Talk:List of United States foreign interventions since 1945/Archive 1

"Alleged" leads to POV
The fact that ANYTHING can be alleged by anyone, and thereby included on this page, makes it highly flawed and inevitably POV imo.


 * What examples are you using? I see none.


 *  The REAL problem, jingoist is this article flies in the face of your idea of America being a beacon of freedom for the rest of the world. So, since it does not fit your ideal of America, you call it POV.  Give me some examples of this article being POV or you are wasting our time. Travb 22:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I think either we have some strict standard for allegations -- like what mainstream historians agree upon - and that we separate rumors and conspiracy theories out, or the page should be Vfd'ed.


 *  What is your definition of "mainstream historian"? A historian who supports your narrow view of American history? Again give us some examples or you are wasting our time. Travb 22:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Otherwise nothing on the list is falsifiable. Furthermore, the list-style makes counterviews for each issue impossible.

And, why can these issues be included paragraph style in meaningful articles, such as one on US foreign policy or the like????? Willowx 12:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Then the purpose of the wikipedia is denied, because every text that is written within it comes with the authors thoughts, feelings, prejudices and such, making every note a POV, in no matter what subject.


 * And using "mainstream historians" versions is just another huge mistake, because we would be using a text heavily POVd by the historians themselves. Also, its a proven fact that history is reweitten by the winner, and thus lots and lots of innacuracies and lies were spun in order to justify wars, killings, murderers and such.


 * Also, it should be noted that what makes counterviews impossible is the fact that there is nothing to be "counterviwed" - each of these "foreing interventions" (which is eufemism for invasions) really did happen!LtDoc 19:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete again?
This list was up for deletion in 2004. At the time, there was talk of cleaning it up of POV and allegations not based on anything other than hearsay. Since then, no improvement has been made. Allegations are added without any factual accuracy. None of the allegations seems falsifiable.


 * Sorry to shake up your fragile world view. Everything on this list is verifiable.  You don't mention any point in history that is NOT verifiable (maybe because you are not familar with the history?)  Give us some examples or stop wasting our time. Travb 22:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The list itself is essentially POV. Would a list of "crimes committed by Jews" or pick any other ethnic group NOT be considered racist or prejudiced? Imagine your local newspaper listing crimes according to nationalities, such as Mexicans? There would be an outcry. Why? And why should an encyclopedia be any different?


 * Response:
 * Americans are not an ethnic group; this article is about a state, not a people.
 * This is not a list of crimes.
 * America is by far the most powerful and most interventionist state ever to exist in the history of the planet.
 * &mdash;Seselwa 19:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Response: Why does it have to be ethnic to be considered prejudice? So something which would be forbidden in the case of ethnic group is a-okay if it is done against a national group (which is similarly not chosen but decided by birth)?? Furthermore, the word intervention is itself negative, suggesting unwarranted meddling. Perhaps a rename to US foreign policy since 1945? Your last point is pure POV. Personally I would say Europe is the most interventionist, colonizing the globe and spreading its own culture everywhere. The US is just riding the wave of Western civilization. Even English language ubiquity can be traced to British empire. But this is beside the point. This article is POV. Just because you share the POV doesn't negate that. Shall we have since 1945 lists for every other nation? Why not? I'm sure the objection would be that such lists are simply clutter, without context, and have a POV motivation.


 *  Hey jingoist read the Church Committee report, or some of the latest info that has been declassified by Freedom of information act:


 *  The Director told the group that President Nixon had decided that an Allende regime in Chile was not acceptable to the United States.. The President asked the Agency to prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him. The President authorized ten million dollars for this purpose, if needed. Further, The Agency is to carry out this mission without coordination with the Departments of State or Defense."--From declassified documents, see Project FUBELT 


 * "It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup. It would be much preferable to have this transpire prior to 24 October but efforts in this regard will continue vigorously beyond this date. We are to continue to generate maximum pressure toward this end utilizing appropriate resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG and American hand will be well hidden." --From declassified documents, see Project FUBELT


 * <FONT color="green">All of these allegations are well founded and well documented, the REAL problem, behind all of this POV whining, is they don't fit within your view of what America is.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">Again, the real problem is that this list is an attack on your ideology of America as the beacon of freedom to the world. Take your nationalistic religion elsewhere. I have no patience for people who condone and justify the death and suffering of millions.Travb 22:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)</FONT>


 * Europe is not a state. This list has nothing to do with nationality or ethnicity; it is about the actions of a state, which you don't seem to understand. &mdash;<FONT color="orange">Sesel</FONT><FONT color="green">wa</FONT> 11:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Why does this article even exist? It seems prejudicial on it's face - I don't see a "List of Argentinian foreign interventions since 1945" or - since you pointed out the US had been involved since 1945 in foreign campaigns why not a "List of USSR foreign inteventions since 1945" which would at least make sense within the grand scheme of domino theory. This is either patent nonsense or not a NPOV - either way it should be deleted.


 * Canada has had 50+ military interventions since 1945, yet no page. Wikipedia is becoming highly arbitrary and POV, IMHO.


 * Canada doesn't have a list because no one has written it. Australia doesn' thave a decent history section. In fact many countries barely have an entry at all. Wikipedia is very Americo-centric. The solution to that bias isn't remove the articles focusing on America. Maybe banning Americans from contributing would help ;-)


 * As an Argentinian I will be happy if you do your "List of Argentinian interventions since 1945", I will not do it because it's a waste of time, it should be near empty (maybe if you don't restrict the year, you will have an interesting (but low) number)... If you want to do it you're free to do it (that's the wikipedia spirit), tell me and I will help you writing it... With the List of Canadian intervention since 1945 I cannot help, because I know very few of his history... But is not POV to have thoses lists (if they are facts).. you cannot blame thoses lists only blaming that others countries deserves something similar... Next time, instead of blaming that, you can tell which issues of thoses lists are POV, in my opinion there are a lot (most of the "allegued" are known facts)Qsebas 18:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well if we counted the number of Argentinian military interventions on itself since 1945 I don't think you could give such a sardonic reply. You missed my point entirely - the list itself is prejudicial and serves a non NPOV end. Would you object to me creating a list of physical differences between white and black people - noting the differences in cranium size etc? Or how about a simple list of 200 aggressive military actions by Islamic nations since the founding of Islam? This information shouldn't be precompiled to serve dubious ends - if you follow. It is a prejudicial list.


 * It's true, I was sarcastic, but no more than you... you started the sarcasm talking about the List of Argentinian interventions since 1945. But I don;t agree with you in your examples.. because this List of US Interventions are facts (I don't see why the starting year 1945, US had imperial behaviours since its creation), I will ask you again, any of thoses items of the list are facts or they are invented? If so, we can argue about that... but the list itself is showing a Big fact, US  made interventions (military, spies, politically, economically) in all the world... taking conclusion about those intervention can be a POV, for example talking about the Chile's coup saying that US helped with it because they need to retake control of the copper mines it's a POV (my POV)... but saying that is a fact, it's history, and it is eaven admited by the US state, so no POV... and when US state admnits more than 70 foreign interventions, and others are claimed with a wide acepted history comunity, but not admited by the US.. they must be on this list too... You don't like to be called interventionist, so don't be anymore... you must nut shut up those who are claming it... If you do a scientific comparaison between black and white phisonomies (without talking about which it's better or pritier) that can be published, or mentioned in wiki... if they are sustented by a scientific study.. it's not rascism to say that "oriental people have different eyes" that can be eaven explained with a supposition . That's  a fact... and so you can make a list of physical differences between caucatian and oriental people but you must to be aware and be very carefull to not put rascist commments on it, only facts. And those facts must be widely aprooved by scientific comunity (in this case it's the historic comunity)... I ask you again, any of thoses issues declared in this list  is not true in your POV? Qsebas 1 July 2005 16:22 (UTC)


 * The article is not POV because the listed "interventions" did exist; and there is no disputing that. You perhaps dont agree to the making of such a list, or perhaps feel unconfortable with the knoledge of just vast military history the USA has.


 * As for other countries having their own list, go ahead and make them. Thats the spirit of wikipedia. Good candidates would be Russia, Japan, England, France....and you know why? Because such countries have had a history of military activites in other countries. As exemplified above, the list of foreing interventions of say, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay togheter would be around one third in size than the list of USA in the last century. Perhaps that is what bothers you.LtDoc 19:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Imperialist Peace Corps?
As an American, I found it sadly inaccurate that the Peace Corps and other such U.S. aid to developing economies is listed on a page titled "List of US actions since 1945 that have been considered imperialistic". Wise 21:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * <FONT color="green"> Um, this is in reference to an older posting (March 2005) which has since been deleted.  </FONT>

I suppose when there is a shift in the balance of power (predominantly the fall of the Soviet Union), it's a knee-jerk reaction for the rest of the world to get worked into a cold sweat just thinking about what the U.S. could do if it were nefarious. But the United States introduced the world to free elections and democratic constitutions. Wise 21:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * <FONT color="green"> "Wise" said: "United States introduced the world to free elections and democratic constitutions" Yes, I supposed the overthrow of Chile's Allende a democratical elected leader, or the invasion of Cuba and the Phillipines during the Spanish American war (Phillipine dead: estimated 100,000 to 200,000, mass torture and human rights violations), or the invasion of Haiti from 1915-1934, or the death lists that the CIA gave to Saddam and Suharto all qualify as the giving a wonderful gift to the world. Please dont fall into the common American trap and confuse the relative freedoms America enjoy and the freedoms of the industrial world to the deaths and destruction that we have caused in the third world. </FONT>
 * <FONT color="green"> The American system was based on previous systems of government. Our legal system is heavily based on the British leagl systme. See American ExceptionalismTravb 22:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)</FONT>


 * The US introduced the world to free elections? The US still doesn't hold free elections or have a democratic constitution. When was the last time the Communist party was allowed to field candidates in a US election?


 * FIRST SIGN YOUR POSTS! type ~.


 * Read my web blog, based on years of experience dealing with jingoists in denial like yourself. Four techniques many American's use to ignore American foreign policy history You are confusing America's democracy that you enjoy, with the imperialism that it imposes on others.


 * We are not discussing the Communist party, this is a common "red herring" tactic, falacy of logic, look up the definition. Actually Americans patriotism and zeal for the state is much like communist USSR once was, I know, I lived there for almost three years.


 * Based on my experience, these knee jerk reactions are probably from a complete ignorance of your own nation's history. It is amazing how unoriginal peoples responses are when someone brings up attrocities of America, similar to the way people respond to attacks on their religion, in fact it is the same response. Generic, bland  simplistic answers to complex questions--answers that were given to you clear back in elementary school (like Sunday school), which have been given little thought since then.


 * This ignorance usually begins with a public education which was highly patriotic in nature. Like most Americans, you probably care little about history, and the history that you do read, only reinforces the propoganda you learned as a child in public education.  Any idea which is foriegn to this ideology, is scorned.


 * "A person who finds a topic very confusing will often suspend judgment and keep right on believing in whatever he hopes is true. Over time, his questions lose urgency, and though not resolved, cease to become bothersome. Trust in a system will also help sustain a person through confusion until he reaches the point of no longer caring whether an answer is reasonable or not, or indeed, whether an answer even exists."


 * "When adults first become conscious of something new, they usually either attack or try to escape from it... Attack includes such mild forms as ridicule, and escape includes merely putting out of mind." -- William I.B. Beveridge, The Art of Scientific Investigation, 1957"


 * Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity (clamness) opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.--Albert Einstein


 * "In our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either." --Mark Twain Travb 04:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

When occupying countries, such as Japan, Korea, Germany, and Iraq, it has done so to make the people free and their economies healthy. Wise 21:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Lucky all those citizens of Hiroshima can now vote. Japan was to a large extent bullied by the US, Britain, Canada, and the Netherlands into an agressive war to liberate Asia from colonial oppression. You can view all these conflicts from more than a US perspective.


 * <FONT color="green"> Of course, you only remember the "good wars" that Americans are all taught in History class. How much time did you spend studying the historic interventions in Central America, or the Boxer revolution, or the Phillipine War? If you were like me. Absolutly none. You are parroting American ideology.  Just yesterday I read in my 11 year old son's history book how America invaded Cuba and annexed the Domitican Republic during the Spanish American War, for the "freedom of the people".  No mention of the tortures in the Phillipines, no mention that the Fillipinos didn't want to be an American colony, no mention of the death of 100,000 Fillipinos.Travb 22:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)</FONT>

With bumps in the road, this has been a rousing success for the people of those countries! ...Many of those adding to this list may think of the U.S. as "imperialist", but if that's what you call enabling people to vote for their own leaders, and bringing a taste of liberty to regions of the world for the first time, then perhaps it is time to re-examine your convictions on the matter. Wise 21:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * <FONT color="green">Good lord you are a posterboy for succesful American propoganda. Those "bumps" you mention happen to be bodies. Please read one book on the Philippine war.  PLEASE, you are embarrassing me as a fellow American! Travb 22:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)</FONT>

Were the U.S. acting with imperialist intent, those four countries would today be U.S. states. They obviously are not, and will never be. So ask yourselves: without America, would the world be as safe as it is today? Would it be as free? Wise 21:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * <FONT color="green">This is speculation, and there is no way to test this, but yes, many parts of the world would be much freer, such as Central America, South America, and the Phillipines. As the author of Inevitable Revolutions argues, Central America has historically been our own "iron curtain" and our own sphere of influence.  This is not based on trite truisms and feel good propaganda,as you spout, but historical fact.Travb 22:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)</FONT>


