Twenty century US foreign policy was about supporting capitalism, not democracy. I assume you're referring to the CIA lead coups in the 20th century that upended socialist countries. I would like to think we've learned from these mistakes in the 21st century.

As for drone strikes in Yemen in the 21st century, which is what I think you are referring to, killing civilians is obviously wrong. I think not fighting terrorist organizations would also be wrong. It's in the interest of democracies to fight back against terrorists.

edit: Oh and I am ethnically Jewish, so I do have a lot of opinions about Palestine and Israel. Israel is an apartheid state, but I still believe in a two-state solution.

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 13 points 1 year ago (33 children)

The coup in Bolivia and the more recent attempts on Venezuela were just a few years ago.

I assume with Libya and Syria you'd just accept the flimsy pretext the US offered like with Yemen despite the barbarous butchering of civilians in all cases. Do you think the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were also for democracy? Are you that far gone?

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago (32 children)

From what I've read about Bolivia quickly sounds like that was a conspiracy theory from the dictator. I haven't heard of any coup attempt by the CIA in Venezuela recently. At a glance there seems to be Silver Corp that did Operation Gideon. It's not a state sponsored group. I don't support the concept of just toppling one dictator in exchange for a US friendly dictator. The incentives a dictator has will inevitably lead them to side with other dictatorships over democracies regardless of who put them in power.

I disagree with drone strikes that killed civilians. However, letting terrorists like ISIS run around in Syria and Iraq and now Africa more recently, is a bad idea when they make it their business to butcher civilians for not being extreme as them.

I'm honestly not super familiar NATO's intervention of Libya. I've read a bit. Sounds like it was bungled quite badly.

I mean Bush wanted to kill Saddam, because of the assassination attempt on his dad, Bush senior, by Saddam. The political reality is that we did bring democracy to those countries. I think what we've learned from Afghanistan and Iraq is that democracy cannot be forced. People have to want to live, die, and fight for it. And in the case of Iraq, democratic intuitions have to be maintained, or else the country will backslide to authoritarianism.

[–] RNAi@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

From what I've read about Bolivia quickly sounds like that was a conspiracy theory from the dictator.

Wut

Please, would you explain yourself

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I honestly not sure what is being referred to. Bolivia was named dropped. I couldn't find anything about US involvement other than what sounded like a dictator making that claim. I can't even find that now. It's not my job to guess what your position is on this country. Make a claim and provide evidence. My attempts at trying to guess are clearly not getting me anywhere.

[–] HamManBad@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are you saying Evo Morales was a dictator? Because a lot of US media might imply that, but few major papers ever said it outright because they usually try to at least pretend not to be full of shit. In reality he was a very popular democratically elected leader, and organizations established and funded by the US (and its business interests) played a critical role in the coup d'etat against him. It is not a conspiracy, there is a straight line from US influence to the coup, even if it was ultimately carried by local Bolivian business interests. In fact understand the relationship between American foreign policy objectives, multinational corporations, and local business interests is key to understanding modern neocolonialism as a whole.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I took a stab at trying to figure out what someone else was talking about when all they said was US involvement in Bolvia. It was not a lot to go on.

Yeah on closer examination it looks like Evo Morales is not a dictator. I might have misread whatever it was I found or what I found might have been about something else entirely. I am brand new to this topic. There seems to be a clear line OAS involvement from the skimming I did of the guardian article. Also, Trump seemed to give his approval to the OAS, but it seems like the OAS acts independently from the US. I could be wrong though.

[–] HamManBad@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

On paper it acts independently, but it's headquartered in Washington DC, and according to Wikipedia "In 2018 the [OAS]General Secretariat's budget was $85 million of which the US contributed $50 million." And of course, the US has always considered South America to be its "backyard" and has a long history of doing this kind of thing

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Forgive me for my shorthand. There was a period when the Anez regime was the biggest news story and that is one of the only times Bolivia had been in the headlines over the last ~5 years (aside from papers attacking him right before the coup, wonder why?), so I assumed that the reference would be clearer than it was.

I am idly curious about the "what sounded like a dictator" part.

load more comments (30 replies)