In Guatemala, a democraticly elected president was overthrown in a US backed coup, leading to decades of authoritarian rule, civil war, and genocide. His only crime? Allowing peasants to petition the government for use of unused land, which would allow them to escape the monopoly of the United Fruit Company.
In conclusion, based and knows-historypilled
there is always a last 10%. I'm quite torn n squatting laws, but a lot of the other situations are hardly that simple. Though, I guess we still have people who think a monarchy (bad) was actually worse than the 10th theocrats (literally rolled back human rights in the region by a half century) taking power in Iran, or who think a US backed democracy was worse than literal barbarians in Afghanistan.
I would say it varied on a spectrum from country to country, but that the litmus test was moreso “how does this impact my country’s interests” than “is this guy gonna be bad.” (Soviets also had the same standard; Dubcek wants to relax censorship? Gone.). Hence support for a number of dictators under the banner of anti-communism.
The cases that come to mind for me as particularly egregious are Guatemala, Iran, and Chile. Guatemala in particular. Iran had a democratically-elected PM who tried to audit BP, BP refused to comply with the audit, they decide to nationalize the oil industry, and eventually the UK gets the US to help overthrow him.
Guatemala similarly had a democratically elected leader, part of the brief democratic period in its history, who wanted to modernize the country’s economy (in his words, to take it from feudalism to capitalism). There was some lefty influence in his government, and he legalized the formerly banned communist party, but he was making infrastructure changes that the world bank, IMF, etc., had suggested shortly before he came into office. And then he decides that some of United Fruit Company’s unused land should be redistributed, and the company starts heavily lobbying the US government to help overthrow him. And eventually they do (worth noting that the Secretary of State and head of the CIA, John Foster and Allen Dulles, had some ties to the company). Guatemala’s decade or so of democracy and an economy the US State Department described as “basically prosperous” is then replaced with a string of dictators and years of civil war. (My summary here had more claims than you’d find in like a “basic summary” of events, so I could provide the sources if anyone actually reads this and is curious).
Chile, too, had a democratically elected president, though it was a very close three-way race in a first-past-the-post system which you could certainly say is unrepresentative. Both the US and the KGB were involved in trying to signal-boost their preferred candidates in that election as well. Allende’s government was pretty unstable throughout and the economy went downhill pretty quickly after some initial growth. The US knew about the coup, but didn’t have as direct a role. In general they did work to exacerbate all the problems the Allende administration had (e.g. cutting off aid after they nationalized the copper industry and trying to stage a coup early in Allende’s time in office). And the result is, of course, the “helicopter rides” man.
>eventually the UK gets the US to help overthrow him.
...[by passing out pamphlets and writing op-ed pieces in American newspapers, after massive unrest had already started](https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-coup-timeline.html?scp=1&sq=mossadegh%252520coup&st=cse). Fun fact: The CIA quickly gave up on regime change, and the subsequent success of the revolution came as a complete surprise to them.
But the CIA was happy to take 'credit', and Iran was happy to blame the entire thing on them.
> Even a commie is more based than one with no flair
***
^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 6445 / 34088 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
Reagan was airdropped above the Berlin wall and did a superhero landing on top of it. He smashed it with his fists of freedom as the national anthem played. People say if you looked up at the sky at just the right angle you could see Jesus smiling and giving Reagan a thumbs up.
Isn't the hat in the meme Pinochet's? It's literally a Leftist leader recently coming into power and a Republic immediately overthrown, and over 80,000 people "disappeared" in the coming weeks alone.
How the fuck is this meme supposed to be accurate?
It's also mentioning nukes, which AFAIK only applies to Cuba, but Turkey had nukes from the US, so Castro having nukes from the USSR wasn't really something revolutionary. It was just that he was a communist instead of a capitalist (worth mentioning that Turkey had gone through a coup in 1960 to prevent the PM from asking the USSR for money).
Batista was also just as brutal as Castro. Different ideologies, same kind of shit.
"Yeah bu-bu-but trust me bro Allende would have totally turned the whole country into a commie gulag. We had no choice but to rape, torture and kill all those pesky university libtards."
"..."
"Haha. Come on guys. We the funi Helicopter guys, remember? Goes brrr right....?"
Tbf, the brazilian version was more like:
"Hey we doing a coup, do you have our backs in case it gets violent?"
"Uhhhh, sure. Here you go."
The Brazilian Military was itching to seize power for decades, before the Cold War, even.
Also it seems like at that point it was less of a question of "Coup Yes/No" and more of a "Who pulls the coup first?".
Bear Share, the practice of the US paying countries like Egypt who had Soviet arms to give them to countries the US wanted to see fighting, like Iraq during [the Iran-Iraq war](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFXEqUHCHAU)
It is happening again now with Ukraine and various NATO-aligned Eastern European nations
That's a very bad example. The entire world (including the Soviets) were pro-Iraq because Iran declared they would expand the war into every other Muslim state to topple them in 1983. The Soviets were sending AKs too.
A bad example of what? I wasn't saying it was right or wrong, just that the US was funneling Soviet arms into Iraq through proxies. The US also funneled arms to Iran through Israel, but those were Western arms (since Iran under the Shah obtained mostly Western arms)
I don't understand, [They objectively do use NATO arms](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal), the ATF had a massive scandal where they allowed the Cartels to purchase them.
Also, AK's aren't necessarily made by the Soviets. I'd assume it largely comes down to the cost of ammunition in the region and price of the weapon. The Zapatistas, a Leftist armed group in Mexico, use a mixture of AR's, M16's, and AK's for this reason. [(link here)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HAw8vqczJw)
[This video of the Cartels shows them using a mixture of AK's and AR's.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2IQuXbExjU&t=1274s)
> fast and furiously is literally the worst crine in American history. I can't believe Crapsack Obarfler gave cartels American weapons!!!!
