[Victoribus Spolia]

The US saw a threat to its interests in the midst of a Cold War conflict.

Fixed it for you.

It used its state apparatus to create a coup, protecting its interests and preventing communism at gunpoint.

Fixed it for you.

[Pants-of-dog]

Fixed it for you.

Fixed it for you.

You still have not shown how an attack on capitalism is an attack on the US.

Nor have you shown how a socialist Chile, by itself, was a threat to capitalism or the US.

If you guys want to claim that a socialist Chile threatened US economic interests and this is the same as an attack on capitalism, then yes. Please note that this is pretty much what I was arguing from the beginning.

But at least you learned something about Kissinger.

[Victoribus Spolia]

You still have not shown how an attack on capitalism is an attack on the US.

Should I have to? Thats like saying an attack on oxygen is not an attack on the earth.

Nor have you shown how a socialist Chile, by itself, was a threat to capitalism or the US.

I don't have to, under the domino doctrine it was by definition.

If you guys want to claim that a socialist Chile threatened US economic interests and this is the same as an attack on capitalism, then yes.

That is part of it, yes.

Please note that this is pretty much what I was arguing from the beginning.

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.

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 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.

[Red_Army]

@Sivad I don't see a complication between Pinochet and Allende, but you can have your both sides fun all you want.

[Pants-of-dog]

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?

[Sivad]

@Sivad I don't see a complication between Pinochet and Allende, but you can have your both sides fun all you want.

It's not a false compromise, it's about developing an informed, intellectually honest perspective. Allende was taking Chile down a very dangerous path that, as history had repeatedly demonstrated up to that point, would very likely end in a gulag. Allende came into office with a 35% plurality and immediately began an assault not just on the institutions of Chilean democracy but on the broader principles of democracy as well.

If Allende had worked within the democratic process by gaining majority support and establishing a democratic mandate the coup probably wouldn't have succeeded. Really, Allende had executed an autocoup well before the fascists staged their coup. The fascists were just responding in kind to the lawlessness Allende had already initiated.

A self-coup (or autocoup, from the Spanish autogolpe) is a form of putsch or coup d'état in which a nation's leader, despite having come to power through legal means, dissolves or renders powerless the national legislature and unlawfully assumes extraordinary powers not granted under normal circumstances. Other measures taken may include annulling the nation's constitution, suspending civil courts and having the head of government assume dictatorial powers.

[Red_Army]

Allende's defeat was proof that he wasn't going down that path at all. He should have armed the working class and then Pinochet would have been fucked, but he didn't because Allende was not left wing enough. Hurray that Pinochet stopped GULAGs from fucking the wonderful ruling class and instead GULAGed a bunch of intellectuals and union leaders while training dogs to rape people.

[Sivad]

Hurray that Pinochet stopped GULAGs from fucking the wonderful ruling class and instead GULAGed a bunch of intellectuals and union leaders while training dogs to rape people.

What happened was tragic but that doesn't change the fact that Allende's incompetence and lawlessness contributed to the outcome.

[Red_Army]

Sure, but the lesson it teaches the left is that GULAGs are a political necessity.

[Pants-of-dog]

It's not a false compromise, it's about developing an informed, intellectually honest perspective. Allende was taking Chile down a very dangerous path that, as history had repeatedly demonstrated up to that point, would very likely end in a gulag. Allende came into office with a 35% plurality and immediately began an assault not just on the institutions of Chilean democracy but on the broader principles of democracy as well.

If Allende had worked within the democratic process by gaining majority support and establishing a democratic mandate the coup probably wouldn't have succeeded. Really, Allende had executed an autocoup well before the fascists staged their coup. The fascists were just responding in kind to the lawlessness Allende had already initiated.

A self-coup (or autocoup, from the Spanish autogolpe) is a form of putsch or coup d'état in which a nation's leader, despite having come to power through legal means, dissolves or renders powerless the national legislature and unlawfully assumes extraordinary powers not granted under normal circumstances. Other measures taken may include annulling the nation's constitution, suspending civil courts and having the head of government assume dictatorial powers.

We went through this in another thread.

Allende only did one thing that was illegal, and that was not enforcing court decisions that protected capitalist interests.

His other actions were not only legal, but necessary and often did not go far enough. Like arresting military officers who were planning a coup.

