Talk:Covert United States foreign regime change actions/Archive 1

Deletion proposal
This article is relevant, however needs some attention to the language used. Encyclopedic articles need to have a impartial tone to the writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

I agree. From the article: "especially in light of our subsequent experiences with Saddam Hussein."[16]" The "our" makes it clear that the writing is from a personal/collective position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjcarder (talk • contribs) 18:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding controversial content without reliable sources
Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability says: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."The material on the so far unproven allegations made by Hugo Chavez in particular lack reliable sources. One broken external link to Counterpunch, a highly partisan magazine, does not count as a valid reference. It is especially important for articles on highly contentious issues to be thoroughly referenced. Sections on claims and allegations must be neutral and represent all major viewpoints. --Folantin 11:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved from CIA controversies
The CIA is alleged to have sponsored regime change of the following, mostly democratically-elected, governments:

Egypt 1952 Iran (Mossadegh Government) 1953 Guatamala (Arbenz Government) 1953/4 Korea 1960, 1961 (Cuba 1961) Laos 1960 Zaire 1960 Dominican Republic 1963 Vietnam 1963 Brazil 1964 Bolivia 1964, 1971 Indonesia 1965 Ghana 1966 Greece 1967 Cambodia 1970 Chile 1973

signed: Best wishes, Travb (talk) 13:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

POV tag
For info on the dispute, see Articles for deletion/CIA sponsored regime change. Many participants recognized that POV is an issue in this article. Mango juice talk 18:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Many countries missing
Clearly, much needs to be added to this article. Reliable sources are pretty hard to find because of the secretive nature of CIA operations and because most relevant documents haven't been disclosed yet (if ever). Here's a good place to start: Lixy 20:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * An excellent source that could be helpful in filling out this article is Tim Weiner's Legacy of Ashes: A History of the CIA (2007, Doubleday), in which every statement is sourced to an on-the-record source, including many recently declassified documents. It might be worth listing *attempted* regime change through covert action--e.g., the CIA's 1958 attempt to replace Sukarno in Indonesia.  There were also some peaceful regime changes assisted with CIA funds, such as the placement of WWII convicted war criminal Nobusuke Kishi's election as prime minister of Japan in 1957.


 * Another source (which I haven't yet read) is Stephen Kinzer's Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq (2006, Times Books). Lippard 22:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Lipard, it just so happens I was looking briefly at Weiner's book last week. If I had to choose, I would guess Kinzer's book is the more important for this article, although they are both great. You are welcome to add sources to existing sections of the article, as well as to write additional rc and attempted rc sections. To expand on something to which you allude, if you get a chance to look up a source in a footnote cited in a book like Weiner's, it is better to cite that source (say a declassified CIA document), in addition to citing the book itself, than citing the book alone. But that is not indispensable.
 * The title of this article ends with the word "actions" so actions is the head of the noun phrase. So the article should certainly include attempts.--NYCJosh 16:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We should certainly removed unsourced opinion pieces in online newspaper which are the sources for much of the article. More reliable sources are welcome.Ultramarine 16:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * we should remove ultramarine. He always calls "unsourced" anything he doesn't like. A great new source is the "family jewels" CIA report.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.58.254.68 (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources
All Wikipedia articles are required to use reliable sources. Any external links have to abide by this policy too and the onus is on those who add them to justify their inclusion. Sources which are clearly self-published personal opinion pieces found on the Web fail these criteria. Sources which spell Norodom Sihanouk as "Sahounek" and blame Radio Free Europe for the bloodshed of the Soviet invasion of Hungary - to mention only a few examples- are not trustworthy.

Please will someone try to improve this article by using reliable, scholarly sources and following Wikipedia's guidelines on a neutral point of view. If you do your homework, there is plenty you can legitimately say about the CIA's activities in Iran in the 50s, for instance.

This article was nominated for deletion four months ago. It survived with a "no consensus" vote and the closing admin commented: "The result was no consensus. I call upon those who said things like 'keep and rewrite' or 'keep, but fix POV' to actually do it, or I'm sure we'll see the article back here in a couple of months." I've had this page watchlisted since then and the admins words have obviously not been heeded. If this page gets any worse, I will have no hesitation in nominating it for deletion again. --Folantin 15:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

US-sponsored regime change
The title of the article should be changed because it is too restrictive. It includes "CIA", so other coups sponsored by the senior US officials, such as possibly the 2002 coup against the democratically-elected government of Venezuela may have to be excluded? How about "US-sponsored regime change"?--NYCJosh 23:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. Isn't the "Liberation of Iraq" USA sponsored regime change? The title should make it clear, that this is about covert action. How about Allegations of US-sponsored regime change? -- Petri Krohn 23:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. I appreciate the point that the article should be restricted to "Secret US-sponsored regime change operations"--how is that for a title? I would be happy with "Covert..." instead of "Secret..." too. "Allegations" is generally un-encyclopedic according to WP rules and less direct, and departs more from the current spirit of the title.--NYCJosh 23:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Since no objections or further comments have been received I am changing the title per above. The focus should not be restricted to the acts of a singly US agency but on the acts of the US govt.--NYCJosh 03:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Does anyone know how to change the title of an article? I was going to change it to: "Covert U.S. Regime Change Actions"--NYCJosh 03:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I moved the article to Covert U.S. regime change actions, we should avoid CAPS in article names. -- Petri Krohn 03:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. --NYCJosh 22:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, when I click on a footnote it does not pop up to reveal the source. Help.--NYCJosh 23:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine, please provide a source for your claim (in the edit history of the article) that Dulles claimed communist association for Arbenz and Soviet beachhead BEFORE the secret coup, or concede that the claims were post-hoc justifications from CIA head Dulles' memoiers.--NYCJosh 01:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See the given source. This is not controversial, your claim is.Ultramarine 01:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It was a secret coup so it wasn't claimed BEFORE. The perpetrator's post-hoc justification must be presented appropriately.--NYCJosh 01:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It was stated in secret CIA documents and recorded discussions before the coup.Ultramarine 02:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you care to cite a source "in secret CIA documents"? BTW, there is nothing "controversial" about "my" claims regarding Guatemala. The declassified U.S. documentary evidence is unambiguous on the major contours. Any decent college survey course on U.S. post-WWII history will have it. --NYCJosh 15:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You can read the equivalent to an entire book on this. See Ultramarine 18:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Serbia, Ukraine, Georgia
I removed this section today: The United States support is alleged to have contributed to the 5 Ocotober Revolution in Serbia which removed the dictator Slobodan Milošević and installed a democratic government.

The one source cited is a draft of an unpublished academic manuscript. I am unclear as to the status of such as a RS. In any event, while the source on p.14-15 dicusses U.S. funding for the opposition movement in Serbia through USAID and NGOs, there NO discussion of COVERT funding or involvement.--NYCJosh 22:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I also removed the following sections:

In Russia there is allegations that the United States supported the Orange revolution which installed a democratic government.

In Russia there is allegations that the United States supported the Rose Revolution which installed a democratic government.

The one source cited for both sections does not mention any COVERT funding or other support for the democratic movement by the U.S. If you have additional sources, by all means let's see them.--NYCJosh 22:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Communist States 1945-1989
Today I removed this section because no support was cited for the proposition that the US supported COVERT action against any Eastern European gov't.

The United States supported the overthrow of the Communist regimes in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. One example is the counter-espionage operations following the discovery of the Farewell dossier which contributed to fall of Communism. The National Endowment for Democracy supported many the democratic movements in the Communist states and has been accused of secretly supporting regime change, which it itself denies. Many of the the Eastern European states later become democratic and joined NATO.

1.The Farewell dossier (not a valid cite--you cannot cited WP) mentions Cold War intrigue and CIA plotting. Nothing about regime change in Easter European countries. 2. The NED document does not either. It may be cited for the NED's denial of such support. 3. The Heritage publication claims that NED supported the Solidarity Trade Union in Poland. But this is a far cry from covert regime change. Is it called covert regime change every time the US provides financial support to an opposition party or movement? In any case it is limited to a specific country and a specific year. 4. The section does not mention that the big three, FDR, Churchil, and Stalin at Yalta and elsewhere carved up Europe into Western and Soviet spheres of influence, and agreed that Eastern Europe would fall under Soviet domination. I won't bother with cites because it is irrelevant to the article unless covert action for E. Eur is first shown.--NYCJosh 18:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Today, I removed the following section: The United States supported the overthrow of the Communist regimes in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. One example is the counter-espionage operations following the discovery of the Farewell dossier which some argue contributed to fall of Communism. The National Endowment for Democracy supported many the democratic movements in the Communist states and has been accused of secretly supporting regime change, which it itself denies. Many of the the Eastern European states later become democratic and joined NATO.

