Printable View
So the Nobel committee awards it to Our Man Barack.
Well deserved, swelling of national pride? Or politically-motivated nonsense?
Try to be objective (yes Homer, I'm talking to you :) )
Also up for discussion, are the Prizes as a whole still relevant, or do they need overhauling?
You beat me to it. I was planning to start a thread about this. I wonder, how Bill Clinton feels about this. Bill wanted the peace prize real bad.
And actually managed to bribe the IRA into...I mean, negotiate with and persuade the IRA to accept it in Northern Ireland.
I'd say it's a bit early.
On the other hand, I have heard interviews with several recipients in the last couple years, and they all start out with "I have lots of friends who are practical jokers, so when I got a call from the Royal Swedish Academy...."
This tells me that either:
A) You need practical jokers for friends (which means that I'm not so likely, but all my friends are).
B) Whoever gets picked is always surprised.
The Noble Peace Prize committee thought, by giving Obama the peace prize, they could persuade him to stop the war(s).
This does not surprise me at all. As far as I'm concerned the Nobel committee lost any and all credibility when they gave the prize to the murderous hatemonger Yassir Arafat in 1993. The so-called Nobel "Peace" Prize is no longer about peace, it's about politics.
And that's about as objective as I can get.
Should the comittee have picked him? Yes.
Does he deserve it? No.
I think the comittee was right to award it to Obama. They were sending a message that international diplomacy is a better way of solving the worlds problems than sending in the jets and Obama has, undoubtedly, become the icon of that message.
I'm not convinced he deserves it because he's become that icon as a result of personal charisma and his press machine rather than the result of any real work he's done. While he's sending out the right message there are certainly others who've worked harder and accomplished more in the name of peace than Obama has so far. My gut feeling is that he'll go on to do that work and achieve those accomplishments but he hasn't done so yet.
It's interesting to note that Obama seems to be of a similar opinion on this. In his acceptance speech, which I caught a few snippets of on the radio as I drove home, he said something along the lines of "I'm not accepting it for me but I'm accepting it for American Diplomacy".
So, the nominations were due two weeks into his Presidency. And he wins on what achievements? Campaign promises, well read speeches? This is completely laughable, but also meaningless.
I agree with homerj - the whole deal has absolutely no credibility. If BO had a pair, he'd giggle and refuse to accept it. What a joke.
I'm having trouble following your logic here. How can it be right to award it to someone who doesn't deserve it?Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
What really bothers me is the number of people who think it is perfectly fine to use the prize as a political tool in order to deliver political smacks to politicians that a bunch of Norwegians don't agree with. The original intent of the prize was not to "send a message" but to reward those who genuinely work for peace and the betterment of mankind.
I will agree that Obama has done nothing to deserve the prize.
Let's take a look at the losers and you can decide for yourselve who you think really deserved it. Note that Sima Samar would have never even had the chance to reach her current status if the Taliban was still in charge:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblog...were_passe.asp
Sima Samar, women's rights activist in Afghanistan: "With dogged persistence and at great personal risk, she kept her schools and clinics open in Afghanistan even during the most repressive days of the Taliban regime, whose laws prohibited the education of girls past the age of eight. When the Taliban fell, Samar returned to Kabul and accepted the post of Minister for Women's Affairs."
Ingrid Betancourt: French-Colombian ex-hostage held for six years.
"Dr. Denis Mukwege: Doctor, founder and head of Panzi Hospital in Bukavu, Democratic Republic of Congo. He has dedicated his life to helping Congolese women and girls who are victims of gang rape and brutal sexual violence."
Handicap International and Cluster Munition Coalition: "These organizations are recognized for their consistently serious efforts to clean up cluster bombs, also known as land mines. Innocent civilians are regularly killed worldwide because the unseen bombs explode when stepped upon."
"Hu Jia, a human rights activist and an outspoken critic of the Chinese government, who was sentenced last year to a three-and-a-half-year prison term for 'inciting subversion of state power.'"
"Wei Jingsheng, who spent 17 years in Chinese prisons for urging reforms of China's communist system. He now lives in the United States."
