this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2024
242 points (98.0% liked)
World News
32311 readers
988 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
100%. People only think them failures or the CIA as incompetent as they presume the CIAs illegal actions, in those instances, to have been done in good faith, despite the contradiction.
As always, the intended outcome was access to that particular country's resources, for a very small group of wildly wealthy people, at regime-change prices.
When it comes to that, the CIA are amazing at what they do.
But that's a failure in and of itself. A prosperous country produces more, therefore has more goods and services to trade, therefore presents itself as a source for wealth for everyone involved than an ailing country.
This is mere short sightedness. A country that's destabilized like this requires foreign help, is often sanctioned, its people will eventually seek asilum elsewhere and it produces very little. If the point is to generate wealth, this is the opposite of what should be done.
the point is to make the american hegemony look good and this helps; especially when cia et. al. fucks it up because people will see that's the point; it's a a bit like russian defenestration: everyone knows it's them so it's better that they make it obvious for the world to see.
I don't disagree with anything you're saying. However, I think the reason it's not sitting right with you is your assumption of good faith on their part.
What if they never cared if the country is more profitable generally and they just wanted to rip them off as much as possible before they realise what's going on?
To me, their actions make far more sense if I presume that was what they really intended to do. More so, any assumption of good faith, as you point out, makes their behaviour seem, at best, bizzare.
So the point is not wealth but spite ? You don't have to act in good faith to cooperate with others. Like i said, in trade, a prosperous peer is worth more and generates more wealth than an ailing one.
This is not an argument on good faith, it's self interest and selfishness. It's right there on game theory and pretty much the entire course of biological history and evolution. One might profit from destroying and seizing the resources of a peer, but in most cases that profit is inferior to quid pro quo cooperation.
To me this is just acting deranged and nonsensical. Just being belligerent for the sake of cruelty and destruction. It's more believable to me that its motivations are about projection of power and hegemony like other commenters have pointed out.
I don't think I explained it very well.
They dont look to own the country when they overthrow it. Thats old school colonialism. Its expensive to maintain and people will dislike you for it. Neo colonialism has them pay for their colonisation from the start.
It'll be for access to specific resources. Say they had, oh I dunno, oil. You install a puppet government thats 100% dependent on you, who knows they'll be killed if they lost US backing, and you force them sell you their oil fields for a fraction of their worth.
Then, any revolution or even democratic vote that tries to take them back, despite how wrong and unlawfully they were obtained, would be seen as breaking international law and have them cut off from the rest of the world. Cuba was and still is meant as a warning to the rest of the Americas.
You don't need the rest of the country to be prosperous for that. In fact, that would just push up the labour costs.
Okay i understand your point. Thank you for explaining it in a different way.