Talk:List of United States foreign interventions since 1945

This page was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion in May, 2004. The result of that discussion was to keep the article. For an archive of the discussion, see Talk:List of U.S. Cold War power plays/Delete.

See also /Delete

allegeditis

guys there is enough confirmable evil stuff that you dont need to go making things up. just stick to the facts. and if you have 'alleged' at the very least you should provide a link to who is doing that alleging and what their basis of charges are.

if you would just stick to the facts, they alone would paint a bloody horrible picture of the CIA. if you add in stuff you arent sure about, you just make yourself look like a fool. in fact, i wouldnt be surprised if the CIA has planted people to write idiotic article like this in order to make their opposition look bad to the general public.

Will the users who are secret CIA shills please stand up? V V 21:18, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

please excuse me for inserting this at the top - we have an interesting debate here - not so much about the CONTENTS of the article, but about whether the article is a valid one per se. Is it NPOV to make a list of interventions by a single state, the USA, without having similar ones for China, the USSR, the UK, France? Is it NPOV to list interventions by the UN or NATO where the USA supplied the bulk of military hardware and personnel, whilst not doing the same for all other member countries? Is it NPOV to include countries with which the US had or has normal diplomatic and trade relations (eg apartheid South Africa) as countries being "supported" by the USA?

Exile 11:23, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it is valid. The United States is the most interventionist non-empire in the history of the planet. And, yes it is NPOV to include South Africa, because most countries outside Europe did NOT have normal trade/diplomatic relations with SA. And, yes, it is NPOV to include UN/NATO interventions that include the US because it controls NATO and is a permanent Security Council member. --Sesel 21:14, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is it NPOV to make a list of interventions by a single state, the USA, without having similar ones for China, the USSR, the UK, France? There was a list of inventions by the USSR, but for some reason (List of Soviet Cold War power plays). But for some reason the content of it is deleted. It redirects now to Cold War. --Mixcoatl 19:43, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

CONGO

In 2001, Belgium officially acknowledged that Belgian agents assassinated Lumumba of Cong. Belgium officially apologized for the coup d'etat. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1805546.stm Attempts to "allege" the CIA are therefore discredited.

Even with Belgium's apology, the U.S. still bares "significant responsibility" for the death of Lumumba according to the Washington Post. Short timeline summary here.--GD 09:53, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

ie. Guilty until proven innocent, and even after that. You cite an opinion piece that talks about "moral responsibility". This is equivalent to the "moral responsibility" of Europe which didn't prevent Bosnia or Rwanda. It is not culpability. Congo coup has been a part of the Leftist propaganda machine for decades. Now that Belgium says that they actually did it, you still can't admit you were wrong. --Yet another example of the silly inconsistency of this list which mixes direct action, active support, non-opposition, and guilt by association into non-falsifiable conspiracies. Nothing on this 'list' is falsifiable. I think it is conspiracy theory and should be deleted.

There are many academic sources which connect to US to Lumumba' removal. E.g. Robert Grogin's Natural Enemies, one of the most recent histories of the Cold War, states that "The United States became convinced that the radical Lumumba should be removed from power." and goes on to explain the support for his overthrow. See also Mahoney's book on JFK's policy in Africa or run a JSTOR search for CIA + Lumumba. There are many legitimate sources that state the US. as well as Belgium, played an important role in the Congolese coup. - SimonP 18:29, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Falsifiability

Nothing on this list is falsifiable. The burden of proof should be on people wanting to insert items, and to prove that there is some evidence for inclusion. Otherwise, one can always create conspriacy theories with no evidence, but almost impossible to disprove.

This list is de facto discrimination

This list is almost blatantly bigoted in its targeting of a single national group for all sorts of deeds, even ones committed, in fact, by Belgium, for example.

Would a similar list "Famous crimes by blacks", or "Media under Jewish control" be permitted? Such lists wouold be deleted immediately, being obviously bigoted and discriminatory--they single out one group for criticism and offer no **comparison** of, say, crimes by non-blacks or non-Jews which may be more!

Furthermore, if Chilean generals establish a dictatorship, does it make sense to blame someone else for what are essentially Chilean crimes??? More dubious is the fact that there is only allegation of US involvement. The burden of proof here is no existent. We can imagine anyone will pass this test. What's next? "AIDS allegedly a CIA plot"??

Strange that almost everything in the world is blamed on a third party nation (the US) exclusively, ignoring the responsibility of the first-party (as if they were children, and have no responsibility) or other third parties (Europe, or the Soviets, for example).

Lastly, the list format offers no counter argument. It has been proven that Belgium engineered the coup in Congo. So that means it is simple deleted from the list. Therefore, there is no space for allegations proven false. Belgian involvement simply disappears, and our anti-American friends have no apparent interest in a list about Belgian misdeeds.

That BBC article doesn't claim that the CIA wasn't involved. Do a google search for 'lumumba cia'. As for Chile, in recent declassified documents that were released Kissinger said that "we helped them" during the coup, which adds to much more documented information on Chile that was available before. You seem to have a general problem with the meaning of the word 'intervention'. This list doesn't "blame" anyone, so I'm not sure what you're seeing. As for other lists, you're welcomed to create any list that has encyclopedic value in your opinion. Please see this [1] page about why you shouldn't delete contributions of others to this list. As I explained you earlier, items that don't have wikipedia articles for them yet should stay in the list because it increases the probability that someone would create these articles. We can discuss Lumumba here if you wish, but stop deleting items from the list without discussion. Nimc 12:58, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So Google searches are criteria for entry???? What happened to your previous claim about respected academic journals, etc???? And Belgium's admission does in fact mean that the US was not involved. Or do you claim the US is guilty until proven innocent (and even when proven innocent, you resort to using Google searches as evidence!!) LOL. You're a real scammer, Nimc. Essentially, the biggest problem with this list is this:

NOTHING ON THE LIST IS FALSIFIABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No amount of documentation, even apologies from Belgium, will suffice to allow any edits from this list. In the end, even if I show documentation to the contrary 1) you resort to using anonymous web pages or Google searches as "evidence" for your eternal truth 2) simply deleting and vandalizing any attempts to edit and add

I will stop deleting items without discussion when YOU stop deleting items without discussion. You have repeatedly censored ANY attempts to edit this, and any other articles that related to your Chomsky-Left anti-American cause.