Oh, I dunno. Obama has apparently resurected the World Events forum, and that is looking pretty miraculous these days. Two more, and he could be nominated for saint hood.
Oh, come on, it's really not that difficult to follow and I suspect you choose to not understand it because you don't agree with it rather than being incapable of understanding.Quote:
I'm having trouble following your logic here. How can it be right to award it to someone who doesn't deserve it?
The purpose of the prize is two-fold and neither of these is political:-
1. To reward those who work for peace
2. To promote peace in and of itself
In this case the committee has concentrated on the latter because they feel the that the benefit to world peace of the Obama iconography outweighs the actual work done by any other candidate. So has he actually earned it by any actions he's carried out? No. But is the goal of the prize achieved by awarding it to him? Yes.
Which one was the committee concentrating on when they gave it to Yasar Arafat?
Again, laughable and incredulous.
Not that i am exactly a supporter or believe that he should have got the Noble peace prize, but that's a bit one sided statement isn't ? or are Sharon, Netenyahu, Bush Snr & Jnr, Reagan, Thatcher, in fact pretty much most major political figures that have been involved in a wars defending there countries "murderous hatemongers"Quote:
the Nobel committee lost any and all credibility when they gave the prize to the murderous hatemonger Yassir Arafat in 1993
Arafat whatever his flaws, was basically fighting for his people, you might dislike his methods but what alternatives did he have ?
Having your country split in half with the bigger half given to some other people, leaving you with not only no proper country but also ruled by those that have been given your land would leave anyone a bit pissed.
I'm sorry but the Nobel Peace Prize should be given for actions that an individual has taken to resolve a situation peacefully.
Clinton must be reeling at this after bringing peace to Ireland (after years of bitter wars) yet Obama gets it this soon into his presidency??
Let's be honest though. When was the last time you cared about who won this prize? Perhaps this is why they've given it to Obama. Extra publicity to the prize
Clinton didn't bring peace to Ireland. They where still baiting the heads of each other long after he left just not in any way that would have gained international news but the Republicans and the Unionists where still murdering each other brutally, albeit in smaller numbers. The real peace brokers where Bertie Ahern and Tony Blair. As they where the ones who urged both sides to talk to the lay person and quell the idiocy.
Amen. In addition to Ahern and Blair, I'd also cite John Major for being willing to at least start talking again after Maggie had created such a huge divide in the 80sQuote:
Clinton didn't bring peace to Ireland.
Most of the prizes were won by Americans, this year.
Today I read this article.
Quote:
Here is a look at this year's winners and their work:
___
_ Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine to Americans Elizabeth H. Blackburn, Carol W. Greider and Jack W. Szostak for discovering how chromosomes protect themselves as cells divide, work that has inspired experimental cancer therapies and may offer insights into aging.
_ Nobel Prize in physics to Americans Charles K. Kao, Willard S. Boyle and George E. Smith. Kao was honored for discovering how to transmit light signals long distance through hair-thin glass fibers. Boyle and Smith received the prize for opening the door to digital cameras by inventing a sensor that turns light into electrical signals.
_ Nobel Prize in chemistry to Americans Venkatraman Ramakrishnan and Thomas Steitz and Israel's Ada Yonath — the first woman to receive it since 1964 — for creating detailed blueprints of ribosomes, the protein-making machinery within cells, research that's being used to develop new antibiotics.
_ Nobel Prize in literature to Germany's Herta Mueller, a Romanian-born writer honored for work that "with the concentration of poetry and the frankness of prose, depicts the landscape of the dispossessed."
_ Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." The Norwegian Nobel Committee's decision drew praise, derision and plenty of puzzlement.
_ The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences to Americans Elinor Ostrom and Oliver Williamson for their work in economic governance. Ostrom was the first woman to win the prize since it was founded in 1968, and the fifth woman to win a Nobel award this year — a Nobel record.