1. The NED and Heritage Foundation cites--see above. 2. The remaining cites discuss US attempts to deceive and sabotage Soviet targets through attempted Soviet acquisition of Western technology. No other Communist target country is mentioned. No regime change or attempted regime change even for the USSR by the US is discussed. You may wish to find an article that discusses US actions against the USSR, and propose some version of this there. Please do not repost unless you find better sources. Please do not make sweeping statements ("Communist States", "1945-1989"). --NYCJosh 21:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. I changed the Heritage citation to one mentioning Eastern Europe and added another source you did not mention. The NED papers explicitly states that it has been accused of supporting covert regime change.
 * 2. The sources mentions that some argue that these actions contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union and they were certainly covert.Ultramarine 21:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The sole factual statement about Eastern Europe in the Heritage document is: "The NED has played a vital role in providing aid to democratic movements in the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Nicaragua, Vietnam, and elsewhere." There is nothing about regime change or attempted regime change there.

With respect to the USSR, if you wish to discuss triumphalist claims made by former US officials after the fact that economic warfare operation x in the 1980s hastened the fall of the USSR, let's see it. I don't appreciate you reposting in view of my detailed critique but I did not remove again. I will not descend to edit wars, but I play for keeps.--NYCJosh 22:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, here is another source: . Sources already given regading Farewell.Ultramarine 22:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that NED financial support for an opposition movement, Solidarity, which movement is later credited with playing a role in toppling the Polish gov't counts as covert regime change by the US? --NYCJosh 23:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Whehter I am saying it does not matter. Others are accusing the NED of supporting regime change.Ultramarine 23:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please respond to my points above about the lack of support in your souces for US regime change: (1) in any countries besides USSR and Poland, (2) for any time period besides the 1980s. NED was created in the 1980s. The Farewell dossier you cite was a CIA operation involving economic warfare against the USSR in the 1980s.--NYCJosh 17:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Since no response has been received I will be removing and rewriting to reflect what the sources actually seem to support.--NYCJosh 21:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Overview Paragraph
Here is my proposed rewording of the overview paragraph because this article no longer just focuses on the CIA.

"The United States of America has been actively involved in promoting its interests abroad by overthrowing foreign regimes, directly or indirectly, then replacing them with ones more compliant to US interests; a process known domestically as regime change. This is done through direct involvement of U.S. operatives, the funding and training of revolutionary groups within these countries, anti-regime propaganda campaigns, coup d'états, and other, often illegal, activites usually perpetrated by the Central Intelligence Agency."

I want to propose it here before adding it to the article in case anyone had any problems with it.Wiegrajo 09:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no problem except: (1) your last sentence mentions "direct invasion" and we should clarify that this article is restricted to COVERT regime change (perhaps cross reference the article on list of US military actions). (2) the title of the article is a bit misleading in that "regime" could tend to imply a non-democratic gov't. However, many of the target gov't listed here had been democractically-elected. So the intro piece should also clarify that. Also, your first sentence has "regimes" twice--should be changed to governments. (3) Your second sentence should list "coup" (or "coup d'état") as one of the ways.--NYCJosh 20:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I will add your comments except the one about the implications of regime. In it's true definition refers just to a period of rule with no implication of what type of government it is.  Basically it applies to all types of governments.  However if you can think of a way to add your point in the form of another sentence or through editing a sentence already in place then go ahead. I think that maybe you are right and people could assume it means something than it actually does.  I'll link it to the Wiki article on regimes for now, which quite explicity states this in its second "paragraph." Thanks for your comments tho!Wiegrajo 13:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Glad you found my comments useful for your intro. I do think that a further sentence about the term "regime" is necessary; see the third paragraph about uses in the "Western Wolrd" in the WP article "Regime" you cited. Just think of "The Blair regime has been disastrous for the country" vs. "The Blair government has been disastrous for the country." Regime has a negative connotation and a undemocratic one, comparable almost to junta. I will have a crack at it, if you like.--NYCJosh 17:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean and I see what it says in the second paragraph about the term's perceived connotation in the Western world, though the term is completly neutral: "The term need not imply anything about the particular government to which it relates, and most political scientists use it as a neutral term." -From the wiki article on regime. I think that we should use the term in its academic sense and put a disclaimer that this does not imply only authoritarian regimes.  I will make some edits and you can tell me what you think.Wiegrajo 09:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Wiegrajo, thanks and thanks for restoring to the Iran section the phrase describing an aim of US policy about ethnic strife. Various people have adverse negative emotional reactions and improperly remove things that are reliable sourced and quite relevant. It seems it is quite necessary to constantly monitor for such deletions and changes.--NYCJosh 16:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Today I removed the following from the intro: Supporters argue that this mostly occured during the Cold war against regimes perceived, correct or not, as Communist, or turning into such. The United States today argues that democratic nations best support US national interests and therefore claims to support democracy and human rights through several tools. 

This is POV from the party committing the RC and does not belong in the intro. If the door is opened to this kind of meta discussion about the pattern of RC, then views of human rights organizations, experts from the developing world and scholars who undersand the pattern differently will have to be included. It is going to lead to edit war and a long intro section. Let's stick to facts, not polemics.--NYCJosh 20:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Read WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP. Wikipedia presents the views of both sides and not only those from one side. The intro has an extremely pov text, unsourced or sourced to dubious sourced, so the other side should be represented as well. I will create a neutral intro instead.Ultramarine 20:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just noting that only source given talks about changing the regime in Iraq in 2002 and does not make general claims.Ultramarine 09:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I dispute the statement that the intro in its current form (without your changes) is POV. It is factual and presents no views (to the extent that is reasonably possible when describing facts in history). US gov't "spin" (or any other) does not belong there.--NYCJosh 14:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "has an established practice of forcibly overthrowing or trying to overthrow foreign governments" is obviously the views of those hostile. Much has changed since the end of the Cold War. NPOV requires the views of both sides, not only those of critics. Also completely unsourced, unlike the deleted material.Ultramarine 15:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Today the US states that democratic nations best support US national interests. "democracy is the one national interest that helps to secure all the others. Democratically governed nations are more likely to secure the peace, deter aggression, expand open markets, promote economic development, protect American citizens, combat international terrorism and crime, uphold human and worker rights, avoid humanitarian crises and refugee flows, improve the global environment, and protect human health." Former President Bill Clinton of the Democratic Party: "Ultimately, the best strategy to ensure our security and to build a durable peace is to support the advance of democracy elsewhere. Democracies don't attack each other." Ultramarine 15:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The statement that the US has forcibly overthrown foreign governments is a statement of fact. At least 10 footnotes in the article support that statement. It is true regardless of any other view and regardless of current US policy. It is history and cannot be altered. Even we at WP cannot alter it. The end of the Cold War does not change history. Even if it not taught in US high schools and even it is offensive to some people's emotions it is still true.


 * Then there is the world of political spin and corporate and government public relations. US political leaders sometimes engage in such practices. Politicians sometimes use the language of "democracy" and "spreading democracy." They may believe it themselves. It may sometimes be true. It does not change reality. The reality is that the statements in the intro are true and demonstrably true per WP rules. --NYCJosh 21:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That is has an "has an established practice of forcibly overthrowing or trying to overthrow foreign governments" and in most cases replacing them with dictatorships is unsourced and very POV. The world and policy changed after the Cold War. On the other hand, I have presented statements for the above. It is clearly in the US interest to support democracies, they usually ally with the US even if hostile as dictatorships before becoming democraces. All of the US enemies are nondemocracies.Ultramarine 21:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * At the risk of straying from the article topic, I will venture an answer to both of your points. I don't believe the Cold War was an aberration. Count the number of governments toppled by the US between 1945 and 1989 (the list in the artilce so far is incomplete, there is Chile 1973 and others). Then take a comparable period (roughly 44 years) during the period 1989 to the present and between 1890 and 1945 (before 1945 there was no peace-time covert agency like the CIA with the ability to orchestrate covert rc, so rc was done through more overt means, often involving the Marines). Thus, compare cold war versus non-cold war rc frequency to test your hypothesis. I do not believe there were fewer instances of rc during non-cold war periods. Also, some of the rc by the US during the Cold War for which "communism" was offered by the US as justification had no real connection to Soviets, communists or the cold war, however that would take too long to prove just now. With regard to your second point, democracies have a nasty habit of staying more true to the views of the local population. That makes them less pliable, less useful, less likely to go along with the wishes to the ones that install the gov't, for example, wishes for enlarged military spending, and for "structural reforms" that cut services for average income and poor people to make the "business environment" more hospitable for US interests. I dispute your assertion. Don't take my word for it: count the number of democracies installed by the US following covert US regime change and compare with the number of authoritarian gov'ts installed by the U.S. following US covert regime change. (Here we have to focus on covert regime change because there is more visibility and public expectation when the regime change by the US is not covert. Thus, the regime installed following covert rc provides a truer picture of US priorities because there are fewer external constraints.)--NYCJosh 22:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your first point is OR. But just for argumentation, there has been very few attempted coups against democracies after the Cold War, the allegations usually involve nondemocracies. We have to differentiate between democraces and nondemocracies, the US certainly has an interest in toppling various nondemocracies. Your claim that dictatorships are better for US business interests are strange considering states such as North Korea and Cuba. Business want above all stabiliy and functioning rule of laws, not armed rebellions and arbitrary judgements as often is the case in nondemocracies. Such environments you find in democracies.Ultramarine 22:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Have a look at this: Most US investment have gone to democracies such Europe, Japan, Australia, Canada, Mexico etc.Ultramarine 22:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As my fairly straightforward points responsive to your own statements do not seem to have been understood (please re-read both what you first wrote and what I responded, above), and since we are moving off topic, I will contain myself and not answer. Obivously, the US is not in the habit of installing or supporting authoritarian regimes unless laisse faire economies are provided, so the points about N. Korea and Cuba are bizarre. Teaches me to stay on topic.--NYCJosh 23:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We can look at it differently. Where is it easy to do business? The best nations are usually democracies.Ultramarine 23:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Today I removed the following from the intro: Another explanation for supporting dictatorships is that it is rare for democracy to exist in nations with low economic development. In these nations the population often lack literacy, education, and are otherwise too poor to be able to fully participate in a democratic process. Thus, it was argued that supporting a dictatorship that promotes economic growth may be the best option available, anticipating that this will eventually leads to democratization. Right-wing dictatorships in nations such as Portugal, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Chile, Brazil, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, and Indonesia eventually become democracies. However, this view has been challenged recently by arguing that research shows that poor democracies perform better, including also on economic growth if excluding East Asia, than poor dictatorships.

