Ehhhh... yeah it's fun to beat up on the top dog, but statements like "US has engaged in 64 covert and six overt attempts at regime change" is a technique to co

Ehhhh... yeah it's fun to beat up on the top dog, but statements like "US has engaged in 64 covert and six overt attempts at regime change" is a technique to convince people "USA are the debils" who aren't going to dig any further. When you look at the details, i start to go "ehhh...". The 1953 Iranian coup was against Mosaddegh, who had given himself "emergency powers" for another 12 months, was losing members of his coalition and was becoming more and more unpopular. The CIA might be powerful, but it can't create crowds of hundreds of thousands of protestors out of thin air. Over 300 people were dead from riots leading up to the coup. Whether the CIA or MI6 "helped" the coup, Mosaddegh was on his way out one way or another. It's not like Iran would have been a bastion of peaceful democratic bliss if the UK and US had just minded their own business. If you look into the other "covert attempts at regime change", you realize it's pretty much the CIA aiding one particular group over another in a country that's on the brink of civil war. It's not like the CIA is rolling into a stable democracy and just overthrowing countries. One can claim the CIA never should have gotten involved, and sure, that's a reasonable position, but I'd also argue that the world is a community of nations, all with incentives/disincentives to have particular people in power in their peer nations. It's pretty natural that countries will try and influence that.