I agree, John was the first alright. Its such a shame that Ahern left over a scandal and Blair never found those bombs. It must be a nightmare to have such a lifes work marred!Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Indeed so, but then that is the way politics works. They are never remembered for all they achieved, only the scandals
In Major's case, the fact that he liked a good curry;)Quote:
only the scandals
Not that many of our American friends will get that reference, but a good Curry! are you sure you meant a good curry ??? and not a bloody awful curry :D
dadumdumtish
Are you referring to food or the Minister? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
The food of course!
Totally undeserved.
Gorbachev was integral in ending a 40-year running cold war between two nuclear superpowers, and Obama goes to work 2 weeks and wins a peace prize for refocusing war efforts to Afghanistan? This just solidifies how bought and sold the Nobel peace prize is.
What funny about this peace prize award is that it was awarded to an American and the only people complaining about it are Americans !
There was a new report on the other day where they were in various middle eastern countries and people were all fairly happy with the award going to Obama.
It seems your President is more liked and appreciated abroad then at home !
Baaaaaahahahaha, nice one!Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Gotta be said though...
eeeewwwwwwww:lol:
Clinton did get a piece prize.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
Or maybe I got those words mixed up. In any case, you'd probably have to be drunk to get that (or at least to agree with it), and I'm not.
If the rest of the world sees the very fact of the Obama election as being a major turn in the right direction for the country that can make or break the world financially and militarily, well, I tend to agree with that.
To be honest, I think Morgan Tsvangirai deserved the prize much more than Barrack Obama.
I usually don't get involved with politics, but comparing these 2 on what the have done Should've been taken into consideration.
Oh hold up... you are in the US so you should be more aware of what is actually going on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Barack is waging a war in Afghanistan (same as Bush).
Barack has agreed with spying on US communications. (same as Bush)
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/200...bama-sides-wit
Barack has kept open Guantanamo Bay (same as Bush). He blames Congress, but his own party is in majority power, so they are dragging their heels on purpose.
Barack has paid harsh words to Iran but conducted no military action (same as Bush).
Barack supported the bank bailout, and the auto bailout. (same as Bush).
So outside of the appearance of being more diplomatic to some foreign leaders, nothing has changed.
Mainly because he has no choice, now that they are there, pulling out without enabling the Afghan government to have the power to rule & not succumb to the Taliban would not be a good thing to do.Quote:
Oh hold up... you are in the US so you should be more aware of what is actually going on.
Barack is waging a war in Afghanistan (same as Bush).
If that's the case then it's a pity as that legislation should never have been law in the first place.Quote:
Barack has agreed with spying on US communications. (same as Bush)
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/200...bama-sides-wit
Actually the main problem here is what do they do with the prisoners after they close the place down. And to say that its just the Democrats dragging there heels is a bit of a simplistic view of this one. Obama would close it if he could but various legal & political issues have arisen which they have to deal with first. Saying that hopefully it will be closed soon though.Quote:
Barack has kept open Guantanamo Bay (same as Bush). He blames Congress, but his own party is in majority power, so they are dragging their heels on purpose.
Now that's rubbish Obama's position is completely different, Obama has actually come out and tried to talk to Iran, offered them talks with out pre-requisites (which Bush wouldn't do) and also has got Russia on his side and China Abstaining in the International negotiations so that they can actually carry out more sanctions on Iran (again something Bush never managed as Russia always Vetoed)Quote:
Barack has paid harsh words to Iran but conducted no military action (same as Bush).
I actually think the most positive thing he has done internationality are his dealings with Iran. If you think that going to War is the answer your wrong it would be disastrous. Hopefully with Russia & the US an the same page on this they can actually sort out the Iran issue.
Again i don't see what the issue is here, he didn't exactly have much choice, events were already in motion. what you have prefer that he let the bank go to the wall ?Quote:
Barack supported the bank bailout, and the auto bailout. (same as Bush).
Give the guy a chance, is it because some people seem to think he is some sort of saviour that you dislike him ?Quote:
So outside of the appearance of being more diplomatic to some foreign leaders, nothing has changed.
I can understand being sceptical he has really done much yet, but he has been in office barely a year. Bush had 8 years to mess everything up !!!
The reason the rest of the world likes him so much is you inflicted George 'W' Bush on us all for 8 long years and basically he is not Bush !!!!
