5 ms·

latest from the nobel peace prize winner...

by option 10y ago

vinay427 10y ago
Building new weapons isn't antiparallel to peace efforts, but at least orthogonal. One can make the case that "mutually assured destruction" helped prevent violent conflicts during the Cold War, which also helped spur STEM funding in the US and other countries.
kiba 10y ago
Obama didn't ask for a nobel peace prize, AFAIK.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  Jean-Paul Sartre, and Le Duc Tho declined the Nobel, Obama could as well if he did not believe in the purpose of the peace prize. I have 7 words for anyone who wishes to down vote: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Syria
  - photogrammetry 10y ago
    Sartre was an independent, free spirited academic. Le Duc Tho was a revolutionary. Obama is a career politician who was just elected president. Why do you think he would or should have turned it down?
    - vinay427 10y ago
      I agree that he had no obligation to turn it down, but I really don't follow your argument as to why Sartre or Le Did Tho did. Can you elaborate?
      - photogrammetry 10y ago
        They did so mostly because they considered themselves academically/intellectually above the Nobel Prize and prizes in general. I'm not a mind reader.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - djsumdog 10y ago
    I feel like anger right now in the US is misdirected. Everyone hates Trump and doesn't notice the current guy who assistances American citizens with drones with no oversight, or who has continued all the spying things. I wrote a post on why the election, from a statistical perspective, doesn't matter (as far as policy goes): http://fightthefuture.org/videos/does-voting-make-a-difference/ http://fightthefuture.org/videos/does-voting-make-a-differen... I agree with your entire comment though. All those countries current state is the direct result of US intervention. Americans have trouble believing that, but none of those revolutions are organic. Unfortunately, this comment and others like it, will get flagged, because this is hacker news. I agree with it to some extent because I don't like politics when I want to look up tech news, but at the same time there is a whole slew of opinions we don't here on HN, that you do see on less than great news aggregation sites like Slashdot.
  - rubberstamp 10y ago
    Yemen and Somalia is effed into stone age by all the drone attacks which is only creating more of so called "terrorists" in a country 11000kms away. Which is terrorism? Killing many innocents on a daily basis by a country or people there trying to defend their country against external aggression? All those innocents being killed is plain wrong.
cmdrfred 10y ago
I was wondering what end game of the "election hacking" narrative was, seems to be as pedestrian as a kickback to Lockheed et al. At least this most recent "intelligence" from our friends at the CIA will hopefully wont end up with 110 thousand dead like Iraq.
- woofyman 10y ago
  The Bush administration misrepresented the intelligence provided by the CIA https://news.vice.com/article/the-cia-just-declassified-the-document-that-supposedly-justified-the-iraq-invasion https://news.vice.com/article/the-cia-just-declassified-the-...
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    Seems like it would be pretty simple to hold a press conference to clarify those incorrect assertions. If you follow the logic of that narrative you also have to assume Hillary Clinton[0] and a large segment of the democratic establishment was in on it[1], or worse yet failed to even read the report. Then you have to ask if the executive branch has misinterpreted intelligence before and the CIA is unwilling to correct them why would you think this new intelligence has any validity? [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0 [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#Passage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#Passage
    - woofyman 10y ago
      >Seems like it would be pretty simple to hold a press conference to clarify those incorrect assertions The CIA hold a press conference and disclose top secret information? >Then you have to ask if the executive branch has misinterpreted intelligence before and the CIA is unwilling to correct them why would you think this new intelligence has any validity? Correct it how?
      - cmdrfred 10y ago
        >The CIA hold a press conference and disclose top secret information? If the elected officials fail the serve the public then yes, they don't have to actually release any top secret data but only have to say "Bush has this wrong, we didn't make the claims he says we have been making" >Then you have to ask if the executive branch has misinterpreted intelligence before and the CIA is unwilling to correct them why would you think this new intelligence has any validity? Instead of sending emails saying "this is correct"[0], say the opposite. [0]http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/16/politics/john-brennan-cia-donald-trump-russian-hacking/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/16/politics/john-brennan-cia-dona...

latest from the nobel peace prize winner...

by option 10y ago

latest from the nobel peace prize winner...

