Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
President Barack Obama's Nobel peace surprise was given "primarily for his work on and commitment to nuclear disarmament," according to Agot Valle, a Norwegian politician who served on the award committee. Valle told the Wall Street Journal that the stewards of the prize wanted to "support" Obama's goal, as expressed recently at the United Nations, "of a world without nuclear weapons."
It's tough to think of a goal more widely espoused than the dream of an H-bomb-free planet. Ronald Reagan and Jane Fonda, political opposites, came together on this one - in his second term, Reagan stunned his own advisers and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev by suggesting a treaty that would take nuclear arsenals down to "zero." (See pictures of President Obama's first eight months of diplomacy.)
As long as a nukeless world remains wishful thinking and pastoral rhetoric, we'll be all right. But if the Nobel committee truly cares about peace, they will think a little harder about actually trying to make it a reality. Open a history book and you'll see what the modern world looks like without nuclear weapons. It is horrible beyond description.
During the 31 years leading up to the first atomic bomb, the world without nuclear weapons engaged in two global wars resulting in the deaths of an estimated 78 million to 95 million people, uniformed and civilian. The world wars were the hideous expression of what happens when the human tendency toward conflict hooks up with the violent possibilities of the industrial age. The version of this story we are most familiar with today is the Nazi death machinery, and so we are often tempted to think that if Hitler had not happened, we would never have encountered assembly line murder. (See TIME's photo-essay "Fun with Photoshop: Obama's Other Awards")
The truth is that industrial killing was practiced by many nations in the old world without nuclear weapons. Soldiers were gassed and machine-gunned by the hundreds of thousands in the trenches of World War I, when Hitler was just another corporal in the Kaiser's army. By World War II, countries on both sides of the war used airplanes and artillery to rain death on battlefields as well as cities, until the number killed around the world was so huge the best estimates of the total number lost diverge by some 16 million souls. The dead numbered 62 million, or 78 million - somewhere in there.
So, when last we saw a world without nuclear weapons, human beings were killing each other with such feverish efficiency that they couldn't keep track of the victims to the nearest 15 million. Over three decades of industrialized war, the planet had averaged around three million dead per year. Why did that stop happening? (See the top 10 Obama-backlash moments.)
:
Interesting article.
President Barack Obama's Nobel peace surprise was given "primarily for his work on and commitment to nuclear disarmament," according to Agot Valle, a Norwegian politician who served on the award committee. Valle told the Wall Street Journal that the stewards of the prize wanted to "support" Obama's goal, as expressed recently at the United Nations, "of a world without nuclear weapons."
It's tough to think of a goal more widely espoused than the dream of an H-bomb-free planet. Ronald Reagan and Jane Fonda, political opposites, came together on this one - in his second term, Reagan stunned his own advisers and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev by suggesting a treaty that would take nuclear arsenals down to "zero." (See pictures of President Obama's first eight months of diplomacy.)
As long as a nukeless world remains wishful thinking and pastoral rhetoric, we'll be all right. But if the Nobel committee truly cares about peace, they will think a little harder about actually trying to make it a reality. Open a history book and you'll see what the modern world looks like without nuclear weapons. It is horrible beyond description.
During the 31 years leading up to the first atomic bomb, the world without nuclear weapons engaged in two global wars resulting in the deaths of an estimated 78 million to 95 million people, uniformed and civilian. The world wars were the hideous expression of what happens when the human tendency toward conflict hooks up with the violent possibilities of the industrial age. The version of this story we are most familiar with today is the Nazi death machinery, and so we are often tempted to think that if Hitler had not happened, we would never have encountered assembly line murder. (See TIME's photo-essay "Fun with Photoshop: Obama's Other Awards")
The truth is that industrial killing was practiced by many nations in the old world without nuclear weapons. Soldiers were gassed and machine-gunned by the hundreds of thousands in the trenches of World War I, when Hitler was just another corporal in the Kaiser's army. By World War II, countries on both sides of the war used airplanes and artillery to rain death on battlefields as well as cities, until the number killed around the world was so huge the best estimates of the total number lost diverge by some 16 million souls. The dead numbered 62 million, or 78 million - somewhere in there.
So, when last we saw a world without nuclear weapons, human beings were killing each other with such feverish efficiency that they couldn't keep track of the victims to the nearest 15 million. Over three decades of industrialized war, the planet had averaged around three million dead per year. Why did that stop happening? (See the top 10 Obama-backlash moments.)