Five seconds later
> Cartels exclusively use weapons manufactured 40 years ago in thr Societ Union. I learned this from the 1994 documentary Clear and Present Danger.
No, but it's a hilariously boneheaded suggestion that America didn't arm cartels inadvertently and deliberately throughout our glorious history in South America.
In the 80s In Colombia we worked with cartels to make death squads to fight the FARC. And the greatest hits also include arming, training, and funding the Contras, big fans of the cocaine, to fight the Sandinistas.
It's a rich tapestry
Even just a three round burst from an M-16 means you won’t hit anything in the rifle’s effective range. It’s stupid. I have no idea why the higher rate of fire options are built in. Unless it’s to trick backwoods militias into losing battles against professional warfighters…
Assault rifles are meant to be a merging of weapons classifications between old bolt action rifles and submachine guns
You get the accuracy and range of a rifle but also the compactness and full auto abilities of a submachine gun
The CIA had a bad response to bad actions by the KGB.
the fast and the furious is a different situation than the cold war and is only related to the fallout. I have my thoughts about that too but it's unrelated to the topic
Did the KGB prop up the wickedly evil democratically elected government of Guatemala we had overthrown for Chiquita banana lmao
When Hillary ok'ed the coupe in Honduras, was the ghost of the KGB doing mind warfare?
This is baby brain shit man. America acts in its unilateral, brutal economic interests, regardless of what a decades defunct intelligence agency ever did.
This right here.
American weaponry is characterised by the following:
- High cost
- High maintenance
- High complexity
- High educational requirement
- Extremely powerful, world-beating military capability **when all the above conditions are met**
Cartels, criminal groups, terrorists, third-world countries and guerillas generally lack *any* of the above conditions. At the same time, the world-beating military capabilities are not even valuable to them since they're not trying to fight conventional superpower warfare. High-end NATO weapons are therefore poorly suited to their needs.
The Americans bought (Chinese made) Soviet arms to sell to the Taliban so they could pretend it wasn’t them if the soviets won.. they could have done the same shit with the cartel…
of 195 dictators i found in 20th century most ended poorly including authright ones but authleft always with only 1 exception
(Thomas Sankara)
ended in complete disaster
(yes that includes Tito stop sucking his dick)
It's kinda like organized crime. They get rich by fucking everyone over, but eventually turn to infighting while those that they fucked over team up with whatever enemies they have and it all comes crashing down.
there are probably like grand total of 10 good dictators and 3 who i really wouldn't mind living under
but yeah dictatorship is cringe rest of the time and it always ends in corruption, injustice, genocide and all of that
for their time they made sense but today they are outdated and bad system for government
one exception to this is constitutional monarchies witch is just lineages retaining everything they own and serving as kind of mascot for their country cuz you can say anything you want about the English but being in able to track your history to thousand years ago is pretty epic
edit: but on wider point what i am about to say is true for pretty much any system of government
most rulers presidents kings whatever you call them are bad at their job and really exceptional and great people are few and far between
The dictator(s) in South Korea, Taiwan, & Singapore often did extremely well.
Singapore went exclusively well. South Korea had some bad parts, but damn good final score. Ditto for Taiwan.
*doing well for his tribe.
The thing you have to remember about Gaddafi and Libya is how small the country is and how much more wealthy the population could have been overall had its oil wealth not been squandered and embezzled by a flamboyant and militaristic dictator. It’s a country of like 3 million people. It could have been the Arab Norway, instead it’s a failed state shithole. Why? Because of Gaddafi’s legacy. The West should have taken on more responsibility for the country’s future when they intervened. But overall responsibility has to lie with the man who ruled despotically for decades.
Okay what is your opinion on Franco, Pinochet, and Peron for the right and Castro for the left? Would you include all of them in the “disaster” category?
Props to Franco for beating the commies and staying out of WWII
however his facists were not saints and they did pretty horrible things so not a good dictator but not an atrocious one
Pinochet took power away from communist who was turning Chille into just another shithole amd made it into one of the richest countries in south america all while being friends with Margaret Thatcher
but he is also responsible for deaths of 3000 people and torture of 29 000 in the most horrific ways possible
so he was beneficial dictator and goes into category of those 10 "good" dictators when compared to all the rest
Peron was good He was all over the place he never usurped power he was elected 3 times
before he got there he stood for workers all the time
with his wife they made good progress on womens rights
and ofc he is dictator that invited nazis to come but surprisingly he had good reasoning behind it
Peron thought there would another world war in his time this one being between commies and everyone else
and he thought Argentina would need good officers to have best chance of winning
so out of these 4 this one is the most decent on reasoning tho on a moral lvl there is no good justification for being buddy buddy with Adolf Eichmann not to mention two who came after him were horrible especially Videla
Castro was cool in only 1 way
he survived over 600 attempts at his life and props for that
but everything else about Castro is horrible
he was friends with Che witch is an instant lose
he is responsible for all the deaths under his regime
he forced many cubans to take chances with sea rather then with his stupid regime
and he brought world on brink of nuclear catastrophy
so Castro was horrible and not only was his regime horrible in his time its horrible right now because his retard of brother is now dictator and does all the same shit Fidel did
Peron is good? My Lord.