This is cited to a public discussion at the Carnegie endowment for peace. There is no source stating that these views or considerations motivated or drove US rc policy for any of the rc examples provided in the article. As such, they are irrelevant, since this article describes history and the considerations that drove policy. Someone's idea of what should have been policy is quite irrelevant except in fantasy land.--NYCJosh 19:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The source certainly state that this was a general consideration for us policy.Ultramarine 19:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "Underlying this policy of governments and international financial institutions is a belief about how democracy relates to development. There is a widely held view that poor countries need to delay democracy until they develop. Back when I was in college, this was the Scandinavian view of democracy, that only Scandinavian countries were capable of being democratic, and that you needed to have a solid middle class before you could contemplate democracy. The argument went—as presented in the writings of Samuel Huntington and Seymour Martin Lipset—that if a poor country became democratic, because of the pressures in a democracy to respond to the interests of the people, they would borrow too much, they would spend the money in ways that did not advance development—arguments that the current president of Mexico is making about his possible successor. These poor decisions would mean that development would not occur; and because people would then be disappointed, they would return to a dictatorship.


 * "Therefore, the prescription was, get yourself a benign dictator—it was never quite explained how you would make sure you had a dictator that spent the money to develop the country rather than ship it off to a Swiss bank account—wait until that produces development, which produces a middle class, and then, inevitably, the middle class will demand freedom, and you will have a democratic government."Ultramarine 19:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no connection made in the source of any of the speakers present at Carnegie to the US policy makers who made rc action decisions listed in the article. So, their theorizing about general policy considerations on the part of some "governments and int'l financial institutions" (including presumably Scandanavian gov'ts) is irrelevant to the US gov't rc being discussed. It is certainly not shown that such theoretical considerations drove US policy in the cases presented. BTW, the portions of these passages you had presented did not do justice to the discussion, I think (e.g. Samuel Huntington's benign dictator model was absent from your text).--NYCJosh 20:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, why did you insert this "This article provides several examples of U.S. covert actions to topple democratically-elected governments from 1953 to 2007." after describing the current view on democracy? Ultramarine 20:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The discussion you cite includes: "Back when I was in college..." So it not given as "the current view" but as a traditional Western view (showing disfavor for democracy in the developing world). The sentence I added points to the examples in the article to provide factual context for what the presenter at Carnegie presents as the Western theory. BTW, in my view, the examples in the article are to a large degree consistent with the views presented at Carnegie; consistent or not, historical context is important when discussing democratic (or in this case, anti-democratic) theory, because this article is about history, not democratic theory.--NYCJosh 20:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But this view which you deleted should be mentioned. Also, this is not the current view which is much more positive on democracy.Ultramarine 20:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, at every moment in history, "we have turned a new page," and our past "mistakes" are irrelevant, even if no one is held accountable for the "mistake," what exactly the "mistake" was and what factors lead to it and why are never acknowledged or officially discusssed, the implications of the "mistakes" (e.g. the thousands of victims who lived through years of bloody war and lost loved ones to US supported tyrants) are never contemplated, etc. So tens of millions of dollars are spent to analyze what went wrong with the Challenger space shuttle (and rightly so) or what happened to Monica's dress, but to discover how and who and why the US toppled democracy after democracy and supported dictator after dictator that killed misery for millions, that's water under the bridge, even if no official ever even officially acknowledged them. Any discussion of them is irrelevant because we have turned a new page. Why was the new page turned and who turned it? Who discovered that the "old page" was counterproductive and when? Maybe it wasn't a mistake at all so long as most Americans never find out. In what ways will this new page be different? What about the toppling of democratic gov'ts last year? Ah, Dorothy, never mind the man behind the curtain.--NYCJosh 21:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The US having killed millions? How do you get such numbers? See this and the democide article. Rummel counts a probable half a million killed due to American democide during the last century. In relative terms, a small number compared to world's big dictatorships. Most democide is done by dictatorships, not democracies.Ultramarine 21:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I meant to write "caused" not killed. But as a matter of fact the US has killed millions in the last 50 years through its wars, and US wars have killed more than those of any other nation in the last 50 years. Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia alone had 2-5 million deaths because of the US's war (a war also started on a false pretext, by the way, the non-existent Gulf of Tonkin incident). Iraq has had more than 600,000 deaths (as of June 2006) because of the war and the chaos caused by the war, and over 100,000 deaths in Gulf War I (mostly due to US carpet bombing of civilian population centers). But we are veering off course.


 * Your response was unresponsive to the main point I made about the ever-claimed new policy and new page. Actually it is an interesting exercise to count how many US presidents have claimed such for US foreign policy. It is the norm for each one to claim it. "Never again is what you swore the time before."--NYCJosh 02:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So the US is responsible for every single death in the Vietnam War? North Vietnam has no responsibility despite the terror methods used by its controlled proxy NLF in South Vietnam and despite several times trying to invade South Vietnam? The US is also responsible for the Red Khmer genocide? Still not very impressive compared with the 50+ million killed in China under Mao alone.Ultramarine 12:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Try not to make arguments againt caricature positions of extrapolations of my statements. That's the logical fallacy known as arguing against a straw man. I never said US is responsible for all Vietnam deaths, and that would be an obviously unreasonable statement, though much easier and more convenient for you to refute. One must ask who caused by far the most deaths and who set up the concentration camps (euphamistically known as "strategic hamlets"): the aerial bombardement of South Vietnam was almost exclusively done by the US (even though South Vietnam was supposed to be our ally, the population had to be "pacified"--had to be made to accept rule by the US and its puppet regime). The US used WMD against civilian areas, including agent orange (even after it knew its great harm). Also napalm. There are children now born many years later still suffering from genetic defects. Also, don't compare apples and oranges: I was referring to deaths caused by wars (this is an article about foreign policy, remember?), not through internal repression (your Mao example).--NYCJosh 17:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the book Statistics of Democide includes the death dues to Amercian strategeic bombings, you can read it here. Please also have a look at the books estimates regarding death due to North Vietnam here.
 * I could not open the charts that are linked from the source. But I think it is far from the original topic anyway.--NYCJosh 21:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Today I removed the following from the intro: For example Spencer R. Weart has argued that coups against democracies supported by the US occured against regimes correctly or incorrectly perceived, as nondemocracies, such as Communist dictatorships, or turning into such.


 * This sentence seems to be internally inconsistent. How could a democracy be "correctly" viewed as a nondemocracy, such as Communist dictatorships, or turning into such?
 * For example Guatemala was thought in Washington during the Red Scare period to be a Communist state. This is documented in internal documents. Atfterwards not very much evidence could be found for this in the archives in Guatemala. Thus a false perception at the time.Ultramarine 21:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, then the sentece should read, provided the source cited supports this, something like "the US supported coups against democracies because the US misperceived the governments to be Communist...". --NYCJosh 17:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The text pretty much state that. Regarding Iran and Chile it can be discussed how wrong the perception was, see for example this .Ultramarine 17:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, if that's what the source says than include it if you wish as we have clarified it.--NYCJosh 21:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Text continues: Halperin et al. propose that one reason for the support, by the US and other Western nations, for certain right-wing dictatorships is that it is rare for democracy to exist in nations with low economic development. In these nations, the poor population without a middle class would vote for populist politics that would eventually fail, causing disappointment, and a return to dictatorship or even violent internal conflict. This, supporting a dictatorship that promotes economic growth and creates a solid middle class have often been seen as the best option available, anticipating that this will eventually lead to democratization. However, this view has been challenged recently by arguing that research shows that poor democracies perform better, including also on economic growth if excluding East Asia, than poor dictatorships.


