Israel set to invade Lebanon

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Shazam

There is no such thing as "nuclear war". It's "nuclear annihilation".

Why? The moment they use those weapons, they're dead. They're all dead. If any Muslim nation ever launched a nuclear weapon onto US soil, all of the Middle East would be forever destroyed.

You're awfully damn sure of yourself.
Reminds me of the saying, 'Hire a teenager while they still know everything'.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

You're awfully damn sure of yourself.
Reminds me of the saying, 'Hire a teenager while they still know everything'.

Exactly. Maybe we should examine how many nuclear warheads have been detonated throughout the world, and how little damage it has done.

That includes the 500 plus the US set off during tests.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Jonrox

Because the "War on Terror" has heightened emotions/hatred among a lot more people around the world, everybody is on edge and unfortunately looking for an excuse to exercise their agendas. Now is their time - both sides are unwilling to back down, there is no turning back for either.

Both sides being Israel against the terrorists.

Now, I can see Iran, etc getting on side with the terrorists, and the Americans getting onside with Israel, but this still is not a world war. It is merely a regional war.

It is a bad situation, but apocalyptic projections of world doom only make you look like a fool.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

You're awfully damn sure of yourself.
Reminds me of the saying, 'Hire a teenager while they still know everything'.

Awfully sure of myself? We're here aren't we? What do you think kept the USSR from invading the US? Magic? Mork and Mindy?

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Azure

Exactly. Maybe we should examine how many nuclear warheads have been detonated throughout the world, and how little damage it has done.

That includes the 500 plus the US set off during tests.

I hope to God you're sarcastic. You... do... know... about... Hiroshima... and Nagasaki... right??

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Awfully sure of myself? We're here aren't we? What do you think kept the USSR from invading the US? Magic? Mork and Mindy?

I say Mork and Mindy.

Although I'm sure the technically superior NATO conventional forces lined up in Europe had something to do with it too.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Shazam

I hope to God you're sarcastic. You... do... know... about... Hiroshima... and Nagasaki... right??

Yes, and less people were killed during those two incidents, then one firebombing raid conducted on Tokyo by the US.

How many nuclear weapons do you think will have to bet set off before we hit annihlation?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Shazam

I hope to God you're sarcastic. You... do... know... about... Hiroshima... and Nagasaki... right??

Less people died in those two incidents than in 3 days of rape, brutality and mass murder in Nanking.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Awfully sure of myself? We're here aren't we? What do you think kept the USSR from invading the US? Magic? Mork and Mindy?

I'd be the last person to argue against the concept of MAD, but the USSR and the USA both had nuclear weapons and were threatening to use them for many years before MAD became accepted. Very, very scary times. Getting lectured on MAD is kind of exasperating as I used the same concept in 1962 grade 11 English arguing against war in Viet Nam. My marks went from a B to C for my troubles but thanks for the lesson.

I'm criticising your idea that the moment a N bomb is dropped on the USA they will all be dead. The USA will not want to ruin the oil fields and so may show restraint. At least I hope so. The whole area and situation is very volatile and I"ll wait to see what happens rather than trusting some punk on the internet.

[Jonrox]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

Both sides being Israel against the terrorists.

Now, I can see Iran, etc getting on side with the terrorists, and the Americans getting onside with Israel, but this still is not a world war. It is merely a regional war.

It is a bad situation, but apocalyptic projections of world doom only make you look like a fool.

I wish I was the only fool predicting that we are at the beginning stages of WWIII. What do you guys think of Glenn Beck? His show last night was great.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

Less people died in those two incidents than in 3 days of rape, brutality and mass murder in Nanking.

Because only 220,000 people died, as a result of these two weapons being dropped, instead of the 360,000 that died as a result of the invasion of Nanking, nookylur weapons are A-Okay!!!

Oh, and the Rape of Nanking lasted six weeks, not three days. I seriously doubt that ~140,000 people were killed in three days during the Rape of Nanking. But hey, it sure sounded good!!!

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Because only 220,000 people died, as a result of these two weapons being dropped, instead of the 360,000 that died as a result of the invasion of Nanking, nookylur weapons are A-Okay!!!

Oh, and the Rape of Nanking lasted six weeks, not three days. I seriously doubt that ~140,000 people were killed in three days during the Rape of Nanking. But hey, it sure sounded good!!!

The vast majority of victims died within a 3 day span.

The point I was making was, we have a million Hiroshima memorials and blind weeping etc...

When is the Japanese government going to fess up and recognize Nanking?

[HelloHockeyFans]

Originally Posted by peter12

The vast majority of victims died within a 3 day span.

The point I was making was, we have a million Hiroshima memorials and blind weeping etc...

When is the Japanese government going to fess up and recognize Nanking?

This could get touchy, but I agree with you.

A good question would be to ask everyone who reads this: Do you know what happened during the massacre of Nanking?

If the majority don't, then the question begs to be answered, why not?

If the number of deaths is of significance, then Nanking, as you already stated, had an estimated 300,000 in 6 weeks.

If the brutality of the murders is important, some feel Nanking was one of the most brutal events to ever occur in history.

