No, I didn't forget. What else would the "Cold War" be about? In any case, the US wasn't interested in democracy, and in some cases even suppressed it (they certainly worked to suppress elections whenever they thought they would go against improved relations with the US, regardless of what the nationals of the country they messed with wanted). The US was only interested in fighting the Reds, protecting their interests and that "free" trade flowed with the US.
In any case, you're moving the goalposts. "But the USSR...!" isn't a good refutation of "the US wasn't about bringing heavenly freedom and democracy to the world".
Students detained, tortured and disappeared by dictatorships trained and abetted by the US. Pregnant mothers raped, electrocuted, and their babies illegally relocated to strangers. Democratically elected governments taken down by force. In some case, even US citizens caught in the crossfire and murdered. "But the USSR...!". Right, I guess nobody told them it was for their own good!
The US also attempted to prevent the collapse and ruin of Venezuela. It was correct to oppose Hugo Chavez. This is now entirely ignored historical fact. The Chavez system destroyed Venezuela and turned it into a failed state. It's an outcome the US attempted to prevent.
Meanwhile, the US backed Colombia is doing fine, is democratic, has seen considerable improvements in most regards, and has doubled the size of its economy in ~15 years (inflation adjusted). Colombia looks like it has a very bright future.
The US also maintains near-guaranteed border security for Latin American nations. It's why there are no giant wars between Latin American nations, with rampant annexations, et al. They all know the US would intervene and whichever side the US was on, that side would likely win, so nobody wants to risk it. The US has also guaranteed the lack of foreign power conquering via the Monroe Doctrine, for more than a century, which is a rather sensitive concern given the history of Latin America.
The US has been a superpower for ~75 years now and has not attempted to use that extreme power imbalance to annex swaths of Latin America. It easily could do so. What other superpowers throughout history have ever behaved that way?
Only for Venezuelans. It was none of the US business.
> Meanwhile, the US backed Colombia is doing fine
For debatable values of "doing fine".
> The US also maintains near-guaranteed border security for Latin American nations
Not really.
> The US has been a superpower for ~75 years now and has not attempted to use that extreme power imbalance to annex swaths of Latin America.
It hasn't used overt military power (except in limited cases, like their own CIA-backed agents going rogue on them). It has meddled in Latin America democracies to often terrible results. In many cases, it has abetted bloodshed.
"It was none of the US business." When China and Russia are propping up a hostile regime, it's a threat to US interests in the region. The US has made it its business to fight refugees and drugs, what happens in Venezuela impacts its Business.
"For debatable values of "doing fine"." It's doing better politically, and economically than most countries in Latin America. Almost any value that you evaluate it by, its doing fine compared to most countries in the Americas.
We only need to look at North Korea, Eastern Germany and Cuba to understand what the USA was fighting against when it intervened in South Korea, South American nations or in Vietnam.
I'm sure you understand this would have been highly theoretical to the students and pregnant mothers tortured, murdered and disappeared by US-sponsored dictatorships. For their own good.
"Fighting against Communism" is not a good reason to torture and murder civilians, or to topple elected governments.
... US supported dictatorships that displaced or prevented other, potentially more harmful dictatorships. Tough choices, but better have corrupt and murderous regimes that are friendly towards USA and allies than those that are hostile. See Egypt as a recent example.
> Tough choices, but better have corrupt and murderous regimes that are friendly towards USA
No. When you or your loved ones are tortured and murdered, it's not better if done in the name of the interests of the US.
There's nothing magical about the US that torture in the name of their interests is somehow "better", and I'm sorry -- and horrified -- that you think there is.
In any case, you're moving the goalposts. "But the USSR...!" isn't a good refutation of "the US wasn't about bringing heavenly freedom and democracy to the world".
Students detained, tortured and disappeared by dictatorships trained and abetted by the US. Pregnant mothers raped, electrocuted, and their babies illegally relocated to strangers. Democratically elected governments taken down by force. In some case, even US citizens caught in the crossfire and murdered. "But the USSR...!". Right, I guess nobody told them it was for their own good!