91–100 of 147 posts
When did this type of website design become acceptable? I'm starting to see it more and more. It reminds me of when "Multimedia CD-ROMs" first appeared circa mid-1990s, where flashy interfaces were ranked much higher than useability. Please stop it. Give me a webpage with text, and images that I can enlarge when clicked. Thank you.
When did this type of website design become acceptable? I'm starting to see it more and more. It reminds me of when "Multimedia CD-ROMs" first appeared circa mid-1990s, where flashy interfaces were ranked much higher than useability. Please stop it. Give me a webpage with text, and images that I can enlarge when clicked. Thank you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a straight up military conflict the world ends. People are idiots though, so I guess that will happen at some point.
Not necessarily true. Not even probably true. The nuclear-armed USA has invaded a number of smaller and weaker countries over the past decades. China has also attacked several neighbors, though in a less balls-out manner. Armageddon did not ensue. The scariest scenario in Asia right now is: China attacks Japan (e.g. invades the Senkakus, or even accidentally kills some Japanese soldier in one of China's frequent reck…
Nobody really knows how an armed conflict between two major nuclear powers would play out, because it's never happened. The Korean War was a completely different scenario. China didn't have nuclear weapons. The Soviets barely had nuclear weapons. The USA was essentially the only nuclear power at the time. The USSR didn't gain the ability to inflict MAD levels of destruction until sometime in the 1960s, more than a decade later.
Probably the closest we came to a direct conflict between two major nuclear powers was the Cuban Missile Crisis. At one point that conflict was prevented from going nuclear only by the stubborn insistence of a single submarine officer arguing with two of his fellows. And that conflict was barely a fight at all!
Maybe a war between major nuclear powers has little chance of going nuclear. But nobody knows. There are good reasons to think that it could be hard to avoid.
I don't like where this is all going. I've seen too often how seemingly trivial things can lead to all-out wars. Thanks to Iraq and Afghanistan, the US has spent a lot of treasure. The population doesn't have the desire for more war. Now Russia and China are seeing how far they can push. I hope I'm wrong, but I feel like we're seeing the beginnings of things that lead to a major war between Russia & China on one side…
Every time I see discussion about the nine dash line, I can't help but wonder how it can seem sane to anybody that China should have the water rights to an area ~600 km south of what is blatantly Vietnam's coastal waters (and the southern tip of their land) and just barely north of Malaysia's physical territory. I know the correct answer is: China doesn't care, and isn't concerned with reason when it comes to the nin…
> there is only who has the military power to dictate terms. Yeah, just like the American invasion of Iraq in 2004. Just because they could, despite it being unlawful at all international levels. But hey, Russia also does it, so there's not really any good example out there of a country that does not seize opportunities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does the US claim all the ocean between the west coast and Hawaii? No, because it's too far from land.
I am not sure where you are going here. China didn't claim all the ocean either, they want the islands.
I don't like where this is all going. I've seen too often how seemingly trivial things can lead to all-out wars. Thanks to Iraq and Afghanistan, the US has spent a lot of treasure. The population doesn't have the desire for more war. Now Russia and China are seeing how far they can push. I hope I'm wrong, but I feel like we're seeing the beginnings of things that lead to a major war between Russia & China on one side…
This may be a stupid comment, but could we stop using "treasure" outside the context of forgetful pirates and sunken ships and such? When talking about Iraq and Afghanistan it's just an overly fancy way to say "money".
Indeed.
> but could we stop using "treasure" outside the context of forgetful pirates and sunken ships and such? When talking about Iraq and Afghanistan it's just an overly fancy way to say "money".
No, its an accurate way to say "treasure" -- or, if you have some need to avoid pirate-related associations in your head, "wealth". Money is, of course, one form that treasure takes, and also money values are used for "keeping score" of all forms of treasure, but what is actually at issue is the treasure--wealth, material assets of all kinds--expended, not just money (sure, those assets were generally purchased for money at some time in the past, but often that was before the war started and not specific to it -- what was consumed by the war was the concrete assets, not the money.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This may be a stupid comment, but could we stop using "treasure" outside the context of forgetful pirates and sunken ships and such? When talking about Iraq and Afghanistan it's just an overly fancy way to say "money".
> This may be a stupid comment Indeed. > but could we stop using "treasure" outside the context of forgetful pirates and sunken ships and such? When talking about Iraq and Afghanistan it's just an overly fancy way to say "money". No, its an accurate way to say "treasure" -- or, if you have some need to avoid pirate-related associations in your head, "wealth". Money is, of course, one form that treasure takes, and als…
I don't like where this is all going. I've seen too often how seemingly trivial things can lead to all-out wars. Thanks to Iraq and Afghanistan, the US has spent a lot of treasure. The population doesn't have the desire for more war. Now Russia and China are seeing how far they can push. I hope I'm wrong, but I feel like we're seeing the beginnings of things that lead to a major war between Russia & China on one side…
This may be a stupid comment, but could we stop using "treasure" outside the context of forgetful pirates and sunken ships and such? When talking about Iraq and Afghanistan it's just an overly fancy way to say "money".
[0] http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2013/02/blood-and-treasure...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This may be a stupid comment, but could we stop using "treasure" outside the context of forgetful pirates and sunken ships and such? When talking about Iraq and Afghanistan it's just an overly fancy way to say "money".
I generally agree with you, but it (likely) refers the the archaic (and somewhat romantic) phrase "blood and treasure"[0] commonly used to describe the cost of war for a nation or state. [0] http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2013/02/blood-and-treasure...
