Subject:
|
Re: An armed society...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 29 Jan 2002 01:03:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2111 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> > > But I would argue that there is
> > > only a correlative (and self-perpetuating) relationship between the Cold
> > > War and the problem of global poverty, not a causative one.
> >
> > A simple question then: Did the cold war encourage poverty and war in (say)
> > Africa?
>
> 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 to the point of open
> conflict, so I must agree with LFB on this.
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 powers made matters any worse
or better as a matter of course.
But Pedro's onto it--the point I was trying to make is that the Cold
War and the depradations of "development theory" have common roots;
they inform and reinforce one another; but one did not cause the other.
Consider them equals in the hierarchy, with the actual causative force
being more fundamental still (global plutocracy). (By the way, I don't
go "capitalism bad," because the problem is less capitalism and more
the way that capital uses national boundaries to prey upon whole peoples.)
I'm not saying that the context of the Cold War had no effect, just
that the sabotage of African states was bound to happen Cold War or
no--that was the nature of neo-colonialism.
> > > And how is "cold" a misnomer, given the term's referent?
> >
> > Cold war : A state of rivalry and tension between two factions, groups, or
> > individuals that stops short of open, violent confrontation.
> >
> > How many Americans died in the cold war? How many died in proxy battles
> > across the globe?
>
> Let's see: Korea and perhaps Vietnam are the most obvious, but we can argue
> about all the "not so spoken" involvment in SE Asia, Africa and Latin
> America. Overall, a great number of lives were lost in "non-frontal"
> conflicts, both from USA and USSR, as well as other minor states.
> If we count all the figures, it is likely that more Americans have lost
> their lives during the cold war than Soviet citizens, as a direct result of
> these subsidiary wars. Of course, the greatest number of casualties must
> have been suffered by civilians living "between the lines of ideology".
And the US was also firmly in the "lead" both in terms of committing
forces abroad and in terms of actual military interventions. One of
the greatest episodes of salesmanship in history, IMHO, was selling
the Soviet Union as a real threat and rival after 1953. They didn't
have the legs to go the distance then, and there was never a "missile
gap" or any other such ridiculosity--and they were surrounded!
But looking at the term "Cold War," you need to compare it to the
immediate precedent that *gave* it the term--World War II. I don't
think Scott would argue that the Cold War was "hotter" than that,
surely? (Now, it may have cost a lot more money, and may even have
resulted in the expenditure of more ammunition, but that was over
a period of ~45 years.)
> But the expression is used referring to the two Great Powers alone, and in
> fact they never reached the point of open conflict *with each other*. No GIs
> fought in Afghanistan in the eighties AFAIK, and no "Ivans" fought in
> Vietnam under the flag of the USSR (counting "counselors" and "advisors" in
> the ranks of those they are advising, and not counting CIA and KGB at all).
> We can have subsidiary wars from one major conflict, separated in everything
> but the prime cause.
>
> The term seems therefore adequate to me. Besides, we can even see some irony
> in it, since the greatest "non-battlefield" of this war was the Artic... ;-)
Yeah, that. I wonder how much it costs to run the DEW stations, anyways?
best
LFB
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
179 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