 * The idea of imperialism is not limited to situations in which one country has direct political authority over the other. What is at stake is a battle over control of national economies between rival interests, and in that sense the US is definately imperialist, as can be seen by clicking on the links in your post (Japan, Korea).  These economies flow through our system, rather than national independent systems.  This exact struggle continues to this very day (ie see japanese nationalism).  Who is in the right, and which option is best is another question, nonetheless the intent to control and bring under US influence is pretty clear (at least in instances, I can't speak for all of them). --Freshraisin 05:56, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Wise.. you're so naif, yes all US interventions have only one goal: US own wealth... and that's not only true since 1945... that's quite older (at least Gen. Butler sayd that).. you said: "But the United States introduced the world to free elections and democratic constitutions."... please read about the world, FoxNews and CNN are not telling you the truth... US never cares about if ther is or not free elections and constitutions, US supported uncountables regimes where there were no free election and the people gets killed when they fighted for (ie. Argentina dirty war). US need  excuses to intervent in a country for millitary or economical issues, and most of the times the FoxNews reason is "we are freeing them" or " they are a threat for us" but the real reason is "we want their oil" or "they are comunist" or "we want cheap bananas".... it has done so to make the people free and their economies healthy can you say that iraqui people are free now? with 150k+ foreign troops sucking their oil, with 50k+ iraqui citizen deaths... So ask yourselves: without America, would the world be as safe as it is today? YES! without the greatest athomic arsenal, YES we will be better, without the only country who throw a nuke, we will be better, without the country who desides what's ok and what not in every country in the world we will be better, without the country who trained and supported horrendous dictators, we will be better, without the country who is unballancing the world, we will be better... in fact I don't care if US exists or not... but please don't try to intervent in every situation in the world... nobody called you (like in iraq)Qsebas 19:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes I suppose if the US didn't exist the world would be a better place
Yes I suppose if the US didn't exist the world would be a better place. If by better you mean that you would enjoy goose stepping under the Nazi banner or living under the Soviet regime. We all saw how well that worked. You're right people hate this country. But if that were true why don't our people and other peoples of the world emigrate to wonderful countries such as: the USSR (when it existed of course, but if it was such a nice place to live why did they have to build a will to keep people from leaving?) or Communist China (um, that would be fun) where your own belief in a religion goes against the nation's doctrine and worship is forbidden. How about lovely Cuba under the great leadership of Mr. Fidel Castro. Oh wait, people are risking their lives, crossing shark infested waters, just for a chance to live here in the good old US of A. How about the paridise I call Mexico. Oh wait, Mexicans are flooding across the US border in record numbers. Why isn't it the other way around? And what about majestic North Korea? Why don't people flock to that wonderful country? Could it have something to do with some of the worst human rights abuses in the world or is it because the people are so starved that they have resorted to eating the bark off of trees? I don't know, you tell me. Yeah, people hate us but when some dictator's got your nuts in a vice, who you gonna call? France? Denmark? Bolivia? India? Nigeria? I think not. Hell, when Germany got too aggressive for it's own good and tried to make all of Europe it's own personal playground (killing 6+ million Jews and other 'undesireables' in the process) did the world call on France (no they were goose stepping to the tune of Nazi Germany), did the world call on the Soviet Union (no, they collaberated with Nazi Germany (remember that little thing called the Invasion of Poland, yeah they helped with that)? Hmm, I'm detecting a pattern here. Now lets take a look at Germany post WW2. Sure we occupied that country, but what land do whe still posess in Germany? None. Does Germany have one of the strongest economies in the world? Yes, thanks to the good old US of A. How well did the USSR treat they're part of Germany. Do I really have to answer that? I think not. Then lets's look at Japan. Yes we occupied it. Now look at it. Booming! Japan is the place to be. Super economy, has a representitive government, and is free! Thanks to the good old US of A. How about the Korean war? Communist's invade the south and who comes to the rescue? We do. Now look at the two Korea's. Do you see a difference? I do. I see nation with a free people (so free they have the freedom to disrespect the US military which is responceable for detering a resumption of hostilities between them selves and the north [which espcially enfuriates me sicnce I serve as an Infantryman in the US Army]), I see a nation with a very, strong military (the US must take credit again) and I see a nation with a prospering economy. It's a little different in North Korea, you should check into before you talk, big man. All thanks to the good old US of A. And how about those nukes you mentioned earlier? If it wasn't for our nukes, the world would be under the control of the Soviet Union. Our ablity to utterly destroy the USSR was a huge deterent to the USSR. If not for the nukes, Europe would have been rolled over by Soviet tanks. Not to mention that our conventional military forces in Europe posed a signifigant deterent to them as well. Thank's America! Did you know that we are the lagest donater of finical aid and food to the world? Yes, we are. Just ask Egypt, Israel, Somilia, and Kosovo. There are more but I'll let you do the research yourself since you oviously didn't do any why your wrote your little bit to hate in Wikipedia. And that's all it is. Just hate and jealousy. And then they're our cultrue. Seems to me that our cultre is spreading like a wild fire. Who would have thought that a culture of freedom (in all it's forms) and our way of life (to inclue food, music, and entertainment) of work hard, get rich, and be happy, would ever become popular? I guess a lot of people prefer to read Mein Kampf and the works of Carl Marx. Different strokes for different folks. And by the way, if we really are stealing oil from Iraq, why aren't the gas prices lower? Don't have an answer for that one do you? Thought so. So next time you decide to spew your hate on my wonderful country, do your reasearch and back it up. I'm not saying the US is perfect. By no means is it perfect. But don't insult the nation that combats warmongers, dictators, communists, facists, and all others who commit atrocites for "the people." You're just making a fool of yourself.

C. Di Leonardo US Army Infantry, Hooah!


 * <FONT color="green">AGAIN This is speculation, and there is no way to test this. You ignored this part of what I wrote: many parts of the world would be much freer, such as Central America, South America, and the Philippines.  Maybe because you have no idea about the history of these regions?</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">Before you expose me to more of your jingoism, please read the about Project FUBELT was Chile better off with America?  Answer my question or dont waste my time.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">Please see my techniques many American's use to ignore American foreign policy history all of your arguments neatly fit within these four categories, such as:</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">jingoist wrote: But if that were true why don't our people and other peoples of the world emigrate to wonderful countries such as: the USSR (when it existed of course, but if it was such a nice place to live why did they have to build a will to keep people from leaving?) or Communist China (um, that would be fun) where your own belief in a religion goes against the nation's doctrine and worship is forbidden. How about lovely Cuba under the great leadership of Mr. Fidel Castro. Oh wait, people are risking their lives, crossing shark infested waters, just for a chance to live here in the good old US of A. How about the paridise I call Mexico. Oh wait, Mexicans are flooding across the US border in record numbers. Why isn't it the other way around? And what about majestic North Korea? Why don't people flock to that wonderful country?</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> In response: First: Confusing American’s domestic wealth with America’s foreign policy</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">Your other arguments are just as fallacious, and will be addressed later.Travb 20:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> Jingoist wrote: Hell, when Germany got too aggressive for it's own good and tried to make all of Europe it's own personal playground (killing 6+ million Jews and other 'undesireables' in the process) did the world call on France (no they were goose stepping to the tune of Nazi Germany), did the world call on the Soviet Union (no, they collaberated with Nazi Germany (remember that little thing called the Invasion of Poland, yeah they helped with that)? Hmm</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> Sigh, so pathetic, always the same tired arguments from American jingoists.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> Again see my techniques many American's use to ignore American foreign policy history. </FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> This one fits nicely into this rationalization:</FONT>
 * <FONT color="green"> Second: The world community owes Americans eternally for conflicts of the past. This irrational rationalization of America's current foreign policy is easily dismissed here.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> Unlike Americans, who believed they saved Europe, former USSR citizens believe just the opposite, that they defeated Hitler, and they have good reason to believe this too. Germany was already in retreat by the time the US joined the war.  Americans naively believe that they "saved" Europe from Hitler, all alone.    </FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">Could the USSR have defeated Germany alone? Who knows, this is more historical speculation which no one can prove nor disprove.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">So does all of Europe owe a big debt to Russia/USSR too? </FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> In the Economist article: The uses and abuses of history; Victory Day, 60 years on May 7, 2005 </FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> "Russians are often baffled and angered by western accounts of the second world war—and justifiably so. During the conflict, the Soviet Union was an admired ally; but after the long years of cold-war confrontation, how many Britons or Americans now know that more Soviet citizens (27m) died as a result of the war than all the other allies lost together? Or that the fighting in the east accounted for over three-quarters of all German military casualties? Almost every Russian lost a relative. Out of respect for their dead, newlyweds pose for photographs in front of Moscow's main war museum. Everybody, it seems, has a war story. Vasily, a middle-aged doctor, remembers hearing how, to stay warm and dry, Red Army soldiers slept under and on top of each other at the battle of Stalingrad. "It's immoral to discuss it," Colonel-General Anatoly Mazurkevich replies sharply, when asked about differing versions of the allied victory." </FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">jingoist wrote: Hmm, I'm detecting a pattern here. Of course you are!  Like a creationist who sees the hand of God in everyday creations, as a firm believer in Americanism, the religion that binds Americans together, you eagerly grasp "lessons from history" which support your own self-serving ideology.  And nevermind all of the dirty little wars which you were never taught in high school, which you won't ever bring up because: first you never learned about them, and second, they don't fit snuggly into your ideology and world view.  So tell me about the 1899-1903 invasion of the Philippines?  Do you even know what I am talking about jingoist?Travb 19:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> jingoist wrote: Now lets take a look at Germany post WW2. Sure we occupied that country, but what land do whe still posess in Germany? None. Does Germany have one of the strongest economies in the world? Yes, thanks to the good old US of A. How well did the USSR treat they're part of Germany. Do I really have to answer that? I think not. Then lets's look at Japan. Yes we occupied it. Now look at it. Booming! Japan is the place to be. Super economy, has a representitive government, and is free! Thanks to the good old US of A. How about the Korean war? Communist's invade the south and who comes to the rescue? We do. Now look at the two Korea's. Do you see a difference?</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> Yes, those are wonderful examples of America helping other countries helping other countries recover. There are no "if's" "ands" or "buts".</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> Lets be fair though, lets look at those other countries, those third world countries, who America also had a huge part in changing. Of course, as an American jingoist, indoctrinated in American schools, you forget, or more probably never even learned, those other examples. </FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> As Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America argues: </FONT>
 * <FONT color="green"> The United States consistently feared and fought...change because it was a status quo power. It wanted stability, benefited from the ongoing system, and was therefore content to work with the military oligarchy complex that ruled most of Central America from the 1820ss to the 1980s. The world's leading revolutionary nation in the eighteenth century became the leading protector of the status quo in the twentieth century. Such protection was defensible when it meant protecting the more equitable societies of Western Europe and Japan, but became questionable when it meant bolstering poverty and inequality in Central America.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> From (Page 12, 13, Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America (The footnote states: This is argued in Eldon Kenworthy, “Reagan Rediscovers Monroe”, democracy 2 (July 1982): 80-90)</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> Again, let me empasize what the author wrote: Such protection was defensible when it meant protecting the more equitable societies of Western Europe and Japan, but became questionable when it meant bolstering poverty and inequality in Central America. America keeps a lot of these third world countries in horrible poverty.  American corporations, supported by such "extranalities" such as the military, take 80% of the wealth out of these countries, install puppet yes men, and support the status quo of poverty.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> When the people revolt and vote for people that do not support the status quo, because they want a better life, as they have done in East Timor, the Philippines, Guatemala, Chile, Iran, El Salvador, Nicargua, etc. the military comes in and swiftly destroys these leaders, returning life to the status quo.  That is what this wikipedia article is all about,  The other drity wars that you and jingoist apologists like yourself, would rather just forget because they go against your set ideology that America is this becon of freedom in the world.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> jingoist wrote: We do. Now look at the two Korea's. Do you see a difference? I do. I see nation with a free people (so free they have the freedom to disrespect the US military which is responceable for detering a resumption of hostilities between them selves and the north [which espcially enfuriates me sicnce I serve as an Infantryman in the US Army]), I see a nation with a very, strong military (the US must take credit again) and I see a nation with a prospering economy. It's a little different in North Korea, you should check into before you talk, big man.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">North Korea is a disaster, no one here is saying that America should become communist like North Korea. </FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">Like many Americans, you simplistly see the world in two spheres: capitalist "free" and socialist "communist". </FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">When reality is much more complex. This is not a choice between America and North Korea....two vey stark examples.  This is a choice between America and some of the insutricalized European countries, which are very free, which are very successful, and which have excellent economies also.  Don't be so simplistic.  The world is not as black and white as you desperatly want to see it.  I have learned that when you first approach a subject, things lokk very black and white, very general, but hte mroe you study, the more you see the exceptions, the grey.  You are talking in broad black and white terms, which really makes me wonder how much you understand history outside of what you learned in high school history class.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">jingoist wrote: All thanks to the good old US of A. </FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">As mentioned before: Second: The world community owes Americans eternally for conflicts of the past. </FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">jingoist wrote: And how about those nukes you mentioned earlier? If it wasn't for our nukes, the world would be under the control of the Soviet Union. Our ablity to utterly destroy the USSR was a huge deterent to the USSR. If not for the nukes, Europe would have been rolled over by Soviet tanks. Not to mention that our conventional military forces in Europe posed a signifigant deterent to them as well.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> Prove it.  LOL.  I didn't know you could see into alternate realities, what a crock of sh**.  </FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> jingoist wrote: Did you know that we are the lagest donater of finical aid and food to the world? Yes, we are. Just ask Egypt, Israel, Somilia, and Kosovo.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> My goodness, aren't you a poster boy of American ignorance and jingoism.  Actually I have done a lot of research on this jingoist.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="purple"> Inter Press Service:</FONT>
 * <FONT color="purple"> Half of US Foreign Aid Devoted to Military</FONT>


 * <FONT color="purple"> Associated Press:</FONT>
 * <FONT color="purple"> U.S. Sells the Most Weapons to Developing Nations</FONT>


 * <FONT color="purple"> Inter Press Service:</FONT>
 * <FONT color="purple"> U.S. Dominates Arms Sales to Third World</FONT>


 * <FONT color="purple"> St Paul Pioneer Press: United States Arms Perpetuate African war </FONT>
 * <FONT color="purple">Through the Cold War, the United States provided more than $1.5 billion in weaponry to Africa. Between 1991 and 1998, the United States gave more than $227 million worth of weapons and military training to the continent.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="purple">The generous American myth</FONT>


 * <FONT color="purple">The American government is notoriously stingy with its foreign aid, giving just 0.2% of GDP to poor countries every year. Even when Americans’ ample private donations are added in, America still falls near the bottom of the rich-nation pack in generosity to those abroad. Yet American voters believe they are absurdly generous. A 2001 poll showed that they think 24% of their federal budget goes on foreign aid, a figure that would amount to more than 4% of America’s GDP. Given that perception, it would be difficult for Mr Bush to agree to substantial spending increases, much less get such an agreement through Congress—especially with a budget deficit expected to top $400 billion this year.</FONT>
 * <FONT color="purple"> --Economist "Agreeing on Africa, up to a point" Jun 11th 2005</FONT>


