> So the US should sit back as the USSR does it?

Do what exactly?

> Is it wrong for the US to support on side of a conflict?

That's a question of morality. A question of personal preference is, "Would you prefer the US not support a side in an internal political conflict in another country?" to which I would answer, "Yes. I would prefer the US not support a side in an internal political conflict, just as I would prefer the other countries not support a side in an internal political conflict in the US." A question of fact is, "Was the US allowed to support a side in these conflicts." The answer is "no."

> That's not the same as supporting a coup. It's literally the CIAs job to collect intelligence, no?

No, it's not the CIA's job to share intelligence with the plotters, which I believe it did. It's also not the CIA's job to supply the plotters with weapons and encourage them to commit a coup as they did in 1970, something to which I don't have to resort to believe because the CIA itself says that it did do those things. It goes on to say that its support of a coup in 1970 probably led the 1973 plotters to believe they had the CIA's blessing.

> Read up on the conflict. Allende was refusing to follow the constitution. It's not like Chile was some stable democracy, it was teetering on authoritarianism.

Read up on basic logic, and while you're at it, read up on basic physics. If Chile was "teetering on the authoritarianism" then evidently it hadn't yet succumbed to authoritarianism. The coup plotters didn't have the ability to see into the future, like the precogs in "Minority Report." Moreover, again even if the plotters said why they did it, that doesn't mean we know why they did it.

> The US wasn't doing that it. It was monitoring the situation and never got involved.

Tell that to the CIA, which wrote in 2000 that it did get involved in the Chilean coup (for instance).

> It absolutely is a fact

"far from democratic" is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact.

> Calling it "overthrowing a democracy" is inaccurate

Who has called it "overthrowing a democracy"? Who are you quoting? It can't be me because I never said that. Although...I would if you asked me my opinion on the subject.

> they were highly unstable governments teetering on chaos

That's debatable, but even so, again if they were "teetering on the edge" of chaos then evidently they hadn't yet lapsed into chaos. No one can predict the future, not even you in 2024 and not even US politicians in 1954 or in 1973.

> So again, I raise my original point - the alternative isn't a democracy and stability, it's chaos

That's not a point. That's an opinion (yours).

> The US can stand back and let the USSR fund the opposition and end up with a dictatorship. Is that a better outcome than the US getting involved?

The USSR funding the one side in a political conflict was every bit as legal as the US funding the other side in a political conflict. 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. So my personal opinion is that yes, it would've been a better decision in 1954 or 1973 to stop short of supporting those coups, and allow the USSR to continue to wield its influence.