For some reason this Belgium apology brings you to conclude that the CIA wasn't involved. I didn't really understand how you came to this conclusion, perhaps you'd like to explain it. The google search should have helped you realize that there was a senate committee in 1975 that looked into the CIA role, as well as other information it seems. Though I should mention that I personally don't know anything on this issue, perhaps someone else would like to talk about it here. You're assuming too much, I didn't add Lumumba to this list, someone else did. All I asked is that we'd discuss it in this talk page, instead of your edits/reverts wars with others (not me) on the main article. I didn't claim that the CIA was either involved or not. As for "guilty until proven innocent", you're missing the point of wikipedia, which is to present known issues, and not to 'prove' anything. If there is reasonable evidence of CIA involvement, this item should stay. If there is a dispute about the evidence among credible parties, it should be presented like that. If there's no reasonable evidence for CIA involvement, this item should be removed. As for "You have repeatedly censored ANY attempts to edit this", I think you're confusing me with somebody else, check the history of this list and you'll see that I didn't edit it at all since you came here - I've only used the talk page. As for "deleting items without discussion", you're lying here too - Both others and I have repeatedly asked you to reply to discussion on the Chomsky article instead of modifying the main page, and you're ignoring us. And btw, why are you using all these ! and ? marks? Nimc 16:32, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm "ignoring" you? Here's a direct quote from you: "so I'm finished talking to you. "

Indeed. Though perhaps other people here would like to talk to you. I personally think you aren't making any sense. Nimc

Essentially, the list is not falsifiable. IF evidence shows that Belgium did it, you claim that it is still possible that the US was "involved". Thus, the US is guilty until it can prove itself innocent, which is a logical impossibility. The burden should be respected, scholarly evidence that the US was invovled. And it must be recent, after Belgium's confession.

This list is riddled with pov. Attempts to edit, verify or revise (as is requested) are met with vandalism or censorship by the political-motivated. I think Wikipedia is de facto presenting a POV because there is no comparable article for Soviet (a very short list, very little effort made) or indeed other powers such as France, Britain, China... Ultimately it will reflect poorly on Wikipedia as a whole if the npov is not protected. Too bad.

One proposal is to separate the list into two: 1. Verified US foreign interventions 2. Alleged "Support" and unproven interventions

This makes sense because "support" is being used to mean both non-intervention or having diplomatic relations, and actual military or covert involvement, two very different things. Well-known and historically accurate involvement is mixed with internet-based fantasies or conspiracy theories. In a sense, one can allege that Martians intervened in Haiti but it means nothing, and I'm not sure people will find Wikipedia reliable if it contains nothing but rumors.

If you don't appreciate it that the Soviet list is incomplete, then start improving it. I guess no one cares much about the Soviet list because the Russians don't do much these days - though the nuclear arms race is gaining speed, and Bush said that looked into Putin's soul and found a soul mate... The word "alleged" can be removed from most of the items that use it, it's written in order to keep people like you happy I guess. If you see any items that don't qualify as intervention, please tell us about them here. What needed to be done is to actually write the wikipedia articles for items in this list. That's the way wikipedia works, when people see a (red) link that hasn't been written yet, it improves the chances that it'd be written - and this is the reason why you shouldn't delete them. Nimc 12:11, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This article has nothing to do with the Soviet one or any other one. It is list of U.S. interventions. Your mass unexplained deletions are extremely unproductive and do not reflect the spirit of wikipedia. If you have a problem with a particular list item then post it in talk so that we may discuss it.--GD 19:46, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree, if people have a problem, they should discuss instead of UNEXPLAINED AUTOMATIC DELETION of ANY edits. It is clear that some ideologues wish to prevent edits of this list, even in full definace of new evidence (Such as Belgium's admission of Congo coup).

TO GD:

What explains the mass-deletions, automatic reversions and censorship of this list by you? It has been proven that Belgian intelligence engineered the coup in Congo since 2001, but it was reinserted automatically by you. Any objections or modifications are *immediately* deleted with zero explanation. You also make no attempt to discuss or justify it, just delete, revert, etc. The FAQ on "Wikittiquete" advises: To delete and revert as little as possible. The politicized censors here 1) delete automatically anything they don't like and 2) make no attempt to prove or justify their own inclusions. If this were to be really npov, you would *CITE* allegations since there is no way at present to prove Hugo Chavez's claims about "CIA plots".

Wow, you sure are one twisted individual... first you mass-delete most of the list, then complain that someone who reverted it "deleted" your modifications with zero explanation. And this is after explanations were given to you, and you chose not to comment on them. Nimc 11:35, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Also another note: in my opinion a list shouldn't have one-liner comments next to each item. The information should only be in the wikipedia article of that item. For example I see now for Laos: "with more US bombs dropped than during all of World War Two" - no need for such remarks on this list, relevant information should appear in the (maybe expand Secret War) Laos article. The same goes for items like Somalia "to assist UN food aid delivery", and lame apologetics like Sudan... it was not a "mistake" because Bill Clinton and Richard Clarke and their friends knew that it is a pharmaceutical factory, regardless of whether or not it also produced chemical weapons. Nimc 12:11, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable.--GD 19:46, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To GD: You are then expressing a point of view that "this is fact". This violates the spirit of Wikipedia which is npov.

This whole thing is bogus. These are not acts of imperialism. The are just acts. The acts in this list do not meet a definition of imperialism. Better the title should be "Things that the US has done that were not liked by some others, maybe, but gosh we didn't include references". Kd4ttc 02:41, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The title was changed since the above comment. However, the article is still a tirade. There is no context. The introduction alluding vaguely to unidentified "some people" smells of a POV that should not be on wikepedia. Kd4ttc 16:44, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

This list makes little sense. Not only are most of the entries POV but how is "The 1989 opening of Soviet and East European markets to American goods." an American action? Rmhermen 17:32, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

This is just absurd nonsense. Everything from NAFTA to Hugo Chavez lumped into one tirade. Hell, why not include "alleged US co-operation with aliens to poison the water supply" in it, if we are going to include every kooky conspiracy theory. The only reason this is a list in the first place is because the author obviously thinks it is more damning and "shocking" if all these alleged incidents are presented in one long list. I believe Mr. Michael Moore attempted the same thing in Bowling for Columbine. Can we please get rid of this drivel? user:J.J. 20:41, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

As for Hugo Chavez, you can watch a documentary on what the U.S. helped to do here [2]. What else between NAFTA and that you don't like? btw, following your user link I reached Military history of the United States - thanks... I think we should merge stuff from there into here and into History of United States imperialism ? Nimc 20:34, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, the military history link was already in this article, I didn't notice. Well then, if anyone needed further proof that anti-American drivel-spreading people are not so bright, as opposed to true patriots like you guys, there you have it. For Kd4ttc: I totally agree that "some circles" and "imperialism" are bad terms to use for the introduction, they were used to try to explain the previous title of the article. I'll give you the honor to write a really cool introduction instead? Nimc 09:10, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