Rest of article here:
Why the Nobel Peace Prize Should Go to Nuclear Weapons - Yahoo! News
A link from the article;
Fun with Photoshop: Obama's Other Awards - Photo Essays - TIME
If you say Clinton, we'll know you fall for stupid neo-con chain emails.Interesting article.
Rest of article here:President Barack Obama's Nobel peace surprise was given "primarily for his work on and commitment to nuclear disarmament," according to Agot Valle, a Norwegian politician who served on the award committee. Valle told the Wall Street Journal that the stewards of the prize wanted to "support" Obama's goal, as expressed recently at the United Nations, "of a world without nuclear weapons."
It's tough to think of a goal more widely espoused than the dream of an H-bomb-free planet. Ronald Reagan and Jane Fonda, political opposites, came together on this one - in his second term, Reagan stunned his own advisers and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev by suggesting a treaty that would take nuclear arsenals down to "zero." (See pictures of President Obama's first eight months of diplomacy.)
As long as a nukeless world remains wishful thinking and pastoral rhetoric, we'll be all right. But if the Nobel committee truly cares about peace, they will think a little harder about actually trying to make it a reality. Open a history book and you'll see what the modern world looks like without nuclear weapons. It is horrible beyond description.
During the 31 years leading up to the first atomic bomb, the world without nuclear weapons engaged in two global wars resulting in the deaths of an estimated 78 million to 95 million people, uniformed and civilian. The world wars were the hideous expression of what happens when the human tendency toward conflict hooks up with the violent possibilities of the industrial age. The version of this story we are most familiar with today is the Nazi death machinery, and so we are often tempted to think that if Hitler had not happened, we would never have encountered assembly line murder. (See TIME's photo-essay "Fun with Photoshop: Obama's Other Awards")
The truth is that industrial killing was practiced by many nations in the old world without nuclear weapons. Soldiers were gassed and machine-gunned by the hundreds of thousands in the trenches of World War I, when Hitler was just another corporal in the Kaiser's army. By World War II, countries on both sides of the war used airplanes and artillery to rain death on battlefields as well as cities, until the number killed around the world was so huge the best estimates of the total number lost diverge by some 16 million souls. The dead numbered 62 million, or 78 million - somewhere in there.
So, when last we saw a world without nuclear weapons, human beings were killing each other with such feverish efficiency that they couldn't keep track of the victims to the nearest 15 million. Over three decades of industrialized war, the planet had averaged around three million dead per year. Why did that stop happening? (See the top 10 Obama-backlash moments.)
Why the Nobel Peace Prize Should Go to Nuclear Weapons - Yahoo! News
A link from the article;
Fun with Photoshop: Obama's Other Awards - Photo Essays - TIME
Funny thing, during his presidency, the left and the media spewed out all kinds of false claims that Mr Reagan was a war monger. The cold war was won without a single US military soldier losing his/her life in battle with the Soviet Union.
Trivia question for you,
Which president had more military deaths occur under his 8 year term, Mr Reagan, Mr Clinton or Mr Bush?
If you say Clinton, we'll know you fall for stupid neo-con chain emails.Interesting article.
Rest of article here:
Why the Nobel Peace Prize Should Go to Nuclear Weapons - Yahoo! News
A link from the article;
Fun with Photoshop: Obama's Other Awards - Photo Essays - TIME
Funny thing, during his presidency, the left and the media spewed out all kinds of false claims that Mr Reagan was a war monger. The cold war was won without a single US military soldier losing his/her life in battle with the Soviet Union.
Trivia question for you,
Which president had more military deaths occur under his 8 year term, Mr Reagan, Mr Clinton or Mr Bush?
If you say Clinton, we'll know you fall for stupid neo-con chain emails.
You're still wrong. Using the term "Military Deaths" which includes sickness, accidents, self-inflicted, etc., is a clever way to do what's called the polka swingkabob. That Reagan's military happen to have a high accident rate doesn't really make much of a point now, does it?If you say Clinton, we'll know you fall for stupid neo-con chain emails.
You have a PM with your answer.
We already know what a complete moron you are who rarely gets anything right.If you say Clinton, we'll know you fall for stupid neo-con chain emails.
