Originally posted by whodey Like it or not, the AIDS epidemic is politically charged. You you political activist groups, mostly within the gay community, which elevate this illness above all else. In addition, it is a disease that is mostly attributed to behavior, unless you are getting a blood transfusion. And lets be honest here, the gay community accounts for well over half the AIDS cases even though they are only about 5% of the population.
Are you aware, at all, of the extent of the social, economic and demographic devastation that has resulted from the AIDS epidemic in Africa?
Are you talking about " the gay community" in the U.S.?
Originally posted by sonhouse Are you forgetting the murder of 1/3 of Cambodia's citizens by Pol Pot? He was just as evil or more so than Hitler. Also, the pogroms of the 1968 Chinese 'cultural' revolution, killing whole villages, killing anyone who wore glasses since they would have been considered an intellectual.
Then there is the central hypocrisy of the US where a half million ...[text shortened]... the last 20 years, that adds up to 10 million people who died as a result of smoking tobacco.
If you are going by cause and effect, the massive US intervention in Indochina surely led, as one of its many unforeseen consequences, to the Khmer Rouge taking over in Cambodia as well as leading to several million other deaths in the region.
Originally posted by Teinosuke Most people are likely to agree that the rise of Hitler and the consequent Second World War were the worst things that happened during the twentieth century (and possibly in all history). But what was the greatest disaster that happened in world history since the end of World War II? By "greatest disaster", I mean the event or set of events that had the most negative consequences overall for human life, welfare and happiness.
I mean the event or set of events that had the most negative consequences overall for human life, welfare and happiness.-Teinosuke
Originally posted by no1marauder If you are going by cause and effect, the massive US intervention in Indochina surely led, as one of its many unforeseen consequences, to the Khmer Rouge taking over in Cambodia as well as leading to several million other deaths in the region.
How many Cambodians were killed by the more-bombs-than-were-dropped-on Germany-in-WW2 [or whatever it was exactly] bombing campaign over densely populated parts of the country in the late 60s/early 70s? Were these deaths just tacked on the toll of Pol Pot atrocities? Does the U.S. admit ANY casualties caused by all those bombs?
Originally posted by FMF Are you aware, at all, of the extent of the social, economic and demographic devastation that has resulted from the AIDS epidemic in Africa?
Are you talking about " the gay community" in the U.S.?
Do Africans count? I mean, the UN and the world watched as over half a million were killed in the Sudan and did nothing. Then again, when oil rich Libya had troubles they seemed to get in the spirit of "humanitarian" interventions, so maybe I'm wrong.
I mean the event or set of events that had the most negative consequences overall for human life, welfare and happiness.-Teinosuke
The Iron curtain
Without doubt, millions and millions, multiple, of people died as a consequence of one man's politics, Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin...the man that wouldn't even consider negotiating his own sons 'extraction' from certain death in Sachsenhausen Concentration camp...the idealist dictators, whatever they wish to call themselves, they've all good immense blood on their hands.
Originally posted by whodey Do Africans count? I mean, the UN and the world watched as over half a million were killed in the Sudan and did nothing. Then again, when oil rich Libya had troubles they seemed to get in the spirit of "humanitarian" interventions, so maybe I'm wrong.
How does the success or failure of the U.N. affect your own opinion as to whether "Africans count"?
Originally posted by whodey Has cancer always been 1 in 3 people?
From what I have read, cancer is most prevalent in well developed nations and almost absent in the third world. This can be attributed to several things. Perhaps it is because people in the well developed nations live longer, thus increasing their chances to obtain cancer. Or perhaps it is due to better medical c ...[text shortened]... e. It's all about the money!! I think the 20th century has been the beginnning of this trend.
You are going to lose this one. Most cancer wasn't even detected as cancer until fairly recently, but was killing people nontheless.
Originally posted by RevRSleeker Without doubt, millions and millions, multiple, of people died as a consequence of one man's politics, Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin...the man that wouldn't even consider negotiating his own sons 'extraction' from certain death in Sachsenhausen Concentration camp...the idealist dictators, whatever they wish to call themselves, they've all good immense blood on their hands.
I believe you are onto something, and this is a good candidate. It might even be argued that Stalin's policies were the proximate cause of the US intervention in Southeast Asia.
The belief in collectivism and central planning, most often by force, can be seen in the 2nd half of the 20th century repeatedly in Sub-Saharan Africa with new nations struggling after leaving colonialism and buying into the lies of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin.
Originally posted by FMF How does the success or failure of the U.N. affect your own opinion as to whether "Africans count"?
The African tragedy may be a candidate. For details see Thomas Sowell's book Conquest and Culture, which details the struggles all over the African continent to establish new governments at the end of colonial times. A great deal of this happened since 1945, and included the AIDs epidemic, as well as the mutual slaughter of tribal groups in almost every new nation on that continent.
Originally posted by normbenign The African tragedy may be a candidate. For details see Thomas Sowell's book Conquest and Culture, which details the struggles all over the African continent to establish new governments at the end of colonial times. A great deal of this happened since 1945, and included the AIDs epidemic, as well as the mutual slaughter of tribal groups in almost every new nation on that continent.
Originally posted by RevRSleeker Without doubt, millions and millions, multiple, of people died as a consequence of one man's politics, Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin...the man that wouldn't even consider negotiating his own sons 'extraction' from certain death in Sachsenhausen Concentration camp...the idealist dictators, whatever they wish to call themselves, they've all good immense blood on their hands.
Stalin was, however, in power before 1945, so may technically be excluded from the terms of this thread (although the incorporation of the rest of Eastern Europe into the Soviet bloc would be a legitimate candidate).
One candidate no-one's mentioned yet might be the victory of Mao in the Chinese Civil War - at least if one assumes (a big assumption) that China under the control of Chiang Kai-Shek would have developed roughly like Taiwan. Post-1949 Taiwan was certainly no paradise, but Mao was responsible for tens of millions of deaths, as well as untold cultural damage. It is hard to see how Chiang's rule might have been remotely as awful.
Originally posted by Teinosuke Stalin was, however, in power before 1945, so may technically be excluded from the terms of this thread (although the incorporation of the rest of Eastern Europe into the Soviet bloc would be a legitimate candidate).
One candidate no-one's mentioned yet might be the victory of Mao in the Chinese Civil War - at least if one assumes (a big assumption) tha ...[text shortened]... untold cultural damage. It is hard to see how Chiang's rule might have been remotely as awful.
I fail to see how the incorporation of Eastern Europe into the Soviet Bloc rates as such a great disaster. Most of Eastern Europe was comprised of brutal fascist states anyway (with the exception of Czechoslovakia) and while Eastern European countries under communism were rather deary and repressive there wasn't widespread killing such as there was in other disasters mentioned.
Greatest disaster since 1945
19 Nov '11 16:21
Back to Top