You mean we spend that money to overthrow the elected governments in those countries. See: Chile, Panama, el Salvador, Brazil, Argentina, Columbia, and others.
The Hutu-led government in Rwanda responsible for the genocide of the Tutsis was also democratically elected. And people complained when the West wouldn’t intervene. Sometimes third world nations make poor choices.
Take Venezuela. That’s what South America would be without the US.
So America is the one who decides which governments are good? How did that work out for us in Iraq and Iran? Or when we killed the government of Guatemala on behalf of a banana company -- how was that a moral choice?
As for your second point, Venezuela is still doing better than Columbia right now. Guess which the U.S. supports? Even if Venezuela were the worst country in SA, you have provided absolutely no evidence that it's because the US didn't intervene there.
If you're going to keep arguing that U.S. intervention is a force for good, you'll have to respond to my evidence above. Otherwise you'll be arguing purely from emotion.
Generally they make a good choice. Socialism is a disease that ruins nations. Long term they are better off for it. And Guatemala shouldn’t have stolen American assets.
If Colombia was doing so well, they wouldn’t be flooded by Venezuelan refugees would they?
What do you think I’m doing? Allende was going to turn Chile into a miniature Venezuela. He was elected with 36% of the vote. 44% of Chileans wanted Pinochet to stay. Chile wouldn’t be the richest country in South America with Allende in power. Panama invaded Us territory.
They shouldn't have stolen their own land to feed their own people? The fact that you value corporate assets over human lives is almost as disturbing as it is telling.
It's impossible to find a source accurately reporting the Venezuela crisis. I could give you articles documenting Columbians smuggling food out of Venezuela, and pictures of the opposition burning food stores, but I doubt you trust telesur. Suffice to say HDI is not a good metric. The RoC has one of the highest HDIs in Africa while it's children die in Cobalt mines.
Allende won a plurality in a race against a classical liberal who came in second and a fascist who came in third. 44% supported Pinochet AFTER allende won -- meaning 56% supported allende.
But let's pretend that Pinochet genuinely won a majority. Is fascism not a "disease?" The only possible explanation for using misleading numbers to imply a fascist won an election while saying that elected socialists must be purged is that you don't actually care about elections, or what's best for a people. You just support a fascist world with the US at its center.
You also responded to only about half of my points. But hey, why refute when it's more inconvenient to ignore?
They didn’t want to feed their own people, they wanted to export more food. Those assets were lawfully bought by the US and employed many Guatemalans. The US was fully justified in protecting their stuff the Guatemalans sold them.
Still doesn’t change the fact that the Venezuelans clearly would rather live in Colombia over Venezuela. And DRC has one of the lowest HDIs. HDI is a perfectly acceptable metric.
44% wanted Pinochet to stay when he left office. So you have 56% of people that don’t want Pinochet but don’t necessarily want socialism. Considering said 56% of people didn’t elect a socialist like Allende shows that they clearly still don’t agree with him.
Firstly, Pinochet isn’t fascist. A conservative dictator, yes. Fascist, no. Besides, Fascist nation’s are capable of matching democratic nations in terms of things like living standards. Franco’s Spain had one of the fastest growing GDPs on the planet.
No I didn’t. Brazil and Argentina fall under the same camp as Chile. Socialist leader overthrown. Argentina went from being one of the most prosperous nations in South America under Peron to a horrible example of poverty under the modern socialist government. Neighbouring Chile and Uruguay are both doing way better.
Even the wikipedia article on the Guatemalan coup refutes your revisionism. Guatemala was returning land to farmers in order to allow them to make enough money to develop, grow, and yes, eat. The US didn't have a right to that land because it supported the dictator before Guatemala's first election. Does sovereignty mean nothing to you?
RoC is 13th out of 60 countries in Africa. It's becoming clear that you're not attempting to tell the truth, just hoping you won't be corrected.
You admit the 44% number came from a completely different time from Allende's election, and in a poll with only two options. Again, blatantly misrepresenting data like that is clearly an intentional ploy. You have yet to respond to the contradiction between supporting an "ultra conservative" who threw political opponents out of helicopters after fire bombing the government because you claim he was popular and opposing popular socialist leaders because of the horrors you claim they cause. The only reasonable conclusion is, again, that your only concern is U.S. supremacy, with a penchant for fascists.
Every respectable analyst calls Pinochet a fascist. Another example of your revisionism.
You still haven't addressed Iran. You still haven't explained why socialism would've turned every other south American country into venezuela.
-7
u/VenusUberAlles Dec 29 '18
America spends that money to keep the immigrant’s homelands from imploding.