Maybe you can tell us what page you got those numbers were compiled from.1980 .......... 2,392 (Carter Year)
1981 .......... 2,380 (Reagan Year)
1984 .......... 1,999 (Reagan Year)
1988 .......... 1,819 (Reagan Year)
1989 .......... 1,636 (George HW Year)
1990 .......... 1,508 (George HW Year)
1991 .......... 1,787 (George HW Year)
1992 .......... 1,293 (George HW Year)
1993 .......... 1,213 (Clinton Year)
1994 .......... 1,075 (Clinton Year)
1995 .......... 2,465 (Clinton Year)
1996 .......... 2,318 (Clinton Year) Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,000 deaths
1997 ............. 817 (Clinton Year)
1998 .......... 2,252 (Clinton Year)
1999 .......... 1,984 (Clinton Year)
2000 .......... 1,983 (Clinton Year)
2001 ............. 890 (George W Year)
2002 .......... 1,007 (George W Year)
2003 .......... 1,410 (George W Year)
2004 .......... 1,887 (George W Year) George W years (2001-2007): 7,932 deaths
2005 ............. 919 (George W Year)
2006.............. 920 (George W Year)
2007………...899 (George W Year)
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
Maybe you can tell us what page you got those numbers were compiled from.1980 .......... 2,392 (Carter Year)
1981 .......... 2,380 (Reagan Year)
1984 .......... 1,999 (Reagan Year)
1988 .......... 1,819 (Reagan Year)
1989 .......... 1,636 (George HW Year)
1990 .......... 1,508 (George HW Year)
1991 .......... 1,787 (George HW Year)
1992 .......... 1,293 (George HW Year)
1993 .......... 1,213 (Clinton Year)
1994 .......... 1,075 (Clinton Year)
1995 .......... 2,465 (Clinton Year)
1996 .......... 2,318 (Clinton Year) Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,000 deaths
1997 ............. 817 (Clinton Year)
1998 .......... 2,252 (Clinton Year)
1999 .......... 1,984 (Clinton Year)
2000 .......... 1,983 (Clinton Year)
2001 ............. 890 (George W Year)
2002 .......... 1,007 (George W Year)
2003 .......... 1,410 (George W Year)
2004 .......... 1,887 (George W Year) George W years (2001-2007): 7,932 deaths
2005 ............. 919 (George W Year)
2006.............. 920 (George W Year)
2007 ...899 (George W Year)
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
For example, I just looked at the year 1995 for Clinton. Where is that number for that year found in that pdf? I found that number for a Reagan year (which years were conspicuously incomplete.)
And can you tell us what those "Military Deaths" were caused by? A deeper peak at that pdf might help you with that as well.
G'head. We'll wait.
Dead is dead, you idiot.
You're still wrong. Using the term "Military Deaths" which includes sickness, accidents, self-inflicted, etc., is a clever way to do what's called the polka swingkabob. That Reagan's military happen to have a high accident rate doesn't really make much of a point now, does it?If you say Clinton, we'll know you fall for stupid neo-con chain emails.
You have a PM with your answer.
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/Death_Rates.pdf
Now guide your eye to the column marked 'Hostile action.'
As I stated in the PM, it is a faulty stat, upheld only the banner of "Military Deaths," which is an inclusive term. In this case the numbers intend to intentionally misrepresent what is commonly understood as war/military related casualties.Dead is dead, you idiot.
Simple fact.
It's not like a parent would grieve any more or less over the death of their child based upon the method of said child's death.
Oh Pete....pete...wher'dja go Pete??Maybe you can tell us what page you got those numbers were compiled from.1980 .......... 2,392 (Carter Year)
1981 .......... 2,380 (Reagan Year)
1984 .......... 1,999 (Reagan Year)
1988 .......... 1,819 (Reagan Year)
1989 .......... 1,636 (George HW Year)
1990 .......... 1,508 (George HW Year)
1991 .......... 1,787 (George HW Year)
1992 .......... 1,293 (George HW Year)
1993 .......... 1,213 (Clinton Year)
1994 .......... 1,075 (Clinton Year)
1995 .......... 2,465 (Clinton Year)
1996 .......... 2,318 (Clinton Year) Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,000 deaths
1997 ............. 817 (Clinton Year)
1998 .......... 2,252 (Clinton Year)
1999 .......... 1,984 (Clinton Year)
2000 .......... 1,983 (Clinton Year)
2001 ............. 890 (George W Year)
2002 .......... 1,007 (George W Year)
2003 .......... 1,410 (George W Year)
2004 .......... 1,887 (George W Year) George W years (2001-2007): 7,932 deaths
2005 ............. 919 (George W Year)
2006.............. 920 (George W Year)
2007………...899 (George W Year)
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
For example, I just looked at the year 1995 for Clinton. Where is that number for that year found in that pdf? I found that number for a Reagan year (which years were conspicuously incomplete.)