This drivel was put up for deletion recently (I think the voting ended about 5/18/04) due to it being POV. Kept online. I think it needs editorial comments peppered into the text. The introduction that "have, in some circles, been considered" is classic POV obfuscation. It was kept to give it chance to become encyclopedic. Kd4ttc 22:00, 20 May 2004 (UTC) The VFD discussion is available at Talk:List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945/Delete. Kd4ttc 21:18, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Nimc didn't like encyclopedic content in the intro. Perhaps he now sees some of the problems in the current article. Kd4ttc 04:06, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to think I made a mistake by not deleting this. -- Cyrius|&#9998 05:27, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

I tend to agree. See below. Kd4ttc 05:29, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

This page was put up for VFD based on it being POV. The introduction was biased in the past. The factual comments now in the introduction are rather straightforward. It now reads as

This is an incomplete list of United States interventions. The criteria for inclusion in the list have not been revealed. The list also does not include any historical context other than date. The strength of allegations is not referenced. Alternatives to any of the actions are not discussed.

The intro was struck as being personal opinion. The standard here is NPOV. The observations are neutral. The list would be more encyclopedic if it had any of the noted defects eliminated. Kd4ttc 05:29, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the word "list" do you not understand? The criterion is self-evident: "U.S. foreign interventions since 1945" and does not need to be spelled out. The list items do not need historical context other than the date because it is a list. Historical context, strength of allegations, and alternatives to an action belong in sub articles that branch off of the list. Your use of the word "incomplete" is also not needed. If you go to any other "List of" articles they are not described as "incomplete." If there is a list item that is missing, it is added. As I said, the intro you proposed is a personal opinion of the article, which does not belong in the article. I am going to try to find sources for all of the list items, which can eventually be put into individual sub articles if so desired.--GD 20:37, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is a specific MediaWiki tag for incompete lists because they are so common and deserve to be noted. Rmhermen 15:03, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, the list is incomplete because not all foreign actions since 1945 are included. Hmm, the Marshall plan comes to mind. The reason a list is not encyclopedic is because it does not contain any historical context. No reason why, what else could have happened. Anyway, what is the criteria for putting something into the list? Be nice to know. As it is, the choice of what goes into the list makes it a personal statement. Technically, such a thing is known as selection bias, a common mistake made in studies. When the selection criteria is not stated a reader can be very mislead by the result of the process. The reason the intro needed a comment on the poor quality of the list was so a reader would recognize that this list appears to have been created by some political agenda, and is inherently POV. I note you pulled out the comments by others regarding the list previously having been under a title of US Imperialism. That was a personal opinion, too? Kd4ttc 22:12, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry. You haven't graduated college yet. Kd4ttc 22:13, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for putting something into the list ? How about a U.S. foreign intervention that happened after 1945 ? Since you seem to have trouble grasping this for some reason, maybe you could please give us an example for an event that you think that shouldn't be included, i.e. an event that is both obviously important enough to have an encyclopedic article describing it, and is a U.S. foreign intervention that happened after 1945, but still shouldn't be included here ? Nimc 01:23, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the article suggests that is the inclusion criteria, but the content of the list suggests not. There are major omissions such as the Marshall plan and rebuilding of Japan. The content suggests that there is an antiamerican POV. There is still no reference to where the list came from originally, and so many of the entries on the list are noted as alleged. The tone of Nimc's response is insulting. User:GD is still in college, so from him it can be tolerated. Is Nimc an undergraduate, too? Kd4ttc 16:57, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what exactly is insulting. The people who advocated the use of 'imperialist' criteria don't seem to be around. You should argue with them if they come back - there's no point to keep arguing about the criteria if we all agree about it. In the VFD discussion I said that I think this list should also include positive actions, citing Noam Chomsky. However, we disagree about the Marshall plan - to say that its omission is anti-American sounds very funny to me. As for rebuilding Japan, it's mixed I guess, but maybe you'd like to watch Chalmers Johnson discuss some of it here [3] - I think it'd be nice to add this to the external links. As for the use of the word "alleged", for most of these events we could get rid of it by a little rephrasing, e.g. by saying that 'USA played active role in the events that led to the overthrow of Salvador Allende, and maybe the CIA also supported the coup itself.' Or we could wait some more years and just remove the word "alleged" Nimc 19:51, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Nimc: Thank you for quieting your tone. The phrase you included above "Since you seem to have trouble grasping this for some reason" is insulting in that it insinuates difficulty in comprehending something simple. I gather you are still an undergraduate. Regarding the article, the criteria for this list are not stated. When the list implied it was a subset of interventions that some circles considered imperialistic the criteria were not clear due to the lack of stating what circles carried that opinion. The article has been heavily criticised and now has undergone a couple of name changes. The current title is a list of foreign interventions since 1945. That is very broad, yet the list is limited. A number of critics of this article have noted that it has an antiamerican POV. I am one of those critics. The list is anti-american because it is heavily loaded with US actions that in retrospect were mistakes. It ignores major historic events. The absence of the Marshall plan is a huge miss. (Of course, when the topic was examplse of imperialism it was another matter). It contains a large number of actions listed as allegations. Changing it to "maybe's" is simply semantics. Is there evidence or not? If the list is to include all US foreign interventions since 1945 it will be a very long list. If the list is not all encompassing then the criteria for deleting minor matters should be stated. Your note above used "we" to describe who disagreed about the Marshall plan. What group do you represent? Editing out the Marshall plan and the rebuilding of Japan after WWII from a list of US foreign interventios reveals a skewed view of what is important in world history. Lastly, some lists can benefit an encyclopedia. A list like this where there are huge issues of context, motivation, and international politics deserves more than just a list. The very presence of this list begs the question of the motivation for having the list present at all. Without an answer to that the article invites criticism for being a POV agenda article. An article should be balanced. There was a short lived introduction that included comments about the articles shortcomings. Where the shortcomings acknowledged the list would be more valid. The person that edited out those comments betrays a view that those observations regarding shortcomings were not correct. Kd4ttc 20:39, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I think that primarily the people and systems that carry out these actions are insulting, and to a lesser extent the U.S. apologists here etc are also a little insulting, though one might argue that they insult their own intelligence. However, I apologize for the way I phrased my earlier reply - It was not my intention to insult anyone, I was trying to be constructive by trying to understand and simplify the issue. About the Marshall plan: I agree that its omission is a huge miss, but I don't agree that its omission is anti-American bias, I'd say that its omission qualifies as pro-American bias... You misrepresented what I said about "alleged" vs "maybe", the point was that documents released so far under FOIA reveal the U.S. support for some of the events that took place, therefore stating this and then adding a "maybe"/"alleged" statement that many people also believe to be true about the actual coup should obviously qualify as foreign intervention to be included in this list. I used "maybe" just because it fit better into the sentence. As for "deleting minor matters should be stated", I don't agree with you: I saw that there's a general debate in wikipedia about whether minor issues should be included, for example there was a poll on whether an article about an ordinary person who died on 9/11 (2001, not 1973 of course) should be deleted. I always believe in trying to simplify whenever it's possible, so other than this general wikipedia debate issue, I don't think there's a special criteria we should use for this list - i.e. if an event deserves to be mentioned in an article, and this event is a U.S intervention, we should add it to this list. As for you characterizing some of these events as "mistakes", it is your personal opinion, that is perhaps shared by many others - However, to give two examples of people who disagree with you: neither George W. Bush nor myself think that he has made any mistakes. Nimc 22:15, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at this point, then, the list is incomplete and invites further contributions. If there are events that are supported by documentation or other evidence, great. Just that the events in this list do not generally have support of much evidence that I saw after poking around a sampling of the alleged events. You misunderstand the Wikepedia debate about minor issues. The criterion is whether a person is noteworthy or not guides decisions on listing them in Wikipedia on there own. In this article if there is going to be dropping of events (such as was done when the Marshall Plan and Rebuilding of Japan were dropped), then there ought to be a reason why that was done. As far as Anti-american bias, look at the number of citations of CIA support. Mostly alleged actions, many regarding interfeerence in foreign politics. On the face of that it is a bad thing. What is missing is historical context on what motivated the US, after, of course, whether the allegations are even true. Kd4ttc 01:43, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean about me failing to understand the Wikepedia debate about minor issues. Do you mean that this list should also include events that aren't noteworthy enough to have a Wikipedia article describing them ? If so, why ? If not, then what exactly did I misunderstand, and what is it about the simple criteria that I suggested for inclusion in this list that you disagree with ? I was looking here: Wikipedia_talk:Fame_and_importance. Nimc 12:17, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The minor issues is separate from whether any individual should have an article. The policy on people came up because the usual policy on deletion was to go through teh VFD process. With the people that died in the 9-11 getting listed it was getting bothersome to have to go through that with everyone. It was also uncomfortable to have to declare everyone unimportant, or better to say, not encyclopedia worthy. So the people who died on 9/11 are memorialized in an appropriate archive out of Wikipedia. For articles such as this one, the VFD process is appropriate. POV is a criteria for deletion, so this article remains at risk for removal. However, within an article you can put as much unimportant minutae as you wish. It may get edited out in ongoing writing, but if someone wants to write it it is generally kept. One reason to keep articles in Wikipedia is that something points to it. So if there is an article about a minor world event and there is another article that references it, it will either be kept, or could be folded into the main article. I actually do not disagree with putting everything in this list. There were others that were editing out events, and their choices on what to eliminate was the issue. Also, when the article was about events that showed evidence of imperialism the choice of what events to put in was the essence of the argument. That list was bogus because selection bias can bring you to any conclusion you want to draw on any subect. My belief is that if every foreign interventions that the US has undertaken since WWII is included in a list, and if historical context is included, the US will look like the average country with good people trying to do the best in a complex world. Kd4ttc 16:07, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