 * Please see discussion above (the first time I removed the text cited to this Carnegie source from the intro). There is no source suggesting that these considerations were operational for US policy makers in making rc. As such, they are irrelevant.
 * They were certainly part of the general US attitude to dictatorships, including those created by rc.Ultramarine 21:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute that. I have a relevance issue, per above.--NYCJosh 17:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Explanations for US support for such regimes are relevant for this article.Ultramarine 17:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The key word in that sentence is "explanation." Explanation can mean at least one of two things: Example. Person A punches person B and breaks his nose. Person A’s explanation: "I got angry at B because he reminded me of someone I once knew so I punched him.” That's explanation 1. It is very relevant to his action because it goes to his motivation, and may even shed light on events before the event (who is the mystery person? why such a strong reaction for that mystery person?) Explanation 2: "In fact, studies show that people with broken noses heal in a way which makes their noses stronger than people who don’t have broken noses.”  That "explanation" may be factually true, but unless it can be established that person A (a) was aware of those studies before he punched, and (b) cared about the long-term welfare of person B so that such studies were actual considerations in his mind just before he punched, Explanation 2 is completely irrelevant to the events described. They do not explain the motivation of person A, the punch, or what came before the event (the mystery person, the strong reaction, etc.)  Bear this example in mind as you re-read my previous comments.--NYCJosh 23:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, The general motivation for US support of right-wing dictarorships are certainly relevant. Even if you dispute that US care about the well being in itself of the citizens of other nations, it is still in the US national interest that other nations are proosperous and democratic. Such nations tend to ally with the US and have the best conditions for US businesses, so in this sense promoting this is also in the US self-interest. The world is not necessarily a zero-sum game, everyone can be better off.Ultramarine 17:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding your point that "the general motivation for US support of right-wing dictarorships" is relevant. Of course, but you have not cited any sources that purport to state any "general motivations for US support..." Your sources merely say that in some circles those pro-benign dictator views existed. You have cited no sources that those considerations existed in the minds of US policy makers in deciding on rc actions. A "general motivation" is a very strong assertion, and I would like to see that. What your sources seem to indicate are certain views existing in some circles. The sources describe no connection to US foreign policy decision makers (e.g. a US CIA director, NS Adviser, etc.), let alone to such people while they are contemplating rc actions. The rest of your response about the virtues of democracy in the developing world (good for business, etc.) are similarly not connected to CIA directors, US policy planners etc. in making rc decisions. Thus, it would be irrelevant to include such views in the intro.--NYCJosh 21:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There seem to be a double standard. You are arguing that we should mention atrocities done by the Red Army in Afghanistan or WMD use by the Saddan, as due to the regime change, despite presenting no evidence that this was intended. Instead, we should certainly mention what was one intention generally by US support of dictatorshps, as per above.Ultramarine 16:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding your second sentence: (1) When did I propose including atrocities of Red Army in Afghanistan? That seems to be what you inserted. (2) Saddam's use of WMD is relevant here because according to the cited source, Saddam was using WMD with US intel help as part of a war for rc ("destabilization" of Iran) encouraged from before its beginning and facilitated by US. With respect to your third sentence: please see above comments.--NYCJosh 19:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Afghanistan section includes death mainly due to to Red Army atrocities, claiming that are connected to US regime change. Your have presented no evidence that WMD use by Saddam was part of US intended regime change, that is your own OR claiming that a source stating that the US gave greenlight to an Iraq invasion also meant that the WMD use by Saddam several years later was part of a US regime change strategy. If such remote connections should be included, I fail to see have mentioning current US policy is irrelevant.Ultramarine 09:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (1) Afghanistan. The section mentions deaths and human toll due to the fighting between the Islamic insurgents and the Soviets, because the US was instrumental in orchestrating the insurgency for rc. See discussion on this page. Your attempt to insert text that blames much of the deaths primarily on the Soviets by citing BB does not change this fact. The civil war against the Soviets was very much supported by the US as part of rc, so the deaths from the war were a direct result. (2) Iran. See discussion about Iran, below. Please try to understand my responses there (source says "destabilization" as US intention, not just US green light for Saddam), before offering further responses on this point. I have called your attention to this point several times now.--NYCJosh 18:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Text continues: Right-wing dictatorships in nations such as Portugal, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Chile, Brazil, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, and Indonesia eventually become democracies. Another point is that the when comparing the supported right-wing dictatorships with opposing left-wing dictatorshps, the latter were much worse if counting for example numbers killed.