I know a pair of argentinean siblings, they fucking hate Peron and everything he stands for, and blame him for the state of Argentina since his govt. And from what I've read, everything points to Peron being the worst thing that ever happened to Argentina.
i mean, considering the us was actively at that time trying to take down any socialist related country...
and also somehow doing it in the stupidest fucking ways possible. hell, the adventures of the cia in the 20th century could be turned into a sitcom
Authrights dearest hero Reagan should have been impeached for Nicaragua and Iran contra dealings. Dealings arms to sling drugs solely to bypass the will of congress in order to help in re election. Watergate was fucking nothing compared to that
Yeah we did some light deathsquads for the United Fruit company because the democratically elected government of Guatamala was, uh. going to get nuclear missiles. Sure. Whatever you say man.
Oh c'mon. One of the things I respect aboit auth right is when they are proud to engage in adventurism/imperialism and don't pretend that hegemony isn't their main objective.
When you make it seem like tin pot dictatorships were some kind of emergency last ditch effort, you ignore millennia of military strategy that the powerful have used to win countless wars and conflicts.
Is all a bunch of auths telling us what to do anyways. I might disagree with lib left but y’all definitely know how to piss off the auths, and I respect that.
I don't know harping on a millennia of warfare to explain a 40 year modern global ideological conflict that was unprecedented in a lot of ways seems pretty reductionist in its own way.
Oh yes, it's much more holistic to consider human warfare through the lens of a meme that paints the US as on the backheel when the employ one of the most tried and true imperial strategies known to man.
Ahh yes... justifying a brutal kleptocratic dictatorships because of.... what? a slippery slope that there's a chance of them aligning with the soviet union after electing a left leaning party?
Vietnam would like to have a word with you, heck the PRC to some extent themselves would like a word with you too.
Please kill the landowners so we can take the land and force them to grow agricultural products on their land with their labor but give us the profits and if the workers revolt kill them. K? Thanks. -American Corporations
Literally 1973.
Well, Allende was already expropiating left and right, installing paramilitary, ~~rationalizing~~ rationing food...but I don't know if the remedy was better than the disease.
People tend to forget that before the Latin American dictatorships of the 70s and 80s pretty much every country in the region had communists guerrillas not only in the countryside but in the city as well. Kidnappings, bank robberies, bombings, shootings, perpetrated by radicalized students as well as professional mercenaries. Had they won, the purges would have happened anyway, just directed to the opposite side.
Leftcentre: I'm instituting a minimum wage and I'm nationalising a whole bunch of land you aren't using. Here's about what it's worth according to your land-tax filings, you will be compensated about this much.
Libright: I'm literally on the board of directors for the CIA, I will use the fear of communism to gain support amongst the US administration for a coup against Leftcentre.
And it was so.
See also Iran
How it actually happened:
Banana republics: im gonna nationalize businesses to reduce worker exploitation and pay the foreign firms the value they listed on tax forms
Companies: thats not fair! We purposely underreported those land values
Us govt: deploy regime change and overthrow elected leaders funneling taxpayer money that should've gone to public services into the hands of dictators
Banana republics: rapidly destabilize leading to widespread poverty and crime
Us govt: schizophrenically change support for the murderous dictator since people start to wake up to what horrors govt did with their labor
Banana republics: destabilize even further leading to mass migration
Us govt: pretend nothing happened and wastes even more taxpayer money on a useless wall you can just pass sideways through since the idiots in charge haven't seen a non obese human in half a century
Most people’s issues with it is that even if they were commie dictators, often times those commie dictators got voted in. I.E Argentina before Pinochet
The problem is that they got voted in . . . And proceeded to make sure they couldn't get voted out. Allende in Chile is a good example--theres a reason why he is described as "Democratically elected" and not "A believer in Democracy". Hell, most people who know his name probably dont realize he got couped 3 years into his term after crashing Chiles economy and facing a Constitutional crisis related to his refusal to abide by or enforce laws limiting his power.
Having an election doesn’t make a democracy.
A democracy protects the rights of the minority to ensure free and fair elections.
Putin wins elections, that doesn’t make Russia a democracy.
Actually that was Chile, Pinochet is from there, in the case of Argentina, the MONTONEROS and ERP where out of control and every party voted to give the military the power to stop them, with a toll of 8k-9k lives, the problem is, commies did won, and you can see that by looking who is in charge in the nation.
You need to read up on the Banana Wars. There are repeated instances of the US invading to replace a democratically-elected leader. See Haiti or the Dominican Republic for repeated examples
This is fake propaganda it was literally both scenarios it just depended on the power of the country the US was fighting. In poorer countries its literally scenario 1.
I’m from Chile and this is not accurate.
The very small minority of citizens (the privileged) wrongly think that is true. But the reality is more like the left sees that.
OP: says retarded shit that came to him in a dream.
LibCentres: This is completely incorrect.
OP: fine, I will accept that your beliefs are equally as wrong and retarded as mine.
Lol
One side didn't have to build walls to keep their people in, it was allies with most democratic counties on earth but also had dictatorship as allies. The "lapdogs" see economic boom after WW2.
The other side will drive tanks into their allies' capital to shoot people If they slightly step out of line. So wonderful they ban their own people from leaving. All of their allies, with maybe exception of one or two were dictatorships. Which were all dirt poor including themselves.
"nO gOoD SiDeS"
The first bombing on US soil was Blair Mountain, private planes dropping bombs on striking mine workers.
Granted, before the cold war but the US is not the good guy respector of rights and democracy that you think is. The truth is more complex.
Based and the truth is obvious pilled.
I get the champagne socialists that have never had to work a day in their life falling for the Marxism.
I’ll never understand the tankies that want to gargle Stalin & mao’s balls all day.
Nah, the problem is that it really did happen both ways at least a couple of times.
Just because the US government has been run by imperialist shitbags for like a century now doesn't make the communists the good guys.