[Sivad]

We went through this in another thread.

I went through the facts, you just concocted bullshit denials and excuses.

[Sivad]

Sure, but the lesson it teaches the left is that GULAGs are a political necessity.

There are plenty of lessons to be learned from that little episode but that's definitely not one of them.

[Red_Army]

C'mon @Sivad just a tiny little labor camp. I promise it won't become a pan-asian ecosystem.

[Pants-of-dog]

I went through the facts, you just concocted bullshit denials and excuses.

The thread is there for anyone to read.

This idea that Allende was or would be more authoritarian than Pinochet is not only unsupported by the evidence, but even the declassified CIA and KGB documents seem to contradict this claim.

The idea itself is popular because of neoliberals like Hayek wrote articles and gave interviews defending Pinochet with these accusations.

[Sivad]

This idea that Allende was or would be more authoritarian than Pinochet is not only unsupported by the evidence, but even the declassified CIA and KGB documents seem to contradict this claim.

Whatever, Allende's nephew was running the MIR which was about as militant and authoritarian as it gets. The MIR was stockpiling weapons, infiltrating the military, acting as a guerrilla militia in the countryside expropriating farms and brutalizing people, all with Allende's full support.

If Allende was allowed to continue he would have made it very ugly. They just couped his ass before he could fully consolidate power and declare himself el presidente for life.

The idea itself is popular because of neoliberals like Hayek wrote articles and gave interviews defending Pinochet with these accusations.

Who cares why it's popular, all that matters is that it's supported by the facts.

[Pants-of-dog]

Whatever, Allende's nephew was running the MIR which was about as militant and authoritarian as it gets. The MIR was stockpiling weapons, infiltrating the military, acting as a guerrilla militia in the countryside expropriating farms and brutalizing people, all with Allende's full support.

If Allende was allowed to continue he would have made it very ugly. They just couped his ass before he could fully consolidate power and declare himself el presidente for life.

So Allende knew someone who knew someone who you think was authoritarian, therefore Allende was authoritarian.

Great logic there.

Who cares why it's popular, all that matters is that it's supported by the facts.

It is a fact that the only illegal thing Allende did was not carry out court orders.

The rest is conjecture that is often used as neoliberal apologetics.

[Sivad]

So Allende knew someone who knew someone who you think was authoritarian, therefore Allende was authoritarian.
Great logic there.

It's a fact that Allende had close ties to the MIR and that he used his office to protect it and to advance its agenda.

It is a fact

It's retarded bullshit that anyone can debunk in one hot minute on google.

[Pants-of-dog]

It's a fact that Allende had close ties to the MIR and that he used his office to protect it and to advance its agenda.

Please provide evidence for this claim, and then explain how it makes Allende authoritarian.

It's retarded bullshit that anyone can debunk in one hot minute on google.

Then please do so.

[blackjack21]

Allende's defeat was proof that he wasn't going down that path at all. He should have armed the working class and then Pinochet would have been fucked, but he didn't because Allende was not left wing enough. Hurray that Pinochet stopped GULAGs from fucking the wonderful ruling class and instead GULAGed a bunch of intellectuals and union leaders while training dogs to rape people.

Allende's defeat is proof that he didn't really have the will of the masses behind him, or he would easily have defeated Pinochet. He's just another example of the left's deep fascination with health care professionals.

Sure, but the lesson it teaches the left is that GULAGs are a political necessity.

Leftists must have a short memory, since they were the inventors of the gulags. For the so-called right, it was just a case of monkey-see-monkey-do.

So Allende knew someone who knew someone who you think was authoritarian, therefore Allende was authoritarian.

Great logic there.

Great point there Pants-of-dog. There's no chance that there was any relationship between Allende and his nephew. Why would anyone think something like that?

Anyway, there is something to celebrate on September 11. It's not all Mohammed Atta day.

[Sivad]

Please provide evidence for this claim, and then explain how it makes Allende authoritarian.

Allende's personal security was made up of MIR militants(Group of Personal Friends).

Then please do so.

The Cuban packages scandal. Allende was working with the Cubans to smuggle arms into the country and supplying them to militias like the MIR.


I can't tell if you're dishonestly playing on the ignorance of your intended audience or if you just really don't know shit about the history, but whatever your deal is, .