 * <FONT color="purple"> The [United Nations Development Program] report singled out the United States as a major laggard in foreign aid. Unlike the Scandinavian countries, which contribute almost 1% of their gross national product to foreign aid, the United States contributes only 0.15%. And most of this is military aid to Israel, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan and the Philippines.</FONT>
 * <FONT color="purple"> --Los Angeles Times, "U.S. Rated 7th in Human Development Benefits" May 23, 1991</FONT>


 * <FONT color="purple"> Total annual U.S. aid for all of Africa is about $3 billion, equivalent to about two days of Pentagon spending. About $1 billion pays for emergency food aid, of which half is for transport. About $1.5 billion is for technical cooperation, essentially salaries of U.S. consultants. Only about $500 million a year -- less than $1 per African -- finances clinics, schools, food production, roads, power, Internet connectivity, safe drinking water, sanitation, family planning and lifesaving health interventions to fight malaria, AIDS and other diseases.</FONT>
 * <FONT color="purple"> --Miami Herald: U.S. Does Little as Others Pitch In</FONT>


 * <FONT color="purple"> “71.6% of the US bilateral aid commitments were tied to the purchase of goods and services from the US.” That is, where the US did give aid, it was most often tied to foreign policy objectives that would help the US. --The US and Foreign Aid Assistance</FONT>


 * <FONT color="purple"> The total U.S. foreign aid bill for 1997 came to about 13.6 billion dollars. Of the total amount of aid provided in 1997:</FONT>


 * <FONT color="purple"> 27 percent, or about 3.7 billion dollars, was devoted to straight military assistance and training, and</FONT>


 * <FONT color="purple"> 22 percent, or just over three billion dollars, went to a more ambiguous category called security aid. </FONT>


 * <FONT color="purple"> Most of the latter consisted of …cash transfers (often to pay for U.S. weapons) …and aid (including weapons) used in the global fight against drugs and terrorism.</FONT>
 * <FONT color="purple"> -- Inter Press Service:Half of US Foreign Aid Devoted to Military </FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> Need I go on? My goodness, you have so much to learn, problem is your American ideology will always be a stumbling block.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> jingoist wrote: And that's all it is. Just hate and jealousy.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> No, it is a relization that America is not a complete 'beacon of freedom' as jingoists such as yourself try to advertise so blindly, that in fact, as far as the third world is concerned, America is a force of death and poverty.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> To illustrate this point, lets use a NON-boogeyman example, without Stalin or the Nazis, although both could very aptly be used in this example. </FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> Lets say that I was French, and I learned about the horrors of the Algerian war. France killed hundreds of thousands of people when Algeria, a colony, attempted to gain freedom.  The French tortured many of these people.  I wrote a book on the Algerian war.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> What would be the reaction of many of my fellow Frenchmen: </FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> Let me quote you:</FONT>
 * <FONT color="green"> And that's all it is. Just hate and jealousy...So next time you decide to spew your hate on my wonderful country, do your reasearch and back it up. I'm not saying the [France] is perfect. By no means is it perfect. By no means is it perfect. But don't insult the nation that combats warmongers, dictators, communists, facists, and all others who commit atrocites for "the people." You're just making a fool of yourself.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> There is a rich history of jingoism, not only in America but throughout the world.  I saw it first hand in the former Soviet Union.  The nationalism and the jingoism in this former empire was very similar to Americas jingoism today.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="red"> Now jingoist, I will continue to ask you about where the Philippine war of 1899 and Project FUBELT fit into your snug worldview. </FONT>


 * <FONT color="red">You also ignored this statment: Many parts of the world would be much freer, such as Central America, South America, and the Philippines.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">Don't waste my time and ignore this question. Good lord, god forgive America for such jingoists who have allowed for the death of millions of people in the third world, and the suppression of tens of millions more.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> "C. Di Leonardo US Army Infantry": That makes sense, you are military, you don't want to believe that what you are doing in the military is directly responsible for the death of millions of people. Every empire has its mytholgies and ideologies.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">“...in Britain, empire was justified as a benevolent "white man's burden." And in the United States, empire does not even exist; "we" are merely protecting the causes of freedom, democracy, and justice worldwide.”Travb 20:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> OIL </FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> jingoist wrote: And by the way, if we really are stealing oil from Iraq, why aren't the gas prices lower? Don't have an answer for that one do you?</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> Sigh I have heard this a lot.  It is an awful short term view.  Your view seems to be: if gas prices didnt drop right after the invasion, then therefore the invasion wasnt about oil. Who is building refineries in Iraq?  Who has control of Iraq's oil now?  When the CIA and the British overthrew the democratically elected president, and allegedy overthrew the Venezula president in 2002, they were not looking at short term oil prices, they were looking at long term control of oil.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> And by the way, when there is major wars like IRaq, the big oil companies make out like gang busters. There was a study done after Katrina, where the study said the $3 per gallon are not reflective in the actual price of a barell of oil. That oil prices should be much higher to reflect this price. 10 democrats suggested a study to see if there was price gouging. The major oil companies do really, really well when the oil prices go up.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> NPR: Oil Companies Experiencing Record Profits</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> ABC: High gas prices raise questions of gouging: The recent $3 peak virtually matched the inflation-adjusted high reached in 1981. One economist reckons that gasoline shouldn't cost that much until oil nears $100 per barrel - about $35 higher than it is today. The five largest refineries - ExxonMobil, Valero, ConocoPhillips, Shell, and BP - have recorded $228 billion in profits since 2001, he testified recently at a congressional hearing.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> The war seems like a great profit maker for American oil companies</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> So let me rephrase your really simplistic question, throwing it back to you:</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> And by the way, who has control of the oil in Iraq now?Travb 23:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)</FONT>


 * The fact that most of your bullshit is believed by most Americans is the reason the world would be better off without the USA. We did it, we are good, therefore it was good. Thank goodness for us.

Planned? Alleged?
Since this is a "list" of "interventions", why are unfulfilled plans included? Maybe dividing out the actual interventions in a first section, and including some planned section underneath would make this clearer. Also some division of events that historians are certain of (ie. It is certain that the US fought a war with Vietnam) vs. the abundance of "alleged" (often with no attribtuion--do historians allege, or does some fringe internet site allege?) would be nice.

allegeditis
guys there is enough confirmable evil stuff that you dont need to go making things up. just stick to the facts. and if you have 'alleged' at the very least you should provide a link to who is doing that alleging and what their basis of charges are.

if you would just stick to the facts, they alone would paint a bloody horrible picture of the CIA. if you add in stuff you arent sure about, you just make yourself look like a fool. in fact, i wouldnt be surprised if the CIA has planted people to write idiotic article like this in order to make their opposition look bad to the general public.


 * Will the users who are secret CIA shills please stand up? V V 21:18, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * <FONT color="orange">VeryVerily is the unofficial spokesman for ideological America. This is not the first time I have seen him.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="orange">Once again, V does not argue the inclusion or exclusion of any of these dirty little wars. His arguments are a waste of time.Travb 00:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)</FONT>

please excuse me for inserting this at the top - we have an interesting debate here - not so much about the CONTENTS of the article, but about whether the article is a valid one per se. Is it NPOV to make a list of interventions by a single state, the USA, without having similar ones for China, the USSR, the UK, France? Is it NPOV to list interventions by the UN or NATO where the USA supplied the bulk of military hardware and personnel, whilst not doing the same for all other member countries? Is it NPOV to include countries with which the US had or has normal diplomatic and trade relations (eg apartheid South Africa) as countries being "supported" by the USA?

Exile 11:23, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * <FONT color="orange">I have compiled a list of Four techniques many American's use to ignore American foreign policy history I think the apologists arguments neatly fall in every one of these categories.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="orange"> First: Confusing American’s domestic wealth with America’s foreign policy.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="orange"> Second: The world community owes Americans eternally for conflicts of the past.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="orange"> Third: A plea to focus on the positive.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="orange"> Fourth: Focus on the rival’s negative behavior, diverting the argument from the real question at issue</FONT>


 * <FONT color="orange"> Exile's apologies fall neatly with #4 a classical red herring fallacy of logic.Travb 00:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)</FONT>


 * Yes, it is valid. The United States is the most interventionist non-empire in the history of the planet. And, yes it is NPOV to include South Africa, because most countries outside Europe did NOT have normal trade/diplomatic relations with SA. And, yes, it is NPOV to include UN/NATO interventions that include the US because it controls NATO and is a permanent Security Council member. --Sesel 21:14, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Is it NPOV to make a list of interventions by a single state, the USA, without having similar ones for China, the USSR, the UK, France?
 * There was a list of inventions by the USSR, but for some reason (List of Soviet Cold War power plays). But for some reason the content of it is deleted. It redirects now to Cold War. --Mixcoatl 19:43, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * <FONT color="orange"> Fourth: Focus on the rival’s negative behavior, diverting the argument from the real question at issue</FONT>


 * <FONT color="orange"> Mixcoatl's apologies fall neatly with #4 a classical red herring fallacy of logic.</FONT>

CONGO
In 2001, Belgium officially acknowledged that Belgian agents assassinated Lumumba of Cong. Belgium officially apologized for the coup d'etat. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1805546.stm Attempts to "allege" the CIA are therefore discredited.


 * Even with Belgium's apology, the U.S. still bares "significant responsibility" for the death of Lumumba according to the Washington Post. Short timeline summary here.--GD 09:53, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * ie. Guilty until proven innocent, and even after that. You cite an opinion piece that talks about "moral responsibility". This is equivalent to the "moral responsibility" of Europe which didn't prevent Bosnia or Rwanda. It is not culpability. Congo coup has been a part of the Leftist propaganda machine for decades. Now that Belgium says that they actually did it, you still can't admit you were wrong. --Yet another example of the silly inconsistency of this list which mixes direct action, active support, non-opposition, and guilt by association into non-falsifiable conspiracies. Nothing on this 'list' is falsifiable. I think it is conspiracy theory and should be deleted.


 * There are many academic sources which connect to US to Lumumba' removal. E.g. Robert Grogin's Natural Enemies, one of the most recent histories of the Cold War, states that "The United States became convinced that the radical Lumumba should be removed from power." and goes on to explain the support for his overthrow. See also Mahoney's book on JFK's policy in Africa or run a JSTOR search for CIA + Lumumba.  There are many legitimate sources that state the US. as well as Belgium, played an important role in the Congolese coup. - SimonP 18:29, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

"Leftist propaganda machine"? Where? Do they hire? Can I join? That sounds also like a conspiracy theory... - Starman 1976 22:05, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

Falsifiability
Nothing on this list is falsifiable. The burden of proof should be on people wanting to insert items, and to prove that there is some evidence for inclusion. Otherwise, one can always create conspriacy theories with no evidence, but almost impossible to disprove.
 * what is not falsifiable? --Freshraisin 05:59, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

This list is de facto discrimination
This list is almost blatantly bigoted in its targeting of a single national group for all sorts of deeds, even ones committed, in fact, by Belgium, for example.


 * <FONT color="green"> Fourth: Focus on the rival’s negative behavior, diverting the argument from the real question at issue</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> This Apologist falls neatly with #4 a classical red herring fallacy of logic.</FONT>

Would a similar list "Famous crimes by blacks", or "Media under Jewish control" be permitted? Such lists wouold be deleted immediately, being obviously bigoted and discriminatory--they single out one group for criticism and offer no **comparison** of, say, crimes by non-blacks or non-Jews which may be more!


 * <FONT color="green"> This is an irrational argument, which has been refuted [above]. Maybe instead of using race, a more apt description is "discrimination against religion".  Because what the people on this wikipedia article are doing is attacking your nationalist religion: American jinogism and American exceptionalism</FONT>

Furthermore, if Chilean generals establish a dictatorship, does it make sense to blame someone else for what are essentially Chilean crimes??? More dubious is the fact that there is only allegation of US involvement. The burden of proof here is no existent. We can imagine anyone will pass this test. What's next? "AIDS allegedly a CIA plot"??


 * <FONT color="green">Jingoist, Lets read together the recently declassified documents which show that the United States government and the CIA had sought the overthrow of Allende in 1970, immediately before he took office ("Project FUBELT"), through the incident that claimed the life of then Commander-in-Chief, General René Schneider, but claims of their direct involvement in the 1973 coup are not proven by publicly available documentary evidence:</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> Can we agree that the CIA has a recently declassified document, dated September 16, 1970: which states: </FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">"The Director told the group that President Nixon had decided that an Allende regime in Chile was not acceptable to the United States.. The President asked the Agency to prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him. The President authorized ten million dollars for this purpose, if needed. Further, The Agency is to carry out this mission without coordination with the Departments of State or Defense."See Project FUBELT</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> Can we agree that the CIA has a recently declassified cable, dated October 16, 1970, which states:</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> "It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup. It would be much preferable to have this transpire prior to 24 October but efforts in this regard will continue vigorously beyond this date. We are to continue to generate maximum pressure toward this end utilizing appropriate resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG and American hand will be well hidden." See Project FUBELT</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> Answer my questions Jingoist, or don't waste my time. Go peddle your American religion somewhere else, like on freepers.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> Here we have America attempting to overthrow Allende once before, then they try to destabilize the economy so the people will overthrow him, and then when he is overthrown, you have the audacity to claim that America had no part in the overthrow. True blind jingoism. How could you be so ideologically blind?Travb 23:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)</FONT>

This list is de facto discrimination (part 2)
Strange that almost everything in the world is blamed on a third party nation (the US) exclusively, ignoring the responsibility of the first-party (as if they were children, and have no responsibility) or other third parties (Europe, or the Soviets, for example).


 * <FONT color="green"> Strange how apologists only want to focus on the good in America exclusively, ignoring the responsibility that America has had in the deaths millions.</FONT>

As an example from my web blog: Four techniques many American's use to ignore American foreign policy history


 * <FONT color="green">If I was to mention the brutality of Saddam Hussein's regime, the torture chambers, rape rooms and mass graves, would an American apologist ever bring up collateral damage caused by American bombings? Would an American apologist feel like a news report focusing solely on Saddam Hussein's torture chambers was incomplete because the news report didn’t bring up collateral damage caused by American bombings?</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">Why not?</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">By flipping this justification around:</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">From:</FONT>
 * <FONT color="green">First America’s bombings THEN Saddam’s torture chambers</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">First Saddam’s torture chambers THEN America’s bombings.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">Notice how irrational the entire argument becomes. It is obvious that I am talking about two distinct events, completely unrelated to each other. Why is it patently obvious in the second example, but so terribly difficult for most Americans to see in the first example?</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">How often would an American, when hearing about Saddam Hussein's torture chambers feel it was biased not to mention America’s bombings in the same discussion?</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">Can you see the hypocrisy here?</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">Mention an enemy’s bad behavior, and no justification is required.Travb</FONT>

This list is de facto discrimination (part 3: Congo Redux)
Lastly, the list format offers no counter argument. It has been proven that Belgium engineered the coup in Congo. So that means it is simple deleted from the list. Therefore, there is no space for allegations proven false. Belgian involvement simply disappears, and our anti-American friends have no apparent interest in a list about Belgian misdeeds.