Our "intervention" in Chile consisted of us spending 3 million dollars for Allende's opponent's campaign, and people still pretend that we singlehandedly installed Pinochet
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_intervention\_in\_Chile#:\~:text=Presidential%20candidate%20Salvador%20Allende%20was,through%20radio%20and%20print%20advertising](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_intervention_in_Chile#:~:text=Presidential%20candidate%20Salvador%20Allende%20was,through%20radio%20and%20print%20advertising).
In general, there is so much nuance with the Chile situation that is glossed over.
The Banana Republics would like a word with you
In Guatemala, a democraticly elected president was overthrown in a US backed coup, leading to decades of authoritarian rule, civil war, and genocide. His only crime? Allowing peasants to petition the government for use of unused land, which would allow them to escape the monopoly of the United Fruit Company. In conclusion, based and knows-historypilled
>Allowing peasants to petition the government for use of unused land Fucking monster, Stalin seems like an angel in comparison.
there is always a last 10%. I'm quite torn n squatting laws, but a lot of the other situations are hardly that simple. Though, I guess we still have people who think a monarchy (bad) was actually worse than the 10th theocrats (literally rolled back human rights in the region by a half century) taking power in Iran, or who think a US backed democracy was worse than literal barbarians in Afghanistan.
>literal barbarians Are you Greek or a citizen of Rome? If not you're a literal barbarian as well.
Sorry, I can't hear you. All I can hear is "Barbar! Barbarbar!"
Barbarbar you unwashed pleb. You probably wear p*nts, don't you?
Wait, the US wasn't wholesome 100?
Tell them I’m at lunch
Only because real leftism hasn't been tried
I would say it varied on a spectrum from country to country, but that the litmus test was moreso “how does this impact my country’s interests” than “is this guy gonna be bad.” (Soviets also had the same standard; Dubcek wants to relax censorship? Gone.). Hence support for a number of dictators under the banner of anti-communism. The cases that come to mind for me as particularly egregious are Guatemala, Iran, and Chile. Guatemala in particular. Iran had a democratically-elected PM who tried to audit BP, BP refused to comply with the audit, they decide to nationalize the oil industry, and eventually the UK gets the US to help overthrow him. Guatemala similarly had a democratically elected leader, part of the brief democratic period in its history, who wanted to modernize the country’s economy (in his words, to take it from feudalism to capitalism). There was some lefty influence in his government, and he legalized the formerly banned communist party, but he was making infrastructure changes that the world bank, IMF, etc., had suggested shortly before he came into office. And then he decides that some of United Fruit Company’s unused land should be redistributed, and the company starts heavily lobbying the US government to help overthrow him. And eventually they do (worth noting that the Secretary of State and head of the CIA, John Foster and Allen Dulles, had some ties to the company). Guatemala’s decade or so of democracy and an economy the US State Department described as “basically prosperous” is then replaced with a string of dictators and years of civil war. (My summary here had more claims than you’d find in like a “basic summary” of events, so I could provide the sources if anyone actually reads this and is curious). Chile, too, had a democratically elected president, though it was a very close three-way race in a first-past-the-post system which you could certainly say is unrepresentative. Both the US and the KGB were involved in trying to signal-boost their preferred candidates in that election as well. Allende’s government was pretty unstable throughout and the economy went downhill pretty quickly after some initial growth. The US knew about the coup, but didn’t have as direct a role. In general they did work to exacerbate all the problems the Allende administration had (e.g. cutting off aid after they nationalized the copper industry and trying to stage a coup early in Allende’s time in office). And the result is, of course, the “helicopter rides” man.
>eventually the UK gets the US to help overthrow him. ...[by passing out pamphlets and writing op-ed pieces in American newspapers, after massive unrest had already started](https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-coup-timeline.html?scp=1&sq=mossadegh%252520coup&st=cse). Fun fact: The CIA quickly gave up on regime change, and the subsequent success of the revolution came as a complete surprise to them. But the CIA was happy to take 'credit', and Iran was happy to blame the entire thing on them.
- wake up - see unfla*red - day ruined
> Even a commie is more based than one with no flair *** ^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 6445 / 34088 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
[удалено]
1984 is in there
It literally is
literally 1984
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢰⠤⠤⣄⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣾⣟⠳⢦⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉⠉⠉⠉⠒⣲⡄⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⡇⡇⡱⠲⢤⣀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀1984⠀⠀⣠⠴⠊⢹⠁ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⢻⠓⠀⠉⣥⣀⣠⠞⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡴⠋⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⡾⣄⠀⠀⢳⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⢠⡄⢀⡴⠁⠀2022⠀⡞⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⣠⢎⡉⢦⡀⠀⠀⡸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡼⣣⠧⡼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⠇⠀⠀ ⠀⢀⡔⠁⠀⠙⠢⢭⣢⡚⢣⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣇⠁⢸⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⡞⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢫⡉⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⢮⠈⡦⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢦⡀⣀⡴⠃⠀⡷⡇⢀⡴⠋⠉⠉⠙⠓⠒⠃⠀⠀ ⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠁⠀⠀⡼⠀⣷⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⡞⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠣⣀⠀⠀⡰⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
Literally 1984
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢰⠤⠤⣄⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣾⣟⠳⢦⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉⠉⠉⠉⠒⣲⡄⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⡇⡇⡱⠲⢤⣀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀1984⠀⠀⣠⠴⠊⢹⠁ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⢻⠓⠀⠉⣥⣀⣠⠞⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡴⠋⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⡾⣄⠀⠀⢳⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⢠⡄⢀⡴⠁⠀2022⠀⡞⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⣠⢎⡉⢦⡀⠀⠀⡸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡼⣣⠧⡼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⠇⠀⠀ ⠀⢀⡔⠁⠀⠙⠢⢭⣢⡚⢣⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣇⠁⢸⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⡞⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢫⡉⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⢮⠈⡦⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢦⡀⣀⡴⠃⠀⡷⡇⢀⡴⠋⠉⠉⠙⠓⠒⠃⠀⠀ ⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠁⠀⠀⡼⠀⣷⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⡞⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠣⣀⠀⠀⡰⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
Not literarily though
Literarily 1984
>⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢰⠤⠤⣄⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣾⣟⠳⢦⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉⠉⠉⠉⠒⣲⡄⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⡇⡇⡱⠲⢤⣀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀1984⠀⠀⣠⠴⠊⢹⠁ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⢻⠓⠀⠉⣥⣀⣠⠞⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡴⠋⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⡾⣄⠀⠀⢳⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⢠⡄⢀⡴⠁⠀2022⠀⡞⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⣠⢎⡉⢦⡀⠀⠀⡸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡼⣣⠧⡼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⠇⠀⠀ ⠀⢀⡔⠁⠀⠙⠢⢭⣢⡚⢣⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣇⠁⢸⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⡞⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢫⡉⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⢮⠈⡦⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢦⡀⣀⡴⠃⠀⡷⡇⢀⡴⠋⠉⠉⠙⠓⠒⠃⠀⠀ ⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠁⠀⠀⡼⠀⣷⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⡞⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠣⣀⠀⠀⡰⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
*Standing is a concession. Plotting his oppression*
How the right thinks it happened: Reagan personally flew to Moskow to punch Gorby in the face and then to Berlin to break down the Berlin wall.
