Israel set to invade Lebanon

[blankall]

Does anyone else think that this present situation could help difuse the middle east?

Already we have several arab nations denouncing Hezbolla. Which is a huge thing. The UN it seems is finally starting to wake up and realize that a pragmatic solution is needed (ie blaming one side or the other and then passing suggestions is simply not doing anyting). Also people are realizing the results of this new cold/proxy war system in the middle east.

This could be kind of like when pressure in an earthquake is building up it's better to let it go through several smaller movements, instead of one gigantic one?

I'm not saying the deaths in the middle east are a good thing, but maybe some good can come out of them?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

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

And not acknowledging it is what warmongering dittohead conservatives do. What's your point? I think it is a very relevant issue and is the main reason why the Americans failed in Vietnam. If you're going to fight someone, and defeat them, you must unfortunately sink to their levels to defeat them. You must very often eceed the horrors that the other side go to. War is all about breaking the spirit of others. That spirit is comepletely shattered when the horrors of war supass given societal tolerances.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

,,

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by HelloHockeyFans

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.

Different time in relation to today.

I was speaking from the context of Japanese and Chinese societal tolerances. Both cultures have a rich tradition of brutal warfare where the defeated were open game.

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?

To the Jpanese "warriors" I think it was acceptable. There were some that thought it distasteful, but the fact that this went on for six weeks says it was supported and encouraged from within the command structure.

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."

Actions speak differently than the words. He may have been a moderate. He may have been a progressive thinker. Bottom line is that the situation lasted for six weeks and the actions that followed with POWs proved that this was accepted methodology, not an acception to the rule.

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.

Bull****. In your little world maybe, but not in the world whose history I study. In many cultures the victors have completely destroyed villages/cities, leaving no trace of them, and this was not only accepted methodology, but encouraged. Jesus, even in America, during the civil war, cities and towns were sacked and burned to the ground, by both sides. You may argue that it was not acceptable, but the fact that it happened repeatedly says otherwise. There is a long list of cultures who raped, pillaged and burned their way across the known world. Even in the new world the indians were well versed in the practice of defeating the enemy and then slaughtering the remains and destroying their villages. From the begining of recorded history right up to the present day we have seen examples of this behavior taking place and being part of the military mindset.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

And not acknowledging it is what warmongering dittohead conservatives do. What's your point? I think it is a very relevant issue and is the main reason why the Americans failed in Vietnam. If you're going to fight someone, and defeat them, you must unfortunately sink to their levels to defeat them. You must very often eceed the horrors that the other side go to. War is all about breaking the spirit of others. That spirit is comepletely shattered when the horrors of war supass given societal tolerances.

I'm kind of getting sick of your pseudo-intellectualism. It was entertaining and somewhat interesting for while... but really. The lack of logic and continuity in your rants are just simply tiring.

[Shazam]

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.

They were threatening to use them. They did not use them. That is MAD. Whether or not you or anyone else discovered the concept of MAD when you were in grade 11 is irrelevant.

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.

A few neutron bombs should clear out the Middle East quite nicely.

And you don't need to call yourself a "punk" on the internet. If you are refering to me, I don't think I need to trust some loser on the internet such as yourself, but since what I expressed was my own opinion, and your aged-addled brain doesn't seem to realize that, I'll forgive you.

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

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

You're an idiot, so I won't bother with you. You should look at a globe one day and realize that the USSR could have invaded the USA from the Pacific, but hey, whatever. And NATO was there to protect Europe. But whatever.

[White Doors]

You're an idiot, so I won't bother with you. You should look at a globe one day and realize that the USSR could have invaded the USA from the Pacific, but hey, whatever. And NATO was there to protect Europe. But whatever.

Well you were doing ok until that part.
Europe was the main battleground in the cold war. Was from the start and was at the end. If you don't know that then you are what you are calling others. Invade from the pacific eh? haha

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Shazam

They were threatening to use them. They did not use them. That is MAD. Whether or not you or anyone else discovered the concept of MAD when you were in grade 11 is irrelevant.

A few neutron bombs should clear out the Middle East quite nicely.

And you don't need to call yourself a "punk" on the internet. If you are refering to me, I don't think I need to trust some loser on the internet such as yourself, but since what I expressed was my own opinion, and your aged-addled brain doesn't seem to realize that, I'll forgive you.

You're an idiot, so I won't bother with you. You should look at a globe one day and realize that the USSR could have invaded the USA from the Pacific, but hey, whatever. And NATO was there to protect Europe. But whatever.

Because I have a shotgun in my bedroom and I don't use it doesn't necessarily mean that I'm not using it because I'm scared that someone else will shoot me. There are lots of possibilities, try using some logic.

