Subject:
|
Re: An armed society...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 29 Jan 2002 21:56:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1956 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> 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?
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
conflict at some point, so the CW then going on merely proportioned
resources to the people that they would never use otherwise. For instance,
in the case of Angola, you had both major parties receiving openly the
massive support of the two GPs; but if you look a bit under the cover of
parties, you'll see the UNITA is composed mainly of Ovimbundos and the MPLA
composed of other ethnic groups from Northern Angola. In fact, right at the
beginning of the independance war, either party could have been supported by
any side of the Iron curtain. What they wanted were the guns to kill
themselves, and what the GPs wanted were the Diamonds and the Oil.
This pattern can be followed for most cases in Africa. As for Latin America,
the pre-existing tensions have a bit more to do with the Monroes Doctrine.
It is perfectly logic that the US would have supported any dictator that
would ensure their position as leading power in the Americas (Cuba being an
astonishing failiure for the Americans, but that is comprehensible given the
timing of the "Revolución" and the profound Nationalism of the people).
Asia... well, Asia had always the experience of strong dictatorships, and
the culture isn't too helpful for those who want to impose the western
notion of a democracy. You'd have to change the minds of half the world's
population...
The outcome was a surprisingly long balance period. Even if millions died in
far away countries, the major powers managed to keep their own house clean,
assuring some degree of calm to develop *themselves*. To support this, take
the cases of Yougoslavia, USSR and Indonesia, which fell apart in te
nineties after the end of the "Cold War way-of-life".
> > > > 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.
Obiously, that is true. What I said was that no *frontal* conflict took
place. Never after 1920 Americans fought Soviets under their respective flags.
You can interpret the expression as a sarcastic one; when it was created, in
'46, the world was still quite calm. Then everything happened around the
main players, and everyone was expecting *their* move to declare the game
"officially open". Hence, the war kept "Cold".
Pedro
(On the side, and speaking of war names, there is at least one with a more
scandalous mis-name: 100 year-war took 116 or so years to end... :-)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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) (...) (22 years ago, 29-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
|
|
|
|