 * Again, this is completely immaterial to US policy makers' considerations in formulating rc, as far as sources presented support. It also may be OR.
 * The source mentions the coup in Guatemala, for example.Ultramarine 21:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The source does not support the notion that the US had the interest of the target country in mind when undertaking the rc action, in the form of concern that a benign dictator would be better for the economic interests of the country. Yet, that is a logical implication of putting this sentence in the intro. So in addition to being irrelevat per above, it may be misleading.--NYCJosh 17:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The article mentions many claimed negative results due to the rc which the US clearly did not intend. So for npov it should be mentioned that the unintended results of the opposing side were even worse. We need not have this in the intro, I am thinking about having a very short intro, a few sentences, an then a general discussion before individual contries. Thoughts? Ultramarine 18:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a conceptual point. An article recites historical fact x, which some might understand as a destructive consequence of US government action y. Is that a PoV? I don't think so. It is an accurate description of reality. By way of illustration, a PoV might be that benign dictators are good for countries of the developing world. But a statement such as the Soviets invaded Hungary in 1956 and crushed the Hungarian democratic movement, is not a PoV. It is just reciting a historical event. It does not require an opposing PoV for balance.--NYCJosh 22:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles inludes the views of both sides and does not try to decide truth and what are facts. Please respond to my point about a separate section.Ultramarine 17:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly. But what you're trying to do is something like this: since the US "clearly did not intend" outcome x, we should include unrelated outcome y in another country not caused by US policy but caused by its communist opponents. This is not "balance" but apologetics. It is an attempt at apologia of US policy by saying the communists were even more ruthless, so by comparison, US policy and its reckless consequences was not so bad. (I am, for the moment, accepting your suggestion that for example the death squads and abuses by the US-installed regimes were merely a reckless UNINTENDED consequnce; there may have been instances when an authoritarian gov't that cracked down on labor organizing and human rights and democracy activisits would have been favorably viewed by the US because US interests like Chiquita Banana and United Fruit were trying to extract as much from the region for as little in return as possible. Also, a democracy independent of the US would have set the wrong tone for the region--a bad example, because in addition to the US economic interest for near slave-labor conditions, US military bases and alliances may have been at risk.)
 * Suppose in the introduction to an article about the 1956 Soviet invasion of Hungary, there were sentences "for comparison" about the US invasion of Cuba (Teddy Roosevelt) and the Dominican Republic, Haiti etc. and a description of how many more people US invasions killed in Latin America than the Soviets did in Hungary and Eastern Europe. Would that be relevant to that article about the 1956 Soviet invasion? That's called trying to include a political agenda or "spin". If that's what you mean by separate section, then I object.(Now if you wanted to write an article about "democide" of the 20th Century, to use a word from one of your sources, such a comparison might be fair game--and I might even try to help you.)--NYCJosh 21:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not an article about a specific coup or invasion, ike the Hungary article, but a more general article. As such views from both sides should be included. For example, the Black Book of Communism article does include critical views, like that capitalism also have killed many. Similarly, this article should also mention opposing views.Ultramarine 16:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, if you think this will make the analogy more apt, suppose the article is about Soviet invasions of Eastern European countries, not just 1956 Hungary. Assume same facts otherwise, including adding in the intro "for comparison" US invasions of Latin America and numbers killed and U.S.-installed Latin American dictatorships that later transitioned to democratic forms of gov't. I would have the same objections for lack of relevance. There is also a PoV issue (attempt to diminish Soviet brutality by referring to worse instances of brutality on another continent).--NYCJosh 19:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That is still a limited article that does not claim to make generalization about Communist states. But in a more general article that makes such general claims, as in the Black Black, it can be appropriate to make comparison to capitalism. The same applies to this very general article.Ultramarine 09:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (1) I am glad we seem to agree in principle. The question then is, how "general" is this article, and is it more "general" than the Soviet invasions article I describe. This article is not about the Black Book. I would like other editors' views on this, or maybe the mediators, but it seems to me that an article about Covert US rc actions should be about just that: their history, legality (I will try to add a section), etc. not a comparative study of people killed by the US versus people killed by communism regimes. (2) Also, while communism and the cold war have been offered by the US as necessitating some of the rc actions, many scholars dispute that this was the principal motivation. So, your proposed comparison would also run the risk (unless a further lengthy clarification was provided) of being seen as based on the PoV sold by the US govt for the motivation (otherwise, if communism and the cold war are not the primary reasons for the rc actions, but say, securing key resources in the middle east and securing labor markets in Latin American are) then the comparison with communist crimes is irrelevant). (3)Bear in mind, that the US war on drugs (Panama 1988-89) and war on terror (Afghan 2001, Iraq 2003) have also been sold as justifications for US rc actions. So, we would have to compare the number of people killed by drug lords, drugs, terrorists, al qaida, as well as communism, with the number killed by the US in order to get a comprehensive comparison, by your thinking, since these were the "enemies" the US has been fighting (e.g, al qaida's victims in 9/11 were ~3,000; victims of US-led actions in Afghanistan and Iraq as part of war on terror, close to a milion).--NYCJosh 18:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not restore this or anything like it, until and unless it can be established through RS that U.S. policy makers in deciding whether or not to perform a particular rc were actively considering such factors.--NYCJosh 18:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you be willing to accept mediation regarding this article? Ultramarine 21:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, provided it's based on the impartial WP mediation process by a mediator selected through the WP process. Also, we should set up an additional RfC section for this intro section dispute and if you like, another RfC for the Iran 1980 dispute, so we can benefit from the wisdom of others. (I already did one RCF on the Afghanistan dispute.)--NYCJosh 23:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three is much other disputed material. I would prefer mediation to start with. Plesae respond to my arguments above.Ultramarine 13:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. It mght be helfpful for the arbitrator if crystalized some of the main issues. That's why I made my suggestion.--NYCJosh 17:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Afghanistan
Please explain this edit: The academic book certainly states that mass murder were common in Communist regimes and blames most of the death and refugees in Afghanistan on the Communists.Ultramarine 16:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Cite should be to a book, not to WP article. 2. The WP aritcle on Black Book does't discuss numbers of refugees in Afghanistan at all (I have not read the book). But the sentence I deleted seems to state that the human toll, the civilian casualties and the millions of Afghan refugees, were par for the course. 3. The WP article on BB notes that many claims in the BB are controversial, in part, because human deaths related to war are simply blamed on the communist regime per se. So, in the case of Afganistan, the CIA supports violent fundamentalists to destabilize the country in order to successfully lure in the Soviets to restore stability, then the CIA organizes the resistance and pours billions of dollars into its proxy war against the Soviets. The BB, according to the cited WP article, seems to simply blame the communists for all the human destruction caused.--NYCJosh 21:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have the book and have quoted it with page numbers. An academic book by many noted academics is certainly more reliable than an unsourced newspaper opinon piece.Ultramarine 21:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll take your word for it. How about adding a sentece (my understanding is based on the WP article on BB--we will check the sources cited in the WP article on BB first) to the effect that claims in the BB blaiming mainly the communist regimes for cold war proxy wars has been disputed. I am not wedded to this formulation.--NYCJosh 22:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Then we must add some sort of disclamer regarding the unsourced opinion pieces in Asia Times. An academic book by many academis with sources is certainly more reliable.Ultramarine 22:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * These unsourced writings as op-eds and should be labelled as such.Ultramarine 22:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. I don't believe the Asia Times pieces I cited are "op-ed" pieces. More like in depth feature research stories, the kind one might read in the NY Times Magazine section on Sunday (more in depth than the typical US News and World Report feature story but of the same genre). 2. You and other editors are welcome to find  critiques of these and other sources and cite them as relevant and appropriate.   3. I mention the critiques of the Black Book because thanks to your citation to the WP article on BB, I stumbled upon them and think they portray the book as an anti-communist polemic that shoehorns its  facts to arrive at certain conclusions (e.g. x number of total communist victims).--NYCJosh 01:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The articles give no sources for the claims, which an in depth feature story in the NYT would do, or at least clearly state if a source was anonynmous. In Wikipedia the material would removed as unverifiable. The Black Book on the other hand is an academic book published in university press by several academics. That is as reliable as it is possible to get.Ultramarine 01:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think two WP rules are being confused. (1) RS. Both the Asia Times pieces and the BB are fine under WP RS. (2) nPOV. Since we are both aware of non-marginal RS sources critical of major aspects of the BB (see WP article on BB), we have to include them to avoid POV. If we become aware of RS critiques of major aspects of the Asia Times article then we should do the same.--NYCJosh 18:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously a an academic books published in unversity press by several respected academics is better than an unsourced op-ed/commentay. I will certainly point out the unsourced claims in the Asia Times articles.Ultramarine 18:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Asia Times is the source. As editors we cannot go beyond that without seeming like we are arguing with the account stated in the source. It is unfortunate that active editors don't understand RS rule. Also my point about POV remains for BB.--NYCJosh 20:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * An unsourced commentary in Asia Times is the source.Ultramarine 20:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * An in-depth feature article that provides no footnotes (the only major general readership newspaper that does so that I know of is Le Monde) in a reliable source is the source. Precisely. Consult RS rules.--NYCJosh 14:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * An in-depth feature article would be the result of going out in the field and investigating, which has not been done. It is just an unsourced op-ed.Ultramarine 15:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What is the basis for the assertion "has not been done"? There is no basis in WP rules for questioning the reliability of the AT source. Until a second sources is cited impeaching the credibility of the artice, we as editors cannot take issue with it. Since the objection is not based on WP rules, you should revert changes.--NYCJosh 17:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no mention of such activites which there are in serious articles. They are only unsourced op-eds expressing the personal views of the writer.Ultramarine 18:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * All specific dates and names, the quotes, etc. are just pulled out of thin air? Morris happens to be a journalist who has contributed over many years to some of the world's foremost general daily newspapers, including the NY Times and the AT; he is a former National Security Council staff member and US State Dep't officer--should our working hypothesis as WP editors be, without a shred of evidence to this effect, that he is making up facts? Should we further assume that Aisa Times exercises no oversight over who its contibutors are and what goes into the articles? I am prepared to dismiss your objections as unreasonable, not to mention completely unsupported by WP rules.--NYCJosh 21:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Asia Times in not one of world's foremost newspapers. In Wikipedia his claims would be removed as unverifiable. Being a state official is not evidence for anything, there are millions such people. He has a strong views and even if one does not make up things it is possible to create very biased stories by quoting selectively and using obscure sources. But we can certainly include him, but the source should be clearly explained.Ultramarine 21:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I will stop arguing this point because I believe the objection has been duly refuted. BTW, the Aisa Times is one of the leading sources for daily news available in English about Aisa. It gets many thousands of views every day. Other than some of the news sources in India and Ha'aretz English in Israel, there are not many that rival it in prominence, readership and scope.--NYCJosh 21:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Asia times in an online newspaper claiming to have a hundred thousand online visitor each day. By contrast, the NYT sells over one million papers each day.Ultramarine 22:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Today I removed "verify credibility" tags from the Iraq section and the Afghanistan section. The author, Roger Morris, is an award winning investigative journalist published in the NY Times, LA Times, Harper's, New Republic, Columbia University Journalism Review, and author of major biographies of Nixon, Kissinger, and other non-fiction published by major US publishing houses. His work has won Investigative Reporters and Editors' National Award for Distinguished Investigative Journalism, including Gold Medal for "the finest investigative reporting across all media nationwide." He holds a PhD in government from Harvard University and has worked in the White House as National Security Council staff member. Should I go on? Here is his bio: http://www.greeninstitute.net/subpages/Morris_bio.asp The article was published by a major newssource, AT. The quote was attributed to a known US official. That more than satisfies WP rules, including RS, whether you personally choose to believe it or not. There is no basis to try to cast doubt in the unwitting reader's mind, unless a second RS is found that contradicts or impeaches the credibility of the first source. I want to continue to assume good faith on the part of all editors.--NYCJosh 19:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The Asia Times is a online newspaper claiming to have 100,000 daily visitors, not much. The articles are op-eds that have no sources. In wikipedia they would be removed as unverifiable.Ultramarine 08:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I find your repetition of the same points to which I earlier fully responded to be unhelpful to the WP project. Please read my earlier responses; I shall not repeat them. I would like to continue to assume that you are working in good faith.--NYCJosh 19:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you object to restoring the npov material regarding the Black Book of Communism? Why should we not mention all the information about the AT articles and let the readers decide for themselves? Ultramarine 19:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Which?--NYCJosh 20:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The supporting views of the BB as well as mentioning that these are unsourced commentaries in the AT.Ultramarine 20:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Which BB supporting views? I am finished discussing the AT source cited. See above.--NYCJosh 21:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you do not want to continue discussing the AT source and follow Wikipedia dispute resolution, then I will interpret that as no objection to clarifying the material. Regarding the BB, mentinoning that it is published in academic press by several academics and lists sources.Ultramarine 21:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have dealt before with both of these. I maintain my previous objection to the BB description you just mentioned (as does the other editor who objected, I have no reason to doubt), see my previous remarks. I stand by my lengthy responses regarding the AT source. With respect to the AT, I re-iterate that I regard your position as unreasonable, as explained above.
 * I regard your efforts to re-visit this issues after I have responded repeatedly more than adequately to your objections, and your "interpretation" of the event of my silence as my changing my mind to be lacking in good faith. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt at first until proven otherwise. It seems from this and other such exchanges that you may have certain views that you wish to push here using such tactics.--NYCJosh 18:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As think we should consider mediation for this article, as stated in another section. I maintain my view that this article massively violates NPOV by only including negative views regarding the BB but at the same time excluding negative views regarding opposing sources.Ultramarine 21:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