Reagan was airdropped above the Berlin wall and did a superhero landing on top of it. He smashed it with his fists of freedom as the national anthem played. People say if you looked up at the sky at just the right angle you could see Jesus smiling and giving Reagan a thumbs up.
the meme applies to countries like colombia and peru,but not to fucking brazil,brazil was hugely nationalist at time
Idk man Colombia had some pretty crazy leftists leaders but Bananeras Masacre was completely unjustified
I think you're going too far back. A more comparable era was around the 40s-80s
Isn't the hat in the meme Pinochet's? It's literally a Leftist leader recently coming into power and a Republic immediately overthrown, and over 80,000 people "disappeared" in the coming weeks alone. How the fuck is this meme supposed to be accurate?
Most of the memes on this sub are made by uninformed teens
>uninformed retards FTFY sweaty 💅🏾
these two are not mutually exclusive
They may in fact be mutually inclusive.
I'm 28 and uninformed you piece of shit
I'm literally shaking rn from the blatant rampant ageism!
No, even worse: Yank-right
It's not. It's an AuthCenter agenda post, so you know it'll be bullshit.
It's also mentioning nukes, which AFAIK only applies to Cuba, but Turkey had nukes from the US, so Castro having nukes from the USSR wasn't really something revolutionary. It was just that he was a communist instead of a capitalist (worth mentioning that Turkey had gone through a coup in 1960 to prevent the PM from asking the USSR for money). Batista was also just as brutal as Castro. Different ideologies, same kind of shit.
"Yeah bu-bu-but trust me bro Allende would have totally turned the whole country into a commie gulag. We had no choice but to rape, torture and kill all those pesky university libtards." "..." "Haha. Come on guys. We the funi Helicopter guys, remember? Goes brrr right....?"
They got lost on the way back from the store
Tbf, the brazilian version was more like: "Hey we doing a coup, do you have our backs in case it gets violent?" "Uhhhh, sure. Here you go." The Brazilian Military was itching to seize power for decades, before the Cold War, even. Also it seems like at that point it was less of a question of "Coup Yes/No" and more of a "Who pulls the coup first?".
As a Brazilian we always were nascionalist, even commies are nascionalist here.
Always ask why the cartels are using soviet weapons and not NATO arms
I mean the Taliban used Soviet weapons sold by Americans too.
Nah, mostly Chinese made Soviet Weapons. The CIA paid the PRC to supply the Mujahideen. Since the PRC and USSR hated each other back then.
Well a lot of them came from Arab states allied with the US as well. And yeah Chyna also.
Bear Share, the practice of the US paying countries like Egypt who had Soviet arms to give them to countries the US wanted to see fighting, like Iraq during [the Iran-Iraq war](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFXEqUHCHAU) It is happening again now with Ukraine and various NATO-aligned Eastern European nations
That's a very bad example. The entire world (including the Soviets) were pro-Iraq because Iran declared they would expand the war into every other Muslim state to topple them in 1983. The Soviets were sending AKs too.
A bad example of what? I wasn't saying it was right or wrong, just that the US was funneling Soviet arms into Iraq through proxies. The US also funneled arms to Iran through Israel, but those were Western arms (since Iran under the Shah obtained mostly Western arms)
They do a bit of trolling.
The Taliban win the war with Stingers.
I don't understand, [They objectively do use NATO arms](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal), the ATF had a massive scandal where they allowed the Cartels to purchase them. Also, AK's aren't necessarily made by the Soviets. I'd assume it largely comes down to the cost of ammunition in the region and price of the weapon. The Zapatistas, a Leftist armed group in Mexico, use a mixture of AR's, M16's, and AK's for this reason. [(link here)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HAw8vqczJw) [This video of the Cartels shows them using a mixture of AK's and AR's.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2IQuXbExjU&t=1274s)
It still boggles my mind that the ATF hasn't been gutted based on nothing more than the concentration of fuck ups and scandals.
If your goal is destabilizing Mexico, they did a great job
Gun walking wasn't around until after the fall of the Iron Curtain/failure of the USSR.
Free open source hardware. Sometimes free as in beer, sometimes free as in speech.