You become more and more unclear. It seems like you refuse to answer the simple yes-or-no question that I asked about whether I understood what you meant. It'd be nice if you'd answer it. Moreover, I have no idea why you keep repeating your comments about whether any individual should have an article, did you look at Wikipedia_talk:Fame_and_importance ? That discussion, as well as our discussion, has nothing to do with individuals, so I have no clue what you're trying to say. As for your last comment, one way to begin would be to ask you what do the people of the US have to do with the events described in this list? Nimc 16:53, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least I mean well. The people the US have responsibility for their government because they (we) elect them. I didn't feel I could tell you what you understand to be correct. Sorry to confuse the issue further. I missed the part where I could answer yes or no to your comments. As far as if an issue is minor related to this list: Include all interventions, with articles pointed to from this article. Any article so created will likely stand but the Wikepedia community might fold short articles into this list. Kd4ttc 23:15, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind to also clarifying what did I misunderstand in relation to the debate about minor issues? As for elections, you're not exactly convincing. Let's start with 3 reasons: A) even in big U.S. military invasions, like the two latest invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, you didn't see people in the streets demonstrating to send soldiers to e.g. Afghanistan, it works the other way around... few people decided to invade, and the American people are responsible of being ignorant mostly. B) some of the events in this list were carried out by people that no one has elected, including maybe the latest item. C) about half of the eligible voters in USA don't bother to vote at all, maybe because there's no one to vote for... so their responsibility might have to do with them not changing the system, not with not voting. Nimc 00:45, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I read into your comments regarding what criteria should be used in deciding what interventions should be listed comments related to the considerations of how articles are judged for appropriateness in Wikepedia. The criteria for importance of an article are different for criteria for importance regarding content within the article. Minor issues are appropriate within an article. Minor topics as articles get deleted. An exception is when a minor article supports another article. Those articles some times stand, some times get folded into other articles. Given that this article suffers selection bias in it's current form, I think it best that many interventions get listed in this article. User Nimc is arguing the importance debate and concluding that minor events can be included. I agree with Nimc that minor events ought to be included in this article. I think Nimc does not need to argue the importance debate because that is an issue for articles, not content within articles. Kd4ttc 04:28, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

There may be reasons why a government acts differently than the citizens would have wished. However, in a government which derives it's authority from the People, the People are responsible for their government. The system responsibility topic you touch on reflects this thought. Kd4ttc 04:28, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

