Victoribus Spolia wrote:Should I have to? Thats like saying an attack on oxygen is not an attack on the earth.
Yes, if you are arguing that, then you need to show that it is true and not just something you came up with to cover yourself adter I pointed out that a socialist Chile was not threat to the US.
I don't have to, under the domino doctrine it was by definition.
I do not think you understand the Domino theory.
But if you have to invoke the disproved Domino theory, you are admitting that a socialist Chile,
by itself, did not pose a threat.
Also, please look up the difference between a theory and a doctrine. You may be confusing this with the Monroe doctrine.
That is part of it, yes.
So you agree that the attack was to protect economic interests and that there was no immediate or direct strategic threat.
Not really, you made an oversimplification, you construed U.S. interests in Chile simply as "greedy american businesses didn't like allende so big meany Uncle Sam came in and installed Pinochet" That is obviously not what we are arguing.
Yes, you are.
If you are saying that the threat was to Us economic interests, and so the coup was to protect thise interests, then you are agreeing with me.
We argued that the U.S. viewed itself as embodying democracy and freedom (capitalism) and that any threat to that had to be eliminated even if preemptively because any socialist regime, not matter how it came about, was believed to create a domino effect that would threaten capitalism and therefore the U.S.
This thing where you equate capitalism with freedom and democracy is a fallacy (false equivalence). And it is the first time you bring it up.
And to repeat myself again, since you have yet to address this:
The threat to capitalism from a socialist bloc in Latin America is not the same as a threat to the US from a socialist Chile.
This is not even discussing other direct factors, like potential soviet alliances, the panama canal, the context of the Cuban missile crisis, (and ye) American investments in those countries.
These have all benn addressed by me already. Are you going to repeat all these arguments as well?