y ago
    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.
dventimi 2y ago
> what was a good alternative? Not support coups d'etat against democratically-elected leaders? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Operation_PBSuccess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Brother_Sam#Developing_the_operation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Brother_Sam#Developi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
- refurb 2y ago
  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.
  - elktown 2y ago
    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.
  - dventimi 2y ago
    > 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 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.