RavishingRickRudo

Canadian, bitches.

Yes! Robfather!

BTW, without fail, my favourite team/person usually gets booted from the show first. Bye bye Rob and Amber.

They should just rename this show "The amazing rack"

This show is getting very disturbing.

Rob and Amber could not be taking this less seriously. That's awesome. They better not lose.

"There goes the happy boys"

TITITITIITITITITITTIES!!!

Wow, could these guys be playing gay any more?

Can you elaborate on this please? Maybe I need to hear more about the "American mentality" from someone who doesn't live in America and seems to know more about it then me, an American who has lived here for my entire life. Trying to justify your actions, no matter how terrible, and thinking you were in the right when its over. Like I said, self-righteous. The Good Guys. Heroes. This is why the US is capable of launching a first strike nuclear attack. You will think it's the right thing to do and that you had no other choice.[/b] If you understand MAD, and you believe that the shield wouldn't protect against all weapons, it seems to me like you would see why America won't be the ones to start a war using nukes. It will be somebody like the DRNK, w/ much less to lose and more to prove. I see America launching a nuke as a pre-emptive strike under the reasoning of "preventing" them from getting hit first. Of course, this is all hypothetical, but if a country was to launch a first strike, it'd be the US. History shows that the US typically gets into war for two reaons. 1) America is brought into the war (WWII) or 2) America directly benefits. What benefit comes from blowing the shit out of everybody? If America gets into a nuclear war, it will be to stop somebody else from using them. What about Iraq? The initial justification was "they have chemical weapons and will use it on us".

There is no 'in context of nuclear war'. It's simply war in general. Just because you bring tanks first doesn't mean 'in the context of armored warfare you were the aggressor'. What question started the discussion? It has been the context from moment 1. We WEREN'T the aggressors, no matter how much you try to twist the matter. You introduced nuclear warfare. How is that not being the aggressor when it comes to nuclear warfare? *snip, SPECULATION.* Thirdly, no it isn't. Comparing 300,000 potentially dead in one course of action to multi-millions potentially dead is not that relative. It's simple math. You seem to forget that they hadn't dropped the bomb when they did this calculation. The fact that you say it is "simple math" shows the state of mind you guys have in regards to this subject. It's not "This many dead vs. this many potential", it's "This vs. This". There isn't any relative part about it: People will die, more people will die one way than another. Make your choice. But my point is that _today_ people believe "This many dead vs. this many potential" was justified. Which is why I said "still". Even in retrospect you feel that killing that many people was justified. You can see it in the past 2 pages of this thread. I don't see it as being exactly the same way. A fist-fight, the only person involved is you two. War on a whole is much more complex than to simply try to bring it down to that equation. So now war is more complex than an equation. What happened to simple math? The analogy fits, the US changed the rules of war when they dropped the nuclear bomb. They also showed a willingness to use a nuke when they felt it was justified... and that justification was based on speculation. And I find your conclusion to be bs, but since that's pretty much completely subjective, I won't try to argue it. I personally found, though, your justification through the A-Bomb argument to be flawed. "Do you think the US would be capable of a first strike nuclear attack?" "Yes. You used them before. Infact, you were the only country to ever use it on another country." Do you guys take _any_ responsibility for dropping the bomb?

RRR, America will never strike first with nuclear weapons, simply because that's our policy. 1. You have shown a willingness to use Nuclear Weapons. 2. You have shown a willingness for pre-emptive strikes. 3. HA! "That's our policy". Well gee, if you put it that way... "Never" is a strong word. We do not start thermonuclear wars. Period. Of course not. You're the good guys. You would never do such a thing. Never. If someone else wants to play that card, then sure, we'll turn their country into the world's biggest skating rink. What if there was speculation that North Korea was planning on nuking you? But there is no other reason that we'd use them at all. America only has nukes in order to keep other countries from nuking us. That is their sole purpose for existing. THAT's why you have so many of them. The arguments about World War II are completely irrelevant. The fact that America was the first one to use nuclear weapons is irrelevant to the discussion of America launching a nuclear first strike? You guys are seriously fucking nuts. The situation, the context, the politics, the technology, what they knew at the time, everything is completely different from how it is now. Situations can change. Fact is America has been willing to use nuclear weapons in battle. You won't even consider the possibility. Fat Man and Little Boy were firecrackers compared to some of the monsters that the US and USSR have designed throughout the years. (And the death tolls in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were mere fractions of the casualties from conventional bombs dropped on places like Tokyo or Dresden.) Nice to see you dismissing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

Boon, almost everything you have said explains why US would attack first in a nuclear war. My position is not to "convince you", it is to explain my reasoning to the answer I provided to the question. I understand the reasoning to dropping the bombs on "H&N", and I understand the reasoning as to why America wouldn't strike first and MAD. I just think that history and the mentality of Americans says otherwise. You displayed that mentality in this thread again and again and again. If America feels justified in a first strike nuclear attack, they will do so. There is no barrier preventing them from doing so.

Umm, ask anybody that knows about Japan/WWII. They'll tell you. They don't "know" that millions would have died. Because it never happened. Yeah, you're right. I guess we just have different morals, b/c I'd try to save the 1 million, while you'd rather wait and see how many died before doing something about it. I don't think I ever put my own person opinions in this. Both are horrible situatons. Both are wrong. When it comes down to survival of the fittest, of course you are going to be looking out for you and yours. To think otherwise would be downright stupid... or Christ-like. Whatever . It's still a sad situation. It's really basic military strategy. Taking out 300,000 of your enemy to save 1,000,000 of your own makes sense, I'm sorry. I don't see how killing that many people could "make sense". HAHA. If you're stupid enough to punch somebody who has a knife, you deserve to get cut. This isn't the movies, kid. Fighting with honor went out w/ the Old West, hate to break it to you. That's the nature of war. Which is why the US could strike first. You guys play dirty. But somehow you still feel you're coming out clean. Because it "makes sense".