We disagree about minor issues inclusion. You don't give straight answers, but it now seems you claim that I misunderstand the difference between an event being important enough to have an article for itself, and an event being important enough to be mentioned in another article. Note that the article in question is a list. My simple position, as opposed to the complexities that you raise, is that all U.S. interventions are either important enough to have articles for themselves, or not important enough to be listed here. If the U.S. supported the overthrow of, say, the democratically elected government of Jamaica, and certain amount of people got killed in this venture, then yes, such an event is important enough to have an article describing it. The normal practice is to add it as an article that appears in red color until someone writes it. We had an item in the list about the U.S. criticizing Canadian drug laws, I deleted it because it seems ridiculous (i.e. not important), and was without sources. Let's fall back to trying to get you to provide an example: could you please mention an intervention that in your mind is not important enough to have an article for itself, but is important enough to be mentioned in a few lines here? As for selection bias in it's current form, I'm guessing you're unaware of few dozens of other U.S. supported coups that aren't mentioned here yet... so one might argue for pro-American bias in the current form... As for elections, you're the one who invoked the word "responsibility". I did not try to claim that the good people of the US don't share responsibility for these actions, though with regard to some of the covert actions, the responsibility lies with the attitude towards them after they occured. However, your original comment was about "country with good people trying to do the best" when describing these interventions, which is a huge leap compared to "responsibility" since it implies that the good people of the US tried (and succeeded) to carry out these actions. Nimc 10:57, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I think the world is too complex for simple solutions. Since I am not an oracle my comments here were not to provide answers, but to discuss policy. It is good to have both complexity and simplicity represented in a discussion as both have their place. As to examples of articles that are important enough to be on this list, but not rate an article themselves, look at every event that is currently on this list that does not have an article. If the criteria is to be having an article on Wikipedia, then most articles in this list would have to be deleted! I'd rather give a chance for the articles to be developed before resorting to editing anything out. Regarding issues of responsibility, consider the theory of vicarious liability. Kd4ttc 16:58, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

You are again misrepresenting what I said. I have been saying throughout that the criteria for inclusion is whether the event deserves to have an article for itself, not whether it has one already. The pattern of your replies seems to be to answer simple and direct questions with vague and general statements. You declared that I misunderstood the Wikipedia debate on minor issues, while it appears from your replies that you didn't read that debate even after I linked to it, as you kept referring to importance of individuals - and when I asked you to clarify what that declaration was about, I just got more unclear general statements, making it even harder for me to understand you. I'm sorry, but contrary to your last reply, it does not seem to me that you believe in simplicity at all. I will try to ask you for an example for the 3rd time: could you please name one intervention (either in the current list or not) that in your mind is not important enough to have an article for itself, but is still important enough to be mentioned in a few lines in the list? If you cannot provide an example, it'd strengthen my suspicion that the complexities that you raised about the criteria for inclusion are meaningless - assuming that this question indeed represents your position on the criteria for inclusion - you didn't give straight answers when I tried to get you to clarify it. Nimc 20:25, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

See above. The issue about minor matters was a comment to bolster the point that the list should be all inclusive. If it is not the list will suffer selection bias. As others enter articles then decisions can be made on whether full articles are needed or if a brief comment here is adequate. As to the allegations on the list, the lack of a Wikipedia article or reference outside of Wikipedia suggests to me the allegations are unfounded. You're getting all wound up again. Relax. Kd4ttc 04:05, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Before you use the word "drivel" again, I suggest you first read all your comments on this page from start to finish. You're unable to provide straight answers to several specific questions. As for your last reply, the way Wikipedia works is by people adding links to unwritten articles that appear in a red color, so when the original page is viewed by more people, it increases the chance of someone writing the missing article. It is in fact one of the nicest features of Wikipedia, and your last comment on what this feature suggests to you implies that you might be afraid of more information on the subject of this list. Nimc 08:37, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

As for the link you added about Chile, it is a disgrace. You will notice that his specific comments on Chile in that page are without sources. His comments there are similar to me adding an article on my homepage describing how you drink the blood of dead rabbits or any other topic, and adding the link here. I refer you to this discussion Talk:Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them about his homepage, and the specific link I posted there [4] that he wrote, showing that he is quite likely mentally instable. If you have any honor, you'd remove that link and look for a serious source instead. Nimc 09:00, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

My, my. Aren't you the authority! Kd4ttc 14:54, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

When I was in research we did bleeds on rabbitts. Never drank the blood, though. Kd4ttc 15:18, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that you drink rabbits' blood, just that the page you linked to compares to a page describing such drinking habits. Again, that page doesn't provide sources for his fantasies about Chile, and I advise you to look for a real source who is willing to put his reputation on the line, and see what you come up with. Do as you wish. If you follow the link I gave from his site, you'll see that even he sometimes doesn't read the stuff he writes, let alone should you. A note for you and GD: I think the external links here should be temporary, and it'd be better if the new documents about Chile etc would be quoted or linked to in the relevant articles instead. Nimc 16:02, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

And as for the arrogance you demonstrated in your previous reply, it's possible to point out to you along the same lines: "why were you upset on 9/11 (2001) ? After all it was just a few more dead people in the course of human destructive behavior. Relax." Nimc 16:02, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Nimc: Characterizing an outside link as a disgrace is going over the top. Have passion for the betterment of the world. It is a good thing. But don't presume others having different approaches are lesser for having chosen another path. Now let me go find my sword so I can perform seppuku. Kd4ttc 16:34, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Would your new declaration still stand if we replace "an" with "any" ? Nimc 17:07, 28 May 2004 (UTC) <- Don't like the word "another" ? Kd4ttc 17:32, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to your latest declaration about an outside link. The word "an" appeared only once in your previous reply. Should we add this question to the growing number of simple and direct questions that you are unable to answer? Nimc 18:00, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. I thought you were criticising the choice of the word "another" preferring "any other". Now that you clarified your comment I see you are being insulting again. I thought you were going to stop that. Calling another persons edits disgraceful is inappropriate. I blew off the arrogance characterization you made. It appears I do not share the expectations you have for the terms of discourse. Kd4ttc 19:09, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you still wouldn't answer the question. That'd add to two other simple questions that you didn't like for some reason, and decided to pretend they don't exist. BTW I'm still hoping you'd look for a serious article with sources about Chile, and remove this disgraceful insult to Chileans. Nimc 22:01, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nimc: You are not the arbiter of truth around here. Your profile says nothing about you, and you tend to insults. The royal we for you fall into implies an authority you do not have. You do not have the authority to question others. You are not here to grill others. Simple answers to your questions may come across as hurful to you. I do not wish to do that and have maintained a civil tone with a few witty retorts (though that is likely more to my mind than anyone else). If you wish some blunt responses ask one more time, but mind the saying to be careful what you wish for. Kd4ttc 00:53, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is forcing you to answer simple questions if you don't want to, though you should note that one of those questions was about the inclusion criteria. I'm glad that we clarified that you refuse to answer questions. Nimc 01:34, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is getting bogged down in a lot of back and forth now. As I see it, this page is still useless.

