No, it is strong evidence. In fact, there is no stronger evidence possible, short of the US coming out and saying, yes, we are training them to put our tendrils into their state.

Oh wait, they did : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute...:

"Despite Carter's worries about the school's training materials, he believed that the international military education and training provided by the School of the Americas, among other institutions, was critical to furthering "the national interests of the United States".[24] He considered the training conducted in Panama to be essential because it enhanced American "access to the politically influential leadership" of the Panamanian National Guard and instilled in its personnel "attitudes favorable to the United States".[24] Further, he believed the training served to "increase respect for United States foreign policy goals and the United States concept of military-civilian relationships at the national level".[24]"

It's a simple fact that the US provided training in order to exert power over Latin American fact, by admission. The real conspiracy theory is that for some reason, despite the same effects, operations in Africa don't have the same intent.

>>> Is there strong evidence that he was "being groomed for a coup by the US", or anything to support that kind of conclusion beyond speculation and innuendo?

>> Yes, the strong evidence is an ongoing 70-year-old trend of US trained military leaders plotting coups.

> No, it is strong evidence. In fact, there is no stronger evidence possible, short of the US coming out and saying, yes, we are training them to put our tendrils into their state.

Sorry dude, you just don't have strong evidence. I don't think you even understand what strong evidence is.

You're also moving goalposts. We started talking about the US supposedly orchestrating coups, but now you're just offering quotes about "access to the politically influential leadership" and "instilling attitudes favorable to the United States," which does not at all imply the former.

You seriously don't understand what "installing attitudes favourable to the United States" in military leadership means?

At this point, you're putting the bar of evidence so high that nothing short of a complete admission is evidence. It's not. U.S. officials admitting they want to instill favourable attitudes in foreign military leadership as well as admitting they know that these activities increase the number of coups is strong evidence. It's not incontrovertible, but nothing short of an admission could be any stronger.