I was going to respond to your answers in turn, but the only point you disagreed with was his position on Iran. There isn't a big difference between Bush's policy and Barack's policy when it comes to Iran. The issue is still the same - and the resolution so far has been the same. Barack has done nothing but repeat the same demands Bush made.
I voted for Gore, so I didn't inflict Bush upon you. I thought he was an incompetent speaker during the New Hampshire primaries - long before anyone paid attention to him.Quote:
Give the guy a chance, is it because some people seem to think he is some sort of saviour that you dislike him ?
I can understand being sceptical he has really done much yet, but he has been in office barely a year. Bush had 8 years to mess everything up !!!
The reason the rest of the world likes him so much is you inflicted George 'W' Bush on us all for 8 long years and basically he is not Bush !!!!
However, before 9/11, all Bush did was pass some tax break legislation and then went on vacation. Bush's approval rating was average for any president - and skyrocketed past 80% after 9/11.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...gacy/timeline/
I can see that media reports have shaped your view of his presidency, and as you pointed out, Barack has done nothing notable as of yet.
I do live in the US, and am aware of what is going on. Interesting that I see it so differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by nemaroller
Not the same as Bush. Bush STARTED a war in Afghanistan that Obama has inherited. Does anybody seriously think that an abrupt withdrawal is in anyway beneficial to anybody other than the Taliban?Quote:
Barack is waging a war in Afghanistan (same as Bush).
I doubt Sweden cares much, but I do. Once again, Bush instituted, and Obama inherited. Having said that, I seriously dislike Obama's position on this, as I disliked the Bush position. However, it is a VERY rare president who reduces any powers that were in place when they were elected. I'm not sure that it has ever happened, and that is not a good thing.Quote:
Barack has agreed with spying on US communications. (same as Bush)
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/200...bama-sides-wit
Once again, Bush creates, Obama inherits. What alternative does he actually have? Congress is acting to forbid moving any of the inmates into the US, while Obama had to bribe a country to take some clearly innocent inmates (whom I can't spell, but you probably know who I'm talking about). We won't allow them into the US to try them, but nobody else will take them. It's a heck of a spot to be in.Quote:
Barack has kept open Guantanamo Bay (same as Bush). He blames Congress, but his own party is in majority power, so they are dragging their heels on purpose.
As for Congress being controlled by Obama's party....well, that's technically true, as Obama is a Democrat and Congress is nominally controlled by Democrats, but that's about as far as it goes. The Dems won't vote as a block, so the majority mostly matters in being able to control the flow of debate, not the outcome.
Bush was like a golfer with a full bag of clubs who always chose to use the pitching wedge, whether on the tee, in a trap, or on the green. Time after time he went for the stick when a carrot would have suited better. This can be seen in his loss of the senate in his first term, his treatment of North Korea (who are annoying gits, but they KNOW that the stick is nothing more than a bluff, so it gains nothing), and on and on. The difference with Obama is that he has made it clear that he is offering both the stick and the carrot, and doing so openly. That approach has a chance of working. Might fail, too.Quote:
Barack has paid harsh words to Iran but conducted no military action (same as Bush).
So? Does that have anything to do with the Peace Prize, or are you just looking for similarities? If it is the latter, you might also mention that they are both educated, tall, and male. As for the bailouts, there were some details I disagreed with, but I generally agreed that something had to be done by both of them.Quote:
Barack supported the bank bailout, and the auto bailout. (same as Bush).
The willingness to consider all possible tools is a welcome change.Quote:
So outside of the appearance of being more diplomatic to some foreign leaders, nothing has changed.
Reagan: If freeing the whole Eastern Block is not Worthy. I don't know what is, and as a result of Spineless ' in the world we will never know peace.
Bush: If freeing millions from an Evil Dictator, "the type not seen since Hitler", Spreading Democracy to the Middle East, and freeing Women Oppression in Afghanistan is not Worthy. I don't know what is, and as a result of Spineless ' in the world we will never know peace.
Peace is not the Absence of Conflict, but the Presence of Justice.
