Subject:
|
Re: An armed society...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 29 Jan 2002 22:29:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2180 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun 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:
> > > > > 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.
>
> 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?
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 a great number of the arms sold today are for the new armies. Only a
fool would think that the USA and the UK won't seize the opportunity to
supply the new Afghan army its arms! (The russians might get upset, though)
> > > > > 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.
>
> ...and by 1960 you would have 20 times the number of bombers the USSR had.
> GIs your nation not being sold another lie right now - NMD?
The number of bombers isn't the factor to win a war: it is what you do with
what you have. And most importantly, what you think your enemy might do with
what he has.
If the russians had one plane that the americans thought they could not
shoot down, they would be in the advantage. Even if the plane did not
perform as intended, he'd act as a powerful deterrent. Sun Tzu wrote about
these concepts a long time ago, but they are still being exploited.
> > 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?
>
> Not at this point. ;) It really is hard to comprahent. Especially, if one
> were to include the resultant internal repression in the USSR... and in the
> west.
Internal repression cannot be argued as a specific factor of the Cold War.
All nations have it since the day organized government appeared.
Paradoxally, it is sometimes the repression that allows democracy (otherwise
society would eventually fall into anarchy, and re-start the evolutionary
trend - sorta like Civ... ;-)
Pedro
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