 * <FONT color="green"> See above "proven" seems to equals "argued" to the jingoist Travb</FONT>


 * That BBC article doesn't claim that the CIA wasn't involved. Do a google search for 'lumumba cia'. As for Chile, in recent declassified documents that were released Kissinger said that "we helped them" during the coup, which adds to much more documented information on Chile that was available before. You seem to have a general problem with the meaning of the word 'intervention'. This list doesn't "blame" anyone, so I'm not sure what you're seeing. As for other lists, you're welcomed to create any list that has encyclopedic value in your opinion. Please see this page about why you shouldn't delete contributions of others to this list. As I explained you earlier, items that don't have wikipedia articles for them yet should stay in the list because it increases the probability that someone would create these articles. We can discuss Lumumba here if you wish, but stop deleting items from the list without discussion. Nimc 12:58, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * So Google searches are criteria for entry???? What happened to your previous claim about respected academic journals, etc???? And Belgium's admission does in fact mean that the US was not involved. Or do you claim the US is guilty until proven innocent (and even when proven innocent, you resort to using Google searches as evidence!!) LOL. You're a real scammer, Nimc. Essentially, the biggest problem with this list is this:


 * <FONT color="green"> jingoist wrote: So Google searches are criteria for entry????You're a real scammer You characteristically ignored his links jingoist. Who is the scammer? They don't fit into your world view so you are not going to read them?</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> When a fact does not fit into your world view, don't place people's "standard of proof" on academic journals, when you don't even bother to read the popular articles that Nimc sites. </FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> How many wikipedia articles that you have wrote are written by "academic articles". </FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">Where are your cited "academic articles" about Congo? I see one BBC article.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">The above discussion cites BBC, which you take at face value, because it supports your ideology that America does little wrong. </FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">Then those who oppose your world view cite cooperativeresearch.org and the WashingtonPost, and you insist on a higher standard! </FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">You are an illogical hypocrite: </FONT>
 * <FONT color="green">Having a low threshold of "proof" for your beliefs American exceptionalism.</FONT>
 * <FONT color="green">But yet at the same time: </FONT>
 * <FONT color="green">Making an impossible level of "proof" for you advesaries and ignoring equally relevant articles, from equally established organizations. Travb</FONT>

This list is de facto discrimination (part 4: NOTHING ON THE LIST IS FALSIFIABLE)
NOTHING ON THE LIST IS FALSIFIABLE

No amount of documentation, even apologies from Belgium, will suffice to allow any edits from this list. In the end, even if I show documentation to the contrary 1) you resort to using anonymous web pages or Google searches as "evidence" for your eternal truth 2) simply deleting and vandalizing any attempts to edit and add

I will stop deleting items without discussion when YOU stop deleting items without discussion. You have repeatedly censored ANY attempts to edit this, and any other articles that related to your Chomsky-Left anti-American cause.


 * For some reason this Belgium apology brings you to conclude that the CIA wasn't involved. I didn't really understand how you came to this conclusion, perhaps you'd like to explain it. The google search should have helped you realize that there was a senate committee in 1975 that looked into the CIA role, as well as other information it seems. Though I should mention that I personally don't know anything on this issue, perhaps someone else would like to talk about it here. You're assuming too much, I didn't add Lumumba to this list, someone else did. All I asked is that we'd discuss it in this talk page, instead of your edits/reverts wars with others (not me) on the main article. I didn't claim that the CIA was either involved or not. As for "guilty until proven innocent", you're missing the point of wikipedia, which is to present known issues, and not to 'prove' anything. If there is reasonable evidence of CIA involvement, this item should stay. If there is a dispute about the evidence among credible parties, it should be presented like that. If there's no reasonable evidence for CIA involvement, this item should be removed. As for "You have repeatedly censored ANY attempts to edit this", I think you're confusing me with somebody else, check the history of this list and you'll see that I didn't edit it at all since you came here - I've only used the talk page. As for "deleting items without discussion", you're lying here too - Both others and I have repeatedly asked you to reply to discussion on the Chomsky article instead of modifying the main page, and you're ignoring us. And btw, why are you using all these ! and ? marks? Nimc 16:32, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm "ignoring" you? Here's a direct quote from you: "so I'm finished talking to you. "


 * Indeed. Though perhaps other people here would like to talk to you. I personally think you aren't making any sense. Nimc


 * Essentially, the list is not falsifiable. IF evidence shows that Belgium did it, you claim that it is still possible that the US was "involved". Thus, the US is guilty until it can prove itself innocent, which is a logical impossibility. The burden should be respected, scholarly evidence that the US was invovled. And it must be recent, after Belgium's confession.

This list is de facto discrimination (Part 5: planning an action not "foreign intervention")
I am new to this, but I would point out that merely planning an action does not constitute a "foreign intervention" in the way you seem to define it. I don't know if you are aware, but certainly the UK and, I would assume, most other military powers have whole departments devoted to planning the military invasions of all countries and territories of the world. I am directly aware of the man who recently headed the department for planning the invasion of Serbia-Montenegro, and that there is a department in the UK Ministry of Defence that deals with a possible invasion of the US. Therefore, planning an assassination of someone, whilst indicating intent, is not the same as actually going out and doing it. Wee Jimmy


 * <FONT color="green"> Sometimes I just want to take some of you jingoists and shake you. </FONT>
 * <FONT color="green"> Wee Jimmy wrote: </FONT>
 * <FONT color="green"> merely planning an action does not constitute a "foreign intervention" in the way you seem to define it...Therefore, planning an assassination of someone, whilst indicating intent, is not the same as actually going out and doing it. </FONT>
 * <FONT color="green"> Would carrying out the action qualify?  See the church committee and Project FUBELT about all the actions which the CIA not only planned but carried out.  </FONT>
 * <FONT color="green"> No, this was never intentionally taught in high school history class, so I forgive you for probably being ignorant of this history. I never learned it myself until after 9/11.</FONT>

-

This list is riddled with pov. Attempts to edit, verify or revise (as is requested) are met with vandalism or censorship by the political-motivated. I think Wikipedia is de facto presenting a POV because there is no comparable article for Soviet (a very short list, very little effort made) or indeed other powers such as France, Britain, China... Ultimately it will reflect poorly on Wikipedia as a whole if the npov is not protected. Too bad.


 * <FONT color="green"> [Four techniques many American's use to ignore American foreign policy history] Fourth: Focus on the rival’s negative behavior, diverting the argument from the real question at issue</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> This Apologist falls neatly with #4 a classical red herring fallacy of logic. Travb 00:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)</FONT>


 * One proposal is to separate the list into two:
 * 1. Verified US foreign interventions
 * 2. Alleged "Support" and unproven interventions


 * This makes sense because "support" is being used to mean both non-intervention or having diplomatic relations, and actual military or covert involvement, two very different things. Well-known and historically accurate involvement is mixed with internet-based fantasies or conspiracy theories.
 * In a sense, one can allege that Martians intervened in Haiti but it means nothing, and I'm not sure people will find Wikipedia reliable if it contains nothing but rumors.


 * <FONT color="green"> What rumors? Travb 00:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)</FONT>


 * If you don't appreciate it that the Soviet list is incomplete, then start improving it. I guess no one cares much about the Soviet list because the Russians don't do much these days - though the nuclear arms race is gaining speed, and Bush said that looked into Putin's soul and found a soul mate... The word "alleged" can be removed from most of the items that use it, it's written in order to keep people like you happy I guess. If you see any items that don't qualify as intervention, please tell us about them here. What needed to be done is to actually write the wikipedia articles for items in this list. That's the way wikipedia works, when people see a (red) link that hasn't been written yet, it improves the chances that it'd be written - and this is the reason why you shouldn't delete them. Nimc 12:11, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * This article has nothing to do with the Soviet one or any other one. It is list of U.S. interventions. Your mass unexplained deletions are extremely unproductive and do not reflect the spirit of wikipedia. If you have a problem with a particular list item then post it in talk so that we may discuss it.--GD 19:46, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I wholeheartedly agree, if people have a problem, they should discuss instead of UNEXPLAINED AUTOMATIC DELETION of ANY edits. It is clear that some ideologues wish to prevent edits of this list, even in full definace of new evidence (Such as Belgium's admission of Congo coup).

- TO GD:

What explains the mass-deletions, automatic reversions and censorship of this list by you? It has been proven that Belgian intelligence engineered the coup in Congo since 2001, but it was reinserted automatically by you. Any objections or modifications are *immediately* deleted with zero explanation. You also make no attempt to discuss or justify it, just delete, revert, etc. The FAQ on "Wikittiquete" advises: To delete and revert as little as possible. The politicized censors here 1) delete automatically anything they don't like and 2) make no attempt to prove or justify their own inclusions. If this were to be really npov, you would *CITE* allegations since there is no way at present to prove Hugo Chavez's claims about "CIA plots".


 * Wow, you sure are one twisted individual... first you mass-delete most of the list, then complain that someone who reverted it "deleted" your modifications with zero explanation. And this is after explanations were given to you, and you chose not to comment on them. Nimc 11:35, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Also another note: in my opinion a list shouldn't have one-liner comments next to each item. The information should only be in the wikipedia article of that item. For example I see now for Laos: "with more US bombs dropped than during all of World War Two" - no need for such remarks on this list, relevant information should appear in the (maybe expand Secret War) Laos article. The same goes for items like Somalia "to assist UN food aid delivery", and lame apologetics like Sudan... it was not a "mistake" because Bill Clinton and Richard Clarke and their friends knew that it is a pharmaceutical factory, regardless of whether or not it also produced chemical weapons. Nimc 12:11, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable.--GD 19:46, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

--- To GD: You are then expressing a point of view that "this is fact". This violates the spirit of Wikipedia which is npov.
 * Bahahahaha Saying that something is fact is now POV? hahaha So you can't say anything about anything.

--- This whole thing is bogus. These are not acts of imperialism. The are just acts. The acts in this list do not meet a definition of imperialism. Better the title should be "Things that the US has done that were not liked by some others, maybe, but gosh we didn't include references". Kd4ttc 02:41, 16 May 2004 (UTC)


 * The title was changed since the above comment. However, the article is still a tirade.  There is no context.  The introduction alluding vaguely to unidentified "some people" smells of a POV that should not be on wikepedia.  Kd4ttc 16:44, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

-- This list makes little sense. Not only are most of the entries POV but how is "The 1989 opening of Soviet and East European markets to American goods." an American action? Rmhermen 17:32, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

This is just absurd nonsense. Everything from NAFTA to Hugo Chavez lumped into one tirade. Hell, why not include "alleged US co-operation with aliens to poison the water supply" in it, if we are going to include every kooky conspiracy theory. The only reason this is a list in the first place is because the author obviously thinks it is more damning and "shocking" if all these alleged incidents are presented in one long list. I believe Mr. Michael Moore attempted the same thing in Bowling for Columbine. Can we please get rid of this drivel? user:J.J. 20:41, May 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * As for Hugo Chavez, you can watch a documentary on what the U.S. helped to do here . What else between NAFTA and that you don't like? btw, following your user link I reached Military history of the United States - thanks... I think we should merge stuff from there into here and into History of United States imperialism ? Nimc 20:34, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Whoops, the military history link was already in this article, I didn't notice. Well then, if anyone needed further proof that anti-American drivel-spreading people are not so bright, as opposed to true patriots like you guys, there you have it. For Kd4ttc: I totally agree that "some circles" and "imperialism" are bad terms to use for the introduction, they were used to try to explain the previous title of the article. I'll give you the honor to write a really cool introduction instead? Nimc 09:10, 21 May 2004 (UTC)


 * This drivel was put up for deletion recently (I think the voting ended about 5/18/04) due to it being POV. Kept online.  I think it needs editorial comments peppered into the text.  The introduction that "have, in some circles, been considered" is classic POV obfuscation.  It was kept to give it chance to become encyclopedic.  Kd4ttc 22:00, 20 May 2004 (UTC)  The VFD discussion is available at Talk:List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945/Delete. Kd4ttc 21:18, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Nimc didn't like encyclopedic content in the intro. Perhaps he now sees some of the problems in the current article. Kd4ttc 04:06, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm starting to think I made a mistake by not deleting this. -- Cyrius|&#9998 05:27, May 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree. See below.  Kd4ttc 05:29, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

This list is de facto discrimination (Part 6: Argument between Kd4ttc and Nimc)
<FONT color="blue">Kd4ttc</Font> comments are in <FONT color="blue">blue</Font> for easier reading.

