World News Thread & Breaking News!!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
Tell me about it!
Still DT is suffering as the membership and activity levels are plummeting as a result of what is really very poor moderation.
Its very sad as it used to be massive and covered a genuinely wide range of topics with a lot of very informed people, most of whom are no longer active.

Yes, I know Webby is busy, but it really is sad, I just happened to check out Sino Defense, and its a whole nother world, awesome. Several of those fellows "Hate" the F-22, you'd think the F-35 was God sent, dare not criticize it, though in fairness I would say that I learned a lot and had to do a little research, and came away liking the F-35, but they are "Death" on the HI/LO philosophy, like it never existed. So while I do check it out once in a great while, and yes they do have some bright and informed folks, well I think you have hit the nail on the head???? sad really, as there really are some nice fellows, but they are overshadowed by the folks who "know it all"?????? oh well, We on the other hand have a great team of moderators, so really, I doubt we are missing anything??? I do appreciate the kind and patient men of the Sino Defense forum, and I have learned to try to understand where folks are coming from, I have learned a great deal, thank you all. brat
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
I think every guy who's ever accompanied his gf or wife to the mall has felt like killing himself rather than going into another shop. However, he's the only guy who took the sentiment literally.

The poor guy is lucky he didn't have to accompany his girlfriend at the Galleria (Houston's premier shopping mall). That place right there is a place to be seen alright.
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
Hmm interesting viewpoint. I agree that women are more affected by other women more so often than us. As for what the fashion industry dictates, I have no idea so I won't comment on it..although I speculate there's a sense of artistic appreciation for "curves" as elegant. I do remember though, that I have seen those commercials and ads where they showed the behind-the-scene production where they used photoshop to alter the images of the models to the "perfect curves", which in fact is unrealistic. I will see if I can find the video for you. As for the blame a man suicide analogy, I got lost there. Can you clarify please?

In my first post I mentioned that I saw this discussed on Piers Morgan's show on CNN. A panelist charged that because this man went to the extreme of committing suicide, he would've been abusive towards his girlfriend if he hadn't. How does this person come up with that conclusion when there were no reports of such a thing occurring right before unless they want to claim preventing a woman from shopping is abuse. The panelist made such an outrageous charge because she had a knee-jerk reaction to how this made women look bad. So instead of just saying there have to have been more issues beyond just shopping for her girlfriend, this panelist took the attention off the idea that a girlfriend drove man to commit suicide over her materialism and vilified the man instead. Same with anorexia. There's a stigma that comes with anorexia because it's self-inflicted by choice rooted in cultural perception if body image. Blaming it on straight men is the cop-out from how anorexia is more a result of women pressuring women on body image.
 
In my first post I mentioned that I saw this discussed on Piers Morgan's show on CNN. A panelist charged that because this man went to the extreme of committing suicide, he would've been abusive towards his girlfriend if he hadn't. How does this person come up with that conclusion when there were no reports of such a thing occurring right before unless they want to claim preventing a woman from shopping is abuse. The panelist made such an outrageous charge because she had a knee-jerk reaction to how this made women look bad. So instead of just saying there have to have been more issues beyond just shopping for her girlfriend, this panelist took the attention off the idea that a girlfriend drove man to commit suicide over her materialism and vilified the man instead. Same with anorexia. There's a stigma that comes with anorexia because it's self-inflicted by choice rooted in cultural perception if body image. Blaming it on straight men is the cop-out from how anorexia is more a result of women pressuring women on body image.

OK that clarified a lot. Thanks. Not sure if she's one of the extreme feminists, but yes her argument is flawed. We as guys will know quite well, that often self-afflicted injuries while with a significant other or someone important is a way to vent our own frustrations that had to go violent, but without taking it out on the person...or to control the violence/aggression over to somewhere else. In other words, it's also us being sensible or aware enough of what we're doing and having still enough control to fire it off somewhere. So while I'd say it might be true that the guy might have aggression in him(it's only a speculation, if we're using my theory, and assuming this action stems from aggression he needed to let out), that's pretty much the end of fallacy to her condemnation. The fact he channelled it on himself could be other stress-related factors, or for almost any reasons...but none of which that spells the direction of "he's going to hit her if he didn't jump".

