Post Reply
Page 35 of 38  •  Prev 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next
Switch to Forum Live View President Obama wins the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize
5 years ago  ::  Oct 21, 2009 - 10:23AM #341
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

Oct 21, 2009 -- 10:03AM, Semachiah wrote:

Shalom,


Okay technically it is an "application" but in fact it serves as a nomination for consideration by the committee and therefore my reasoning still holds absolutely true!



Also peace to you, Semachiah!


I am not sure... I don't think much more than the name is dropped in the beginning - the reasoning why the application might make sense could be added later.


But whatever. We agree (I think) that this is a bet on the future, and that the Nobel committee tries to influence the US president's politics by issuing the prize to him...

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 21, 2009 - 10:34AM #342
nnsecu
Posts: 1,491

As much as I hate to admit it I think Sotomayor may have been right.


A group of wise Latino women probably could have made a better choice then a bunch of old white men in this case.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 21, 2009 - 10:38AM #343
Lonesentinel
Posts: 2,423

Oct 21, 2009 -- 10:23AM, CharikIeia wrote:


Oct 21, 2009 -- 10:03AM, Semachiah wrote:

Shalom,


Okay technically it is an "application" but in fact it serves as a nomination for consideration by the committee and therefore my reasoning still holds absolutely true!



Also peace to you, Semachiah!


I am not sure... I don't think much more than the name is dropped in the beginning - the reasoning why the application might make sense could be added later.


But whatever. We agree (I think) that this is a bet on the future, and that the Nobel committee tries to influence the US president's politics by issuing the prize to him...





Do you think that it lessens the prestige to use the Nobel Peace Prize for such political influence?  I thought  that it was a prestigeous award myself, thinking that Arafat's awarding might have been just a fluke, but now I am starting to rethink that status..

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 21, 2009 - 11:56AM #344
rabello
Posts: 20,955

Oct 21, 2009 -- 10:34AM, nnsecu wrote:


As much as I hate to admit it I think Sotomayor may have been right.


A group of wise Latino women probably could have made a better choice then a bunch of old white men in this case.




Actually it was 4 white women and 1 white man.  How old they are, I don't know.


One of the 4 women did note that she recognized Obama didn't seem "happy" when he announced his acceptance of the award, and acknowledged that awarding him the prize might be a political handicap for him.  


***


ps -- It's always important to remember that Afghanistan didn't attack us on 9/11/01, as has been asserted.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 21, 2009 - 6:17PM #345
Erey
Posts: 18,594

Oct 21, 2009 -- 10:34AM, nnsecu wrote:


As much as I hate to admit it I think Sotomayor may have been right.


A group of wise Latino women probably could have made a better choice then a bunch of old white men in this case.




hysterical

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 21, 2009 - 8:09PM #346
Ur2
Posts: 4,087

rabello,


Asserting that Aghanistan did not attack us on 9/11 is almost childish. Either you do not know anything about Afghanistan, al qaeda, ObL or any of the background of these subjects or you are in utter and complete denial.


To you all hotdogs are the same.


Bless your heart.


Thanx,


Ur2

Health is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.

The next best thing to being clever is being able to quote someone who is.

"Truth is mighty and will prevail. There is nothing the matter with this, except it ain't so."
Samuel Langhorne Clemens
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 21, 2009 - 11:41PM #347
rabello
Posts: 20,955

Oct 21, 2009 -- 8:09PM, Ur2 wrote:


rabello,


Asserting that Aghanistan did not attack us on 9/11 is almost childish. Either you do not know anything about Afghanistan, al qaeda, ObL or any of the background of these subjects or you are in utter and complete denial.




ok...


I would challange you to prove that Afghanistan attacked us on 9/11/01.


Did the president of Afghanistan order Afghan troops to invade and attack America?


How many Afghan's were on those 3 planes, anyway?    Did the Afghan government equip these "troops" with airplanes and weapons (boxcutters) to attack us?


The plot was cooked up in the Philippines, and places like Germany and the United States, bankrolled by, whom, the Afghan government of Sept 2001???     Yes, there were training camps for jihadists in Afghanistan and they gave safe harbor to OBL -- but Khalid Sheik Mohammad, the alleged "mastermind" of 9/11, is not an Afghan, was arrested in Pakistan.   OBL, the alleged "mastermind" of 9/11 is not an Afghan, either, he is Saudi Arabian, and created his jihadist group when he was in The Sudan, and since 2001, escaped to Pakistan and may or may not even be alive.   Is he the one who ordered Afghan troops to attack us with their planes and boxcutters?