<FONT color="blue"> This page was put up for VFD based on it being POV. The introduction was biased in the past. The factual comments now in the introduction are rather straightforward. It now reads as</FONT>


 * <FONT color="blue">This is an incomplete list of United States interventions. The criteria for inclusion in the list have not been revealed. The list also does not include any historical context other than date.  The strength of allegations is not referenced.  Alternatives to any of the actions are not discussed.</FONT>

<FONT color="blue"> The intro was struck as being personal opinion. The standard here is NPOV. The observations are neutral. The list would be more encyclopedic if it had any of the noted defects eliminated. Kd4ttc 05:29, 24 May 2004 (UTC)</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">Kd4ttc wrote: This page was put up for VFD based on it being POV.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">I am reminded by one fallacy of logic and one quote:</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">fallacy of logic</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">Argumentum Ad Populum Bandwagon Approach Definition:</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> “Everybody is doing it.” </FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">This argumentum ad populum asserts that, since the majority of people believes an argument or chooses a particular course of action, the argument must be true or the course of action must be the best one.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> Example: “85% of consumers purchase IBM computers rather than Macintosh; all those people can’t be wrong. IBM must make the best computers.” </FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">Popular acceptance of any argument does not prove it to be valid, nor does popular use of any product necessarily prove it is the best one. After all, 85% of people possibly once thought planet earth was flat, but that majority's belief didn't mean the earth really was flat! Keep this in mind, and remember that all should avoid this logical fallacy.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">Quote:</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. -- Bertrand Russell</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> So jingoist is supported by a lot of other Americans who do not like criticism of their country. Big suprise. Travb 02:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)</FONT>


 * What part of the word "list" do you not understand? The criterion is self-evident: "U.S. foreign interventions since 1945" and does not need to be spelled out. The list items do not need historical context other than the date because it is a list. Historical context, strength of allegations, and alternatives to an action belong in sub articles that branch off of the list. Your use of the word "incomplete" is also not needed. If you go to any other "List of" articles they are not described as "incomplete." If there is a list item that is missing, it is added. As I said, the intro you proposed is a personal opinion of the article, which does not belong in the article. I am going to try to find sources for all of the list items, which can eventually be put into individual sub articles if so desired.--GD 20:37, 24 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually there is a specific MediaWiki tag for incompete lists because they are so common and deserve to be noted. Rmhermen 15:03, May 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * <FONT color="blue"> Oh, the list is incomplete because not all foreign actions since 1945 are included. Hmm, the Marshall plan comes to mind.  The reason a list is not encyclopedic is because it does not contain any historical context.  No reason why, what else could have happened.  Anyway, what is the criteria for putting something into the list?  Be nice to know.  As it is, the choice of what goes into the list makes it a personal statement.  Technically, such a thing is known as selection bias, a common mistake made in studies.  When the selection criteria is not stated a reader can be very mislead by the result of the process.  The reason the intro needed a comment on the poor quality of the list was so a reader would recognize that this list appears to have been created by some political agenda, and is inherently POV.  I note you pulled out the comments by others regarding the list previously having been under a title of US Imperialism.  That was a personal opinion, too? Kd4ttc 22:12, 24 May 2004 (UTC)</FONT>

<FONT color="blue"> ::Oh, I'm sorry. You haven't graduated college yet. Kd4ttc 22:13, 24 May 2004 (UTC)</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">Kd4ttc argument here is ridiculous:</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">The reason a list is not encyclopedic is because it does not contain any historical context. </FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">A list by its very nature, stops being a list and becomes an encyclopedia with subsections when you begin to add "historical context"</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">Anyway, what is the criteria for putting something into the list?</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">Try READING the title Kd4ttc. The real problem, below all your nickpicking Kd4ttc as I adress below, is that you are an American apologist, a jingoist.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">I note you pulled out the comments by others regarding the list previously having been under a title of US Imperialism.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">Kd4ttc, Nimc has changed a lot with this wiki post, the problem is, that unless it conforms to your ideology, you will never be satisfied.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> Kd4ttc proposed introduction: This is an incomplete list of United States interventions. The criteria for inclusion in the list have not been revealed. The list also does not include any historical context other than date.  The strength of allegations is not referenced.  Alternatives to any of the actions are not discussed.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> The list also does not include any historical context other than date.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> That is why there is links. This statment also ignores the numerous footnotes.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> The strength of allegations is not referenced. Alternatives to any of the actions are not discussed.</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> Again, this defeats the purpose of a list.  A list by its very nature, stops being a list and becomes an encyclopedia with subsections when you begin to add extensive "historical context" </FONT>


 * The criteria for putting something into the list ? How about a U.S. foreign intervention that happened after 1945 ? Since you seem to have trouble grasping this for some reason, maybe you could please give us an example for an event that you think that shouldn't be included, i.e. an event that is both obviously important enough to have an encyclopedic article describing it, and is a U.S. foreign intervention that happened after 1945, but still shouldn't be included here ? Nimc 01:23, 25 May 2004 (UTC)


 * <FONT color="blue">The title of the article suggests that is the inclusion criteria, but the content of the list suggests not. There are major omissions such as the Marshall plan and rebuilding of Japan.  The content suggests that there is an antiamerican POV.  There is still no reference to where the list came from originally, and so many of the entries on the list are noted as alleged. The tone of Nimc's response is insulting.  User:GD is still in college, so from him it can be tolerated.  Is Nimc an undergraduate, too? Kd4ttc 16:57, 25 May 2004 (UTC)</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green">The rebuilding of Japan has been added, so has the Marshall plan. Are you satisfied now?  NO.  Because this is not the REAL issue and the REAL problem you have with this site. Again, Nimc has changed a lot with this wiki post, the problem is, that unless it conforms to your ideology, you will never be satisfied. The real problem, below all your nickpicking Kd4ttc as I adress below, is that you are an American apologist, a jingoist.</FONT>


 * I don't see what exactly is insulting. The people who advocated the use of 'imperialist' criteria don't seem to be around. You should argue with them if they come back - there's no point to keep arguing about the criteria if we all agree about it. In the VFD discussion I said that I think this list should also include positive actions, citing Noam Chomsky. However, we disagree about the Marshall plan - to say that its omission is anti-American sounds very funny to me. As for rebuilding Japan, it's mixed I guess, but maybe you'd like to watch Chalmers Johnson discuss some of it here - I think it'd be nice to add this to the external links. As for the use of the word "alleged", for most of these events we could get rid of it by a little rephrasing, e.g. by saying that 'USA played active role in the events that led to the overthrow of Salvador Allende, and maybe the CIA also supported the coup itself.' Or we could wait some more years and just remove the word "alleged" Nimc 19:51, 25 May 2004 (UTC)


 * <FONT color="green"> To quote Stuart Creighton Miller in the book “Benevolent Assimilation” The American Conquest of the Philippines, 1899-1903: </FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> The term “imperialism”...overuse and...abuse is making it nearly meaningless as an analytical concept. Thorton concluded that “imperialism” is “more often the name of the emotion that reacts to a series of events than a definition of the events themselves...Colonization finds analysts and analogies, imperialism must contend with crusaders for and against.”</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> “…in Britain, empire was justified as a benevolent "white man's burden." And in the United States, empire does not even exist; "we" are merely protecting the causes of freedom, democracy, and justice worldwide.”--The Editors, "After the attacks…the war on terrorism", Monthly Review, 53, 6, Nov., 2001. P 7</FONT>


 * <FONT color="green"> Of couse America is an empire </FONT>


 * <FONT color="blue"> Nimc: Thank you for quieting your tone.  The phrase you included above "Since you seem to have trouble grasping this for some reason" is insulting in that it insinuates difficulty in comprehending something simple.  I gather you are still an undergraduate.  Regarding the article, the criteria for this list are not stated.  When the list implied it was a subset of interventions that some circles considered imperialistic the criteria were not clear due to the lack of stating what circles carried that opinion.  The article has been heavily criticised and now has undergone a couple of name changes.  The current title is a list of foreign interventions since 1945.  That is very broad, yet the list is limited.  A number of critics of this article have noted that it has an antiamerican POV.  I am one of those critics.  The list is anti-american because it is heavily loaded with US actions that in retrospect were mistakes.  It ignores major historic events.  The absence of the Marshall plan is a huge miss.  (Of course, when the topic was examplse of imperialism it was another matter).  It contains a large number of actions listed as allegations.  Changing it to "maybe's" is simply semantics.  Is there evidence or not?  If the list is to include all US foreign interventions since 1945 it will be a very long list.  If the list is not all encompassing then the criteria for deleting minor matters should be stated.  Your note above used "we" to describe who disagreed about the Marshall plan.  What group do you represent?  Editing out the Marshall plan and the rebuilding of Japan after WWII from a list of US foreign interventios reveals a skewed view of what is important in world history.  Lastly, some lists can benefit an encyclopedia.  A list like this where there are huge issues of context, motivation, and international politics deserves more than just a list.  The very presence of this list begs the question of the motivation for having the list present at all.  Without an answer to that the article invites criticism for being a POV agenda article. An article should be balanced.  There was a short lived introduction that included comments about the articles shortcomings.  Where the shortcomings acknowledged the list would be more valid.  The person that edited out those comments betrays a view that those observations regarding shortcomings were not correct. Kd4ttc 20:39, 25 May 2004 (UTC)</FONT>


 * I think that primarily the people and systems that carry out these actions are insulting, and to a lesser extent the U.S. apologists here etc are also a little insulting, though one might argue that they insult their own intelligence. However, I apologize for the way I phrased my earlier reply - It was not my intention to insult anyone, I was trying to be constructive by trying to understand and simplify the issue. About the Marshall plan: I agree that its omission is a huge miss, but I don't agree that its omission is anti-American bias, I'd say that its omission qualifies as pro-American bias... You misrepresented what I said about "alleged" vs "maybe", the point was that documents released so far under FOIA reveal the U.S. support for some of the events that took place, therefore stating this and then adding a "maybe"/"alleged" statement that many people also believe to be true about the actual coup should obviously qualify as foreign intervention to be included in this list. I used "maybe" just because it fit better into the sentence.  As for "deleting minor matters should be stated", I don't agree with you: I saw that there's a general debate in wikipedia about whether minor issues should be included, for example there was a poll on whether an article about an ordinary person who died on 9/11 (2001, not 1973 of course) should be deleted. I always believe in trying to simplify whenever it's possible, so other than this general wikipedia debate issue, I don't think there's a special criteria we should use for this list - i.e. if an event deserves to be mentioned in an article, and this event is a U.S intervention, we should add it to this list.  As for you characterizing some of these events as "mistakes", it is your personal opinion, that is perhaps shared by many others - However, to give two examples of people who disagree with you: neither George W. Bush nor myself think that he has made any mistakes.  Nimc 22:15, 25 May 2004 (UTC)


 * <FONT color="blue"> Well, at this point, then, the list is incomplete and invites further contributions. If there are events that are supported by documentation or other evidence, great.  Just that the events in this list do not generally have support of much evidence that I saw after poking around a sampling of the alleged events.  You misunderstand the Wikepedia debate about minor issues. The criterion is whether a person is noteworthy or not guides decisions on listing them in Wikipedia on there own.  In this article if there is going to be dropping of events (such as was done when the Marshall Plan and Rebuilding of Japan were dropped), then there ought to be a reason why that was done.  As far as Anti-american bias, look at the number of citations of CIA support.  Mostly alleged actions, many regarding interfeerence in foreign politics.  On the face of that it is a bad thing.  What is missing is historical context on what motivated the US, after, of course, whether the allegations are even true.  Kd4ttc 01:43, 26 May 2004 (UTC)</FONT>


 * I'm not sure what you mean about me failing to understand the Wikepedia debate about minor issues. Do you mean that this list should also include events that aren't noteworthy enough to have a Wikipedia article describing them ? If so, why ? If not, then what exactly did I misunderstand, and what is it about the simple criteria that I suggested for inclusion in this list that you disagree with ? I was looking here: Wikipedia_talk:Fame_and_importance. Nimc 12:17, 26 May 2004 (UTC)


 * <FONT color="blue"> The minor issues is separate from whether any individual should have an article. The policy on people came up because the usual policy on deletion was to go through teh VFD process.  With the people that died in the 9-11 getting listed it was getting bothersome to have to go through that with everyone. It was also uncomfortable to have to declare everyone unimportant, or better to say, not encyclopedia worthy.  So the people who died on 9/11 are memorialized in an appropriate archive out of Wikipedia.  For articles such as this one, the VFD process is appropriate.  POV is a criteria for deletion, so this article remains at risk for removal.  However, within an article you can put as much unimportant minutae as you wish.  It may get edited out in ongoing writing, but if someone wants to write it it is generally kept.  One reason to keep articles in Wikipedia is that something points to it.  So if there is an article about a minor world event and there is another article that references it, it will either be kept, or could be folded into the main article.  I actually do not disagree with putting everything in this list.  There were others that were editing out events, and their choices on what to eliminate was the issue.  Also, when the article was about events that showed evidence of imperialism the choice of what events to put in was the essence of the argument.  That list was bogus because selection bias can bring you to any conclusion you want to draw on any subect.  My belief is that if every foreign interventions that the US has undertaken since WWII is included in a list, and if historical context is included, the US will look like the average country with good people trying to do the best in a complex world. Kd4ttc 16:07, 26 May 2004 (UTC)</FONT>


 * You become more and more unclear. It seems like you refuse to answer the simple yes-or-no question that I asked about whether I understood what you meant. It'd be nice if you'd answer it. Moreover, I have no idea why you keep repeating your comments about whether any individual should have an article, did you look at Wikipedia_talk:Fame_and_importance ? That discussion, as well as our discussion, has nothing to do with individuals, so I have no clue what you're trying to say. As for your last comment, one way to begin would be to ask you what do the people of the US have to do with the events described in this list? Nimc 16:53, 26 May 2004 (UTC)


 * <FONT color="blue"> Well, at least I mean well. The people the US have responsibility for their government because they (we) elect them.  I didn't feel I could tell you what you understand to be correct.  Sorry to confuse the issue further.  I missed the part where I could answer yes or no to your comments.  As far as if an issue is minor related to this list:  Include all interventions, with articles pointed to from this article.  Any article so created will likely stand but the Wikepedia community might fold short articles into this list. Kd4ttc 23:15, 26 May 2004 (UTC)</FONT>


 * Would you mind to also clarifying what did I misunderstand in relation to the debate about minor issues? As for elections, you're not exactly convincing. Let's start with 3 reasons: A) even in big U.S. military invasions, like the two latest invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, you didn't see people in the streets demonstrating to send soldiers to e.g. Afghanistan, it works the other way around... few people decided to invade, and the American people are responsible of being ignorant mostly. B) some of the events in this list were carried out by people that no one has elected, including maybe the latest item. C) about half of the eligible voters in USA don't bother to vote at all, maybe because there's no one to vote for... so their responsibility might have to do with them not changing the system, not with not voting. Nimc 00:45, 27 May 2004 (UTC)


 * <FONT color="blue"> I read into your comments regarding what criteria should be used in deciding what interventions should be listed comments related to the considerations of how articles are judged for appropriateness in Wikepedia. The criteria for importance of an article are different for criteria for importance regarding content within the article.  Minor issues are appropriate within an article.  Minor topics as articles get deleted.  An exception is when a minor article supports another article.  Those articles some times stand, some times get folded into other articles.  Given that this article suffers selection bias in it's current form, I think it best that many interventions get listed in this article.  User Nimc is arguing the importance debate and concluding that minor events can be included.  I agree with Nimc that minor events ought to be included in this article.  I think Nimc does not need to argue the importance debate because that is an issue for articles, not content within articles. Kd4ttc 04:28, 27 May 2004 (UTC)</FONT>


