US Coups - Out with the elected, in with the dictators

You have to pay attention to what you omit.

Noam Chomsky is probably THE most identifiable intellectual in the world. He has written over 100 books and one of his areas of study is politics.

I don't understand, this isn't a Cold War US v Soviet comparison. This is simply pointing out the truth about the US. Feel free to start a Soviet coup topic!
P.S. You'll notice I've included some coups post-Cold War as well. Like one 4 years ago.

You seem to be ignoring the political climate, the idea of the Truman doctrine and making the US look like a monster for the past 50 or so years by only showing one side of the situation.

Kinda sounds like Gaza, being oppressed by Israel and having its democratically elected government be subject to a pre-empted coup by the US & Israel.

And if I'm making the US look like a monster by reproducing facts, maybe it is? It's subverting democracy for its national interests and business interests. If I said Russia did it too would it make it any less bad what the US is doing? Of course not. I'm not a journalist who has to be fair and balanced (like Fox), I'm telling the other side of the story (like Fox). Nobody's saying that Russia's innocent. All I'm saying is that the US isn't and people should know the truth. The truth that it isn't the leader of the free world, and that it doesn't seek democracy and peace. It seeks to further it's economy and national interests.

I liked that a lot even though Kali or someone else is going to disassemble it and basically call it crap...

Noam Chomsky is a lot more than a linguist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky#Academic_achievements.2C_awards_and_honors
Instead of trying to discredit a great man, you could try and counter the points he made.

It's hard to say you support Free Market when your taking land from companies and distributing it to the people.
Guatemala supported the Communists more than the Capitalists so when the coup happened on its own the CIA jumped on board and made sure the new government would like us by sending them money.

I'm not sure what's dumber, assuming that the elections in Gaza were fair and free, or thinking that Hamas has the moralistic and legal high ground.

American intervention has never been about the spread of democracy, but rather the spread of capitalism. Hence the CIA's intervention in Chile so soon after the nationalisation of Chuquicamata.

It's about neither. Ideology doesn't take precedence over national security and the security of our national interests.

OK. I humbly await your evidence of electoral fraud.

And Israel rightly accepted the 10-year truce, because security is more important than expansionism and the subjugation of Palestine. Oh wait, they didn't do that. What they did do was increase sanctions and security checkpoints and basically turned it into the world's largest prison. Oh and they attacked Gaza in a pre-planned war causing this amount of damage:

Casualties and losses

Total killed: 13
Soldiers: 10 (friendly fire: 4[27])
Civilians: 3

Total wounded: 518
Soldiers: 336[28]
Civilians: 182[28]
Total killed: 1,417 (PCHR),[29] 1,166 (IDF)[30]
Militants and police officers:
491* (PCHR),[29] 709 (IDF)[30]
600–700 (Hamas)[31]
Civilians: 926 (PCHR),[29] 295 (IDF)[30][30]
Total wounded: 5,303 (PCHR)[29]
Total captured: 120 (IDF)

One Egyptian border guard officer killed and three wounded, and two children wounded.[32][33]

Over 50,800 Gaza residents displaced.[34]

Over 4,000 homes destroyed; around $2bn worth of damage to Gaza[35]

not to mention the replacement of sanctions with a more severe blockade. But MatthewChris you'll find I said:

I said nothing about Hamas having the moral or legal high ground. What I said was that Gaza had its democratically elected government be subject to a pre-empted coup by the US & Israel. And until Israel stops building settlements in East Jerusalem I find it hard to believe that Israel cares more about security and peace than expansion.

Rhetoric and ideology aside, why defend Hamas? They are an international menace, and even if we consider them the democratically elected government of Gaza, why shouldn't we do everything in our power to depose them? Certainly Israel should act in a way that prevents Hamas from acting against them.

The two are intertwined. The Red Scare did have real fears to back it up, but it was mostly about ideology. A US-friendly government in Chile wasn't going to make a significant difference in case of a war between Nato and Warsaw Pact members. This was a purely ideological and economical intervention by the US.

Oh, nothing solid, but judge by the nature of Hamas, and other polls, you have to admit that something was off.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a0j5V1cZ54wA&refer=top_world_news

Also, why did so many Fatah heads quickly resign, despite claims of unity and cooperation from Hamas? Seems all a bit fishy to me. I guess it comes with having a terrorist organization under the guise of a political party, who's one objective is to destroy the very state they border.

No need to lecture me on the war, I was fighting in it. Anyhow, you act like this was unprovoked aggression, when in reality, it was a response to Hamas launching rockets into our territory, killing and wounding Israeli citizens. Not only that, but they were continuing to arm themselves for further attacks against Israeli civilians. While I don't approve of Israeli conduct in the war, it was justified.

I have no illusions about Israeli ambitions, nor do agree with their actions regarding Palestine.

If such a peace was to happen, it would require a lot more planning, and cooperation with someone who isn't constantly attacking us and hurting Israeli and Palestinian civilians.

I agree. Even if they are 100% legitimate, they are by no means benevolent, and are a threat to Israeli and Palestinian people.

The intervention occurred because US interests were threatened by the government of Peru. It's not about ideology. Ideology is an excuse. Even maintaining US hegemony is just a means to an end. It's about protecting our national interests, typically against anti-business (or at least strongly protectionist) regimes.

Well I'm pretty sure I wrote ideological and economical...
Moving on, what right do the US have to impose its version of government on others? I'm not really sure if you are defending the government or what, but should they be allowed to overthrow elected government because it might be bad for the national interests of the US?

What right? Well, force, for one. Like it or not, the institution of the nation-state achieves its foreign policy goals primarily through domination of other states. Can't fault the US for acting as any other state would do given the same international position.

There is a universal 'evil,' sure, but there's a lot of unique good that hasn't existed with previous hegemons. Particularly in the area of individual rights.

That's not really solid enough for me to say that they weren't democratically elected. It raises question marks, sure, but nothing has come of those so it's safe to say they were democratically elected.

They previously had, but their manifesto for that election did not include that:

I'm afraid you are incorrect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_War#2008_six-month_lull
You'll find it was Israel that broke the ceasefire. Anyway, if you want to compare losses on either side look at this chart:

Then what are we arguing over?

I'm sorry but I really don't think this is fair. They offered a 10 year truce and it was not accepted by Israel. If they had accepted it and Hamas broke it, Israel would have the support of the international community, making Hamas the villain and Israel the victim. They did not accept because they preferred expansionism over security and peace.

Ooh, it's gettin hot in here!

Of course I can blame them and tell people it's wrong. That's what we Europeans do afterall Now if the EU can get it's ass back on track we might actually get to be the asswhoppers again, but it's not like that's going to happen soon.
Regarding the "evil" that's totally objective. If an elected government start persecuting minorities, then it's alright to stage a coup or the likes. Redestribution of wealth is not persecution.