I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me what the Afghan military uniform, circa Sep 2001, looks like and what kind of WMD they possessed to be able to attack America.   Goat herder "costumes" and taxi driver "costumes" don't count.


 As I said, it is important to be very precise when picking enemies so as to not reflexively mistake an act of "war" by "those Muslims" with an act of "terrorism" by some criminally minded, fundamentalist civilians.  It's that kind of "thinking" that got us into these miserable, neverending quamires in the first place.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 22, 2009 - 3:13AM #348
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

Oct 21, 2009 -- 10:38AM, Lonesentinel wrote:


Do you think that it lessens the prestige to use the Nobel Peace Prize for such political influence?  I thought  that it was a prestigeous award myself, thinking that Arafat's awarding might have been just a fluke, but now I am starting to rethink that status..



Yes, it lessens the prestige.


But then, so what? Prestige is such a French notion, anyway!


If you have a tool that can be used for the good of mankind, why not use it?
Members of the Norwegian parliament don't have many such tools.


Obama now can choose to live up to the award,
or become a disappointment of all peace loving humans.


If the award achieved anything, it's the setting of a quite high standard for measuring this president's achievements, much higher than just "not being Bush", which has been the standard so far, for many... I think it's very good to depart from these minimum expectations, that Obama will just be better than the lowest imaginable performance in recent history!

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 22, 2009 - 3:25AM #349
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

Oct 21, 2009 -- 11:41PM, rabello wrote:


I would challange you to prove that Afghanistan attacked us on 9/11/01.



Uh, did anyone ever assert that Afghanistan attacked the US on 9/11/01?


This sounds like a misconception. The presence of Western troops in Afghanistan is not based on a declaration of war between two nations. Do you think it is? Or do you think anyone else thinks it is? If so, who / why?


As I see it, the presence of Western troops in Afghanistan is based on the principle of "you broke it, you own it". Troops went in there because the terrorist educational infrastructure was to be wiped out, and because the anti-civilisation stone age Afghan Mullah Omar government was too reluctant to agree to that. Since then, the West owns it.

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 22, 2009 - 5:52AM #350
rabello
Posts: 20,955

Oct 22, 2009 -- 3:25AM, CharikIeia wrote:


Uh, did anyone ever assert that Afghanistan attacked the US on 9/11/01?




Yes.  Read back a few posts.  Better yet, take a poll "over here"


Oct 22, 2009 -- 3:25AM, CharikIeia wrote:


This sounds like a misconception. The presence of Western troops in Afghanistan is not based on a declaration of war between two nations. Do you think it is?




No.  That is actually my point.  There is no war.  There is a military occupation of a country that did not attack America on 9/11/01.  Whether or not it was justified 8 years ago is not the question for today.      


Some people, mostly of the neoCon persuasion -- the ones who got us into two quagmires -- don't make such distinctions though.  


Oct 22, 2009 -- 3:25AM, CharikIeia wrote:


Or do you think anyone else thinks it is? If so, who / why?




Yes.  It is the what forms the basis of America's decision to "fight" terrorism primarily by military means, or as some would say, America's decision to swat at flies with a sledgehammer, or to send  a bull into a china shop to kill the mouse in the house.


"Collective punishment" can be too easily justified when we assume "that country" attacked us and thereby brought the horrors of "war" upon itself.  Japan for Pearl Harbor?   Sure.   Afghanistan for 9/11? -- doesn't even come close.  It's not a "war" that we're doing "over there"


Oct 22, 2009 -- 3:25AM, CharikIeia wrote:


As I see it, the presence of Western troops in Afghanistan is based on the principle of "you broke it, you own it". Troops went in there because the terrorist educational infrastructure was to be wiped out, and because the anti-civilisation stone age Afghan Mullah Omar government was too reluctant to agree to that. Since then, the West owns it.




I think most Americans think we're over there to make us "safe" from the generic Muslim "evil doers."   Owning Afghanistan, or fixing what we broke isn't part of the equation.  Of course owning that proposed pipeline might be part of the equation, although not in the minds of average Americans.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 35 of 38  •  Prev 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook