Like in Venezuala for instance if the people want change they should make the change happen themselves rather then allowing the US to intervene

And how is south korea worse than if it was all communist?

https://twitter.com/RenRengel/status/1174313190232076289?s=20

It might have been better off if we let the North take over

<:pot_of_kek:544849795433496586> <:pot_of_kek:544849795433496586> <:pot_of_kek:544849795433496586> <:pot_of_kek:544849795433496586> <:pot_of_kek:544849795433496586>

You are evading my questions. How is Pinochet worse?

The North was actually doing quite well until it lost that war

Where are you finding all these retards from, 2k? Is there some sort of mailing list of them?

It's the principle of it, We should have let the people of Chile depose Pinochet and if they couldn't then so be it, We should not intervene

replace "unicorn" with reciprocal trade deal.... and pony with.... er.. well yeah pony that still works

FYI Chile has highest GDP per capita in SA

@Eccles they are all my alt accounts on twatter

That would explain it

just self plugging here

The US didn't help depose him, you illiterate imbecile, they helped him get into power.

and that was the correct thing to do

The US just shouldn't intervene just let the countries work everything out themselves

You may not care about geopolitics, but geopolitocs cares about your country, and therefore you.

>"I know little of history of US interventions, and am generally uninformed on the matter, but trust me, the US just shouldn't do it"
Yeah, sure.

I'll admit i don't know much about the Pinochet case but i will still stand by the Principle that the US shouldn't intervene

I’m generally against US intervention to depose people, because they generally end up with dictators. However, if the USA was to depose an authoritarian and unpopular leader, I’d be all for it TBH

bring back saddam tbh

@2K tbh yeah

Well, since you seem to be claiming that Korea would be doing better if it was all communist, it's hard to take your principles seriously.

He was at least stable

Ghadaffi too

A lot of the issues with regime change in the modern day have been that we get rid of a dictator who was keeping islamists out of power

*WOULD; Freudian slip there

@leavethisbotnet I am saying that it could have been because North Korea was actually doing reasonably well before it lost the war

Ermm

Not so sure about that

yeah, it had _nothing_ do to with the fact that communism is just terrible system

nothign at all

X to doubt

I mean, it had _only_ 60 years to recover

How do you expect them to recover in such a short time?

Heaven forbid they became an economic power by becoming capitalist, then they might have recovered quickly

Kim Il-sung was a semi-decent leader in North Korea and it could have continued doing well if it took over the South, The combination of his death and their loss in the War made North Korea what it is today

So, you are a communist?

No

Not even close