> Well, then, you need to explicate -and be prepared to defend- the
> normative baseline you're using that enables you to claim that their views
> are skewed.
I'm not using any "normative baseline" that would be controversial outside of an epistemology course. I'm simply claiming that Dawson et al. are attributing motives to their opponents that never existed.
Michael Dawson wrote:
> We're not talking about the Cold War. We're talking about U.S. foreign
policy stretching over 228 years.
I don't care if Chomsky et al. think the pattern extends back to the beginning of time--we were discussing particular examples from the Cold War era.
> Meanwhile, why, in your addled mind, did the United States overthrow
Allende? Nixon and Kissinger knew he was not > a Soviet agent. They
worried that his model of development would work, and would be "insidious."
I already gave the short version of the explanation:
"Because instituting socialism would've been disastrous in the short term for their cronies in the copper industry etc., and because they feared that Allende's government would aid Latin American revolutionaries."
I see no need to elaborate. Even a bad regime can help out other bad regimes--that should be something everyone across the political spectrum can agree on. But maybe you're exceptional.
> They worried that his model of development would work, and would be
"insidious."
Saying it over and over again doesn't make it so.
By the way, I was mighty tempted to return your insults, but thought better of it. I'd suggest you do likewise.
-- Luke