>>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sure, I don't question your class approach in any way. However, just for clarity sake, would you consider capitalism as better for people (i mean your personal definition of people here) lives or socialism is more preferable?
>>>>
>>>>Personally, I'd like a balance of the two. Pure capitalism (the way it's usually practiced) generally ends up with a few people controlling all the wealth, and pure socialism (the way it's usually practiced) generally ends up with a few people controlling all the wealth.
>>>
>>>Hmm, it suddenly indicates that you like something that is not usually practiced.
>>>OTOH, it means that there is no coup in the world that would make you happy. It's sad.
>>
>>How did "usually" come to mean "always"?
>>
>>Off hand, I can't think of a regime that is truly one way or the other where it's not true that the bulk of the wealth is controlled by a few and where large numbers of people are living in poverty. Not the U.S., not Canada, not Russia or China. I'm sure there are governments that care more about the many than the few, but I'm not sure where. Maybe one of the Scandanavian countries. And there, I think there is a combination of both that is probably more balanced than most other places.
>>
>>When the U.S. had its coup back in the 1700s, it was very much for the people of the country. Unfortunately, a pure captialist system such as ensued, lends itself very well to having the wealth of the nation bubble up to the top.
>
>You play with theories now. Without going far to this discussion just imagine yourself in the midst of some coup trying to figure out how pure the consequences would or would not be in some distant future.
>Basically, when someone starts to think about theories all time, s/he is already dead (in historical sense), because this world is brutally practical.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, the concept was 'good intentions'. You're the one who forced in the idea of types of government, which may or may not have anything at all to do with the intentions of those initiating the coup, and which don't happen until after the coup. So I replied to the original concept and then I replied to your change of direction. At no point do I recall saying that one must think 200 years into the future in order to decide whether or not a coup would be a good thing for the people now. If you want to continue putting words into my mouth, I have no objection, but remember when you do, I don't swear in print, so keep it light.