3 ms·
> 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 belie
by dventimi 2y ago
> 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.
> You're going to need a source for that.
It supported a coup in 1970: https://irp.fas.org/cia/product/chile/index.html#5 https://irp.fas.org/cia/product/chile/index.html#5
> 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.