If you want to write about America in Japan, or Europe or whatever, do it on the Japan History or Marshall Plan pages. If you want to talk about America killing Salvador Allende, or whatever you believe, do it on his page. This list is pointless. It is convuluted, inconsistant ("support" for a foreign leader is counted as "intervention"? Huh?) and obviously biased. Like I said before, making one of these long, "damning" lists is a common technique of those on the political left, who enjoy reciting long lists of US "attrocities" for their shock value, but are disinterested in any serious analysis of the events themselves. I'm not trying to insert my own bias in this, but it's just a fact. If someone had made a page called something like "abortions performed in America since 1973" or whatever, it would be equally stupid.

Lists are by definition supposed to be groupings of similar things. We have many fine lists on wikipedia, such as list of famous gay people, where an obvious group of similar things is being catagorized. There is nothing being catagorized on this list other than "Republican foreign policy decisions (either real or imagined) that Noam Chomsky and his crew don't like." Get rid of this page, it's not improving, and frankly I can't imagine how it ever could be. America is a big country, and the term "intervention" is way too broad, and the "since 1945" period way too vast. user:J.J.

I agree with JJ. The essential problem with this list is selection bias. I put the events of the Marshall Plan and Rebuilding of Japan on the list when it was renamed to the neutral title now present. Those edits were quickly dropped by others. Another user edited out an alternative view on Chile, one which had the ring of truth in that it presented a reasonable string of events clearly enough stated that with some digging could be referenced. The deeper problem of selection bias is still present. If you want to show that Ford makes green cars, then show a number of photos of green cars you will just have shown that you can identify green cars. If you want to argue the US does things you don't like, then show a list of things you don't like, then you have shown you can pick a list of things you don't like about the US. The reading I have been doing around the web is showing that for the few events I have looked at the allegations here are a strained reading of history. I think this article is headed toward deletion. Kd4ttc 00:53, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The year 1945 is not arbitrary, it is the year when the U.S. emerged as a global superpower. This list is linked in the history of U.S. imperialism article in order to complement that article, since listing all of these events there would be too long. If you think the list is biased, be our guest and find events that you and your crew consider to be good and list them here. If you think that in order to do that you'd need to change the title of this list, personally I'm happy to suggestions - though this title seemed to be the most neutral to me. As for "intervene" vs. "support", you don't think that providing support for coups qualifies as intervening? If there are imaginary events in the list, please tell us about them. And why did you use the word "Republican" is beyond me... Nimc 22:05, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

J.J., no one here is writing about "America in Japan" or "America killing Salvador Allende." As you said, that discussion should be reserved for other pages. This is simply a list of such interventions. I agree that this list still has some problems, but that is not valid argument for deleting it. We need to improve upon it. We need to discuss what kind of "support" should be considered an intervention. Military (overt and covert) support? Financial support? Moral support? This has nothing to do with "Republican foreign policy decisions." If you at all followed the writings of Chomsky and "his crew," you'd realize he is just as critical of Democratic Presidents. --GD 22:08, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware Chomsky is a nihilist who hates everyone and everything. I was just being a bit tounge-in-cheek, in case that was unclear. Nimc's responses make it very obvious that he is a person who supports this page for purely for ideological reasons, which is exactly the reason why I, and Kd4ttc are arguing it must go.

I've said it before, these events have very little in common with one another, and are grouped together largely to form a political argument. One of the hallmarks of these sort of articles is the way five or more footnotes are crammed in after a sentence, in an attempt to go "look how well-documented this is!" even though in the process the article is made to look amaturish and blatantly partisan.

I don't know what more I can say, I've made my views clear. If people want to write about CIA-trained death squads or whatever, feel free to do it on an appropriate page. But please, let's end this page before it becomes even more of a joke and becomes a bogged down mess of external links and akward point / counterpoints. user:J.J.

Would I be correct to assume that you don't hate everyone and everything? Nimc 11:31, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

GD: You didn't reply to my comment for you above about external links. In my opinion if Kd4ttc adores his Chile link so much and doesn't want to remove it, you should let it stay and not start links wars here. So I think you shouldn't have removed it yourself. As for the Iran coup, I agree that such comments should appear in the coup article itself and not in the list. Kd4ttc: what are your sources about the land reforms etc in Iran ? Nimc 23:46, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The references for the reforms in Iran are in the Wikipedia article about the Shah. Click on the Shah's name in the article, I set it up for convenient access to the article. As to the Chile link, it is only 4 characters displayed on the screen and presents an alternative viewpoint which is clearly enough stated to allow followup analysis. Some the preceeding links were to articles where I didn't even find the Chile content. I left them intact out of respect for the Anti-american viewpoint. Seems if someone marched along all those references they should be able to see the obvious falseness of the viewpoint in the link I inserted. Unless folks here think we shouldn't respect the intelligence of the readership. Kd4ttc 00:53, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Since when not supporting the coup against Chile is anti-American ? I didn't see land reforms mentioned in the Shah article ? Nimc 01:34, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I hadn't really been following the discussion that closely; I've been busy with other things. I totally agree that the source links should be temporary. They should be moved to new articles as they are started. The Chile link I removed was nothing but baseless, un-sourced, apologetics. I think any reasonable person would come to the same conclusion when comparing it with the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. --GD 04:39, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

GD: I noticed that the Pinochet article, which seems to be the main wikipedia article about these events, is locked. One possibility is to start a new article about the coup itself. Anyway, I really suggest that for now you just delete all the external links next to the events, because you and our friend Kd4tcc are creating a mess, especially his amusing comments about the Miracle of Chile that aren't even mentioned in the link. Kd4tcc: I'm curious, what does the word "watched" mean in this context ? Kissinger used the word "helped" ? Nimc 02:44, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out; I didn't see that article before. I agree with you that the external links should be deleted. --GD 04:39, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Since you put all these external links here, I guess it'd be better that you remove them, in case you want to keep notes etc. As for the extra comments next to events, there still seems to be a certain disconnect between the lists on wikipedia and Kd4tcc's opinion on what a list is. Nimc 11:31, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

UN

Should we really add U.S. interventions that were sponsored by the UN? --Cantus 19:06, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Definitely - otherwise the article will only show the more negative aspects of US foreign policy. The UN isn't a country, so they are still interventions by US, just not unilateral ones. -- EuroTom 06:23, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Portugal

Why is the support for Salazar's Portugal merely "alleged"? Surely, the US (along with other countries) formed the NATO pact with Portugal. If a mutual defence alliance isn't support, I don't know what is! -- 19:32, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In that case we need a whole set of lists - "Interventions by the UK", "Interventions by Greece", etc, each containing a line for "support for Salazar".