Mad was one of the valid concepts between the USA and the USSR, as they could each wipe the other out, but to say that it was the only reason we didn't have a third world war is ignoring the possibility that wiping out the other was kind of distastefull to each. I like to believe in the general goodness of mankind and that if someone drops a N bomb on the US it may not lead to wiping the Middleeast out. Your sweeping generalizations about MAD are immature and led me to calling you a punk. Show me differently and I'll retract but otherwise twist on it.

I'm glad to put you in the jerk camp who thinks nothing of dropping a "few neutron bombs".

I'd like to add that the main reason I don't use my shotgun is because I don't want to. The MAD concept was invoked because there were and still are a number of people [Shazam?] who prefer to solve any and all problems by violence. I hope our leaders have higher ideals.

[HelloHockeyFans]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

To the Jpanese "warriors" I think it was acceptable. There were some that thought it distasteful, but the fact that this went on for six weeks says it was supported and encouraged from within the command structure.

I'm assuming you mean "samurai" which evolved into an accepted way of acting for the military in Japan in accordance to a code called bushido, which calls for the fearless facing of enemies in battle, but at the same time preaches kindness, honesty and obedience to authority. Brutality and rape were not included anywhere in the guidelines for a samurai, so no, it was not culturally acceptable.

I do agree with you though that for the massacre to go on as long as it did, indicates some problems deeply routed within the military and the commanders.

I can see this going in circles, but the original reason I was so bothered by your post was when you said, "Their whole system of war and what was acceptable was culturally accepted at the time, so there is nothing to apologize from that standpoint.".

To me it seems rather unfair to the victims of the massacre, to say that it was "culturally acceptable" (which I don't agree with at all) at the time, and therefore an apology from Japan is not necessary.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

I'm kind of getting sick of your pseudo-intellectualism. It was entertaining and somewhat interesting for while... but really. The lack of logic and continuity in your rants are just simply tiring.

Pseudo-intellectualism? Is that the best you got after being run over on a tangent you injected into a middle eastern debate? I completely hit you where you live, and you know it. I can sense you boiling on the other side of the screen because you've got nothing to comeback with. You tossed up a softball and it was drilled right down your throat! You frame everything based on the only limited frame of reference you know, that being late 1990's- early 2000's North American society. You love to pull out these historical dates and incidents, and then try and ask provoking questions about them and how they make any action today look minimalistic. They are always off base and have little relevance to the thread, but you do like to make the effort in a hope it will make you look intellectual, but then you get completely destroyed when you do. You talk about logic, yet your addistions have no relevance. You talk of continuity, yet you don't understand the points of reference. It's painful to watch, but entertaining at the same time. Keep it up by all means! You're a laughable little fella.

BTW... how many years you been working on that political science degree? I wanna make sure you're not wasting too much time on an undergrad that qualifies you for bagging groceries or wondering if the customer would like more fries with their order.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by HelloHockeyFans

I'm assuming you mean "samurai" which evolved into an accepted way of acting for the military in Japan in accordance to a code called bushido, which calls for the fearless facing of enemies in battle, but at the same time preaches kindness, honesty and obedience to authority. Brutality and rape were not included anywhere in the guidelines for a samurai, so no, it was not culturally acceptable.

I do agree with you though that for the massacre to go on as long as it did, indicates some problems deeply routed within the military and the commanders.

I can see this going in circles, but the original reason I was so bothered by your post was when you said, "Their whole system of war and what was acceptable was culturally accepted at the time, so there is nothing to apologize from that standpoint.".

To me it seems rather unfair to the victims of the massacre, to say that it was "culturally acceptable" (which I don't agree with at all) at the time, and therefore an apology from Japan is not necessary.

Ah, I can see where you're coming from. Call them what you want, samurai or ninja. I don't think it matters. I think that understanding that this tradition has the propensity to violence and that this outpouring of such was not that unexpected, especially when dealing with the Chinese who there is historical bad blood between the two countries. I think that if Japan thought the action we reprehensible they would come out and apologize for it. They haven't and there is no indication they ever will. The Japanese were brutal during times of war, but they view it as a time of war. I think this was a difficult time for the Japanese, as they were on the shoulder of changing cultural norms and becoming more westernized. I think this is why Nanking happened. The battle of wills (old versus new) made the command structure useless and lead to an out of control situation. Should the Japanese apologize for Nanking? Sure. Just like every country should aplologize for several things in their history. I don't see an apology coming, and I don't think the Japanese will ever willingly extend that olive branch to China either.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Pseudo-intellectualism? Is that the best you got after being run over on a tangent you injected into a middle eastern debate? I completely hit you where you live, and you know it. I can sense you boiling on the other side of the screen because you've got nothing to comeback with. You tossed up a softball and it was drilled right down your throat! You frame everything based on the only limited frame of reference you know, that being late 1990's- early 2000's North American society. You love to pull out these historical dates and incidents, and then try and ask provoking questions about them and how they make any action today look minimalistic. They are always off base and have little relevance to the thread, but you do like to make the effort in a hope it will make you look intellectual, but then you get completely destroyed when you do. You talk about logic, yet your addistions have no relevance. You talk of continuity, yet you don't understand the points of reference. It's painful to watch, but entertaining at the same time. Keep it up by all means! You're a laughable little fella.

