>>>>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.
>>
>>For what it's worth, I feel that the only definition of 'good intentions' would be that the interference is designed to better the lives of the people who live in the country where the interference is happening. Getting more money/oil/farm produce/whatever out of the country to create wealth somewhere else just doesn't qualify afaic.
>
>What about creating wealth in the country itself? Does it qualify?

Privided that the wealth created is used to better the lives of the people living there, then yes. And by 'the lives of the people', I don't mean just a few people at the top of the power ladder.