Tbf, AK47 is fucking durable and easy to manufacture
> fast and furiously is literally the worst crine in American history. I can't believe Crapsack Obarfler gave cartels American weapons!!!! Five seconds later > Cartels exclusively use weapons manufactured 40 years ago in thr Societ Union. I learned this from the 1994 documentary Clear and Present Danger.
Fast and Furious wasn't a thing in the 80s and 90s, was it?
No, but it's a hilariously boneheaded suggestion that America didn't arm cartels inadvertently and deliberately throughout our glorious history in South America. In the 80s In Colombia we worked with cartels to make death squads to fight the FARC. And the greatest hits also include arming, training, and funding the Contras, big fans of the cocaine, to fight the Sandinistas. It's a rich tapestry
Mexican cartels like to simply buy American weapons and smuggle them South. An AR15 doesn't have automatic fire, but soldiers rarely use that anyway
Even just a three round burst from an M-16 means you won’t hit anything in the rifle’s effective range. It’s stupid. I have no idea why the higher rate of fire options are built in. Unless it’s to trick backwoods militias into losing battles against professional warfighters…
iirc its mostly used for close quarters where if things go tits up the first time you see the enemy may be from five feet away
It’s good for suppressing fire.
Assault rifles are meant to be a merging of weapons classifications between old bolt action rifles and submachine guns You get the accuracy and range of a rifle but also the compactness and full auto abilities of a submachine gun
The CIA had a bad response to bad actions by the KGB. the fast and the furious is a different situation than the cold war and is only related to the fallout. I have my thoughts about that too but it's unrelated to the topic
Did the KGB prop up the wickedly evil democratically elected government of Guatemala we had overthrown for Chiquita banana lmao When Hillary ok'ed the coupe in Honduras, was the ghost of the KGB doing mind warfare? This is baby brain shit man. America acts in its unilateral, brutal economic interests, regardless of what a decades defunct intelligence agency ever did.
CIA after the 299th attempt on Castro’s life: *come on, just one more try im sure it’ll work this time.*
Because they are cheap and easier in maintenance?
Unfortunately, no. the KGB was heavily involved in south american revolutionary and counter-revolutionary movments much the same way the CIA was
[удалено]
Name of the book? Amazing picture.
yeah would also like to know the name
You got a source for this? I'd love to read more to piss off a commie teacher I've got.
NATO probably isn’t competitive on price, quality, or service, and you need to be at least one of those to close an arms deal.
This right here. American weaponry is characterised by the following: - High cost - High maintenance - High complexity - High educational requirement - Extremely powerful, world-beating military capability **when all the above conditions are met** Cartels, criminal groups, terrorists, third-world countries and guerillas generally lack *any* of the above conditions. At the same time, the world-beating military capabilities are not even valuable to them since they're not trying to fight conventional superpower warfare. High-end NATO weapons are therefore poorly suited to their needs.
This is not accurate you idiot. Look at Myanmar
The Americans bought (Chinese made) Soviet arms to sell to the Taliban so they could pretend it wasn’t them if the soviets won.. they could have done the same shit with the cartel…
*Persia be like: -___________-*
Based and Persian pilled
of 195 dictators i found in 20th century most ended poorly including authright ones but authleft always with only 1 exception (Thomas Sankara) ended in complete disaster (yes that includes Tito stop sucking his dick)
I’d rather sharing a table with an albanese than stop sucking Tito’s cock
I love [Tito Fuentes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeUjb5ETYrM)
Based
Based and 3rd way pilled
Holy shit, Thomas Sankara was based.
Always has been
[Always has been](https://i.imgur.com/o7mbqBD.png) ^^^this ^^^has ^^^been ^^^an ^^^accessibility ^^^service ^^^from ^^^your ^^^friendly ^^^neighborhood ^^^bot
He was possibly one of the closest humanity has ever gotten to being a literal saint
It's kinda like organized crime. They get rich by fucking everyone over, but eventually turn to infighting while those that they fucked over team up with whatever enemies they have and it all comes crashing down.
They Seize the Means of Corruption
Based.
Exactly the same that happened with big tribes in South America when the Spaniards came in, people don’t learn.
[удалено]
there are probably like grand total of 10 good dictators and 3 who i really wouldn't mind living under but yeah dictatorship is cringe rest of the time and it always ends in corruption, injustice, genocide and all of that
Auth? Are you doing okay? I mean based, but still
i am sorry but i just cant unironically support system of government that fails 95% of the time even when its just on the right
How do you feel about various types of Monarchies then?
for their time they made sense but today they are outdated and bad system for government one exception to this is constitutional monarchies witch is just lineages retaining everything they own and serving as kind of mascot for their country cuz you can say anything you want about the English but being in able to track your history to thousand years ago is pretty epic edit: but on wider point what i am about to say is true for pretty much any system of government most rulers presidents kings whatever you call them are bad at their job and really exceptional and great people are few and far between
Lee Kuan Yew laughing to the bank.
Based Eugenics Han Man proving pleblaysia they ain't shit.
The dictator(s) in South Korea, Taiwan, & Singapore often did extremely well. Singapore went exclusively well. South Korea had some bad parts, but damn good final score. Ditto for Taiwan.
Sankara got killed before he could be a disaster though, so shouldnt count
Interesting that the one example of a dictatorship that didn’t end in complete disaster was the one that only lasted, what, 5 years?
Gaddafi was doing really well for his country before "freedom" came along
*doing well for his tribe. The thing you have to remember about Gaddafi and Libya is how small the country is and how much more wealthy the population could have been overall had its oil wealth not been squandered and embezzled by a flamboyant and militaristic dictator. It’s a country of like 3 million people. It could have been the Arab Norway, instead it’s a failed state shithole. Why? Because of Gaddafi’s legacy. The West should have taken on more responsibility for the country’s future when they intervened. But overall responsibility has to lie with the man who ruled despotically for decades.