Which brings me to the last part of what you said. Why the denial by the Japanese government? And why, is it okay for them to push it aside, when it's illegal in Germany to even deny the holocaust existed?

Former Justice Minister Shigeto Nagano of Japan, denied that the massacre had even occurred, claiming it was a Chinese fabrication.

[4X4]

Ahhh.... Jonrox... You're here now, eh? Well, let's just hope you're as wrong about this conflict as you were about the NHL CBA battle.

And isn't this thread pretty far into fataville? Sorry to bump.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

The vast majority of victims died within a 3 day span.

The point I was making was, we have a million Hiroshima memorials and blind weeping etc...

When is the Japanese government going to fess up and recognize Nanking?

I agree that the Japanese should acknowledge Nanking and we should learn from it, but it was a different time and they did have a different culture. Don't forget how brutal the Japanese were towards POWs and how they were more than willing to do things we thought unimaginable during battle. Their whole system of war and what was acceptable was culturally accepted at the time, so there is nothing to apologize from that standpoint. Don't place our existing cultural constraints on things that happened historically, or on other cultures. That's our problem when dealing with the middle east IMO. We expect them to conform to our cultural standard rather than us accepting theirs.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I'd be the last person to argue against the concept of MAD, but the USSR and the USA both had nuclear weapons and were threatening to use them for many years before MAD became accepted. Very, very scary times. Getting lectured on MAD is kind of exasperating as I used the same concept in 1962 grade 11 English arguing against war in Viet Nam. My marks went from a B to C for my troubles but thanks for the lesson.

I'm criticising your idea that the moment a N bomb is dropped on the USA they will all be dead. The USA will not want to ruin the oil fields and so may show restraint. At least I hope so. The whole area and situation is very volatile and I"ll wait to see what happens rather than trusting some punk on the internet.

The latest quote I saw was that the US imports only 12% of its oil from the Mid East. I think they could get the rest from Canada if they wanted to wipe that area out.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

The latest quote I saw was that the US imports only 12% of its oil from the Mid East. I think they could get the rest from Canada if they wanted to wipe that area out.

I admire your indepth analysis. Maybe you want to consider how much of the world oil supply would disappear while demand would (at best) be unchanged.

I guess you didn't get a briefing on that.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Jonrox

I wish I was the only fool predicting that we are at the beginning stages of WWIII. What do you guys think of Glenn Beck? His show last night was great.

I think that you could find any number of fools with a radio show who could support any number of viewpoints. Congratulations on finding one that shares yours.

[HelloHockeyFans]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

I agree that the Japanese should acknowledge Nanking and we should learn from it, but it was a different time and they did have a different culture. Don't forget how brutal the Japanese were towards POWs and how they were more than willing to do things we thought unimaginable during battle. Their whole system of war and what was acceptable was culturally accepted at the time, so there is nothing to apologize from that standpoint. Don't place our existing cultural constraints on things that happened historically, or on other cultures. That's our problem when dealing with the middle east IMO. We expect them to conform to our cultural standard rather than us accepting theirs.

I apologize for veering this topic off-course, but I'd like to know why you feel that what was acceptable at "that time" was any different in Japan.

The Nanking massacre officially began in the month of December 1937, while the holocaust began in 1938. I think your argument of it being a "different time" is, simply put, completely incorrect.

As for it being "culturally acceptable", I'm assuming that you are saying that the beheading of POWs, the raping of women from the ages eight to eighty, the forcing of fathers to rape their daughters while their families watched in horror before the entire group was murdered and the tossing of infants into vats of boiling water was "culturally acceptable" to the Japanese at the time?

General Iwane Matsui, the commanding officer of the Japanese expeditionary force at the time when Japan was ready to invade Nanking, was ousted just five days before the invasion by Prince Asaka Yasuhiko. Wary of Asaka and his reputation and potential for abuse of power, Matsui quickly issued a set of moral commandments to the soldiers before he lost his post:

"The entry of the Imperial Army into a foreign capital is a great event in our history... attracting the attention of the world. Therefore let no unit enter the city in a disorderly fashion. ... Let them know beforehand the matters to be remembered and the position of foreign rights and interests in the walled city. Let them be absolutely free from plunder. Dispose sentries as needed. Plundering and causing fires, even carelessly, shall be punished severely. Together with the troops let many military police and auxiliary military police enter the walled city and thereby prevent unlawful conduct."

What happened in Nanking was not culturally acceptable to the Japanese. In fact, what happened in Nanking has never been acceptable to any culture at any time.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

I agree that the Japanese should acknowledge Nanking and we should learn from it, but it was a different time and they did have a different culture. Don't forget how brutal the Japanese were towards POWs and how they were more than willing to do things we thought unimaginable during battle. Their whole system of war and what was acceptable was culturally accepted at the time, so there is nothing to apologize from that standpoint. Don't place our existing cultural constraints on things that happened historically, or on other cultures. That's our problem when dealing with the middle east IMO. We expect them to conform to our cultural standard rather than us accepting theirs.

Careful Lanny... Absolute cultural relativism is a trap that egghead academics fall into.