Whoever that was that posted that the Israilis took the land from the Palestinians is a complete '.
We like our Awards, and Country to mean something to be Valid Not Demeaned or Destroyed. To stand for something and we don't give a ' about what the ' think. This man is an Embarrassement to Harvard and the US.Quote:
What funny about this peace prize award is that it was awarded to an American and the only people complaining about it are Americans !
There was a new report on the other day where they were in various middle eastern countries and people were all fairly happy with the award going to Obama.
It seems your President is more liked and appreciated abroad then at home !
I wonder if the Iraqi people who have lost relatives due to Bush's actions would agree with you? I seriously doubt it. I hope Bush goes down as the true incompetent that he really is.
I for one don't agree Obama should have got the Peace Prize as he has, as of yet, not achieved any lasting peace. However that said I would agree that he is making good progress towards it.
No Media reports have had nothing to do with how i view Bush's presidency.Quote:
I can see that media reports have shaped your view of his presidency, and as you pointed out, Barack has done nothing notable as of yet.
As a non-US citizen i would say the biggest issue with Bush is how he treated the rest of the world politically with contempt.
Obama has come in an actually tried to Engage with the rest of the world, and include them in negotiations.
Bush told people what he was going to do and you were either with him or against him, at times he seemed deliberately antagonistic.
What i was trying to do with my response is be balanced, Obama is not some Saviour as some people seem to believe but i agree with Shaggy, he has inherited a large number of issues from Bush, we need to give the guy more time before we judge him on his record.
I don't get those that automatically hate or dislike Obama any more than those who worship the guy.
And the relatives of the Millions buried in Mass graves? I ask your take on how they feel since you are so astute and in touch with the Iraqi Psyche.Quote:
I wonder if the Iraqi people who have lost relatives due to Bush's actions would agree with you? I seriously doubt it. I hope Bush goes down as the true incompetent that he really is.
Since we are peering into the Psyches of others I will make an observation of the Liberal Mind. It is only the casualties of a conflict that Brings Justice that is scorned. The Casualties of truly Evil people who ordain the absence of justice is left to their ways with not a bat of an Eye from the Liberal and therefore is his Enabler. That is the reason we will never have peace without real men who believe in the presence of Justice. Reagan-Thatcher, Bush-Blair.
More like how a Man treats a Child. Grow up the world is dangerous and you enablers aren't helping.Quote:
As a non-US citizen i would say the biggest issue with Bush is how he treated the rest of the world politically with contempt.
I didn't realize you could win a Nobel Peace Prize for wishful thinking. Maybe Carter, Gore, and Arafat will throw down their Peace Prize in protest.
Seriously, this is even funnier than Bush jokes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by System_Error
Buuuuuuuuuurn!!!
I think you are confusing regimes. Saddam killed thousands (not counting the war with Iran), not millions. He's not the worst dictator since Hitler unless you are wanting to start a war with him. The Khmer Rouge were FAR worse, and even as we were attacking Iraq we were coddling a dictator who was as bad as Saddam. We needed the air base there for the Afghan war, so we demonized Saddam while turning a blind eye on a dictator who was jailing and killing his own people by the thousands. Of course, we turned a blind eye on Saddam when he was gassing his own people, too, because we needed him for other things.Quote:
Originally Posted by tome10
It's situational rather than absolute, and it always has been.
Nice rant. Totally disproved by even a casual reading of history, but a nice rant.Quote:
Since we are peering into the Psyches of others I will make an observation of the Liberal Mind. It is only the casualties of a conflict that Brings Justice that is scorned. The Casualties of truly Evil people who ordain the absence of justice is left to their ways with not a bat of an Eye from the Liberal and therefore is his Enabler.
A Total Nice Rant and Totally Confirmed by History.Quote:
Nice rant. Totally disproved by even a casual reading of history, but a nice rant.
Althought I admit Liberal in the literal sense meaning Liberty may at some time in the past actually meant something, but like this peace prize has been demeaned by something. By what I am not totally sure. A lack of Courage? What causes the Liberals today put their faith in Dictators? To have the Gall to say Iraq was better off with Saddam still in Power? To casually dismiss the Mass Graves as saying there were not that many? How many is enough to count? Even though I totally dismiss your thousands number.