marginal claims
Someone reverted me, please read WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP and WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia is not a vehicle to include all kind of accusations, especially when not presented with any shred of evidence. Since this an article about covert action, most of stuff is not known for years after the event, as the documentary evidence will be lacking. See also WP:NOT. Intangible2.0 12:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, "someone" didn't revert your attempts to delete sections you didn't like; I did. If some kook claims a conspiracy, that's marginal. When the leader of a nation accuses the US of trying to subvert his rule, this is news. I don't happen to have an opinion on whether these claims are true, and I don't need one, but anyone can see that none of them are "marginal". ThAtSo 12:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's deal with the Guatemala bit first, why did you revert me there? The text says "In 1993 the CIA helped in overthrowing Jorge Serrano Elías". The currently cited source does not support this claim, the source only talks about a liaison relationship between CIA and D2, not that the CIA was an agent in reverting Serrano's auto coup. Intangible2.0 14:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No, let's not. I brought up a point and now ou need to addresss it. ThAtSo 14:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * " The CIA's liaison relationship with the Guatemalan services also benefited US interests by enlisting the assistance of Guatemala's primary intelligence and security service--the army's directorate of intelligence (D-2)--in areas such as reversing the "auto-coup" of 1993". Also mentioned elsewhere in the report.Ultramarine 14:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That was the only bit remotely talking about regime change in that source, but it makes no qualifications. The Clinton administration suspended a $17 million loan to Guatemala after Serrano's power grab, which was an overt and direct pressure. There was no regime change, because Serrano's auto coup failed on itself (the Guatemalan army failed to back him). Intangible2.0 14:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

About Zimbabwe, it might as well have been news, but so was Chavez's comment that George Bush was the devil on earth. If you want to include the bit about Zimbabwe, provide evidence that Mugabe's claim are not marginal, or not even political. It is not for me to provide that evidence. FYI, Morgan Tsvangirai had been acquitted on charges of treason, even after he told a "court" that he have had contacts with the CIA and FBI. Intangible2.0 15:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and about Equatorial Guinea, this is about Simon Mann, Mark Thatcher et al. Please provide evidence that their judicial procedures showed that their coup attempt was orgistrated covertly by the U.S. But even then, Amnesty International has condemend these trials for being grossly unfair. Intangible2.0 15:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not decide the truth of history. We report different views, as per NPOV.Ultramarine 15:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, but the burden lies with the editor who wants this material added to prove that these views are not marginal or biased. I wouldn't have a problem moving this material to History_of_Equatorial_Guinea, or a possible Wonga Coup article, but for this article, these views are marginal imho. Intangible2.0 18:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The views of the leader of a nation cited in CNN are not less notable than the views of a writer publishing an opinion piece in the Asia Times. Which are cited many times in the article.Ultramarine 20:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comments: Afghanistan
Fellow editors, two of us seem to have reached a disagreement on including some text in the Afghanistan section. Please read the text and sources above, review our exchange and weigh in to shed some light. I think the dispute and the issues raised are quite clear without further comment. Please express reasoning based on WP rules (instead of merely registering a pro or con vote).--NYCJosh 20:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Text removed in controversy:
The radical Islamic Mujihadeen of Afghanistan armed, trained, and supported by the U.S. in the 1980s gave rise to terrorist groups in nations such as Indonesia, the Philippians, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Chechnya, and the former Yugoslavia. The early foundations of al-Qaida were built in part on relationships and weaponry that came from the billions of dollars in U.S. support for the Afghan mujahadin during the war to expel Soviet forces from that country. The role of the U.S. in arming, training, and supporting the radical Islamic Mujihadeen of Afghanistan in the 1980s has been called the model for state-sponsored terrorism.

Some of the Afghan-trained "freedom fighters" were later involved in terrorist acts against the U.S., the very government that had given them support in the early days of their organization. The initial bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the attack on the USS Cole, and the attacks of 11 September all have been linked to individuals and groups that at one time were armed and trained by the United States and/or its allies. The perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 used a manual written by the CIA for the Mujihadeen fighters in Afghanistan on how to make explosives. Sheik Abul Rahman, one of the conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was allowed to come to the U.S. to recruit Arab-Americans to fight in Afghanistan against the Soviets.

Argument for inclusion
I think this information is critical in an article about US covert foreign policy, since it is a direct consequence of the US intervention. Beneficiaries of the US training, using information, organization and funding of the US, go on to participate in attacks the US. It is a direct outcome of the US action. Outcomes of the action are part of the artilce. Also, the last word of the title of the article is "Actions," so the subject of the article is not just the intended regime change but the action as a whole. Editors are welcome to weigh in.--NYCJosh 18:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Arguments against and for

 * Much of this is speculative and not directly related to the subject of this article. Should we start listing all claimed positive effects of these coups, such as preventing even worse Communist dictatorships?Ultramarine 18:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a fact, according to the source cited, that "perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 used a manual written by the CIA for the Mujihadeen fighters in Afghanistan on how to make explosives." Nothing speculative. Similarly, it is fact, according to the source, that "Sheik Abul Rahman, one of the conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was allowed to come to the U.S. to recruit Arab-Americans to fight in Afghanistan against the Soviets." Speculation about "what if" history is big no no for WP.


 * These, on the other hand, are direct consequences of the US rc action by alumni of the CIA training. So there is the US rc action: the action consisted of training, organizing, arming, funding of the mujahadeen. One consequence of the action was the use of the insurgents of the US training against the Soviets and another was the insurgents' use of the US training against US and other targets.--NYCJosh 19:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This were not direct consequences of the support. There were many other factors, such as the Israel conflict, the first Iraq war caused by the Saddam's Kuwait invasion, general censorship in Arab nations which cause a distorted view of the world, and so on. There was no direct causal effect, the aid to rebels in Afghanistan was only one factor among many. Should we start to dicuss all the causes of terrorism in this article? There is no "what if" regarding Communist regimes, all have committed various atrocities.Ultramarine 19:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are again attempting to speculate about "what if" history. What if the US had not launched Gulf War I and in the process stationed large bases in Saudi Arabia (the holy land of Mecca and Medina), for example, is what you seem to be asking? The passage I add describes specific uses of the US training and weapons.--NYCJosh 21:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There are certainly claims that all Communist regimes do human rights violations and that therefore a right-wing dictatorship is preferable to a Communist, if these are the choices available. This is not an article about the causes of terrorism. If claims about afghanistan are included, then all the other possible causes of terrorism must also be included for NPOV.Ultramarine 21:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see how that is responsive to what I wrote. This article is not about communist regimes or human rights (except tangentially, of course). It is about US actions for regime change. One of those actions involved training and arming religious fundamentalists in Afghanistan. As part of that Action, the US provided training, weapons and manuals on how to use them. As part of that Action, the US allowed some alumni of that training to come to the US to recruit muslim militants. Using the training, the manuals and the opportunity to be in the US some of the alumni attacked targets other than the Soviets.--NYCJosh 22:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither is the article about terrorism taking place many years after a support for a regime change, support which may have been one of many contributing factors. If wanting to include such distant negative effects, then for npov positive effects should also be included, as well as pointing out the many factors contributing to terrorism.Ultramarine 22:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Responding to your points in order (one last time to see if we can reach agreement): 1. The Action continued into mid to late 1980s, so the foundation of al Qaida in the late 1980s and the planning for and execution of the 1993 bombing are not events distant in time. 2. In terms of positive effects, the article already points out that the Soviets announced they would leave. If you wish to include other positive effects that were a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of the US action (the action was the training and arming of the mujahadeen, remember, not the Soviets leaving), let's see it. 3. An exploration of the causes of the terrorism is beyond the scope of this article. But if you wanted to start such an article, I would try to help you, bearing a mind that a speculative discurses has no place on WP (because of OR and other problems). For the latter, try publishing in Foreign Affairs.


