Comment by dpedu

They got lucky, the economy needed to be rebuilt and the Pinochet government had no idea how to do it and not much interest in it. So they put the economists who wrote the "Ladrillo" in charge because it sounded like a good plan. This combination of a stable government combined with libertarian economic policies lead to the success. Usually you don't get this combination under dictatorship.

And what about the precedent it sets for other world powers?

Why shouldn't Russia or China just do the same and interfere with the leadership of countries they don't like.

Also it is impossible to argue the cost of the war in Iraq was worth the benefit, even if we agree Iraq is in a better place now then it was under Hussein.

"Don't worry, the democracy will eventually trickle down".

There is such thing as a post-Vietnam America, and its record is pretty bad.

"That interference has overwhelmingly turned out well."

What an absurd thing to say. The US doesn't only overthrow dictatorships - it supports them too, as it suits its self-interest. Why not include the US interference when it SUPPORTED Hussein and later changed its mind - still think "interference turns out well" after backing a genocidal monster, supporting his invasion of a neighbour, invading twice and related deaths of 400 000 people?

Countries stabilise over time, that's what their people make happen. You ignore Indonesia, Iran, El Salvador, Nicaragua and dozens of disaster of US imperialism but give credit to the US when their populations rebuild them.

The US has done some positive things but they're the convenient accidents you've cherry picked to make your point.

> The US positively, endlessly interfered in Europe for the past century. That interference has overwhelmingly turned out well.

Are we counting the financial support that Wall Street and the budding CIA boys at Sullivan & Cromwell gave Hitler to harass the Soviet Union, which ultimately had to take care of the problem they created, in the "turning out well" column here?

Kuwait is a dictatorship. South Korea and Taiwan were, too until the 80s-90s. Especially, in the case of Taiwan it is unclear what US intereference there has been politically: the Chinese fought hard to be free of interference and although in Taiwan they need US support I don't think they are as controlled as South Korea and Japan (which has been invaded and "vassalised"). If interefence there is it is indeed to literally interfere to foster separation with the mainland.

Re. Iraq, interestingly the US invasion has vastly increased Iran's influence in the country because the majority is Shia while Saddam was from a Sunni tribe.

Korea, by what metric? South Korea was through the 50 poorer than North Korea, North Korea was considered the roaring growth economy, huge success of planning and leadership.

Park Chung Hee took a country that could not be a functional democracy, provided leadership and put it onto the path of economic success. Iirc, the reduction in poverty through that period is the fastest in human history (when you consider that China, that is an incredible statement).

I think people (still) assume both that democracy is superior economically for every situation and that people who don't have any food care about being unable to vote...neither of these things is obviously true. Indeed, in the latter case, we now have a good test case of poor countries adopting democracy early and they have generally not been successful as power rotates between various quasi-dictators who give massive handouts to the poor to retain power (without doing anything actually useful).

Crediting the US for Germany's post-WWII transition is a bit of a stretch. There were quite a few more players involved.

> grenada too

Grenada is something of a joke in this context - the entire thing came about because the communist government fell apart and started fighting internally, so it's pretty likely the regime would have shortly collapsed with or without the invasion

The scale of investment and commitment was orders of magnitude larger, as was the utter devastation inflicted for years before hand. Incomparable.

Awesome. I think we should also extend that to leaders who have increasingly overwhelming evidence that they planned to and intended to overturn elections (just because they failed isn't an excuse, attempted murder is still a crime)...

Amazing to see so many people spelling out their rationalization in such simple terms.

Do you have any evidence of the election being faked? Other than the US says so?

If you have the data, are extremely careful and build a coalition, maybe. This admin has done none of that and the answer if asked will be “eat shit”. Blows my fucking mind that there are apologists for this.

Not when you're claming the moral high ground and all you have is guesswork.

Not really - an invasion implies holding ground, which isn't the case here.

I would not agree. Intelligence operatives are often in place for long durations in hostile sovereign territory, and some were likely used in this event. Their presence is not an invasion.

Air operations also are not seen as invasions, and the recent stealth strikes by the U.S. in Iran are not seen this way.

It appears to me that armed troops in place that are taking and holding territory for a prolonged duration are the definition.

The dictionary definition below is "the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invasion

Is Maduro and his wife "plunder?" That would stretch this meaning, I think.

Of course that would be great, but pretty unlikely with just a decapitation strike. Like most dictators, Maduro was not holding the country in a superhuman iron grip, but instead the representative of various elites and factions that kept him in power for their own interests. However given how easy this operation has been, there is a suspicion that one or more factions colluded with the US, and may now be consolidating control - and then maybe a peaceful transition back to democracy? We shall see.

> shock horror... American oil companies taking a significant role in the country's oil infrastructure.

And to think that Dick Cheney just barely didn't live to see this. (Died November 2025)

I never saw that coming. /s

You think the business executives in this administration managed to organize the kidnapping of a head of state? Trump pointed at it and a massive machinery which was built over hundreds of years made it happen. People who have been doing this kind of work for decades organized this. Good thing those same business executives are also hell-bent on destroying the machinery, I suppose.

The same people were probably like "Joe's fine"

Without Greene, the campaign goals of MAGA wither. The “I don’t start wars; I end wars” president doesn’t even have the fortitude to start by asking Congress. It’s not as much hyperbole as it sounds.

The dude literally has dementia. It's not hyperbole, it's a basic fact. Like, 2 minutes of watching him try/fail to speak makes this clear.

[flagged]

[flagged]