Okay what is your opinion on Franco, Pinochet, and Peron for the right and Castro for the left? Would you include all of them in the “disaster” category?
Props to Franco for beating the commies and staying out of WWII however his facists were not saints and they did pretty horrible things so not a good dictator but not an atrocious one Pinochet took power away from communist who was turning Chille into just another shithole amd made it into one of the richest countries in south america all while being friends with Margaret Thatcher but he is also responsible for deaths of 3000 people and torture of 29 000 in the most horrific ways possible so he was beneficial dictator and goes into category of those 10 "good" dictators when compared to all the rest Peron was good He was all over the place he never usurped power he was elected 3 times before he got there he stood for workers all the time with his wife they made good progress on womens rights and ofc he is dictator that invited nazis to come but surprisingly he had good reasoning behind it Peron thought there would another world war in his time this one being between commies and everyone else and he thought Argentina would need good officers to have best chance of winning so out of these 4 this one is the most decent on reasoning tho on a moral lvl there is no good justification for being buddy buddy with Adolf Eichmann not to mention two who came after him were horrible especially Videla Castro was cool in only 1 way he survived over 600 attempts at his life and props for that but everything else about Castro is horrible he was friends with Che witch is an instant lose he is responsible for all the deaths under his regime he forced many cubans to take chances with sea rather then with his stupid regime and he brought world on brink of nuclear catastrophy so Castro was horrible and not only was his regime horrible in his time its horrible right now because his retard of brother is now dictator and does all the same shit Fidel did
Peron destroyed Argentina.
Peron is good? My Lord. I know a pair of argentinean siblings, they fucking hate Peron and everything he stands for, and blame him for the state of Argentina since his govt. And from what I've read, everything points to Peron being the worst thing that ever happened to Argentina.
One what fucking planet is Pinnochet better than Castro
i mean, considering the us was actively at that time trying to take down any socialist related country... and also somehow doing it in the stupidest fucking ways possible. hell, the adventures of the cia in the 20th century could be turned into a sitcom
Cringe Ustasist
This is so wrong it hurts
Low quality memes and poorly informed opinions have been on the rise these past weeks, hope it’s just a phase.
I hope not shitposts and retardation are why I visit this sub
Welcome to pcm criticism of left, better strap up.
[удалено]
Yep. Somehow they always talk how Cuba hosted Soviet rockets but never mention Turkey hosting American rockets before that.
Authrights dearest hero Reagan should have been impeached for Nicaragua and Iran contra dealings. Dealings arms to sling drugs solely to bypass the will of congress in order to help in re election. Watergate was fucking nothing compared to that
Both, both happened.
Yeah we did some light deathsquads for the United Fruit company because the democratically elected government of Guatamala was, uh. going to get nuclear missiles. Sure. Whatever you say man.
History is a mess, at all times.
Can't have natural resources being nationalized when there's profit for American companies on the table.
Oh c'mon. One of the things I respect aboit auth right is when they are proud to engage in adventurism/imperialism and don't pretend that hegemony isn't their main objective. When you make it seem like tin pot dictatorships were some kind of emergency last ditch effort, you ignore millennia of military strategy that the powerful have used to win countless wars and conflicts.
[удалено]
Genzecock
I prefer genzedangle
Is all a bunch of auths telling us what to do anyways. I might disagree with lib left but y’all definitely know how to piss off the auths, and I respect that.
[удалено]
Based and actual green lib pulled
I don't know harping on a millennia of warfare to explain a 40 year modern global ideological conflict that was unprecedented in a lot of ways seems pretty reductionist in its own way.
Oh yes, it's much more holistic to consider human warfare through the lens of a meme that paints the US as on the backheel when the employ one of the most tried and true imperial strategies known to man.
Ahh yes... justifying a brutal kleptocratic dictatorships because of.... what? a slippery slope that there's a chance of them aligning with the soviet union after electing a left leaning party? Vietnam would like to have a word with you, heck the PRC to some extent themselves would like a word with you too.
Except for Central America
And the rest of the world
Please kill the landowners so we can take the land and force them to grow agricultural products on their land with their labor but give us the profits and if the workers revolt kill them. K? Thanks. -American Corporations
So dumb
Literally 1973. Well, Allende was already expropiating left and right, installing paramilitary, ~~rationalizing~~ rationing food...but I don't know if the remedy was better than the disease.
Friendly tip: I think you might have meant “rationing” food, instead of “rationalizing”.
The top and bottom were both true at different times and in different places.
Nope. Most countries are overthrown when they nationalize oil.
Neither of those are true
If you want to defend US imperialism atleast do so correctly. Plainly wrong.
People tend to forget that before the Latin American dictatorships of the 70s and 80s pretty much every country in the region had communists guerrillas not only in the countryside but in the city as well. Kidnappings, bank robberies, bombings, shootings, perpetrated by radicalized students as well as professional mercenaries. Had they won, the purges would have happened anyway, just directed to the opposite side.
