>You probably need to define 'good intentions' here. Intentions that are to the benefit of the U.S. are usually what are defined as good intentions - even when they may well be contrary to the good of the people in whose country the interference is happening.
>
>The U.S. is no different in that. Most countries who have covert ops in other places do it for their own good, and the good of the other country is often of no import to those ops.
It would be an interesting definition, if we could come with one. And applying that definition to all the previous covert operations would probably give even more interesting results. Let's say that the "good intention" is spreading democracy, even if it is only in the narrow model of two parties which aren't too different.
How would, say, the Chile coup of 1973 look in that light? Allende was democratically elected, and replaced with a pretty fascist-looking generalissimo Pinochet. The only good intention I can see here was to open the country to US banks and companies.