[theFco]

In this scenario, the CIA is not protecting against greater evil for the people of the country. They are just protecting the interests of the US. Now, the CIA's mission is to protect the US interests, there is nothing wrong. However, the means they use to do so may have something wrong with that. Installing and protecting dictators that are favorable to the US is unethical. Also the CIA does not furter "American values" in these interventions, for instance when suppressing weak democracies with strong dictators (Think Chile's Pinochet). This kind of intervention can easily go wrong, and will often do go wrong (Chile's case was but one example, the Guatemalan novel discusses another).

[dumpsterdiver]

To play devils advocate, I would posit that so-called "American values" don't actually matter much to real Americans (source: red-blooded American here). What matters is living in comfort, and wielding fiscal power.

When you speak of our "values" then you start sounding like the propaganda that quite frankly, American's are tired of hearing about. We aren't all one-trick ponies here, just like any other place, we have a wide diversity of skills, talents, and values.

[pessimizer]

You're criticizing someone's use of the term "American values" when they both put scare quotes around it and said that the CIA was not interested in them. You're ignoring the actual comment and replying to the term "American values" in isolation with a response you've probably given many times before.

[dumpsterdiver]

> You're ignoring the actual comment and replying to the term "American values" in isolation with a response you've probably given many times before.

It is fair to respond to an isolated point within an argument. If an argument contains a point that cannot withstand scrutiny, then the argument is unsound.

Furthermore, you should be ashamed of yourself for saying "with a response you've probably given many times before."

Such an accusation is easily verifiable if it were true. To make such a claim without even looking is immature and disrespectful.

[newZWhoDis]

I mean, I care about values. But you’re right most people don’t and only care about short term comfort and safety.

It’s a big problem and the only solutions I’ve come across are inherently unpopular.

[2Gkashmiri]

uh,,, gaddafi, saddam come to the top of my mind.

[throwawayAsdFoo]

The iraq war was based on lies and financial interest. Do you really want to pretend, Saddam was the primary goal? And that nation building was accomplished, sir!

And gaddafi was toppled over french/sarcozy interest.

One who doesn't know history is doomed to repeat it. Post hoc justification of own atrocities is exactly the sort of cognitive failure that patriotic delusion (and thus the future of such) can cause.

[the_af]

Plus neither Iraq nor Libya ended up well. So they are examples of what not to inflict upon a country.

[MSFT_Edging]

The loss of Gaddafi basically put the slave markets into overdrive, destroyed the power grids and water infrastructure, and generally did far more harm than good. Compared to other dictators that the US put in place, Gaddafi was far from the worst.