 * <FONT color="blue"> There may be reasons why a government acts differently than the citizens would have wished. However, in a government which derives it's authority from the People, the People are responsible for their government.  The system responsibility topic you touch on reflects this thought. Kd4ttc 04:28, 27 May 2004 (UTC)</FONT>


 * We disagree about minor issues inclusion. You don't give straight answers, but it now seems you claim that I misunderstand the difference between an event being important enough to have an article for itself, and an event being important enough to be mentioned in another article. Note that the article in question is a list. My simple position, as opposed to the complexities that you raise, is that all U.S. interventions are either important enough to have articles for themselves, or not important enough to be listed here. If the U.S. supported the overthrow of, say, the democratically elected government of Jamaica, and certain amount of people got killed in this venture, then yes, such an event is important enough to have an article describing it. The normal practice is to add it as an article that appears in red color until someone writes it. We had an item in the list about the U.S. criticizing Canadian drug laws, I deleted it because it seems ridiculous (i.e. not important), and was without sources. Let's fall back to trying to get you to provide an example: could you please mention an intervention that in your mind is not important enough to have an article for itself, but is important enough to be mentioned in a few lines here? As for selection bias in it's current form, I'm guessing you're unaware of few dozens of other U.S. supported coups that aren't mentioned here yet... so one might argue for pro-American bias in the current form...  As for elections, you're the one who invoked the word "responsibility". I did not try to claim that the good people of the US don't share responsibility for these actions, though with regard to some of the covert actions, the responsibility lies with the attitude towards them after they occured. However, your original comment was about "country with good people trying to do the best" when describing these interventions, which is a huge leap compared to "responsibility" since it implies that the good people of the US tried (and succeeded) to carry out these actions. Nimc 10:57, 27 May 2004 (UTC)


 * <FONT color="blue"> I think the world is too complex for simple solutions. Since I am not an oracle my comments here were not to provide answers, but to discuss policy.  It is good to have both complexity and simplicity represented in a discussion as both have their place.  As to examples of articles that are important enough to be on this list, but not rate an article themselves, look at every event that is currently on this list that does not have an article.  If the criteria is to be having an article on Wikipedia, then most articles in this list would have to be deleted!  I'd rather give a chance for the articles to be developed before resorting to editing anything out.  Regarding issues of responsibility, consider the theory of vicarious liability. Kd4ttc 16:58, 27 May 2004 (UTC)</FONT>


 * You are again misrepresenting what I said. I have been saying throughout that the criteria for inclusion is whether the event deserves to have an article for itself, not whether it has one already. The pattern of your replies seems to be to answer simple and direct questions with vague and general statements. You declared that I misunderstood the Wikipedia debate on minor issues, while it appears from your replies that you didn't read that debate even after I linked to it, as you kept referring to importance of individuals - and when I asked you to clarify what that declaration was about, I just got more unclear general statements, making it even harder for me to understand you. I'm sorry, but contrary to your last reply, it does not seem to me that you believe in simplicity at all. I will try to ask you for an example for the 3rd time: could you please name one intervention (either in the current list or not) that in your mind is not important enough to have an article for itself, but is still important enough to be mentioned in a few lines in the list? If you cannot provide an example, it'd strengthen my suspicion that the complexities that you raised about the criteria for inclusion are meaningless - assuming that this question indeed represents your position on the criteria for inclusion - you didn't give straight answers when I tried to get you to clarify it. Nimc 20:25, 27 May 2004 (UTC)


 * <FONT color="blue"> See above. The issue about minor matters was a comment to bolster the point that the list should be all inclusive. If it is not the list will suffer selection bias.  As others enter articles then decisions can be made on whether full articles are needed or if a brief comment here is adequate.  As to the allegations on the list, the lack of a Wikipedia article or reference outside of Wikipedia suggests to me the allegations are unfounded.  You're getting all wound up again.  Relax. Kd4ttc 04:05, 28 May 2004 (UTC)</FONT>


 * Before you use the word "drivel" again, I suggest you first read all your comments on this page from start to finish. You're unable to provide straight answers to several specific questions. As for your last reply, the way Wikipedia works is by people adding links to unwritten articles that appear in a red color, so when the original page is viewed by more people, it increases the chance of someone writing the missing article. It is in fact one of the nicest features of Wikipedia, and your last comment on what this feature suggests to you implies that you might be afraid of more information on the subject of this list. Nimc 08:37, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


 * As for the link you added about Chile, it is a disgrace. You will notice that his specific comments on Chile in that page are without sources. His comments there are similar to me adding an article on my homepage describing how you drink the blood of dead rabbits or any other topic, and adding the link here. I refer you to this discussion Talk:Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them about his homepage, and the specific link I posted there that he wrote, showing that he is quite likely mentally instable. If you have any honor, you'd remove that link and look for a serious source instead. Nimc 09:00, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


 * <FONT color="blue"> My, my. Aren't you the authority!  Kd4ttc 14:54, 28 May 2004 (UTC)</FONT>


 * <FONT color="blue"> When I was in research we did bleeds on rabbitts. Never drank the blood, though. Kd4ttc 15:18, 28 May 2004 (UTC)</FONT>


 * I didn't say that you drink rabbits' blood, just that the page you linked to compares to a page describing such drinking habits. Again, that page doesn't provide sources for his fantasies about Chile, and I advise you to look for a real source who is willing to put his reputation on the line, and see what you come up with. Do as you wish. If you follow the link I gave from his site, you'll see that even he sometimes doesn't read the stuff he writes, let alone should you. A note for you and GD: I think the external links here should be temporary, and it'd be better if the new documents about Chile etc would be quoted or linked to in the relevant articles instead. Nimc 16:02, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


 * And as for the arrogance you demonstrated in your previous reply, it's possible to point out to you along the same lines: "why were you upset on 9/11 (2001) ? After all it was just a few more dead people in the course of human destructive behavior. Relax." Nimc 16:02, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


 * <FONT color="blue"> Nimc: Characterizing an outside link as a disgrace is going over the top. Have passion for the betterment of the world.  It is a good thing.  But don't presume others having different approaches are lesser for having chosen another path.  Now let me go find my sword so I can perform seppuku. Kd4ttc 16:34, 28 May 2004 (UTC)</FONT>


 * Would your new declaration still stand if we replace "an" with "any" ? Nimc 17:07, 28 May 2004 (UTC) <- Don't like the word "another" ? Kd4ttc 17:32, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm referring to your latest declaration about an outside link. The word "an" appeared only once in your previous reply. Should we add this question to the growing number of simple and direct questions that you are unable to answer? Nimc 18:00, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


 * <FONT color="blue"> Oh, I see. I thought you were criticising the choice of the word "another" preferring "any other".  Now that you clarified your comment I see you are being insulting again.  I thought you were going to stop that.  Calling another persons edits disgraceful is inappropriate.  I blew off the arrogance characterization you made.  It appears I do not share the expectations you have for the terms of discourse.  Kd4ttc 19:09, 28 May 2004 (UTC)</FONT>


 * Note that you still wouldn't answer the question. That'd add to two other simple questions that you didn't like for some reason, and decided to pretend they don't exist. BTW I'm still hoping you'd look for a serious article with sources about Chile, and remove this disgraceful insult to Chileans. Nimc 22:01, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


 * <FONT color="blue"> Dear Nimc: You are not the arbiter of truth around here.  Your profile says nothing about you, and you tend to insults.  The royal we for you fall into implies an authority you do not have.  You do not have the authority to question others.  You are not here to grill others.  Simple answers to your questions may come across as hurful to you.  I do not wish to do that and have maintained a civil tone with a few witty retorts (though that is likely more to my mind than anyone else).  If you wish some blunt responses ask one more time, but mind the saying to be careful what you wish for. Kd4ttc 00:53, 29 May 2004 (UTC)</FONT>


 * Nobody is forcing you to answer simple questions if you don't want to, though you should note that one of those questions was about the inclusion criteria. I'm glad that we clarified that you refuse to answer questions. Nimc 01:34, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

This list is de facto discrimination (Part 7: Continued Argument between Kd4ttc and Nimc)
Okay, this is getting bogged down in a lot of back and forth now. As I see it, this page is still useless.

If you want to write about America in Japan, or Europe or whatever, do it on the Japan History or Marshall Plan pages. If you want to talk about America killing Salvador Allende, or whatever you believe, do it on his page. This list is pointless. It is convuluted, inconsistant ("support" for a foreign leader is counted as "intervention"? Huh?) and obviously biased. Like I said before, making one of these long, "damning" lists is a common technique of those on the political left, who enjoy reciting long lists of US "attrocities" for their shock value, but are disinterested in any serious analysis of the events themselves. I'm not trying to insert my own bias in this, but it's just a fact. If someone had made a page called something like "abortions performed in America since 1973" or whatever, it would be equally stupid.

Lists are by definition supposed to be groupings of similar things. We have many fine lists on wikipedia, such as list of famous gay people, where an obvious group of similar things is being catagorized. There is nothing being catagorized on this list other than "Republican foreign policy decisions (either real or imagined) that Noam Chomsky and his crew don't like." Get rid of this page, it's not improving, and frankly I can't imagine how it ever could be. America is a big country, and the term "intervention" is way too broad, and the "since 1945" period way too vast. user:J.J.


 * <FONT color="blue"> I agree with JJ. The essential problem with this list is selection bias.  I put the events of the Marshall Plan and Rebuilding of Japan on the list when it was renamed to the neutral title now present.  Those edits were quickly dropped by others.  Another user edited out an alternative view on Chile, one which had the ring of truth in that it presented a reasonable string of events clearly enough stated that with some digging could be referenced.  The deeper problem of selection bias is still present.  If you want to show that Ford makes green cars, then show a number of photos of green cars you will just have shown that you can identify green cars.  If you want to argue the US does things you don't like, then show a list of things you don't like, then you have shown you can pick a list of things you don't like about the US.  The reading I have been doing around the web is showing that for the few events I have looked at the allegations here are a strained reading of history.  I think this article is headed toward deletion. Kd4ttc 00:53, 29 May 2004 (UTC)</FONT>


 * The year 1945 is not arbitrary, it is the year when the U.S. emerged as a global superpower. This list is linked in the history of U.S. imperialism article in order to complement that article, since listing all of these events there would be too long. If you think the list is biased, be our guest and find events that you and your crew consider to be good and list them here. If you think that in order to do that you'd need to change the title of this list, personally I'm happy to suggestions - though this title seemed to be the most neutral to me. As for "intervene" vs. "support", you don't think that providing support for coups qualifies as intervening? If there are imaginary events in the list, please tell us about them. And why did you use the word "Republican" is beyond me... Nimc 22:05, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


 * J.J., no one here is writing about "America in Japan" or "America killing Salvador Allende." As you said, that discussion should be reserved for other pages. This is simply a list of such interventions. I agree that this list still has some problems, but that is not valid argument for deleting it. We need to improve upon it. We need to discuss what kind of "support" should be considered an intervention. Military (overt and covert) support? Financial support? Moral support? This has nothing to do with "Republican foreign policy decisions." If you at all followed the writings of Chomsky and "his crew," you'd realize he is just as critical of Democratic Presidents. --GD 22:08, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm well aware Chomsky is a nihilist who hates everyone and everything. I was just being a bit tounge-in-cheek, in case that was unclear. Nimc's responses make it very obvious that he is a person who supports this page for purely for ideological reasons, which is exactly the reason why I, and Kd4ttc are arguing it must go.

I've said it before, these events have very little in common with one another, and are grouped together largely to form a political argument. One of the hallmarks of these sort of articles is the way five or more footnotes are crammed in after a sentence, in an attempt to go "look how well-documented this is!" even though in the process the article is made to look amaturish and blatantly partisan.

I don't know what more I can say, I've made my views clear. If people want to write about CIA-trained death squads or whatever, feel free to do it on an appropriate page. But please, let's end this page before it becomes even more of a joke and becomes a bogged down mess of external links and akward point / counterpoints. user:J.J.


 * Would I be correct to assume that you don't hate everyone and everything? Nimc 11:31, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

-- GD: You didn't reply to my comment for you above about external links. In my opinion if Kd4ttc adores his Chile link so much and doesn't want to remove it, you should let it stay and not start links wars here. So I think you shouldn't have removed it yourself. As for the Iran coup, I agree that such comments should appear in the coup article itself and not in the list. Kd4ttc: what are your sources about the land reforms etc in Iran ? Nimc 23:46, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


 * <FONT color="blue"> The references for the reforms in Iran are in the Wikipedia article about the Shah. Click on the Shah's name in the article, I set it up for convenient access to the article.  As to the Chile link, it is only 4 characters displayed on the screen and presents an alternative viewpoint which is clearly enough stated to allow followup analysis.  Some the preceeding links were to articles where I didn't even find the Chile content.  I left them intact out of respect for the Anti-american viewpoint.  Seems if someone marched along all those references they should be able to see the obvious falseness of the viewpoint in the link I inserted.  Unless folks here think we shouldn't respect the intelligence of the readership.  Kd4ttc 00:53, 29 May 2004 (UTC)</FONT>


 * Since when not supporting the coup against Chile is anti-American ? I didn't see land reforms mentioned in the Shah article ? Nimc 01:34, 29 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I hadn't really been following the discussion that closely; I've been busy with other things. I totally agree that the source links should be temporary. They should be moved to new articles as they are started. The Chile link I removed was nothing but baseless, un-sourced, apologetics. I think any reasonable person would come to the same conclusion when comparing it with the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. --GD 04:39, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

GD: I noticed that the Pinochet article, which seems to be the main wikipedia article about these events, is locked. One possibility is to start a new article about the coup itself. Anyway, I really suggest that for now you just delete all the external links next to the events, because you and our friend Kd4tcc are creating a mess, especially his amusing comments about the Miracle of Chile that aren't even mentioned in the link. Kd4tcc: I'm curious, what does the word "watched" mean in this context ? Kissinger used the word "helped" ? Nimc 02:44, 29 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out; I didn't see that article before. I agree with you that the external links should be deleted. --GD 04:39, 29 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Since you put all these external links here, I guess it'd be better that you remove them, in case you want to keep notes etc. As for the extra comments next to events, there still seems to be a certain disconnect between the lists on wikipedia and Kd4tcc's opinion on what a list is. Nimc 11:31, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

UN
Should we really add U.S. interventions that were sponsored by the UN? --Cantus 19:06, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Definitely - otherwise the article will only show the more negative aspects of US foreign policy. The UN isn't a country, so they are still interventions by US, just not unilateral ones. -- EuroTom 06:23, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Portugal
Why is the support for Salazar's Portugal merely "alleged"? Surely, the US (along with other countries) formed the NATO pact with Portugal. If a mutual defence alliance isn't support, I don't know what is! -- 19:32, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In that case we need a whole set of lists - "Interventions by the UK", "Interventions by Greece", etc, each containing a line for "support for Salazar".

