|This page was nominated for deletion on 15 March 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.|
|WikiProject Cold War|
- 1 Kashmir Conflict
- 2 US and Afghans becoming al Qaida
- 3 Soviets in proxy wars
- 4 Stock Proxy Wars
- 5 Arab-Isreali Wars
- 6 Skewed bias
- 7 Why Are There Many Strike Throughs on the Table of Contents in this Discussion Page?
- 8 Proxy Wars in South Asia
- 9 Northern Ireland
- 10 Colbert identifies the Space Race as a proxy war
- 11 This article looks encyclopedically useless and wrong to me
Militants trained in Pakistan Administered Kashmir, Pakistan and Afghanistan have been involved in terrorism in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir (See: Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir). 3,200 militants are believed to be operating in the Indian state, and so far 29,000 Indian civilians have been killed in the insurgency which has also resulted in the ethnic cleansing and displacement of over 790,000 Kashmiri Pundit Hindus. The Kargil War in 1999 was fought between India and Militants backed by Pakistan." The above comment sites the article 'Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir' as its source but does not accurately summarize the article. Does it need to be changed to be more accurate?
I think that this article should be given more detail, using less specific examples. I will attempt to work on it as I can. --Joshua Boniface 22:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the POV statement "Where they infiltrate into Indian held Kashmir, to spite the locals, and fight blindly what to them is a freedom struggle." and mentioned Radical Islamism above. Is "Radical Islamist" correct, or is it "Radical Muslim" or "Radical Islam"? Laogooli 01:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
US and Afghans becoming al Qaida
the article is wrong when it says that the US funded Afghan resistence became al Qaida; if you study the war you'll know there were instead two very seperate and distinct anti-Soviet factions. In the 80s, the US funded (via the Pakistan intelligence agency) around half of the Afghan resistence fighters. The rest of the forces were Jihad fighters, funded by Saudi (Bin Laden etc), had a different objective (ie Jihad instead of defending their homeland), didn't receive money from the US (instead it was from Saudi nationals) and wouldn't have accepted CIA money anyway as they were staunchly anti American/Zionist.
- As with all intelligence and counterintelligence ops, any and all evidence is anecdotal (the rest being Top Secret and rotting in some cellar somewhere). However, there has never been *even* anecdotal evidence pointing to any lack of love whatsoever between Osama&Co. and the CIA during the Afghan campaign. In fact, there is a lot more linking Osama to American-funded anti-Soviet terrorism than to current anti-American events (someone shaggy wearing a towel in a cave, on home video, claiming credit for being David to the USA's Goliath? very solid evidence indeed). Rather, it would seem to make more sense to see this in the light of the Osama brand's reputation from the Afghan war being recycled today for use as a banner-type mythical fearless leader with whereabouts unknown (by persons unknown). Aadieu (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Soviets in proxy wars
While not openly, Soviets did participate in Korean (MiG pilots), Vietnam (SAM crews) and Middle East wars (5 “Egyptian” MiG-21 lost and 4 Russian pilots dead in a single encounter with Israeli Mirage IIIs and Phantoms over Sinai in 1970, numbers may vary depending on source), also in Africa (at least as instructors and military counsellors) and Central and South America (at least KGB’s special team “Vympel” learned a very special handgun shooting technique from Nicaraguan instructor and different Soviet special forces had survival courses in this part of the World, I don’t know what degree of involvement they had in local conflicts, if they had any). Fun side of this rather grim subject was how Soviet pilots failed to speak Korean despite strict orders it was completely impossible (to look for some common phrases written down in Russian and their Korean pronunciation in Cyrillic transcription) in the heat of battle. Also, pilots of the UN forces were denied to attack airfield, that was clearly visible, but it was on China’s side and, more importantly, that could cause great Soviet ground personnel casualties and lead to open conflict or even WWIII.
Lasis 06:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Stock Proxy Wars
Very observable pro-USA bias here, both in statements and in omissions (selection of examples)... Most facts are true, but the wording...!!! This, however, is utter bs: "China however did enter the war directly and sent millions of its troops in 1950 preventing the U.N. coalition from defeating the communist government of the north." - millions?! Plural generally means more than 2... Someone please at least provide data that China's ENTIRE army ever had that many soldiers. Even American high school textbooks never claimed millions of Chinese 'volunteers'. Aadieu (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest that you be bold and go ahead and make appropriate edits. Dhatfield (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the reference to Ahmadinejad's speech in the Lebanon War section, as it was irrelevant and took two contradictory positions at different points in the sentence. If anyone can think of a way to rewrite it in a concise manner that does not present opinion as fact, be my guest. ESentinel (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Why Are There Many Strike Throughs on the Table of Contents in this Discussion Page?
Proxy Wars in South Asia
Could the sporadic violence in Northern Ireland (and the occasional "spillover" bombings and other incidents in "mainland" UK) be regarded as a low intensity proxy war between the Republic of Ireland and the UK? Roger (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- The Republic of Ireland expended too much effort disrupting republican paramilitaries and trying to prevent explosives and firearms from crossing the border into Northern Ireland to be deemed as pursuing a proxy war against the UK. If there were a proxy war here, it would be between Libya (which supported the IRA) and the UK.--Brian Dell (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Colbert identifies the Space Race as a proxy war
- But for God's sake, you brought a plaque up there which reads:
- "WE CAME IN PEACE FOR ALL MANKIND"
- Come on! The Space Race was a proxy war against the Soviets. That plaque should have read:
- "SUCK IT, IVAN! SINCERELY, JFK'S GHOST"
That quote is from the Colbert Report's piece on Neil Armstrong from last Friday (starts immediately after the commercial break):
This article looks encyclopedically useless and wrong to me
I distrust this article, especially the lead section: it seems to me vague fantasy of one or several editors. I'm not convinced that 'proxy war' is a relevant typification of wars if there aren't any real serious references in a section dealing with the definition of 'proxy war' (we now have only three refs in a section dealing with a (supposed) 'example').
Possibly – but there’s no proof of it yet – there are scholars, journalists, et cetera, who use ‘proxy war’ to indicate that a certain war has certain characteristics. Possibly, again, the qualifications such individual scholars or journalists require from a war before they call it a ‘proxy war’ have some resemblances, but also some differences.
In that case, a Wiki-article could give a serious overview and comparison of such individual definitions from scholars (not from Wiki editors!) of the term ‘proxy war’. The present article does no such thing: all it gives is a fantasy-attempt at a fantasy-definition from just one Wikipedia editor. That’s not what Wikipedia should do. Therefore, I’ll have to propose deletion of this article. --Corriebertus (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- For crying out loud, go do a GBook search. It's a widely used term. Mangoe (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- That’s not my point, I didn’t deny the word exists, and is being used. Wiki is not for presenting words, but for presenting ‘things’, entities, etc., represented by words. I’m not going to do any ‘search on a GBook’ (whatever that may be), I’m busy enough, thank you. The search or research should be done by the person who chooses to write a Wiki-article on some subject; for example subject ‘proxy war’. Now, read my criticism of yesterday again, if you like. Corriebertus (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)