 | | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) They were. And in general, one injun vs. one settler and I'd bet on the injun. The problem is that they were locally massively outnumbered. (And not organized on the larger scale, of course.) (...) This is the traditional way that Britain (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) The advantage of having a regular army have been proved in WW2. Otherwise, how could Britain have resisted? In comparison, the US took a lot of time to turn the tides of war, and I'd bet a considerable amount of time between Dec '41 and '43 (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) the (...) Dunno about LFB, but I think the destruction of the Aussie aboriginals was more related to power & bigotry than economics. ROSCO (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) In a sense, they're the same thing. You can't occupy land that someone else is living on. But the introduction of money taxes-- thus requiring colonial peoples to earn money, and thereby alien- ating them from the land and subsistence--was the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) chance (...) the (...) Well, for a start, anyone who happens to be shooting at me. Even if they're doing it in support of a nation-idea against which I am fighting. (...) So no nation would gain by taking the goods of another? I don't see that (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) the (...) Prior to WWII Germany was in debt to france for reparations from WWI. It was also in the midst of a huge economic crisis. It was literally cheaper to burn money than it was to buy coal. -Mike Petrucelli (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) …sounds like globalisation to me? ;) (...) Orginisation is also a factor. (...) I think the last people to invade the UK were the Vikings. But Scotalnd has been invaded a few times since then. But then so has England. ;) Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Maybe I am sticking my nose where it does not belong, but I find it unlikely that countries with insurmountable debt are the only countries that would be inclined to invade other countries. As I understand it, prior to WW2, most nations were (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) OTOH, that person can think of you as a dangerous threat to his/her lifestyle. PLUS there is the chance you or that person are the villain, but cannot realize it due to strong conviction in your/his/her own ideals (i.e., "I'm right because I (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) I'm quite glad you dropped in. A debate isn't a debate unless different viewpoints are expressed, right? :-) (...) Agreed, for the generality of cases. (...) Perhaps you are neglecting the importance of the markets open for each country: (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) And they'd be right. (...) No. If we accept that the notion of a villain is self-defined, then we are both our nemises villains. It's not like in comic books where some people are bad and some are good. Most people think they are good (even if (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) :-) That can be interpreted in different ways... I'll go with the funny one. (...) They have to do with the law. The law is a sort of a commitment, it intends to define good and bad so that we can act accordingly. It sometimes fails, but heck, (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
First, I don't intend to troll, but it has been a long time since I participated here, and so I am finding it hard to recognize the limits of acceptable behaviour here. (...) It took me 27 years to realise that during the cold war the Russkies (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) This was fine. Don't profane and don't attack people and I think everything else just falls into place. (...) I hold various opinions that I "know" are right and they are in opposition to my society (or at least the vast majority of it). (...) (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Those who think they can draw faster? ROSCO (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) I guess I was being too simplistic. How about when everyone carried onboard defense-ware that would automagically compute threats and attacks and either alert you to them or respond with massive lethal destructive force? And what if that were (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) If you mean no "bombs" were dropped, I agree. On every other level is was a disaster. Its legacy lives on throughout the developing world today. Calling it a "cold" war is a complete misnomer. Perhaps of OBL had a few nukes, 911 would never (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Why would it be preferable, in this hypothetical example, to be ruled by machines than governed by humans? Dave! (Only half kidding... After all, we cannot allow a mine shaft gap.) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) So is "developing world." In fact, most people's conditions are becoming worse instead of better--and following a Western prescription for proper development is the crux of the problem. But I would argue that there is only a correlative (and (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) I agree. (...) A simple question then: Did the cold war encourage poverty and war in (say) Africa? (...) Cold war : A state of rivalry and tension between two factions, groups, or individuals that stops short of open, violent confrontation. (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) What do you mean exactly with "encourage"? IMO, the conditions for the present overabundance of conflicts in Africa has more to do with the Berlin Conference than it has to do with the Cold War. This period only enhanced pre-existing rivalries (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) And I'm not sure that the Cold War encouraged poverty and war in most of Africa, though it may have informed or triggered specific points of instability (a la Nasser). But I don't think the presence of that particular arrangement of world (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) So was I 8?) (...) That'd be kewl. (...) end (...) However, western media was always pointing out how far we were ahead of the russians, and I've no doubt they were saying exactly the opposite. Who has greater abilities (or fire-power) doesn't (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) So the support we gave to tin-pot dictators around the world just because they were willing to fight local communists had no real outcome? (...) We shall have to disagree. "Cold" infers not battle took place - hundreds of thousands (millions) (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) I think the "West" would have continued to exploit Africa even if the CW had not happened. However, I think the CW did have a significant effect there... and continues to do so. Where did our superfluous weapons go when the CW ended? (...) (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) It did have a real outcome. My point is that such an outcome would probably have happened anyway. The majority of the CW "hotspots", where the two ideologies reached the point of conflict, had pre-existing tensions; they would have resulted in (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Or worse, if either side can win and lose at the same time (destroying and being destroyed). (...) Good point. Just imagine the present day US president were in office in 1962, and his Soviet counterpart were Yeltsin. Brrr... :-/ (...) In a (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Former Yougoslavia. Chechnya. The streets of "Anytown, USA". The Middle East. Taiwan. The Russian mob (no kidding, a month ago a whole bunch of russian military arms was found in a house in the Algarve, owned by russian mobsters. Scary!). And (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