An "intervention" should involve some actions going beyond normal trade and diplomatic relations. For instance, selling arms to a country is not "intervention" unless done in defiance of UN sanctions or embargoes.

Exile 11:13, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

South Africa
“Alleged US support to the Apartheid in South Africa”?

(Source: "Rogue State" by William Blum, ISBN 1-56751-194-5)
 * United Nations resolution 33/183M of 24 January 1979: To end all military and nuclear collaboration with apartheid South Africa. Vote: 114-3 (United States, France, United Kingdom)
 * United Nations resolution 34/93I of 12 December 1979: Assistance to the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement. Vote: 134-3 (ditto)
 * United Nations resolution 35/206J of 16 December 1980: Same as above. Vote: 137-3 (ditto)
 * United Nations resolution 36/12 of 28 October 1981: Condemns apartheid in South Africa and Namibia. Vote: 145-1 (United States)
 * United Nations resolution 37/69H of 9 December 1982: Cessation of further investment in South Africa. Vote: 134-1 (United States)

WAKE UP! End this stupid political squabbling and admit the f'ing obvious! Same goes for the rest of the interventions! All of the American actions are "alleged," while in the former article about Soviet interventions, everything was asserted! If a human rights violation is committed by China or some other godforsaken Communist banana republic, we instinctively "know" that it happened, but when white cops beat an obese black man suffering from heart problems and hypertension to DEATH ON VIDEO TAPE the people here have the gall to either call the incident alleged or attempt to search for explanations other than racism! And only American courts would actually acquit an officer who committed such an action! --Sesel 02:27, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC), wishing not to offend or hurt, but only to speak truth.


 * But many of the allegations have already been proven false (such as the Chile one). And refusing to condemn a nation is not the same as supporting it or all of its domestic policies. V V  01:48, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The US supported the Saddam Hussein Regime. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ I will revert your lies as long as necessary VV.

Turrican


 * The US helped Iraq against Iran because of our own grievances. But Iraq's real patrons were the Soviet Union and France.  A bit of military aid fighting a common enemy does not a supporter of the regime make. V V  01:47, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is laughable. Giving military and financial aid to another country is by definition support and not just good relations. And btw : You have the nerve to call me a POV-Warrior while just about everything you contribute to Wikipedia is Propaganda from the extreme right of political spectrum ? I just want to let you know that I see no difference between people who kill children with Zyklon B or with Napalm and DU and that therefore I think that people such as you who who support such politics are no better than the people who excuse or deny the Holocaust.

Turrican


 * Your personal value system is not normative for Wikipedia. At any rate, just about every country has economic and political ties to dozens of other nations; that is not what "support" implies. V V  02:07, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * What is your definition of support? The US was the only damm country out of 130 to not condemn the apartheid in South Africa, so I don't know, from that I'd say they were at the very least South Africa's best friend. Red Star

Fine
Well, okay, I'll feel free to contest this one too. First of all, I'm unclear as to why this page exists as a list when the comparable Soviet page merely redirects to the Cold War. Also, I regard the assertions about Aristide POV - his claim to legitimate election are not unchallenged. Ditto with Rafael Leónidas Trujillo; the article on him makes no reference to a CIA assassination (though they certainly made many). Shorne, as the initiator of changes, you have a duty to the community to defend them with verifiable sources so that the community may judge their merit. I'll leave your changes intact pending such proof, although I will add a disputed tag to the article. Mackensen 01:08, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, let's take this point by point:


 * Soviet Union: You're free to create your own page. I had nothing to do with it.


 * See separate discussion below. Shorne 02:19, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Aristide: What is the challenge? He won the election by a landslide. See the article on Aristide.


 * Cited Aristide. Shorne 02:19, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Trujillo: What is the challenge? If the article omits this information, I'll correct it.


 * Cited Church Commission's report, including the 26-page section on US involvement in Trujillo's assassination. Shorne 02:19, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shorne 01:31, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The Soviet page was changed to a redirect by 172, who called it "...the most grotesque violation of NPOV and encyclopedic standards I have seen in nearly two years. Redirecting to a real article."  This strikes me as a gross double standard.  My personal preference would be to make this a redirect to Cold War, as was done with the Soviet page. Regarding Aristide, I read the article, and the article reflects doubt as to the legitimacy of his election.  Regarding Trujillo, given that the article makes no mention of a CIA assassination, I ask that your "correction" include sources. Mackensen 01:42, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look at the old article on Soviet interventions. I can't give an opinion without seeing it, but I would object to replacing the present article with Cold War.
 * As for Aristide, where in the article is the dispute? I don't see anything under "First Presidency and Coup". It just says that he won with 67% of the vote&mdash;a landslide when you consider that there were about a dozen other candidates.


 * Sorry, I mis-read the article, and I agree that his election was legitimate. Could you address the other point regarding Aristide, which I've listed below? Mackensen 02:05, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The US was involved twice in removing him from office. Perhaps you got confused. Shorne 02:19, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * There's no denying US involvement in the second removal, the only concern lies over interpretation. I'm not so sure about the first time-that a military coup removed him is certain, US involvement less so. Mackensen 02:26, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Your source on Trujillo refers to "planned or actual assassinations" and does not provide any actual evidence of CIA involvement in the assassination of Trujillo. If you can provide such evidence as to make the article entry NPOV, then I'll withdraw my objection regarding Trujillo. Mackensen 01:47, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll give another source. The report of the Church committee, which is mentioned in that article, would be the best one, as it is from the US government itself. Shorne 01:59, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Looks like this comment got lost: The Aristide article does not suggest US involvement in the military coup; indeed it notes that he spent some time in the United States during his exile and that it was the United States that restored him to power. That hardly supports the version listed in this article. I have re-added the NPOV tag; it cannot be a unilateral decision that disputes have been resolved. Mackensen 01:54, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry for removing the NPOV tag; I took it that you only wanted some sources. Your concern is about the coup itself? Let me check the article. In any case, I have provided a link to the Church Commission's report on Trujillo. Check the second link if you want only the relevant section (26 pages, reproduced in PDF format from the original text). Shorne 02:19, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The Church Report certainly leaves little doubt US involvement in encouraging anti-Trujillo dissidents, although actual involvement in his assassination is a slightly different question.Mackensen 02:26, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * That's why I toned the phrasing down a bit. Would you prefer something like "involvement in assassination plot"? Seems like much of a muchness to me, but I'll be glad to hear your opinion. Shorne 02:31, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I admit it's splitting hairs. From the report, I get the impression that the US was actively involved in removing Trujillo from power, but not in assassinating him.  How about: "involvement in removing Trujillo from power, and probable knowledge of assassination plot." ? Mackensen 02:45, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * There seems to be no dispute that the US knew of the assassination plot, what with all the communications about the dissidents' plans. The Church Commission's report quotes extensively from telegrams and other documents that discuss the plot. I don't see what is gained by "involvement in removing Trujillo from power", since he was removed from power by means of a bullet. There is documentary evidence that the US delivered arms to the group that was to assassinate Trujillo, so I think that "involvement in assassination" or something similar is sound. Shorne 02:59, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * True enough. I won't contest the point further. Mackensen 03:17, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As a side note: the list format still bothers me as it offers no context for American actions. Mackensen 02:26, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely keen on the list format either. Want to reformat it? Shorne 02:31, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

US intervention in China
VV, What is your objection to this text at List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945, aside from the possibility that it's being added in bad faith?


 * US financial and military support of the Republic of China against the People's Liberation Army until 1949 and subsequently against the People's Republic of China.

It looks accurate to me, cf. Civil Air Transport and Tony Poe. Gazpacho 22:05, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Several objections: First, lending support to an existing foreign government isn't really "intervention".  Second, US support was haphazard and inconsistent (minor quibble, but the text gives the wrong impression).  Third, it is hardly true the US has supported the ROC against the PRC since; the US does not even recognize the ROC.  And even when they did, this was "support" of a country's government (Taiwan's), and does not constitute intervention. Very Verily  23:12, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Very you jingoists need to get on the same page, you wrote:
 * First, lending support to an existing foreign government isn't really "intervention" this is in direct contradiction of the above post which argues that the Marshall plan and reconstruction of Japan needs ot be included
 * Second, US support was haphazard and inconsistent couldn't "support" be considered a synonym with "intervention"
 * Third, it is hardly true the US has supported the ROC against the PRC since; the US does not even recognize the ROC. Countries that dont recognize each other are often the most antagonistic and agressive towards each other.
 * notice how Very doesn't answer the below historical explanations (probably because he is not familar with them)Travb 04:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, the US supported KMT army holdouts after the ROC fell on the mainland. It also trained partisans in Tibet and East Turkestan while the PRC was consolidating the country. This wasn't just development aid or financial support, it was an effort to contain the communists by military means. Gazpacho 23:24, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The US did indeed intervene. There's no other way to explain the US military personnel and equipment that were in China at the time. The US also spirited Tibetans away to Colorado for military training (sort of a 1950s School of the Americas) and armed them. No need to deny it: the Dalai Lama himself has admitted in his books that some members of his personal retinue (a chef and a radio operator) were CIA personnel.
 * If there's no serious dispute, I recommend removing the "disputed" tag. Shorne 02:59, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Uruguay
Where would this fit in? I'm not sure what election Nixon is referring to.

"In his meeting with Heath, Nixon hopes to keep leftists from power in the Bahamas once it declares independence in Britain, and boasts that U.S. ally Brazil rigged the election in Uruguay to keep leftists out." Richard Cane 09:02, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * About Uruguay, let's not forget about the story of Dan Mitrione. The same could probably be said of almost every other Latin American country though...

"Alleged"
Why are so many of these interventions marked as "alleged"? Wherever the facts are clear, we should state them directly. If there's a reasonable dispute, I want to see a statement of it here before "alleged" gets slapped on.

My thanks also to those who did not allow VeryVerily to get away with deleting large numbers of interventions from this list, including several that were documented with independent sources. Shorne 16:59, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd say the removal of Duvalier was valid, as neither source listed cited American involvement in establishing him as dictator. The listing of Tibet does not reflect that unrest–without American support–began in 1956. Nor are any sources cited. As for Trujillo, I think we (you and I) had come to something of an understanding on the wording, and I wish VV hadn't changed it.


 * Once again CIA involvement is alleged regarding Aristide in 1991, but there's no mention of the US-led invasion that restored him to power in 1994. No sources cited either. There are no sources cited regarding Colombia, Bulgaria, or Albania, nor any indication of what the "interference" or "corruption" was. Mackensen (talk) 18:01, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I have restored the text about Trujillo to what you and I agreed upon. There's no reason for "alleged" when the US Congress itself admitted to the involvement in a long report that I cited. As for Tibet, I've already mentioned that the Dalai Lama himself has admitted to CIA involvement. There's no dispute over that fact.
 * I haven't yet checked the remaining references that you mentioned, and I don't know how they got into the article. You're right to ask for sources. Again, I don't remember what exactly is said about Bulgaria and Albania, but I do know that the US heavily funded various parties in the elections in those countries around 1992. Shorne 20:43, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

About Colombia: , --Mixcoatl 18:14, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I think a better phrasing would be "Military aid to the Colombian government during the 1990's". Mackensen (talk) 19:22, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Now, regarding the Tlatelolco_massacre, US involvement seems to be limited to providing equipment and training for Olympic security. The article, as written, implies something far different. Look, let's give credit where credit's due. The Americans didn't massacre those students. Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * This page is becoming a dumping ground for every frivolous accusation under the sun. Even in cases where the U.S. has wished and tried to interfere, their actual impact on the situation was usually negligible, contrary to the credit some policymakers may have tried to take.  I have fixed much of the wording, although some of these assertions are so vague as to be meaningless.  For instance, don't all countries "back" or "support" all other countries that they have diplomatic relations with? Very Verily  23:35, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

About the coup in Chile.
I'm going to keep reverting the word alleged until you read the link from CNN that has the title "Documents reveal U.S. funding for Chile coup" and tell me how it's wrong.

Quotes from the link:

"U.S. officials released documents on Monday acknowledging the CIA had provided covert aid 30 years ago to undermine Chile's government, but analysts say some of the most important documents have not yet been made public."

"U.S. officials released 16,000 government documents on Monday, including a CIA memorandum indicating $1 million in covert aid had been given to Chilean opposition parties in an effort to undermine then-Chilean President Salvador Allende socialist government."

Among the information contained in the documents released Monday:

"The CIA provided secret funding to Chilean opposition parties in the early 1970s to try to undermine Allende's government."

"The funding had been approved by U.S. officials just three weeks before Allende was toppled by Pinochet."

"CIA officials had previously said the agency had not instigated the coup, but had been aware of military plotting to overthrow Allende."

"However, a Senate committee chaired by Sen. Frank Church, D-Idaho, had confirmed that the CIA had participated in covert operations in Chile, and that the agency had attempted to foment a military coup in 1970 after Allende had been elected president."




 * This topic has been covered on the Talk pages on probably a dozen articles on Wikipedia. It is known and well-acknowledged that the CIA tried to interfere with Allende in 1970.  However there is no evidence of any coup-plotting or other such activity after that.  In fact, the evidence clearly suggests the U.S. played no role in Pinochet's coup, and was focusing on helping the opposition defeat Allende in 1976 (wasted effort due to 1973).  The fact that contacts notified the CIA of Pinochet's intentions on Sep 9, 1973, two days in advance, by absolutely no means translates to complicity. Very Verily  04:42, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It is obviosus from the messages above showing that Very deletes pages he does not like, that Very only wants one version of history, his own, and he is willing to delete those views which contradict his own narrow ideology.


 * Um jingoist, read the Salvador Allende section. No, there is no picture with the CIA having a gun to Allendes head.  But lets be honest, if there was, this would be explained away too.