Also, at least he's sensible enough to leave the bags behind. What more does she want?

Finally, I've got to say, regular feminists benefits to the humanity movement, like followers of your classic religion. It's just those fundamentalists who preach hate who gives everyone else a bad name and trouble. (I've also heard that many feminists dislike the extremists because for the exact reason). Finally, I think it's been said by one of my classmates before that feminists wasn't intended to be the movement solely for females, but actually fighting for all under-privileged groups. This will actually basically mean pretty much most of us.
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
Here is an interesting read.

Russia may answer conventional attack with nukes

MOSCOW (AP) — Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to a conventional strike and sees them as a "great equalizer" reducing the likelihood of aggression, a senior Russian official said Wednesday.

While Russia amended its military doctrine years ago to allow for the possibility of using nuclear weapons first in retaliation to a non-nuclear attack, the statement by Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin reflected Moscow's concern about prospective U.S. conventional weapons.

Weapons that have been developed in the United States under the so-called "prompt global strike" program would be capable of striking targets anywhere in the world in as little as an hour with deadly precision. Russia, which has lagged far behind in developing such weapons, has described them as destabilizing.

Without naming the U.S., Rogozin told lawmakers in comments carried by Russian news agencies said that those who "experiment with non-nuclear strategic weapons" should remember that "if we come under attack, we will undoubtedly use nuclear weapons in certain situations to defend our territory and state interests."

He said that it should discourage any potential aggressor.

"We have never underestimated the role of nuclear weapons ... as a 'great equalizer,'" Rogozin said.

Asked for reaction, an official at North Atlantic Treaty Organization headquarters in Brussels said, "NATO has stated repeatedly that it does not view Russia as an adversary. Last year at the Chicago Summit, NATO leaders reiterated their desire to see a true strategic partnership between NATO and Russia. NATO is committed to the principles laid out in the Founding Act of the NATO-Russia Council, and works productively with Russia across a range of issues of common concern."

The Russian doctrine mirrors the American strategy during the Cold War, when the U.S. would not rule out using nuclear weapons first, because it feared it might have to do so in response to overwhelming conventional attack on western Europe by Soviet forces.

Rogozin said that Russia is working on developing its own version of the "prompt global strike" weapons, but wouldn't give any details.

The U.S. plans included modifying some of the existing nuclear-armed missiles to carry conventional warheads as well as designing new vehicles capable of traveling at least five times the speed of sound.

Russian officials said that such U.S. weapons wouldn't fall under any restrictions but would have combat efficiency comparable to nuclear weapons, and thus should be included in any prospective nuclear arms reduction talks.

Russian suspicions about the U.S. intentions have aggravated tensions caused by a dispute over the U.S.-led NATO missile defense program, which Moscow sees as a threat to its nuclear deterrent.

Russia has increasingly relied on nuclear weapons in its military strategy to compensate for a post-Soviet decline in its conventional forces. The nation's military doctrine says it may use nuclear weapons to counter a nuclear attack on Russia or an ally, or a large-scale conventional attack that threatens Russia's existence.

Rogozin's comment comes a day after President Vladimir Putin pledged to continue an ambitious weapons modernization program and to expand Russia's military presence in the Arctic region. Putin has pointed at the U.S. navy presence in the Arctic Ocean as one of the reasons behind the buildup, saying that Russia is concerned because it takes U.S. missiles just 15 to 16 minutes to reach Moscow from a submarine in the Barents Sea region.

The statements reflected the current strain in Russian-U.S. relations, which have been hurt by disputes over the U.S.-led missile shield, Russia's human rights record and, most recently, differences over Ukraine.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Here is an interesting read.

