- Placids wrote:
- Dark Flame99966 wrote:
- The issue is that the stability that comes from the tyranny is a false pretense. You look at South America, what it is is simply a long list of corruptions and bribes describe as "stability". You look at the Middle East, US and other foreign intervention has simply helped to increase chaos and open up the gates for more coups.
You can't say what these countries would be like if there wasn't intervention in the first place. There is intervention for a reason.
And historically those reasons have been petty if not misguided (to be respectful about it).
Syria 1952 - The US attempts its first ever military coup, fails miserably but opens up a huge wormhole
Iran 1953 - US successfully completes a coup, removes a democratically elected leader under whom the country had been thriving to give the US oil revenue as well as installing the Shah, a leader who led 25 years of oppression and corruption
1956 - Eisenhower Doctrine comes under effect to "stop Soviet influence from spreading out"
1956-1958 - US tries to keep Syria from falling under Communist rule, fails miserably. What happens is the inevitable destruction of the current government. The only reason a war didn't erupt was because Egypt stepped in and combined with Syria creating the UAR, the United Arab Republic.
This is pretty much just a small portion of what the US did in the 50's alone in the US alone (and that's not even the whole of it).