Why do people continue to believe nonsense like this? The US wants stable governments, not unstable ones.
But the US is not the only one doing this. It’s been common practice for imperialist powers for centuries.
Also, the US isn't imperialist.
I don’t need to. There is a literal Wikipedia page summarising most of them [1].
> Also, the US isn't imperialist.
This is historically inaccurate, but if so, then countries like Russia aren’t either.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
We've seen it happen a number of times? Graduates of the School of the Americas have committed countless human rights violations throughout and lead numerous military dictatorship throughout the Americas.
>The US wants stable governments, not unstable ones.
Civilian led governments often aren't stable. They can suddenly vote to not side with the US.
If we actually cared about pro-American governments over democracy then we wouldn't have run democratic elections in Iraq, a government that's now rather anti America.
Plus, I can't imagine it's easy to create a truly pro-US government in Iraq no matter how hard you try.
Instead of trying to maximize trade imbalances between countries one should have adopted a system that minimizes trade imbalances between countries.
The reason this isn't done is because you would rather be the king of nations over other poor nations than if you were an equal and insignificant country among many.
The West/ US interventions were always supported by the population, that's why the amount of casualties from US/West military is so low.
In many cases there are barely boots on the ground and the actual work is done by civilians protesting en masse. ( They were already protesting before interventions).
It doesn't mean there are no casualties, but that's mostly lowered by the interventions ( by lowering authoritarian military strength)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
This is a perfect description of US involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria over the last 20 years, and many more countries prior to that.
Afghanistan:
>In what was known as Operation Cyclone, the U.S. government provided weapons and funding for a collection of warlords and several factions of jihadi guerrillas known as the Afghan mujahideen fighting to overthrow the Afghan government.
Iraq:
>The CIA launched DBACHILLES, a coup d'état operation against the Iraqi government, recruiting Ayad Allawi, who headed the Iraqi National Accord, a network of Iraqis who opposed the Saddam Hussein government, as part of the operation. The network included Iraqi military and intelligence officers but was penetrated by people loyal to the Iraqi government.[349][350][351] Also using Ayad Allawi and his network, the CIA directed a government sabotage and bombing campaign in Baghdad between 1992 and 1995.
Libya:
>France, the United States and the United Kingdom launched the 2011 military intervention in Libya with Operation Odyssey Dawn, US and British naval forces firing over 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles,[404] the French and British Air Forces[405] undertaking sorties across Libya and a naval blockade by Coalition forces.
Syria:
>Starting in 2013, the U.S. provided training, weapons and cash to Syrian vetted moderate rebels,[411][412] and in 2014, the Supreme Military Council.
> The US wants stable governments...
That line of argument tends to assume that the U.S. is both monolithic, and highly competent in the planning & conduct of its foreign policy. Vs. looking at history...