An "intervention" should involve some actions going beyond normal trade and diplomatic relations. For instance, selling arms to a country is not "intervention" unless done in defiance of UN sanctions or embargoes.

Exile 11:13, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

South Africa

“Alleged US support to the Apartheid in South Africa”?

United Nations resolution 33/183M of 24 January 1979: To end all military and nuclear collaboration with apartheid South Africa. Vote: 114-3 (United States, France, United Kingdom)
United Nations resolution 34/93I of 12 December 1979: Assistance to the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement. Vote: 134-3 (ditto)
United Nations resolution 35/206J of 16 December 1980: Same as above. Vote: 137-3 (ditto)
United Nations resolution 36/12 of 28 October 1981: Condemns apartheid in South Africa and Namibia. Vote: 145-1 (United States)
United Nations resolution 37/69H of 9 December 1982: Cessation of further investment in South Africa. Vote: 134-1 (United States)

(Source: "Rogue State" by William Blum, ISBN 1-56751-194-5)

WAKE UP! End this stupid political squabbling and admit the f'ing obvious! Same goes for the rest of the interventions! All of the American actions are "alleged," while in the former article about Soviet interventions, everything was asserted! If a human rights violation is committed by China or some other godforsaken Communist banana republic, we instinctively "know" that it happened, but when white cops beat an obese black man suffering from heart problems and hypertension to DEATH ON VIDEO TAPE the people here have the gall to either call the incident alleged or attempt to search for explanations other than racism! And only American courts would actually acquit an officer who committed such an action! --Sesel 02:27, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC), wishing not to offend or hurt, but only to speak truth.

But many of the allegations have already been proven false (such as the Chile one). And refusing to condemn a nation is not the same as supporting it or all of its domestic policies. V V 01:48, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The US supported the Saddam Hussein Regime. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ I will revert your lies as long as necessary VV.

Turrican

The US helped Iraq against Iran because of our own grievances. But Iraq's real patrons were the Soviet Union and France. A bit of military aid fighting a common enemy does not a supporter of the regime make. V V 01:47, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is laughable. Giving military and financial aid to another country is by definition support and not just good relations. And btw : You have the nerve to call me a POV-Warrior while just about everything you contribute to Wikipedia is Propaganda from the extreme right of political spectrum ? I just want to let you know that I see no difference between people who kill children with Zyklon B or with Napalm and DU and that therefore I think that people such as you who who support such politics are no better than the people who excuse or deny the Holocaust.

Turrican

Your personal value system is not normative for Wikipedia. At any rate, just about every country has economic and political ties to dozens of other nations; that is not what "support" implies. V V 02:07, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fine

Well, okay, I'll feel free to contest this one too. First of all, I'm unclear as to why this page exists as a list when the comparable Soviet page merely redirects to the Cold War. Also, I regard the assertions about Aristide POV - his claim to legitimate election are not unchallenged. Ditto with Rafael Leónidas Trujillo; the article on him makes no reference to a CIA assassination (though they certainly made many). Shorne, as the initiator of changes, you have a duty to the community to defend them with verifiable sources so that the community may judge their merit. I'll leave your changes intact pending such proof, although I will add a disputed tag to the article. Mackensen 01:08, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, let's take this point by point:

Soviet Union: You're free to create your own page. I had nothing to do with it.

See separate discussion below. Shorne 02:19, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Aristide: What is the challenge? He won the election by a landslide. See the article on Aristide.

Cited Aristide. Shorne 02:19, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Trujillo: What is the challenge? If the article omits this information, I'll correct it.

Cited Church Commission's report, including the 26-page section on US involvement in Trujillo's assassination. Shorne 02:19, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shorne 01:31, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Soviet page was changed to a redirect by 172, who called it "...the most grotesque violation of NPOV and encyclopedic standards I have seen in nearly two years. Redirecting to a real article." [5] This strikes me as a gross double standard. My personal preference would be to make this a redirect to Cold War, as was done with the Soviet page. Regarding Aristide, I read the article, and the article reflects doubt as to the legitimacy of his election. Regarding Trujillo, given that the article makes no mention of a CIA assassination, I ask that your "correction" include sources. Mackensen 01:42, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the old article on Soviet interventions. I can't give an opinion without seeing it, but I would object to replacing the present article with Cold War.

As for Aristide, where in the article is the dispute? I don't see anything under "First Presidency and Coup". It just says that he won with 67% of the vote—a landslide when you consider that there were about a dozen other candidates.

Sorry, I mis-read the article, and I agree that his election was legitimate. Could you address the other point regarding Aristide, which I've listed below? Mackensen 02:05, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The US was involved twice in removing him from office. Perhaps you got confused. Shorne 02:19, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There's no denying US involvement in the second removal, the only concern lies over interpretation. I'm not so sure about the first time-that a military coup removed him is certain, US involvement less so. Mackensen 02:26, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your source on Trujillo refers to "planned or actual assassinations" and does not provide any actual evidence of CIA involvement in the assassination of Trujillo. If you can provide such evidence as to make the article entry NPOV, then I'll withdraw my objection regarding Trujillo. Mackensen 01:47, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll give another source. The report of the Church committee, which is mentioned in that article, would be the best one, as it is from the US government itself. Shorne 01:59, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Looks like this comment got lost: The Aristide article does not suggest US involvement in the military coup; indeed it notes that he spent some time in the United States during his exile and that it was the United States that restored him to power. That hardly supports the version listed in this article. I have re-added the NPOV tag; it cannot be a unilateral decision that disputes have been resolved. Mackensen 01:54, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for removing the NPOV tag; I took it that you only wanted some sources. Your concern is about the coup itself? Let me check the article. In any case, I have provided a link to the Church Commission's report on Trujillo. Check the second link if you want only the relevant section (26 pages, reproduced in PDF format from the original text). Shorne 02:19, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Church Report certainly leaves little doubt US involvement in encouraging anti-Trujillo dissidents, although actual involvement in his assassination is a slightly different question.Mackensen 02:26, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's why I toned the phrasing down a bit. Would you prefer something like "involvement in assassination plot"? Seems like much of a muchness to me, but I'll be glad to hear your opinion. Shorne 02:31, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I admit it's splitting hairs. From the report, I get the impression that the US was actively involved in removing Trujillo from power, but not in assassinating him. How about: "involvement in removing Trujillo from power, and probable knowledge of assassination plot." ? Mackensen 02:45, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There seems to be no dispute that the US knew of the assassination plot, what with all the communications about the dissidents' plans. The Church Commission's report quotes extensively from telegrams and other documents that discuss the plot. I don't see what is gained by "involvement in removing Trujillo from power", since he was removed from power by means of a bullet. There is documentary evidence that the US delivered arms to the group that was to assassinate Trujillo, so I think that "involvement in assassination" or something similar is sound. Shorne 02:59, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

