• gnutrino@programming.devEnglish
      15·
      7 days ago

      I’m not sure it’s really either yet. Nothing much seems to have changed in terms of how Venezuela is governed on a day to day basis and Maduro is still alive and the main plan to stop him returning seems to be for this DoJ, on the back of a series of failures to convict Trump’s political enemies, to secure a conviction of a guy who, however much of a dick he’s been in Venezuela, hasn’t comitted any crimes in America or against any Americans as far as I can see.

      So, I dont know what to call it right now but I have a sneaking suspicion the term “cluster fuck” will apply before it’s done…

    • Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.netEnglish
      382·
      8 days ago

      In South America, sure. We just focused more on the Middle East in the meantime.

      The problem goes far beyond Trump. He is just the modern incarnation of the same shit this country has always been.

  • A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
    241·
    7 days ago

    So much seems to be missing here… also the picture is not complete without Central America.

    From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America:

    20th century

    1903 separation of Panama from Colombia
1906–1909 occupation of Cuba
1912–1933 occupation of Nicaragua
1914 occupation of Veracruz
1915–1934 occupation of Haiti
1916–1924 occupation of the Dominican Republic
1954 Guatemalan coup d'état
1961 Bay of Pigs invasion
1961 Operation Mongoose in Cuba
1964 Brazilian coup d'état
1964 ousting of Cheddi Jagan in British Guiana
1965–1966 occupation of the Dominican Republic
1971 Bolivian coup d'état
1973 Chilean coup d'état
1981–1990 support for the Contras in Nicaragua
1983 invasion of Grenada
1989 invasion of Panama
1994–1995 occupation of Haiti
      • A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
        31·
        7 days ago

        He’s the mask off guy. The “let’s see how much we can ratch it up” guy. The “let’s drop all pretence of democracy and human rights” guy. But the USA have never been the goodies. And to understand MAGA you need to look back, how they got there. Tea Party, Bush, Reagan, Nixon…

        • Bakkoda@lemmy.zip
          1·
          7 days ago

          Remember when we executed all the southern generals and slave owners after the civil war?

          Nope.

  • ATS1312@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    231·
    7 days ago

    This map is incomplete.

    • the 1968 coup that ousted President Fernando Belaúnde Terry from Peru

    • La Violencia in Colombia

    • the US economic Blockade of Guyana in the 1970s, along with several CIA interventions.

    • the US backed the Dictatorship in Surinam until a Coup in 1980, and sent military aid to support the regime through the resulting conflict.

    As for French Guiana - this may be our single exception, as the French did all the Horrors there, and the US “respected their claim”.

    • vzqq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      3·
      7 days ago

      Also Surinam. The Dutch received it as part of a trade with the British and as far as I know the U.S. didn’t interfere with the (brutal) Dutch colonial rule.

      EDIT: I just had a mental vision of some idiot in the White House confusing the Dutch and the Danish and proposing invading Suriname to trade it for Greenland.

    • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.netEnglish
      6·
      7 days ago

      depends on what you think is good. from my perspective: none. interference into these nations’ right to self determination fundamentally exploited the people there into being subject to slavery conditions. from the perspective of the fascists enacting these coups: all. they normalized fascism and gave it a foothold to eventually spread home so that america could shift from neo-liberal fascism to hyperfascism

      • El_guapazo@lemmy.world
        1·
        7 days ago

        That’s my thought as well but I thought to poll if any of these “interventions” actually worked out in their favor.

        • bunchberry@lemmy.world
          2·
          7 days ago

          Many have worked out in the USA’s favor. Not necessarily the favor of the people there. Such as Chile, the US got a pro-US puppet in there, even though he was a mass murdering fascist.

          The US also sanctions countries it doesn’t control, which note that sanctions does not just mean “we won’t trade with you” but also “we won’t trade with everyone who trades with you,” meaning every country has to pick between US market or that country’s market and since the US is the biggest economy in the world they all obviously pick the US, so it practically has the effect as an economic blockade on the country. General Electric for example was fined millions for selling water purifiers to Cuba to help them get clean drinking water.

          Hence, sometimes the economies do indeed do better after the coup and some people use this as “proof” the totalitarian fascists were better, such as in Chile the economy did improve when Pinochet took power, but Pinochet actually kept in place a lot of the nationalizations that occurred under Allende, including the nationalization of the copper mines. It’s obvious that they did better economically because the US restored normal economic relations.

          But it’s always a convenient excuse and it works on a lot of people. Just sanction country into poverty then blame the government for the poverty then use that as an excuse to install your own government then lift the sanctions and claim that the economic improvement is because of the new government.

          The US nationalists who decry the poverty in these countries and use it to call for regime change will never never never never agree to lift the sanctions first to check if that will help them get out of poverty before intervening. They will always come up with a million and one excuses as to why we can’t do that and we must try invading them first right now.