| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> Re: OT: STOP THE PRESS!!
Since you are acting extremely arrogant, severely distorting what I said, and insisting on having the last word, I'll have to break my pledge not to respond and spell it out for you.
Ian says:
"I was going to write a huge message detailing my excellent knowledege of Wordl
war II history, but I cannot argue against someone who accepts that war was not
declared, but insists there was a "declared" war."
Facts:
Sept 3, 1939 - Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand declare war on
Germany.
Sept 10, 1939 - Canada declares war on Germany; Battle of the Atlantic begins
Although the US proclaimed neutrality, we were functionally allied with Britain,
et al as early as 1939. (What do you think the battle of the Atlantic was
over?) The US had not declared war on anyone, nor had anyone declared war on
us - as of the morning of Dec 7, 1941. I have never said otherwise, in spite of
your constant distortions. At the time of Pearl Harbor, WWII had been underway
and "declared" (between our allies England/Canada/etc. and Japan's ally Germany)
for over two years. We were obviously aligned. That is what I said in my
initial post - nothing more. I never said that there was a formal declaration
of war between the US and Japan prior to Pearl Harbor. That was your
distortion.
Ian says:
> I respectfully suggest you check on the history of World War II in the
Pacific. There wasn't much fighting going on. Lots of capitulation to Japanese
demands, some local resistance, but certainly no war. I do agree we were
preparing for war with Japan long before Pearl Harbor."
OK. That's fair.... I'll double check...
Facts:
July 1937 - 2nd Sino-Japanese War breaks out
Dec 1937 - atrocities committed by Jananese during the occupation of Nanking
(See: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/nanking.html)
Mar. 31, 1939 - Yonai announces occupation of Hainan and Spratly Islands
Aug. 20, 1939 - Zhukov defeats Japan at Nomonhan on Mongolian border
May 16, 1940 - Sayre advised FDR that Japan wanted to "retire gracefully" from
burdensome China war
June 22, 1940 - Petain closed Indochina route to Chiang Sept. 4, 1940 - Hull warned Konoye to stay out of Indochina Sept. 22,1940 - Japanese troops crossed into Indochina; Vichy forced to agreeSept. 27, 1940 - Tripartite Pact with Japan, Germany, Italy Nov. 30, 1940 - FDR gave $100m loan to Chiang and 50 planes to Chennault's secret group of U.S. volunteer airmen, the Flying Tigers, helping Chiang at Chungking
July 30, 1941 - U.S. gunboat "Tutiula" damaged by Japan planes near Chungking Aug. 20, 1941 - Col. William Farthing report emphasizes B-17 defense of Pearl Sept. 3, 1941 - FDR rejects Konoye summit until major principles agreed on first Sept. 4, 1941 - FDR closes Panama Canal to Japanese shipping Oct. 15, 1941 - FDR tells Churchill: "Japan situation definitely worse. I thinkthey are headed north."
The (partial list) above sure sounds a lot like "war" to me. Can anyone honestly read the reference above to the events in Nanking and say it was not "war"? There seem to have been a lot of such "local resistance" in China - and elsewhere. If the actions of Japan in China and Indochina between 1937 and Dec 7, 1941 do not constitute war, what exactly does? Also, does eventual "capitulation" to vastly superior military forces mean it was not war? If so, then was the "Gulf War" against Iraq not a "war"? The question here is not even about who is splitting hairs about the definition of war, as I was originally going to suggest. The history books seem to acknowledge this as "war". It even has a name - 'The Second Sino-Jananese War". Perhaps everyone, except Ian of course, is wrong though.
Ian says:
> You have redefined MAD. Abraham Lincoln, Once asked, "If you call the tail
of a dog a leg, how many legs does it have?"
> "Five", someone answered. "No", said Lincoln, "Four. Calling a leg a tail
doesn't make it so." I didn't mean to convey that either you or I suppported
massive retaliation. I did mean to convey that "Nuking Half the Third World"
is more inline with that policy as opposed to MAD as the rest of the world
understands it
Clever answer! Too bad it is entirely inapplicable. I've heard the Lincoln quote before and use it also, but I fail to see the relevance to this discussion. I have not redefined MAD, as you argue so often and so vehemently. As for your insistance that "mutual assured destruction" and "massive retalitation" are somehow completely separate, perhaps a neutral reference might help clear this up. Try http://www.encyclopedia.com/articles/34119.html . Therein is a paragraph that says:
"During the cold war, the nuclear strategies of the United States and the USSR ranged from straightforward deterrence to the threat of massive retaliation during the early 1950s, to limited forward deployment in the late 1950s, to various forms of flexible response in the 1960s. These have included the options of aiming nuclear weapons at other nuclear weapons and aiming them at enemy cities. Behind all of these approaches is the idea that any nuclear war would involve mutual assured destruction (MAD) for the principals, and possibly for the world as well. As a result, the United States developed a weapons arsenal large enough to ensure that enough weapons would survive an enemy first strike to retaliate effectively."
It seems that one can't reasonably build a case based on some misconception that there is mutual exclusion between MAD and the massive retaliation doctrine - since former is the foundation of the latter. Perhaps it you that doesn't understand "MAD as the rest of the world understands it". In no message did I imply a direct literal parallel between "MAD" of the cold war and the US policy in the war on terrorism. I wish you would quit saying that I did. (And I wish you would stop redefining MAD! ;-)
Ian says:
> "We speak a different language."
I entirely agree on this - and wouldn't have it any other way. I did not insinuate that the sum total of your knowledge on the topic came from a Disney movie, I have not attacked you with innuendo and I did not intentionally distort what you said to try to turn this into some childish penny-ante pissing contest. I backed my case with facts and tried to make a few observations. How it deserved this kind of response is a mystery.
Since I can't seem to resist rebutting these unfounded and childish attacks, I will just add ian_at_slac.stanford.edu to my permanent kill file to remove the source of contention. If this is the level of discourse he contributes to the list, there is no loss.
-Don Granaman
-- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com -- Author: Don Granaman INET: granaman_at_home.com Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051 San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists -------------------------------------------------------------------- To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).Received on Wed Sep 12 2001 - 23:02:39 CDT
 |
 |