Subject:
|
Re: An armed society...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 29 Jan 2002 08:55:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2157 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:
>
> > > 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.
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > > 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.
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?
>
> > > 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".
>
> 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... ;-)
We shall have to disagree. "Cold" infers not battle took place - hundreds of
thousands (millions) died.
Scott A
>
> Pedro
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
