It's not an internal conflict if the USSR is already supporting one side, is it?
> No, it's not the CIA's job to share intelligence with the plotters, which I believe it did.
Sorry, but "which I believe it did" holds no weight with me.
> f Chile was "teetering on the authoritarianism" then evidently it hadn't yet succumbed to authoritarianism.
When the elected leader is already violating the constitution, it's no longer a democracy, is it?
> Tell that to the CIA, which wrote in 2000 that it did get involved in the Chilean coup (for instance).
You're going to need a source for that. From the FOIA releases, the CIA states it didn't even think Pinochet had the ability to lead a coup. The CIA was basically an observer.
> That that would end up with a USSR-favored dictatorship is theoretical because it didn't happen. What did happen was that they ended up with US-favored dictatorships after the coups.
Are you suggesting the USSR would support a democracy? Do they have a track record that demonstrates that? I haven't seen it.