This is a bad response. The person you're replying to said something to the effect of "America caused a bunch of harm in these places", and your response is "America didn't cause all the problems in these places".

Theres a pretty big gap between the point you're replying to and the strawman you're arguing against.

Sure there are other factors which caused problems in South America, but its clear that a lot of problems were caused by America.

There are clear, well documented, notorious cases, some of them even ruled on by international tribunals, of the USA causing direct harm in several South American countries (support and training of anti-government CONTRA torture squads, assassinations of El Salvador priests, mining Nicaragua's harbors, and there are many others).

That others also caused harm, both in South America and in many other places, in no way whatsoever excuses the clear harms caused by the USA.

Agreed.

Other external actors (in particular the Soviets) and internal actors played mayor roles as well.

Castigating only the US paints an inaccurate picture of the realities, leading the public and future policy makers to learn partial lessons which when applied will perform less than optimally for preventing the next incident of large scale sufferings

There's no accountability that can be had by the Soviets because the Soviet union doesn't exist anymore.

The American empire on the other hand is very much alive and well. So it makes sense to point fingers at them.

This also goes to internal actors, and a lot of Latin American countries (for example Chile) have failed at properly keeping their own players accountable.

But it doesn't in any way make the call for retribution for the USA any less valid.

Can you actually point to a specific harm you envision from acknowledging the US atrocities in LatAm or elsewhere? What do you actually think is the problem? It's so weird how people seem to come out of the woodwork with random concern trolling anytime the empire gets called out