Building new weapons isn't antiparallel to peace efforts, but at least orthogonal. One can make the case that "mutually assured destruction" helped prevent violent conflicts during the Cold War, which also helped spur STEM funding in the US and other countries.

kiba 10y ago

Obama didn't ask for a nobel peace prize, AFAIK.

cmdrfred 10y ago
Jean-Paul Sartre, and Le Duc Tho declined the Nobel, Obama could as well if he did not believe in the purpose of the peace prize. I have 7 words for anyone who wishes to down vote: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Syria
- photogrammetry 10y ago
  Sartre was an independent, free spirited academic. Le Duc Tho was a revolutionary. Obama is a career politician who was just elected president. Why do you think he would or should have turned it down?
  - vinay427 10y ago
    I agree that he had no obligation to turn it down, but I really don't follow your argument as to why Sartre or Le Did Tho did. Can you elaborate?
    - photogrammetry 10y ago
      They did so mostly because they considered themselves academically/intellectually above the Nobel Prize and prizes in general. I'm not a mind reader.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- djsumdog 10y ago
  I feel like anger right now in the US is misdirected. Everyone hates Trump and doesn't notice the current guy who assistances American citizens with drones with no oversight, or who has continued all the spying things. I wrote a post on why the election, from a statistical perspective, doesn't matter (as far as policy goes): http://fightthefuture.org/videos/does-voting-make-a-difference/ http://fightthefuture.org/videos/does-voting-make-a-differen... I agree with your entire comment though. All those countries current state is the direct result of US intervention. Americans have trouble believing that, but none of those revolutions are organic. Unfortunately, this comment and others like it, will get flagged, because this is hacker news. I agree with it to some extent because I don't like politics when I want to look up tech news, but at the same time there is a whole slew of opinions we don't here on HN, that you do see on less than great news aggregation sites like Slashdot.
- rubberstamp 10y ago
  Yemen and Somalia is effed into stone age by all the drone attacks which is only creating more of so called "terrorists" in a country 11000kms away. Which is terrorism? Killing many innocents on a daily basis by a country or people there trying to defend their country against external aggression? All those innocents being killed is plain wrong.

cmdrfred 10y ago

I was wondering what end game of the "election hacking" narrative was, seems to be as pedestrian as a kickback to Lockheed et al. At least this most recent "intelligence" from our friends at the CIA will hopefully wont end up with 110 thousand dead like Iraq.

woofyman 10y ago
The Bush administration misrepresented the intelligence provided by the CIA https://news.vice.com/article/the-cia-just-declassified-the-document-that-supposedly-justified-the-iraq-invasion https://news.vice.com/article/the-cia-just-declassified-the-...
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  Seems like it would be pretty simple to hold a press conference to clarify those incorrect assertions. If you follow the logic of that narrative you also have to assume Hillary Clinton[0] and a large segment of the democratic establishment was in on it[1], or worse yet failed to even read the report. Then you have to ask if the executive branch has misinterpreted intelligence before and the CIA is unwilling to correct them why would you think this new intelligence has any validity? [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0 [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#Passage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#Passage
  - woofyman 10y ago
    >Seems like it would be pretty simple to hold a press conference to clarify those incorrect assertions The CIA hold a press conference and disclose top secret information? >Then you have to ask if the executive branch has misinterpreted intelligence before and the CIA is unwilling to correct them why would you think this new intelligence has any validity? Correct it how?
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      >The CIA hold a press conference and disclose top secret information? If the elected officials fail the serve the public then yes, they don't have to actually release any top secret data but only have to say "Bush has this wrong, we didn't make the claims he says we have been making" >Then you have to ask if the executive branch has misinterpreted intelligence before and the CIA is unwilling to correct them why would you think this new intelligence has any validity? Instead of sending emails saying "this is correct"[0], say the opposite. [0]http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/16/politics/john-brennan-cia-donald-trump-russian-hacking/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/16/politics/john-brennan-cia-dona...