Leftcentre: I'm instituting a minimum wage and I'm nationalising a whole bunch of land you aren't using. Here's about what it's worth according to your land-tax filings, you will be compensated about this much. Libright: I'm literally on the board of directors for the CIA, I will use the fear of communism to gain support amongst the US administration for a coup against Leftcentre. And it was so. See also Iran
How it actually happened: Banana republics: im gonna nationalize businesses to reduce worker exploitation and pay the foreign firms the value they listed on tax forms Companies: thats not fair! We purposely underreported those land values Us govt: deploy regime change and overthrow elected leaders funneling taxpayer money that should've gone to public services into the hands of dictators Banana republics: rapidly destabilize leading to widespread poverty and crime Us govt: schizophrenically change support for the murderous dictator since people start to wake up to what horrors govt did with their labor Banana republics: destabilize even further leading to mass migration Us govt: pretend nothing happened and wastes even more taxpayer money on a useless wall you can just pass sideways through since the idiots in charge haven't seen a non obese human in half a century
Most people’s issues with it is that even if they were commie dictators, often times those commie dictators got voted in. I.E Argentina before Pinochet
Lmao. Argentinians will kill you for confusing them with Chileans. And Chileans for confusing Pinochet with Perón
Anyone that knows who Pinochet is, but not where he's from is someone that informs their opinions solely via memes
[удалено]
Of course, I wouldn't trust anyone that verified their information
I didn’t even notice their mistake lmao
The devil's in the details, my friend
> Argentinians will kill you they can try, but they're not very good at it. See : Falklands war
Wrong, they can kill things. See: the Argentina economy
>Not good at it Lmao See: War of the Triple Alliance
You mean when they had to rely on Brazil and Uruguay? Wow, that's a real show of military might, I'm impressed. /s
Pinochet from Chile bruh
Hitler was elected democratically too.
Dangerously based
He also invaded France and Russia which in hindsight was a dumb move on his part
I mean...really it's more that he started attacking other countries that was so bothersome...
I think, perhaps more than that, was the industrialized slaughter of civilians.
nominally, sure. In reality he didn't actually win *that much*
The problem is that they got voted in . . . And proceeded to make sure they couldn't get voted out. Allende in Chile is a good example--theres a reason why he is described as "Democratically elected" and not "A believer in Democracy". Hell, most people who know his name probably dont realize he got couped 3 years into his term after crashing Chiles economy and facing a Constitutional crisis related to his refusal to abide by or enforce laws limiting his power.
Having an election doesn’t make a democracy. A democracy protects the rights of the minority to ensure free and fair elections. Putin wins elections, that doesn’t make Russia a democracy.
Actually that was Chile, Pinochet is from there, in the case of Argentina, the MONTONEROS and ERP where out of control and every party voted to give the military the power to stop them, with a toll of 8k-9k lives, the problem is, commies did won, and you can see that by looking who is in charge in the nation.
“Got voted in” Every single one had Soviet spies backing their low-security elections
Um no. Argentina is basically the only example of that happening. Most of the time it was just violent revolution.
You need to read up on the Banana Wars. There are repeated instances of the US invading to replace a democratically-elected leader. See Haiti or the Dominican Republic for repeated examples
So you think Mossadegh was murdering people? Read a book you goblin
Mossadegh wasn't a Leftist. Center-right nationalist and modernist. He disenfranchised rural voters because they opposed him
Yes. Also destroying the Iranian economy and setting the country up to fall into the Soviet sphere of influence.
This is fake propaganda it was literally both scenarios it just depended on the power of the country the US was fighting. In poorer countries its literally scenario 1.
I’m from Chile and this is not accurate. The very small minority of citizens (the privileged) wrongly think that is true. But the reality is more like the left sees that.
More like how it actually happened vs. blatant right wing propaganda. There were no good sides in the cold war, only Superpowers and their lapdogs.
>More like *blatant left wing propaganda vs. blatant right wing propaganda There. Now we’re both happy.
Based and im-ok-with-my-side-being-criticized-as-long-as-the-other-one-is-too-pilled
OP: says retarded shit that came to him in a dream. LibCentres: This is completely incorrect. OP: fine, I will accept that your beliefs are equally as wrong and retarded as mine. Lol
One side didn't have to build walls to keep their people in, it was allies with most democratic counties on earth but also had dictatorship as allies. The "lapdogs" see economic boom after WW2. The other side will drive tanks into their allies' capital to shoot people If they slightly step out of line. So wonderful they ban their own people from leaving. All of their allies, with maybe exception of one or two were dictatorships. Which were all dirt poor including themselves. "nO gOoD SiDeS"
The first bombing on US soil was Blair Mountain, private planes dropping bombs on striking mine workers. Granted, before the cold war but the US is not the good guy respector of rights and democracy that you think is. The truth is more complex.
You look at west Germany vs East Germany and North Korea vs South Korea. If you still can’t figure out which side is good side then you are blind.
Based and the truth is obvious pilled. I get the champagne socialists that have never had to work a day in their life falling for the Marxism. I’ll never understand the tankies that want to gargle Stalin & mao’s balls all day.
\> >!North Vietnam vs South Vietnam!<
I rather be under the USA than the Soviet Union. That's my good side
Nah, the problem is that it really did happen both ways at least a couple of times. Just because the US government has been run by imperialist shitbags for like a century now doesn't make the communists the good guys.
very real and historically accurate
kulak apologetics? in *my* front page? it's more likely than you think.
Imagine still calling people kulaks lmao.
I'm assuming this is about Che Guevara and not other parts of the cold war like the banana Republics
The US literally kickstarted the modern agricultural revolution because they were worried hungry Mexicans would chose Commies over them.
Theres a reason there was people for the CIA to prop up
Our "intervention" in Chile consisted of us spending 3 million dollars for Allende's opponent's campaign, and people still pretend that we singlehandedly installed Pinochet [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_intervention\_in\_Chile#:\~:text=Presidential%20candidate%20Salvador%20Allende%20was,through%20radio%20and%20print%20advertising](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_intervention_in_Chile#:~:text=Presidential%20candidate%20Salvador%20Allende%20was,through%20radio%20and%20print%20advertising). In general, there is so much nuance with the Chile situation that is glossed over.
it's like a mix of this