 * In this article, we are limited to actions and direct consequences. US trains, organizes, helps recruit, arms muja. Muja attack Soviets (as the US intended) and attack other targets (blowback).--NYCJosh 23:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no necessary blowback for regime change support. Did not happen in Chile or Guatemala or most other nations. In some Islamic nations there has been support for terrorism for many different reasons. Occured in Sudan, Libya, and Syria without prior attempted US regime change. The claim that the US support caused later terrorism is very POV and for NPOV then all other reasons for terrorism must also be mentioned. If wanting to include such distant negative effects, then for npov positive effects should also be included, such that the coup in Chile caused it to become the most properous nation in South America.Ultramarine 02:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Your first three sentences and the last are irrelevant to my point about Afghanistan. You seem to be wrestling with a lot as you encounter some aspects of US history; that's fine, but this issue has to be examined based on WP rules on its own terms. That muja used their US training, funding, bomb manuals and freedom to travel to US to attack US are facts, not POV (see sources cited, above).--NYCJosh 20:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All the points above are relevant since you claim that regime change is the direct cause of terrorim which the above prove is not necessarily true. It is at most one of several contributing factors. NPOV requires a discussion of all factors contributing to terrorism, not blaiming everything on this support. Did anyone of the 9/11 hijackers fight the Soviets in Afghanistan? They were not trained or funded by the US. Again, if including such dubious connections then we must include the claims that the Chilean coup caused Chile to become the most prosperous natin in Latin America and that several of the coups prevented far worse Communist regimes.Ultramarine 20:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments of other editors

 * Include text, this is relevant. -- Petri Krohn 17:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletions
Please explain this deletion. NPOV requires the inclusion of both sides and since there are criticisms, support should also be included.Ultramarine 18:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That kind of long description does not belong in the article body, since the article is not about the BB. The BB is introduced only to criticise a statement in the article. It is a relevance and an undue weight issue.--NYCJosh 21:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No double stanard. If no support for the BB, then the critcisms should also be removed. NPOV requires the views of both sides. Unlike almost all other sources used here, like op-eds from online newspaper, it an academic book published in university press that lists its sources.Ultramarine 21:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am going to let the editor who made the change respond from here on. Since I am unaware of sources critical of the cites I included, I could not include them. You and I were both aware of the sources critical of major features of BB, so that had to be included. It is unencyclopedic to include in an article about topic A, a long description of the type deleted with respect to BB, when BB is cited only to provide a second perspective on a secondary point in the article.--NYCJosh 23:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I violates NPOV to only include the critical views of the book.Ultramarine 23:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No onde is not including the cricial views of the book, so I don't know what your talking about. Red herring? The diff you listed above, only is a change to who the book is characterized. It has its own article and linking to that suffices. Otherwise, to only include the POV that its "respectible" is one sided and invites counter claims (also best left for its own article). So that pov is removed and we just state it neutrally what the source says. Otherwise, we have POV pushing.Giovanni33 17:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Now only critical views are mentioned in the article. NPOV requires views from both sides.Ultramarine 18:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Another deletion. The US government have certainly not argued that it in general has a policy of regime change. Maybe this claim is based on this link, but it only speaks about regime change in Iraq in 2002.Ultramarine 17:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has. Take a look at the sources that make it clear. Reasons for reverting your changes have been clearly explained, even on the edit summary.Giovanni33 17:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the source for your claim that the US has stated such a general policy? Ultramarine 17:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the sources. It could not be any more clear. They addmitted that its official US policy. So saying 'some critics" as if its only "some critics" is not accurate. And, yes, regime change policy of the Bush admin regarding Iraq, certainly is the most recent and clear example. Since you seem to now realize that, I don't see you have any case to change it back to "some critics."Giovanni33 17:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I see none where the US declares an official policy of regimec change, only mentioning of this regarding Iraq in 2002. Please give a quote. Such an official policy should also be easily available on official US gov pages, could you give a link? Ultramarine 17:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you agree its mentioned regarding Iraq in 2002, case is closed: you can not say only "some critics." So no further digging in needed on my part to prove your addition was not accurate. Hence, "various sources" is better.Giovanni33 18:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That it spoke of regime change regarding Iraq in 2002 does not make this an official policy for the future.Ultramarine 18:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Red herring. No one claimed it did, one way or the other. If you are not going to be serious here, I won't waste my time responding. Evidence of this is repeating yourself and bringing up red hearring, irrelevant points.Giovanni33 18:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You just did . Why was the opposing views deleted? If you only object to "supporters" we can change to "US government".Ultramarine 18:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you change it to the US govt., then I have no problem with the addition.Giovanni33 18:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's also a red herring because the intro's first sentence nowhere refers to "stated" or "official" U.S. policy. The many examples of the article and their footnotes establish more than a few examples of rc. So the first sentence is a historically accurate statement, whether or not it's official or stated policy.--NYCJosh 18:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * An practice during the Cold War does not necessarily apply today. Do you have an objection to restoring the opposing views material? Ultramarine 18:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * News flash: The cold war was over in 2002.Giovanni33 19:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess you refert to the claims regarding Venezuela. Nothing proved. US interest are best supported by democracies, who tend to ally with the US and have the best business climate.Ultramarine 19:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean "capitaist democracies" which is a particular conception and POV about what is a "democracy," and is as such disputed (not a fact). A good case can be made that the US has consistently opposed real democratic movements, in the name of its version of "democracy," while in actually opposing any meaningful peoples democratic movmement, esp. when it threatens corporate business interests (which are decidedly undemocratic in nature, and so always threatened by genuine democratic reform movements).Giovanni33 20:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose that with "real democratic movements" you refer to socialism. All socialist states have failed miserably economically and been repressive politically. Democracies tend to ally militarily with the US. US enemies like China, Iran, North Korea, Syria, etc are nondemocracis. Look at where it is easy to do business, the best nations are usually democracies.Ultramarine 20:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your concepts and definitions are class based, predicated upon the same pov that equates easy of doing bussiness with capitalist norms, hence they "fail miserably' according to capitalist standards (good!), and likewise are politically represeive to capitalists (as expected,and as should be). China, Iran, North Korea, Syria, the former USSR, are capitalist states, btw. I'm talking about peoples movements to reform and bring real democratic refrom (such as control over capital, land reform, taking away concentraded wealth from the hands of elites, etc). The US has always targed such movements, hence its consistently and inherently anti-democratic stances. Anyway, my point is that what you espouse is not an undisputed fact, but a particular POV, and as such it is contested. This is not a debate that is appropriate for the talk page either.Giovanni33 20:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am just arguing that from the US perspective, supporting democratic states (using the usual definition, not the one of the extreme far left) is the best foreign policy.Ultramarine 20:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ultramarine, are you running for elective office on that platform? If you are, I'll vote for you! However, since the article is about US history, your views on what an ideal US foreign policy would look like are irrelevant. If you feel like discussing that, this is really not the forum. Both the Cold War and the period since are fair subjects for this article. So the intro is quite accurate.


 * BTW, in addition to Venezuela 2002, there have been other examples since the end of the cold war, Iraq 2003 (not covert, but the point remains), Afghanistan 2001, Haiti 2004 (according to the exiled democratically elected president Aristide), Serbia 1998, and of course the several examples listed in the article, Iraq 1993-95, Iran 2007 (some democratic institutions, incl. the president), Palestinian Authority 2006-2007 (democratically elected). But again even without these examples, history cannot be said to change until there is evidence of change on the ground. High-sounding public statements with rhetoric flourish of elected officials do not substitute for facts. US presidents have been singing the praises of democracy at the very same time their spooks and goons were quashing democratic governments. There are so many examples I don't even know where to start.--NYCJosh 23:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. Regardless of what we think foreign policy should be, we have to accurately report what it has been. ThAtSo 02:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless, npov requires the inclusion of the views of both sides. Please explain the deletion of the views of the opposing side in the intro as well as those regading the Black Book.Ultramarine 08:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Iran 1980