Russia may answer conventional attack with nukes

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
THis is a punctuation of that which has been long known.

As to the precision strike, conventional weapons, if the Russians felt such strikes were being carried out against it to destroy their own nuclear deterrent, then they would use the nuclear deterrent rather than lose it. Or, if a convetional strike was carried out as a decapitation strike, or that in essense had the effect of a WMD, then they would respond in kind destructively with their nuclear weapons.

The US has held similar strategies. In the cold war, if it went hot in Western Europe and the US felt and overwhelming attack from the WARSAW pact was going to succeed in Europe, it was well known that the US would use tactical nukes to stop it.

Simialry, the US has indicated that a large destructive attack that equaled WMD use may be responded to with nuclear weapons. For example, it has long been held that the US very well would use tactical nukclear weapons to punish any nation, particularly its naval vessels, facilities and infrastructure, that successfully destroyed a US super carrier.

To me, this is Russia punctuating the same type of strategy.
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
OK that clarified a lot. Thanks. Not sure if she's one of the extreme feminists, but yes her argument is flawed. We as guys will know quite well, that often self-afflicted injuries while with a significant other or someone important is a way to vent our own frustrations that had to go violent, but without taking it out on the person...or to control the violence/aggression over to somewhere else. In other words, it's also us being sensible or aware enough of what we're doing and having still enough control to fire it off somewhere. So while I'd say it might be true that the guy might have aggression in him(it's only a speculation, if we're using my theory, and assuming this action stems from aggression he needed to let out), that's pretty much the end of fallacy to her condemnation. The fact he channelled it on himself could be other stress-related factors, or for almost any reasons...but none of which that spells the direction of "he's going to hit her if he didn't jump".

Also, at least he's sensible enough to leave the bags behind. What more does she want?

Finally, I've got to say, regular feminists benefits to the humanity movement, like followers of your classic religion. It's just those fundamentalists who preach hate who gives everyone else a bad name and trouble. (I've also heard that many feminists dislike the extremists because for the exact reason). Finally, I think it's been said by one of my classmates before that feminists wasn't intended to be the movement solely for females, but actually fighting for all under-privileged groups. This will actually basically mean pretty much most of us.

This picture explains everything. There is nothing more that needs to be added.

5UyEHHu.jpg
 

blacklist

Junior Member
Everyone knows that when a woman goto a store they dont have a mission, if there any then the mission would be sightseeing and buy a/some nice looking pant/something.

btw it means a female have a different mission which explain the pic.

This picture explains everything. There is nothing more that needs to be added.

5UyEHHu.jpg
 

solarz

Brigadier
Everyone knows that when a woman goto a store they dont have a mission, if there any then the mission would be sightseeing and buy a/some nice looking pant/something.

btw it means a female have a different mission which explain the pic.

Oh they have a mission alright, they're just bad at following instructions. :D:D:D
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
THis is a punctuation of that which has been long known.

As to the precision strike, conventional weapons, if the Russians felt such strikes were being carried out against it to destroy their own nuclear deterrent, then they would use the nuclear deterrent rather than lose it. Or, if a convetional strike was carried out as a decapitation strike, or that in essense had the effect of a WMD, then they would respond in kind destructively with their nuclear weapons.

The US has held similar strategies. In the cold war, if it went hot in Western Europe and the US felt and overwhelming attack from the WARSAW pact was going to succeed in Europe, it was well known that the US would use tactical nukes to stop it.

Simialry, the US has indicated that a large destructive attack that equaled WMD use may be responded to with nuclear weapons. For example, it has long been held that the US very well would use tactical nukclear weapons to punish any nation, particularly its naval vessels, facilities and infrastructure, that successfully destroyed a US super carrier.

To me, this is Russia punctuating the same type of strategy.


I agreed, but what the Russian are doing is simply and DANGEROUSLY blurring the line between a conventional strike and a nuclear strike.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top