Umm, no. See, you're wrong. Whether or not Japan struck first is relevant, because establishing a defense system like this has everything to do with first- and second-strike capability. Umm, yeah, see I'm not. Did Japan use nukes in their attack on pearl harbour? Or at any time during the war? The question was "do you think the US would strike first in a nuclear war", they already did, so there's your answer. Simple stuff. You can't use H&N to back up your claim that the US would launch nukes first, b/c like i said before (which you ignored) the technology has changed drastically. Dropping an A-Bomb and dropping some of the nukes we have now are completely different. Of course. I keep on forgetting that 100,000 is a tiny number and therefore the willingness to kill that many is rather insignificant.. And seeing as how the shiled isn't in place, MAD is still very much a concern. I agree that it might not work properly or destory all nukes, hence, MAD is still an issue. Yes, which means the US would use them where their enemies are not able for a counter-attack using nukes. So the US could cripple their enemy. Like WWII. Very much relevant. Well, let's start with how much money the US contributes to the Int'l economy, including the majority of contributions to the World Bank. Then we can talk about the military contributions, the cultural contributions, poverty/disaster relief, diplomacy, etc. Must I go on? Yes. Still doesn't explain the whole "World Police" thing. Your dislike for America blinds you from the facts. Nah, I love youze guyz. I think you have a tendancy to put yourself in the hero role way too much, though. That's why I responded to the questioned posed. "America couldn't possibly strike first with nuclear weapons, we're the good guys!" At the very core, experts agree, a defensive-shield like this is an offensive move as much as defensive. I can explain it to you again, if you'd like. Please do. It doesn't seem to connect with what I said, so some more explanation may be in order. The "Good Defense/Offense" thing was more of a "He's going to hit me so I will hit him first!" kinda thing. In the end, you still hit first. The excuse for killing the thousands in H&N was to prevent the death of millions... I think that's a decent reason. Of course you do. I don't think the families living in "H&N" at the time agree, though.

This is where your argument is completely flawed. To ignore the facts that we were attacked first (Thusly NOT the aggressors) and we had fought this war for 3 years and were desperately trying to end it with the least amount of lives lost. Our justification for dropping the atomic bomb: Millions of lives would be lost any other way. I don't see how that morally relative. The aggressors in a nuclear war, you certainly were. Which is the context of the current discussion. Where is the proof that millions of lives would have been lost any other way? That sounds like a dumb question and will probably be dismissed as such cause that's how this section is, but in the end it was speculation. Comparing "1,000,000 potential lives" and "100,000 actual lives" is morally relative. It was the equivalent of bringing a knife to a fist fight. They may have punched you first, but that doesn't give you a reason to go and cut on them. But it did. The initial question was "do you believe the US would shoot first", and my answer was yes, because the US will find a reason to shoot first, and the American public will be content with that reason. It will be under the banner of "protecting America". And for Americans, that's just great. For Canada too. For the rest of the world? Not so much. Perhaps you could justify why we shouldn't have dropped the bomb. Maybe that'll help me out here. It killed about 300,000 people. Wow. That was easy. Can't believe you didn't see that. Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant, those were 300,000 actual lives.

My point is being proved, thank you. Moral Relativism at it's finest. I am not saying it was justified or not, I didn't make a single judgement in that sentence. I am saying that the US has justified killing 100,000+ with nuclear weapons. Period. It could very easily happen again. This "the best defense is a good offense", which was used in WWII and in Iraq now, reasoning is shit, because ultimately the aggressor -the country in the wrong- is the US. But you'll manage to come up with some excuse for killing 10,000 people. For killing 100,000. And no doubt, if it ever happens, you'll find a reason for killing 1,000,000 people. Edit:: And I'm sure it will be a great reason.

Sixty years ago the weapons were completely different then they are today. Everybody knows that, so citing H&N as evidence that we would strike FIRST is not only flawed in its very premise (b/c we dropped bombs after Japan had started our involvement w/ Pearl Harbor, we did not start that war), it's flawed b/c the weapons are so much more advanced that the reason we haven't had another massive war is because we all recognize the notion of Mutually Assured Destruction. The statement was in response to starting a "nuclear war". Whether Japan striked first is irrelevant, they didn't use nukes. The US did. They introduced it into warfare. Precident is set. The missile defense shield, in theory, eliminates the notion of MAD, at least for the US. BTW, you make it sound like Canada is so much more civil then America, when you don't even deal w/ the stuff that we, the hegemon, are responsible for. When Canada becomes the hegemon and deals with the same things America do, we can compare. Until then, it's really not a valid argument. What, exactly, does America have to deal with?

Yes. You are very a very self-righteous people. And, you know, you *did* drop 2 of them before and still feel justified in doing so.

I have this strange feeling that Rob and Amber get eliminated first. Amazing Race plays WWF to Survivors WCW

They have built this show nicely. The turncoat on Team Liddell was a nice touch, Lebens (?) return after Team Liddell was so happy he was gone, Bobby gettin shut up...or not ... the turn around for Team Couture, the Liddell member who hates being on Team Couture.

They are still missing a middleweight, so I assume that's what it's for. The initial preview said someone "returned", it could have been Nate. Of course, now I know better.

The preview had Randy picking the guy, and Leben is a Quest fighter. And they said "He's back" in the narration.

LEBEN RETURNS?! Oh FUCK.

Does Bobby come back? It couldn't possibly be Leben. Is it the guy with the ankle? Shit. It got good again