[dizzyviolet]

I think you're proving his point though.

If they were that powerful, they'd just hit the "Turn off Daesh and Al Qaeda" switches at the controls, wouldn't you think?

It isn't as simple as you're making it. The CIA has been successful and very not successful in its history.

[simonh]

>If they were that powerful, they'd just hit the "Turn off Daesh and Al Qaeda" switches at the controls, wouldn't you think?

It takes an awful lot of patience, money and hard work to make constructive, trust-building relationships with people who have different beliefs and priorities than you do. It's tough work that only pays off in the long term.

Messing things up massively, however, just takes and handful of idiots with guns and a weekend.

[_0ffh]

I don't know. Isn't it convenient to have a scary enemy to cow the population into signing it's privacy rights away?

[dragonbonheur]

Hurricanes (to put it in US terms) are powerful. But they don't have either off switches or controls. The CIA's influence in the world is just as strong or to put it in a way that your child-minds would better understand, reckless.

Are you a child, living in a constructed reality, unwilling to look past the set of beliefs that were erected by politicians, right-wing imperialist media and corporate empires? Or are you willing to find out, not only for yourself but also for future generations, how deep those rabbit holes go and how your democracies are in fact, Banana republics?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_r...

[vinceguidry]

You need to think a little more critically about the actual mechanics of regime change and pulling off a coup d'etat.

Also it wouldn't hurt to lose the arrogance.

Running a country is not easy. You need to command loyalty from a group of people that can safeguard your place in the nation. Not just an army, but also groups of people who can fund and support that army. It's as true for a tiny island nation as it is for the USA. European colonialism had outsized effects on the Caribbean for that reason, way easier to keep a nation of 10,000 under your thumb than to control millions.

The CIA has resources comparable to a small army, but it must project these resources thinly across all the countries the US wishes to influence. It can buy guns and train limited numbers of rebels, but it cannot create a ruling party where before there was none. It can alter the course of politics in a nation, but that influence can't come close to actual control unless the nation is very small.

Once in awhile they got lucky, and their group of trigger-happy idiots overwhelmed the other group of trigger-happy idiots. It's arguable as to exactly how much damage this does. Obviously it has a negative effect, political chaos is generally worse for a people than stability. Try to measure the effects in aggregate though, and comparing them to what would have happened otherwise, and it's hard to really tell.

Political upheaval can destroy individual lives, but generally the industries underneath are left alone, it makes no sense, say, for a rebel group to destroy farmland, or a factory. Your efforts are much better directed at military targets, you're going to want that factory to keep making things once you're in power, being needlessly destructive hurts your interests too.