And can you tell us what those "Military Deaths" were caused by? A deeper peak at that pdf might help you with that as well.
G'head. We'll wait.
As I stated in the PM, it is a faulty stat, upheld only the banner of "Military Deaths," which is an inclusive term. In this case the numbers intend to intentionally misrepresent what is commonly understood as war/military related casualties.Dead is dead, you idiot.
Simple fact.
It's not like a parent would grieve any more or less over the death of their child based upon the method of said child's death.
As stated before, the number includes illnesses, accidents and self-inflicted deaths.
I'm not really sure of what point you are trying to make here.
Are you trying to suggest people shouldn't volunteer to enlist in service to the US because they might die from an illness or an accident? Are you suggesting Reagan's military was somehow deficit because there were a high number of accidents during his administration? What?
No point.As I stated in the PM, it is a faulty stat, upheld only the banner of "Military Deaths," which is an inclusive term. In this case the numbers intend to intentionally misrepresent what is commonly understood as war/military related casualties.Dead is dead, you idiot.
Simple fact.
It's not like a parent would grieve any more or less over the death of their child based upon the method of said child's death.
As stated before, the number includes illnesses, accidents and self-inflicted deaths.
I'm not really sure of what point you are trying to make here.
Are you trying to suggest people shouldn't volunteer to enlist in service to the US because they might die from an illness or an accident? Are you suggesting Reagan's military was somehow deficit because there were a high number of accidents during his administration? What?
OK. I like Zoom-Boing too, so I'll do the bump with ya.No point.As I stated in the PM, it is a faulty stat, upheld only the banner of "Military Deaths," which is an inclusive term. In this case the numbers intend to intentionally misrepresent what is commonly understood as war/military related casualties.Simple fact.
It's not like a parent would grieve any more or less over the death of their child based upon the method of said child's death.
As stated before, the number includes illnesses, accidents and self-inflicted deaths.
I'm not really sure of what point you are trying to make here.
Are you trying to suggest people shouldn't volunteer to enlist in service to the US because they might die from an illness or an accident? Are you suggesting Reagan's military was somehow deficit because there were a high number of accidents during his administration? What?
I just like Zoom-Boing so I bumped her thread.
You got caught in the crossfire.
Oh, and I got inside your head.
Oh Pete....pete...wher'dja go Pete??Maybe you can tell us what page you got those numbers were compiled from.1980 .......... 2,392 (Carter Year)
1981 .......... 2,380 (Reagan Year)
1984 .......... 1,999 (Reagan Year)
1988 .......... 1,819 (Reagan Year)
1989 .......... 1,636 (George HW Year)
1990 .......... 1,508 (George HW Year)
1991 .......... 1,787 (George HW Year)
1992 .......... 1,293 (George HW Year)
1993 .......... 1,213 (Clinton Year)
1994 .......... 1,075 (Clinton Year)
1995 .......... 2,465 (Clinton Year)
1996 .......... 2,318 (Clinton Year) Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,000 deaths
1997 ............. 817 (Clinton Year)
1998 .......... 2,252 (Clinton Year)
1999 .......... 1,984 (Clinton Year)
2000 .......... 1,983 (Clinton Year)
2001 ............. 890 (George W Year)
2002 .......... 1,007 (George W Year)
2003 .......... 1,410 (George W Year)
2004 .......... 1,887 (George W Year) George W years (2001-2007): 7,932 deaths
2005 ............. 919 (George W Year)
2006.............. 920 (George W Year)
2007 ...899 (George W Year)
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
For example, I just looked at the year 1995 for Clinton. Where is that number for that year found in that pdf? I found that number for a Reagan year (which years were conspicuously incomplete.)
And can you tell us what those "Military Deaths" were caused by? A deeper peak at that pdf might help you with that as well.
G'head. We'll wait.