BTW... how many years you been working on that political science degree? I wanna make sure you're not wasting too much time on an undergrad that qualifies you for bagging groceries or wondering if the customer would like more fries with their order.

Oh brother. Believe me, nothing you says "boils me" up. I inject things with relevance into the debate and you completely miss it every single time. Normally you respond with something I've heard in a first year class room. I just don't really care to inject myself into these debates with all my heart like you do. Unlike you, I really don't care about the opinions of others on internet message boards. I'm not going to change the world from my keyboard.

About my degree, it's 3 years in. I finish this year and I'm off to McGill for an MA. By no means do I pretend to be an intellectual. I'm an above average student who has had some great opportunities to get some great practical experience.

[peter12]

You're an idiot, so I won't bother with you. You should look at a globe one day and realize that the USSR could have invaded the USA from the Pacific, but hey, whatever. And NATO was there to protect Europe. But whatever.

Wow, an idiot? So how was the rust bucket Soviet navy going to pull off a Pacific invasion of the US?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

I inject things with relevance into the debate and you completely miss it every single time.

Yes, I guess I do. Kind of like this thread. The discussion in the impending invasion of Lebanon and its potential to become WWIII, and you inject the Rape of Nanking into things to marginalize the nuclear threat? WTF??? You're right, I missed it. That would be like us talking about the Flames backup golatending situation on the main board and you popping in mentioning the 1962 Met's bullpen in some shape or fashion, and then expecting us to make the connection between that the '62 Mets bullpen and the Flames backups (relief pitchers). Then again, you do think on a completely different (or higher as you like to think) level! By the sounds of it, your professors think so too. Someone that has such a dissying intellect like yourself must have them continually scratching their heads, wondering what you're talking about. I guess that might reflect in your grades?

Normally you respond with something I've heard in a first year class room.

And it still is so much more advanced than any of the crap you post. You know, something tells me that you're reading about the Rape of Nanking in one of your classes recently and you've been struggling to some how work it into a thread, like knowing about this subject might be impressive. I think this is the one that you thought it might just fit in. I'm pretty close, right?

Unlike you, I really don't care about the opinions of others on internet message boards.

Then what are you doing here? If you don't care about the opinions of others, WTF are you doing engaging in a political debate with others? And if you don't care about other's opinions, WTF are you doing going into political science?

I'm not going to change the world from my keyboard.

Again, WTF are you doing in political science? You're a political science student, and you hold that attitude? Yeah, you're going to go far. Hey, can I get extra ketchup with my fries?

About my degree, it's 3 years in. I finish this year and I'm off to McGill for an MA. By no means do I pretend to be an intellectual. I'm an above average student who has had some great opportunities to get some great practical experience.

I can believe you're an average student (probably hovering around a 3.1 or 3.2). If your work here is any indication, that might even be a little high. Can't wait to see you in graduate studies. That will be entertaining as hell. If I were you, I'd spend a little more time with my academic advisor and make sure the path you're going down is the right one. Personally, I don't trhink you have the chops to cut it in the political arena, and it sounds like you aren't even motivated to public service. For you, I'm thinking culinary arts or the hospitality industries! You're intellect and skills are much better aligned in those vocations.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

You're an idiot, so I won't bother with you. You should look at a globe one day and realize that the USSR could have invaded the USA from the Pacific, but hey, whatever. And NATO was there to protect Europe. But whatever.

Wow, an idiot? So how was the rust bucket Soviet navy going to pull off a Pacific invasion of the US?

Historical context is lost on Peter again.

[Finner]

I'm going to have to weigh in on Lanny's side for this one.

He's right, you cannot judge other culture's based on our own. Thats one of the first things you would ever learn in an introductory anthropology class.

Yes, in our current society's mind, the incidents by the Japanese towards the Chinese during World War II our incredibly distasteful. But in the Japanese and Chinese military mindsets during WWII, victory was about the total destruction of the enemy force, be it through arms, pillaging or even rape.

Consider the way in which they treated the 10000 Canadian POW's after the invasion of Hong Kong.

The only two ways to actually win a war in the end; Either totally destroy the culture and society of the opposing nation, or once victory is assured, return the opposing nation to its former power. An example of that would be the massive economic aid the United States presented to the Japanese at the conclusion of the war.

Without doing either, or finding the middle ground, you will breed contempt and hate in the invaded country, which invariably leads to more problems; AKA Germany after WWI.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Finner

victory was about the total destruction of the enemy force, be it through arms, pillaging or even rape.

.

Sounds like Lanny.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Sounds like Lanny.

Yeah, no kidding.