True enough. I won't contest the point further. Mackensen 03:17, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As a side note: the list format still bothers me as it offers no context for American actions. Mackensen 02:26, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not entirely keen on the list format either. Want to reformat it? Shorne 02:31, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

US intervention in China

VV, What is your objection to this text at List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945, aside from the possibility that it's being added in bad faith?

US financial and military support of the Republic of China against the People's Liberation Army until 1949 and subsequently against the People's Republic of China.

It looks accurate to me, cf. Civil Air Transport and Tony Poe. Gazpacho 22:05, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Several objections: First, lending support to an existing foreign government isn't really "intervention". Second, US support was haphazard and inconsistent (minor quibble, but the text gives the wrong impression). Third, it is hardly true the US has supported the ROC against the PRC since; the US does not even recognize the ROC. And even when they did, this was "support" of a country's government (Taiwan's), and does not constitute intervention. Very Verily 23:12, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, the US supported KMT army holdouts after the ROC fell on the mainland. It also trained partisans in Tibet and East Turkestan while the PRC was consolidating the country. This wasn't just development aid or financial support, it was an effort to contain the communists by military means. Gazpacho 23:24, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The US did indeed intervene. There's no other way to explain the US military personnel and equipment that were in China at the time. The US also spirited Tibetans away to Colorado for military training (sort of a 1950s School of the Americas) and armed them. No need to deny it: the Dalai Lama himself has admitted in his books that some members of his personal retinue (a chef and a radio operator) were CIA personnel.

If there's no serious dispute, I recommend removing the "disputed" tag. Shorne 02:59, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Uruguay

Where would this fit in? I'm not sure what election Nixon is referring to.

"In his meeting with Heath, Nixon hopes to keep leftists from power in the Bahamas once it declares independence in Britain, and boasts that U.S. ally Brazil rigged the election in Uruguay to keep leftists out."[6] Richard Cane 09:02, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Alleged"

Why are so many of these interventions marked as "alleged"? Wherever the facts are clear, we should state them directly. If there's a reasonable dispute, I want to see a statement of it here before "alleged" gets slapped on.

My thanks also to those who did not allow VeryVerily to get away with deleting large numbers of interventions from this list, including several that were documented with independent sources. Shorne 16:59, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'd say the removal of Duvalier was valid, as neither source listed cited American involvement in establishing him as dictator. The listing of Tibet does not reflect that unrest–without American support–began in 1956. Nor are any sources cited. As for Trujillo, I think we (you and I) had come to something of an understanding on the wording, and I wish VV hadn't changed it.

Once again CIA involvement is alleged regarding Aristide in 1991, but there's no mention of the US-led invasion that restored him to power in 1994. No sources cited either. There are no sources cited regarding Colombia, Bulgaria, or Albania, nor any indication of what the "interference" or "corruption" was. Mackensen (talk) 18:01, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have restored the text about Trujillo to what you and I agreed upon. There's no reason for "alleged" when the US Congress itself admitted to the involvement in a long report that I cited. As for Tibet, I've already mentioned that the Dalai Lama himself has admitted to CIA involvement. There's no dispute over that fact.

I haven't yet checked the remaining references that you mentioned, and I don't know how they got into the article. You're right to ask for sources. Again, I don't remember what exactly is said about Bulgaria and Albania, but I do know that the US heavily funded various parties in the elections in those countries around 1992. Shorne 20:43, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

About Colombia: [7], [8] --Mixcoatl 18:14, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think a better phrasing would be "Military aid to the Colombian government during the 1990's". Mackensen (talk) 19:22, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Now, regarding the Tlatelolco_massacre, US involvement seems to be limited to providing equipment and training for Olympic security. The article, as written, implies something far different. Look, let's give credit where credit's due. The Americans didn't massacre those students. Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is becoming a dumping ground for every frivolous accusation under the sun. Even in cases where the U.S. has wished and tried to interfere, their actual impact on the situation was usually negligible, contrary to the credit some policymakers may have tried to take. I have fixed much of the wording, although some of these assertions are so vague as to be meaningless. For instance, don't all countries "back" or "support" all other countries that they have diplomatic relations with? Very Verily 23:35, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

About the coup in Chile.

I'm going to keep reverting the word alleged until you read the link from CNN that has the title "Documents reveal U.S. funding for Chile coup" and tell me how it's wrong.

Quotes from the link:

"U.S. officials released documents on Monday acknowledging the CIA had provided covert aid 30 years ago to undermine Chile's government, but analysts say some of the most important documents have not yet been made public."

"U.S. officials released 16,000 government documents on Monday, including a CIA memorandum indicating $1 million in covert aid had been given to Chilean opposition parties in an effort to undermine then-Chilean President Salvador Allende socialist government."

Among the information contained in the documents released Monday:

"The CIA provided secret funding to Chilean opposition parties in the early 1970s to try to undermine Allende's government."

"The funding had been approved by U.S. officials just three weeks before Allende was toppled by Pinochet."

"CIA officials had previously said the agency had not instigated the coup, but had been aware of military plotting to overthrow Allende."

"However, a Senate committee chaired by Sen. Frank Church, D-Idaho, had confirmed that the CIA had participated in covert operations in Chile, and that the agency had attempted to foment a military coup in 1970 after Allende had been elected president."

[9]

This topic has been covered on the Talk pages on probably a dozen articles on Wikipedia. It is known and well-acknowledged that the CIA tried to interfere with Allende in 1970. However there is no evidence of any coup-plotting or other such activity after that. In fact, the evidence clearly suggests the U.S. played no role in Pinochet's coup, and was focusing on helping the opposition defeat Allende in 1976 (wasted effort due to 1973). The fact that contacts notified the CIA of Pinochet's intentions on Sep 9, 1973, two days in advance, by absolutely no means translates to complicity. Very Verily 04:42, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)