 * Furthermore, please explain the relevance of the Iran-Iraq war to this article about covert regime change?Ultramarine 12:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I will try one last time to address your point about the intro. Again, I find your repeating several times the same arguments after they have been fully and satisfactorily addressed (to a reasonable standard within WP rules) to be unhelpful to the WP project. The intro (before you re-introduced a pro-US government polemic against our objections) was an accurate factual statement of US history. There was no POV because there was little or no explanation or criticism of policy. It was just the facts ma'm. Apparently there are those who prefer rhetoric and fantasy to fact and history.
 * Regarding the Iran 1980 section, please read the first sentence about the Brzezinsky memo to Cy Vance describing the US aim of destabilizing Iran by using its neighbors (unsuccessfully as it turns out).--NYCJosh 19:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Even assuming that the US allegedly giving green light to invading Iran was covert US regime change, what is the relevance of the rest of the section? That the US, as well as most other Western nations and well as the Arab nations supported Iraq in the war, was not a secret.Ultramarine 19:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the sentence I cited (the first sentence).--NYCJosh 20:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, if such support for Iraq was covert early on, later support by the US, other Western nations, and the Arab nations, was quite openly stated.Ultramarine 20:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am glad the first sentence is being read and understood by my fellow editors. In response to your point, the weapons of mass destruction technology and the intel provided by the US to Saddam in the 1980s was quite secret. That's why the NY Times and Washington Post articles I cite were such revelations to American readers when they were published.--NYCJosh 20:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. "Destabilizing" iran does not necessarily mean regime change. 2. Supporting one side in a war does not necessarily mean desire for victory of this side, the supporting nations was quite happy with both nations being in a stalemate, Saddam winning and installing a puppet in Teheran or occuping it was not a desired outcome.Ultramarine 20:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. What is the point of "destabilizing" a gov't other than to try to remove it? Unless sources to the contrary are provided, I think that is the most reasonable reading. The US was hoping Saddam would seize the SW oil-rich territory mentioned, according to the article, and in so doing, and through the long, brutal war, presumably the theocratic (at the time) Iranian gov't might become spent, weak and be overthrown. 2. Agreed.--NYCJosh 20:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you agree on 2, then there is no reason to mention the alleged later US support of Iraq when Saddam was simply fighting to survive such as battlefield intelligence. The same regarding Iraq WMD weapons (which of course the US had no interest in Iraq acquiring, he did that on his own by acquiring dual-use technology). This is not a general US foreign policy criticisms article, if arguing that we must include much more general counter-arguments.Ultramarine 20:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is unclear at what point in the war, if ever, the US lost hope that Iran could be destabilized. But even if it were established that in the mind of US policy makers at time x in the war destabilization became seen as unfeasible and supporting Saddam was just intended to make sure he does not loose, that part of the war after time x is still a direct consequence of the US rc action. That is, the war started to destabilize a gov't continues after time x and the US sees itself as having to support it. The rc action is helping Saddam attack; the direct consequence is the continuing war. But to reiterate, it is unclear (based on the sources available to me) whether such a time came. To be sure, there were points in the war when Iran was on the offensive, but it is unclear whether the hope of destabilizing Iran by "bleeding it white" (in Kissinger's words at the time, not cited in the article) and making the gov't of Iran very weak ever dissipated in Washington.--NYCJosh 21:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * General US support at the later stages was not secret, Iraq had the support of most Western and Arab nations and Saddam was simply fighting for survival. If is you are are making the claims and according to WP:V you have to provide the source showing that alleged help with WMD weapons and battlefield intelligence was intended to bring about regime change. A claim about wanting to destabilize Iran at the beginning of the long war is not evidence for this at the later stages of the war, that is OR interpretations.Ultramarine 21:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * With regard to the first point about the later stages, what was covert was the US's providing of operational intel and WMD technology. The US was officially neutral in the war. At the time, it was known that the US was selling weapons to Saddam. But having US military officers on the field (see Wash Post source cited) and providing operational intel were quite covert and not publicly known until much later. Remember, publicly, US officials were condemning the use of chemical weapons by Saddam (see article). Covertly they were helping him use them against Iran and were secretly lifting the ban on exportation of dual-use technology from the US, to allow hundreds of shipments, including anthrax and bubonic plague seed stock (see Scottish newspaper source). All this was covert and so covert that it was at odds with official US public pronouncements at the time.
 * With regard to your second point, there is no evidence that Washington ever had a change of heart about wanting to destabilize Iran in arming Saddam. The burden would be on an editor claiming that Washington's motivation in supporting Saddam changed in the middle of the war AND that the first reason for supporting him was substantially abandoned by the end of Washington's support. Just because there were periods when the tide of battle turned in favor of Iran does not mean that Washington gave up hope for destabilizing Iran in arming Saddam.
 * Further, even if those could be established (that Washington completely gave up hope in destabilizing Iran and continued to arm and help Saddam ONLY to prevent Saddam losing), please see my previous response about the war being a direct consequence of the US covert rc action: encouraging the starting of the war.--NYCJosh 02:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The burden is on you as wanting to include the material on WMDs etc to show that the intentions with this was to bring about regime change in Iran. Which is a strange claim, the US and the other nations supporting Iraq certainly did not want Saddam to control Iran.Ultramarine 12:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You already made this point and I have already responded in full. Please re-read the previous exchange. There is no point in proceeding until that is understood. There is no point in my repeating myself. Life is too short.--NYCJosh 18:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I again refer to WP:V. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" It is you who must give sources showing that contiuing aid was aimed to casue a regime change in Iran and the usual historical view that the nations supporting Iraq were quite happy with both of them being in a stalemate. Citing a view that US initially gave greenlight to the Iraq invasion due to a desire to destabilize Iran is no evidence that that regimce change was the cause for support many years later, that is OR. As noted in another section, I suggest mediation on this article.Ultramarine 21:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

section removed
I removed the part about how the US claims to favor democracies, promote security, saying they are best for bussiness, most stable, and don't go to war with each other. The reason I removed this was because it was not sufficently tied to the articles topic: covert regime change. If we have a source that talks about that in the context of these illegal US actions against other governments, that would be fine. Otherwise, it doesn't belong in this article, and is somewhat off topic. These claims of the US are interesting, but they are not comments about its regime change actions, which include both dictatorships and democracies. The other part, a rationalization of regime change, is perfect, and deserves its own section. The intro was severely bloated.Giovanni33 18:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * They are certainly part of official current US policy and for npov it is important to mention the distinction between democracies and nondemocracies. This is an important background for the article. I personally do not argue against that the US may have an unofficial policy of regime changes in order to create democracies, since these almost always align more or less with US interests.Ultramarine 09:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That may be true that this is official US policy, but the US has many official policies, so what? My problem is that what does this US policy have to do with the topic of this article--Covert US regime change actions? Unless you have a souce that ties these US policies to this subject, its off topic.Giovanni33 20:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Making a democracy from a nondemocracy is certainly an exmple of a dramatic regime change.Ultramarine 23:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The US has not done this, nor do the claims you want to add state this as the goal. It never mentions regime change or any covert action targeting only non-democracies with the aim of making them democracies. If it did, then it would fit here. But instead all you are doing is citing its ostensive policies saying it favors democracies (out of context from any regime change), and that those are best for bussiness, as they dont go to war with each other, and it promotes security, etc. All off topic without these statements being connected to or even in the same context of these illegal covert actions to overthrow other governments.Giovanni33 23:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course the US have helped create numerous democracies through regime change: the whole of Eastern Europe who promptly went from being deadly enemies to joining NATO. If looking at wars we can mention Germany, Italy, and Japan who also went from enemies to stable militarily allied democracies. More recently, the US have been accused of causing the Color Revolutions. You may find this article from the archconservative Heritage Foundation interesting: .Ultramarine 23:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your talking about WW2, which is true, regime changes occured as a result, but again, this article is about covert, illegal, regime changes--not a legally declared war. Overt regime change is when the US goes in and topples of government it doenst like, covertly, (denying it is doing so), and putting in its place another government. When has it done this, and installed a democracy, instead of a dictatorship (often overthrowing a democracy!). Again, your sources would be valid if they talked about the actual subject of this article: covert US regime change actions. Those policies you cite dont mention regime change, and to make it about regime change is OR.Giovanni33 01:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Alexis Debat, a reliable source?
Alexis Debat's credibility has been discussed, in particular after having made a false interview of Barack Obama in the magazine Politique internationale. See Une fausse interview d'Obama dans Politique internationale by Pascal Riché in Rue 89. I am therefore removing him as he is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Tazmaniacs 11:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What was allegedly "false" about the Obama interview? Also, does that call into question everything that Debat ever said per WP RS policy?--NYCJosh 22:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ban Ultramarine from editing this page
Repeated POV fanaticism. Ultramarine seeks to rewrite history. Everyone should look closely at any of his edits. Nearly 100% are done to promote his extreme political views. He selectively quotes wikipedia regulations, only when such are used in his favor, in bad faith. Please cite numerous sources if you write anything objectionable to a fanatical conservative, otherwise he will delete it. And be sure to add "opposing views" however absurd to any fact contrary to his worldview. 67.58.254.68 00:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not post anonymously when making such strong allegations about an editor. Also, please provide cites to specific examples if you wish to have your charges taken seriously.--NYCJosh 19:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)