They were known, they just weren't publicly admitted. this is not at all uncommon.
Assisting a spontaneous rebellion and initiating a rebellion are entirely different things.
Possibly so, but his removal was not a product of any US action.
Newly independent nations are very rarely stable, regardless of what their people want.
The argument so far seems to be that the US conducts covert operations, therefore any event that seems to favor the US must be the product of a US covert operation. Surely you see the fallacy.
Have you any actual evidence suggesting that the Arab Spring or the Color Revolutions are consequences of US policy or strategy? Any credible scholars or analysts arguing that they were?
If not, perhaps we should simply accept that many things happen in the world without US initiation or involvement, and get back to the thread topic.
Bookmarks