3 ms·

If I had a downvote button, I would exercise it on your steadfast refusal to acknowledge that the Cold War is so-called for the absence of direct military confl

by sk5t 14y ago

If I had a downvote button, I would exercise it on your steadfast refusal to acknowledge that the Cold War is so-called for the absence of direct military conflict between the armies of the two quarreling states. Wikipedia does not back your definition, as the Wiki entry leaves room for espionage, sabotage, and other actions that one might consider an "attack" but certainly do not force a declaration of war, mobilization of armies, etc.

wissler 14y ago
Sabotage is not "indirect", it is very direct, and what's more, it's not even listed on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_war_(general_term) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_war_(general_term) You're wrong, but at least you're not a coward.
- sk5t 14y ago
  Surely you don't expect the WP article to list every act that might be compatible with the idea of a "cold war"... I feel you are trolling a bit. Sabotage is still a plausibly deniable act--contrasted with, say, rolling a tank across one's adversary's border. Stuxnet is a weapon of sabotage, it is fairly direct, and yet it is not the same as an open declaration of war.
  - wissler 14y ago
    I can't believe the level of dishonesty here. The point is obvious: NONE of the acts cited by the WP article were acts of violence. Did you miss out on Sesame Street? "One of these things are not like the other..." No I'm not trolling. I am expected to be treated like a troll by the herd here however.
Wrap 14y ago
Firstly, talking about Wiki definitions is the wrong thing to focus on. Secondly, the Cold War is a misnomer, the US was very much involved in an open confrontation with the Chinese+Soviets in Korea, and to a lesser extent with their proxies in Vietnam later on. Yes, the Korean war was fought under the aegis of a resolution issued by the UN security council, but it was a 'hot' war, and part of a broad push against Communist influence.
- wissler 14y ago
  Firstly, I wasn't only talking about Wiki definitions, I had a more basic argument that is being ignored. Secondly, the Cold War has two possible referents among political scientists (see the link I posted), and the one in question is not the Soviet one. Now, these are basic facts that you are clearly wrong about. But I will get downvoted anyway. There is something very wrong with you people.

by sk5t 14y ago

wissler 14y ago

Sabotage is not "indirect", it is very direct, and what's more, it's not even listed on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_war_(general_term) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_war_(general_term) You're wrong, but at least you're not a coward.

sk5t 14y ago
Surely you don't expect the WP article to list every act that might be compatible with the idea of a "cold war"... I feel you are trolling a bit. Sabotage is still a plausibly deniable act--contrasted with, say, rolling a tank across one's adversary's border. Stuxnet is a weapon of sabotage, it is fairly direct, and yet it is not the same as an open declaration of war.
- wissler 14y ago
  I can't believe the level of dishonesty here. The point is obvious: NONE of the acts cited by the WP article were acts of violence. Did you miss out on Sesame Street? "One of these things are not like the other..." No I'm not trolling. I am expected to be treated like a troll by the herd here however.

Wrap 14y ago

Firstly, talking about Wiki definitions is the wrong thing to focus on. Secondly, the Cold War is a misnomer, the US was very much involved in an open confrontation with the Chinese+Soviets in Korea, and to a lesser extent with their proxies in Vietnam later on. Yes, the Korean war was fought under the aegis of a resolution issued by the UN security council, but it was a 'hot' war, and part of a broad push against Communist influence.

wissler 14y ago
Firstly, I wasn't only talking about Wiki definitions, I had a more basic argument that is being ignored. Secondly, the Cold War has two possible referents among political scientists (see the link I posted), and the one in question is not the Soviet one. Now, these are basic facts that you are clearly wrong about. But I will get downvoted anyway. There is something very wrong with you people.