US Intervention in these countries. What did we do?

Okay Suzy. You have to understand that as much as I like you, your politics are so nearly opposite mine that it almost seems a caricature of opposition at times. And caricatures, to me, are funny. I have zero doubt you'll continue to disagree with me completely, so this is probably a futile exercise, but I'll give it a quick shot.
Okay, Bill, I'll respond where I can, sadly using very few of my own words! I'm just not that bright
(1) control of inflation, This is practically an absolute necessity before credit can be issued at all. It is not oppressive in any way. It simply restricts the government's ability to cheat, which in turn makes doing business with them more palatable. Without this control, what's to stop the money printing presses from running amuck to pay debts with cash that isn't worth the paper it's printed on? To list this as an unfair restriction is absurd.
That's okay by me, as long as it is not made impossible to do!
(2) privatization of state-owned enterprises, As provided in my train example state-owned enterprise is a recipe for disaster. Look at the Soviet Union... Compare the two Koreas. I mean really Suzy; the biggest reason the cold war ended was fact that state-owned enterprise doesn't work. The writing is so clearly on the wall that that opinion is very nearly fact.
the World Bank acts as if the only alternative is privatization, not improving public services with outside financial and technical aid and with greater citizen accountability. In any case, privatized utilities need strong public regulation, which is difficult and expensive to do well. Paradoxically, weak and corrupt governments, whose public services could most benefit from reform, are least able to regulate privatized systems. Often they sell public goods on the cheap to cronies and patrons, making privatization really "briberization," says former World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=640_0_1_0_C

(3) opening up the country to foreign imports and investments, This is the way you attract money into your country. If you want to keep up with the global economy, and your country isn't a goldmine, you have to join it. Take a peek at the The World Factbook and compare the "open" countries GDPs to the "closed" countries. Look at Costa Rica, the oldest democracy on the continent compared to more restrictive neighbors. The truth should be startlingly apparent. (The truth being that this is a very reasonable condition before investment)
What may have worked for Costa Rica (and I admit I haven't checked it out) doesn't necessarily work for all.
Structural adjustment has exacerbated poverty in most countries where it has been applied, contributing to the suffering of millions and causing widespread environmental degradation. And since the 1980s, adjustment has helped create a net outflow of wealth from the developing world, which has paid out five times as much capital to the industrialized countries of the North as it has received.
The wealthy Northern countries which control the World Bank and IMF dictate the agendas of these institutions, and their interests are best served by defending the status quo.
Furthermore, the Bank's staff is currently dominated by economists who have spent their careers defending the validity of neoclassical economics, the foundation of the World Bank model of development. This orthodox view holds sacred the efficiency of free markets and private producers and the benefits of international trade and competition. Given the lack of accountability to outside parties, there is little incentive for the Bank and IMF to alter the design of structural adjustment, even when faced with mounting evidence attesting to the failure of these programs.
Since the 1980s the debt situation has steadily worsened, so that now the total debt of the developing world equals about one-half their combined GNP and nearly twice their total annual export earnings. Because of this crushing debt-service burden, foreign governments have virtually no bargaining power when negotiating a structural adjustment program and must accept any conditions imposed by the World Bank and the IMF. And SAPs themselves, by orienting economies toward generating foreign exchange, are designed to ensure that debtor countries continue to make debt payments, further enriching Northern creditors at the expense of domestic programs in the South. http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/wbimf/faq.html
(4) no tariffs on imports, Again, see 3... and: this one can get a little touchy, but is not evil by itself. If no one charged tariffs on imports and no one subsidized their goods, it would be completely fair. Deals like NAFTA and CAFTA are helping to level the playing field and the WTO seems to be making progress. InfraBlue started a fascinating thread on the subject here. After reading that you should be able to understand that "no tariffs on imports" is actually a very good thing, but needs to be policed better.

Don't know enough about this, and too lazy to look it up right now!

(5) freedom for corporations to expatriate profits, I can't get any clearer on this one. I will put not one investment dollar someplace that I can't get it back, or realize a profit. Would you?
No, but I think what is implied is that these corporations are making money off the very resources the state is no longer allowed any control over, yet which belong to the state, and that's a bit touchier.
(6) suppression of labor.
Public sector enterprises were sold to MNCs and private owners and almost all social gains were eliminated. This is not something the US or the IMF did. Think it through.

to advance corporate interests at the expense of labor.http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2001/01september/sep01corp1.html

Another place you seem to run into trouble is differentiating between the US and the IMF. Some say the IMF runs the states… and not just ours… all of them.

"You will never be satisfied with the U.S. until such time as it ceases to be a powerful winner and becomes a weak loser."
No, no Bill, you couldn't be more wrong! I want my country to be the fair and wonderful one that we all grew up believing it was. We can accomplish this and still be greedy and competitive, as long as we're fair, which we're kinda not right now. Maybe we never have been, but it is an ideal that can be achieved much of the time if the government put it's mind to it.

Not everybody loves Ayn Rand, you know! I read one of her books, but I don't recall the title. (I'll look it up, but it sure wasn't 500 pages!) It was not Atlas Shrugged, which has been sitting on my shelf for years. I'll get around to it one day.

A couple books that helped shape my beliefs are Upton Sinclair's The Jungle

and Dalton Trumbo's Johnny Got His Gun,

I am actually more interested in being honest than in being right (most of the time ) and have dispensed a few mea culpas when necessary

So my honest opinion is that I am disappointed that we are not the country I thought we were, and even more upset that sometimes we really suck. If pointing that out is upsetting to some, well, the truth hurts sometimes. But truth is more important than comfort, or patriotism, in my opinion.

The bumper stickers make me laugh. I'm an American, but I'm not proud to be one, I'm just lucky! We all are.

"barely containable "OCCOM BILL-Adoration"
Tough to be you, huh?

A couple books that helped shape my beliefs are Upton Sinclair's The Jungle

and Dalton Trumbo's Johnny Got His Gun,

I am actually more interested in being honest than in being right (most of the time ) and have dispensed a few mea culpas when necessary

So my honest opinion is that I am disappointed that we are not the country I thought we were, and even more upset that sometimes we really suck. If pointing that out is upsetting to some, well, the truth hurts sometimes. But truth is more important than comfort, or patriotism, in my opinion.

The bumper stickers make me laugh. I'm an American, but I'm not proud to be one, I'm just lucky! We all are.

I know you don't mean it as too terribly insulting, but I'm hardly a "Dizzy Dame". I've been politically active for over 25 years and am hardly at the same place where I started. I didn't pick an ideology and stick with it, and I'm still learning and more importantly, thinking.