 * Jingoist, Lets read together what we do know from the Salvador Allende section:
 * * A CIA report released in 2000 admitted that the CIA financed this trucker's strike...The "truckers' strike", backed by CIA funding, virtually paralysed the economy for three weeks, which Moscow saw as evidence of the weakness of the Popular Unity government.
 * * Almost immediately after his election, Nixon directed CIA and U.S. State Department officials to "put pressure" on Allende's government, however it is not certain to what degree this influenced Allende's downfall.
 * * It is known that the United States played a role in Chilean politics prior to the coup, but its degree of involvement in the coup itself is debated. The CIA was notified by its Chilean contacts of the impending coup two days in advance, but contends it "played no direct role in" the coup.
 * * After Pinochet assumed power, U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger told U.S. President Richard Nixon that the U.S. "didn't do it" (referring to the coup itself) but had "created the conditions as great as possible", including leading economic sanctions.
 * * Recently declassified documents show that the United States government and the CIA had sought the overthrow of Allende in 1970, immediately before he took office ("Project FUBELT"), through the incident that claimed the life of then Commander-in-Chief, General René Schneider, but claims of their direct involvement in the 1973 coup are not proven by publicly available documentary evidence.


 * So Jingoist, can we agree that there was a CIA 1970 coup to overthrow Allende? Wasn't this the imperialism that we are discussing today? Where America attempts to overthrow a democratically elected leader?


 * Can we agree that the CIA put a lot of financial pressure on the government before the coup? That this economic pressure was to try and topple Allende?


 * Can we agree that the CIA has a recently declassified document, dated September 16, 1970: which states:
 * "The Director told the group that President Nixon had decided that an Allende regime in Chile was not acceptable to the United States.. The President asked the Agency to prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him. The President authorized ten million dollars for this purpose, if needed. Further, The Agency is to carry out this mission without coordination with the Departments of State or Defense."See Project FUBELT


 * Can we agree that the CIA has a recently declassified cable, dated October 16, 1970, which states:
 * "It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup. It would be much preferable to have this transpire prior to 24 October but efforts in this regard will continue vigorously beyond this date. We are to continue to generate maximum pressure toward this end utilizing appropriate resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG and American hand will be well hidden." See Project FUBELT


 * Answer my four questions Jingoist, or don't waste my time.


 * Here we have America attempting to overthrow Allende once before, then they try to destabilize the economy so the people will overthrow him, and then when he is overthrown, you have the audacity to claim that America had no part in the overthrow. True blind jingoism. How could you be so ideologically blind?


 * See also:
 * *US intervention in Chile


 * *Chilean coup of 1973


 * Travb 21:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

<-- These might clarify White House complicity in 1973. User:Sigma-6 User talk:Sigma-6

Please help to preserve the facts
As he does in countless other articles, VeryVerily has been reverting changes wholesale, including additions of references that corroborate the US interventions reported here. Please revert his irresponsible reversions. Shorne 20:00, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

May I ask VeryVerily why he removes links to other sites. I understand (though not agree) when he removes parts of information, but removing links doesn't seem to have any use to me. --Mixcoatl 20:49, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The World Socialist Web Site is not a source for anything. Very Verily 23:51, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Alleged"
We cannot allow the whitewashing of documented interventions as merely "alleged". Please do not yield to VeryVerily's POV-pushing antics. Shorne 20:26, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily, please look at the page before you revert it, don't childishly revert everything Shorne or someone else changes. Reverting – to - and commas to periods doesn't make much sense to me. --Mixcoatl 21:57, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're talking about, since Shorne seems to be reverting everything I do, and I've only been reverting his edits, which are obvious rubbish. If I missed a minor mechanical fix or two (and the ndash is not clearly better), they can be readded in due course.  The content is far more important. Very Verily  00:00, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * who decides what is "rubish" jingoist? You want to talk about POV, you embody the word Travb 05:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

"Alleged" again
Once again, it is entirely inappropriate and POV to say that US interventions are "alleged" when they are well documented and in some cases even admitted by the US government. I have defended all of my changes on this page, but I still have not heard what VeryVerily's disagreement is.

This is a formal call for VeryVerily to discuss his disputes here before editing the article any further. Shorne 05:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I made comments above. You have not defended your changes at all, which are obvious POV in clear non-compliance with Wikipedia policy. Very Verily  09:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I suggest you both stop editing this article since it lists U.S. actions that were part of the Cold War and thus fall under this ArbCom order:
 * Shorne and VeryVerily are banned from editing any article having to do with the Cold War or communism whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops may use their discretion in determining what falls into these areas, and are hereby authorized to enact 24 hour blocks for violations of this.

See Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily. Also note that repeatedly disobeying ArbCom orders will result in longer-term blocks. --mav 02:04, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * This should have been mentioned on the page that discusses the "temporary" injunction. Shorne 23:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Shorne appears to be ignoring this advice, and adding his obvious POV back. Very Verily 23:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You wouldn't discuss anything, so I restored them. Shorne 23:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Support"
is pretty broad. We supported Francoist Spain in the Cold War, for example. But economic and diplomatic relations =/= intervening a la Iran 1953 or Guatemala 1954. Trey Stone 09:19, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1963 Canadian election
I'm removing the reference to this election. I can only find two concrete things that the US did during the elections. 1) Lou Harris, a campaign advisor for JFK, worked for Canadian Liberal Party. I don't see where this is any different than Dick Morris recently hired by the United Kingdom Independence Party. 2) US officials critized Diefenbaker's nuclear position. I don't see where this is any different than the Iraq invasion criticism from Annan, Chirac, Schröder and numerous other foreign head of states and high officials.

I doubt anyone would serious label what Morris did as a foreign intervention. Are the positions of Annan, Chirac and Schröder considered foreign intervention on the US election? If not, I doubt that the two things I cited are considered intervention in the Canadian election.

If someone can state why it's on the list, please speak up. But it seems to be one of several things just thrown up on the list without an exclamation.Lokifer 12:35, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Palau
I've been unable to find any link to the events described happening in Palau to the CIA. Haruo Remeliik's assassination is listed as unsolved, as are the bombings. As much as conspiracy theorists link the CIA to all unsolved political events in post-WWII, this isn't what I consider proof that the CIA was involved. Thus, I see no evidence pointing to or away from the CIA, just speculation. Since I have been unable to find any evidence one way or the other, I am removing its mention in the article. If someone can cite evidence that shows some sort of involvement, please speak up. If not, I don't think it should stay off of the list.Lokifer 23:49, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Botswana
"Funding for the conservative, pro-Western Botswana Democratic Party." Could whoever wrote this please provide a citation.

Romania
Is there any evidence for "Alleged support for Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceaucescu, 1980s?"

As far as the BDP dispute is concerned, I suggest you read. The US government was intimately tied to the BDP because of its open-door economic policies, ties with diamond mining interests, and opposition to a "communist" BNF. --Sesel 20:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

comments
this list is pretty sloppy. there's one particular section where it says "alleged" about 5000 times. my personal view is that an intervention (we should also be clear, depending on its nature "support" =/= "intervention") should only be included if we are sure that it occurred. J. Parker Stone 09:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Please Trey Stone, before delete all the items, you could read this entire discussion... that was widely discussed about "allegations" and you have erased lots of known facts (ie. Argentina Dirty War support by Kissinger, or US support to Fulgencio Batista). Before earsing one alleged item, please insert a discution here. About the number of "Alleged" items, I have counted 17 in a total of 89 articles, that's 19% of total articles, most of them are CIA concerned allegation, as they are a spy network, they do things without leaving proofs or traces, but thoses allegued items, are widely accepted by somes history people, and most of them are eaven related in the concerning wikipedia article (ie. Mobutu, Chilean coup, and lots more).Qsebas 22:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * i think we need to lay out a definition of what constitutes intervention. for instance, the U.S. recognized Batista's government and gave him military aid until 1958, but the same can be said for other Latin American countries. we never intervened in the Batista case outside of telling him to step down and arrange for a successor civilian government when the revolution was in its final stages. similarly, the Dirty War involves diplomatic support from Kissinger -- we were not actively assisting the military in tracking down guerrillas, dissidents, social activists, or what have you. to sum it up i think we should just lay out some standards on what should be included (ie whether "alleged" stuff really belongs here) as well as what constitutes intervention. J. Parker Stone 03:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * and we need to be careful about some of the links we use. that one on Latin American intervention, for instance, contains plenty of accurate (albeit from a left-wing perspective) data but also a good chunk of "apparently supported by" allegations. J. Parker Stone 04:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The above user uses the word intervened as if he was one of the members of the intervention himself. It should be made clear that one of the major causes of endless "edit wars" are those of people taking things discussed in the articles in a personal way. The article is explicit in saying that lists interventions made by the U.S., and the above user has no right (as no one else has) to represent himself as the speaker for all of his nation, for there are opinions and opinions and then some more opinions. Also, as already stared above, most of the US "shadowy" foreign policy is onducted by CIA, which doesnt go around distributing leaflets on what it did or didnt. Do yourself a favor, and before jumping to defend what you believe is right, try to get information first. Ask Argentinians, Koreans, Vietnamese and oh so many more if the US didnt interfere with their domestic affairs. In case you didnt know, high school history in such countries (and there are many of them) count the US as the singlemost impreialistic, militaristic nation ever, due their own experience in the field. And lets give a little more credit to the intelligence of the readers, shall we? We never intervened in the Batista case outside of telling him to step down and arrange for a sucessor (...)...as if the US was a paladin of light, sheriff of the World, kindly and politely asking, for the common good and welfare of the Argentinian people. When you have complete and absolute military supremacy over another nation, technologically and numerically, with much better equipped and experienced troops, nuclear warheads able to blow the planet all the way into Alpha Centauri´s orbit, and the sheer financial power, able to impose economic blockades that will not only cut luxuries from people, but also break their economy and force a recession....The fine print between the lines is crystal clear.LtDoc 21:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * i'm not gonna respond to this rant. we need a standard of what constitutes "intervention," period. funding in my mind nor most other people's minds is not "intervention" in any literal sense of the word. J. Parker Stone 03:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * ok, i lied. what are you talking about with Batista and Argentina? Batista ruled Cuba, not Argentina, though you seem to have some kind of obsession with the latter for one reason or another. please be a little more coherent.


 * and i say "we" because I'm an American. though I suppose I could be a CIA operative behind the scenes (lol) J. Parker Stone 04:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I removed all "interventions" that were "alleged" because I really believe that they belong in a different article and not here, as the "allegeds" and other allegations not backed up merely clutter the page. I'll try to make a new article that covers these. In addition, I removed all references to "backing" a regime/insurgents because that in itself does not constitute "intervention" as in the US actually took action with its own personnel. CJK 22 July 2005

What is the article for ?
I see that US involvement in the Falklands War and in the Lybia bombing are both not mentioned. This leads to a question as to what this article is for ? As per the article title, this seems to be a list of US interventions outside of the USA. Persumably this means only US government sponsored interventions, and it is unsaid, but assumed that there needs to be an element of involvement of the US armed forces, or the CIA. The reason for this article needs clarifying, or else the list it shows should be enormous were we to take the title in its literal meaning. As for whether the Falklands or Lybia should be included, I believe the Falklands should because Casper Weinberger clearly directed the US DoD to assist the British, such as taking delivery of the then new Stinger missle before even the US forces had it. However, Lybia should not be in the list in my opinion as whilst US forces operated against a foreign country, there was no element of force ( US or otherwise ) actually on Lybian territory. Perhaps I am wrong, I don't mind, but the article clearly needs re-defining before all the other arguments can take place about what was what and what was not. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jrleighton (talk &bull; contribs).

Unprotected
It's been protected for almost a month and I see no discussion in the last three weeks. Unprotected. --Golbez 08:16, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Peacekeeping
Should we include pure peacekeeping operations here, for example under UN auspices? I'm not thinking here of Korea, but I'm presuming that at some time the US has sent troops abroad under a UN banner. DJ Clayworth 20:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

POV?
I think this list is potentially very useful. I was looking for just such a list a few months back - I was trying to remember US military actions between the Gulf wars.

There must be some explicitly stated inclusion/exclusion criteria and definition though please, and it should just be a list with links to articles, not strange, out of context descriptions.

Those argueing against the existence of the list seem to be pushing some major personal interests as may well be the originator of the list. But, the fact remains that the US has intervened abroad at times and the list, if compiled accurately and dispassionately, would be useful. List for other countries would be useful too. It really is hard for my brain to keep track of them over the years. I don't see why the Soviet one was changed. Seems a shame.

btw, there is no such thing as NPOV anyway. pfft. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.237.88.215 (talk &bull; contribs).

Regular interventions
Why list regular military interventions at all? Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad is more complete than this article can or should be. Gazpacho 21:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge?
This list continues to be put up for deletion, but no one on this topic, except for one wikipedian above, has suggested merging the article, with a less lightning rod topic. If a user feels an article is POV, delete the sections that are POV, or better yet, add information which makes the argument less POV. It is much harder to create something, than destroy. Why are some users determined to destory this article, instead of create more balanced information? Travb 01:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Why do some users continue to want to delete factual, historical information, when they can simply edit the page instead?
 * oppose merging to Foreign relations of the United States. A separate, well-defined topic. "Foreign relations" is bound to be a *HUGE* article. Wikipedia's policy is to split growing article, rather than merge into cactus monsters. mikka (t) 04:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * comment Who's "destroying" the article? CJK 18:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * When you think of the word delete, would you consider destory a synonmn? If not, I will change my word "destory" to "delete". There is no point in arguing the definition of "destory" with you.Travb 20:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * OK. Have it your way. Who is deleting the article? CJK 00:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Attempted to delete, sir: Articles for deletion/List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945 Travb 07:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * oppose This article is waaaaaaaay too big to merge with another big article. Ashibaka tock 02:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * support The foreign relations page hardly makes mention of these interventions, and would be well-served by such a list. These are a crucially important characteristic of US foreign policy.  Compare with Foreign Relations of the Soviet Union, which does a good job of describing interventions in Eastern Europe.  Although the Soviet article is necessarily historical (as the USSR no longer exists), I think it would be very problematic and disrespectful to those who suffered because of US interventions to not include a list like this in the main body of the Foreign Relations article. Foreign Relations of the United States SHOULD be a huge article, because it's such an important topic.  Merging the articles would make it more complete. Aislar 08:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)