To be so quick to point to a map and say this guy over here was far worse than Saddam. Ohh look over here this guy over here is really bad. Like you would approve of removing any dictator. Disgusting. All this time Our liberals saying we shouldn't be in Iraq we should be concentrating on Afghanistan. Now the liberals are in Power and what do they want to do? Haha Leave. They never meant that. What a disgusting bunch.
Look at a Map of the Middle East, and you will find Iraq is in the Middle of everything. A real Liberator would say what would happen if a Thriving Flourishing Democracy was right there in the middle of this map.
The reason that I pointed out that Saddam hadn't killed the millions that you mentioned was that you had stated that he was the worst dictator since Hitler. He wasn't. There have been others who were far worse than him. Simple enough.
You dispute the thousands? Why? I suppose that your argument would be correct if he had killed sufficient numbers of millions, but I don't think he killed that many even if you include the Iran war dead, which would be a strange addition to the sum.
Do liberals put their faith in dictators? Reagan was in charge when we were assisting Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. That was also the time when he was using gas against his own people. Are you suggesting that Reagan didn't know what kind of a man he was? That seems unlikely, but perhaps you have some evidence.
Bush was in charge when we turned a blind eye to that other country (it is one of the 'stans, and I forget which. Fortunately, on this forum, most people probably know which one, and can probably even spell it, which is one of the nice things here) when we needed to stage air strikes out of there. So he was REALLY putting his faith in a dictator.
Some Democrats have done the same, but what liberals? I think you'd have to step back a few decades for that to the time when the far left was supporting folks like Mao.
When Saddam was in power, Iraq was a reasonably stabel, educated, secular society. Some groups (most notably the Kurds) were not well off at all, and have clearly gained. Other groups have suffered considerably. The largest losers would be the Sunnis, who are more numerous than the Kurds, but less numerous than the Shiites. They had power, since Saddam was Sunni. The Shiites have gained some and lost some, but they have primarily gained. The country as a whole has suffered, as they have lost their wealth, lost their educated segment (there was a mass exodus of the educated during the times when they were being killed), and lost their infrastructure. That's a mixed bag. However, I feel that WE are worse off, as we have replaced a secular sunni country with a theistic shiite country located on the border of Iran. If it is stable, it is unlikely to be friendly towards us once they can afford not to be. If it is unstable, we will probably end up with somebody as bad as Saddam, but only after considerable bloodshed. If we have gained a thing for our expense, I don't see it.
Now THAT's an interesting statement. Are you aware that this was the neocon credo since the end of gulf war I, or did you come up with it on your own? It's the one thing that I have always applauded the neocons for. It proved to be myopic and poorly implemented, but it was a long term vision, which is not all that common in politics. If there was a Thriving Flourishing Democracy, that could really impact the whole area. Of course, there IS a Thriving Flourishing Democracy right next door to it (Iran is a democracy and more highly educated than most of its neighbors), but that democracy happens to oppose us, so you left out the pro-America part, but otherwise it is sound. Unfortunately, the Shiites and Sunni get along with each other as well as Catholics and Protestants did when they were in that state. By "state", mean the situation of the people. As long as people self-identify more strongly with their faction than they do with the state, conflict arises. Even the USA killed and persecuted catholics in the early decades (which led to the non-establishment clause in the Constitution). Once people self identify more strongly with the state than with a faction within the state, then the civil strife dies down (there are ALWAYS fanatics). The neocons mistakenly believed that secular, educated, Iraq would self-identify with the country, when, in fact, they identified with the religious faction.Quote:
Look at a Map of the Middle East, and you will find Iraq is in the Middle of everything. A real Liberator would say what would happen if a Thriving Flourishing Democracy was right there in the middle of this map.
I'll pass over the comments about afghanistan. Though dripping with a feined contempt, you project a simplistic outcome that lacks dimension.
I'm sorry who's been worse than Saddam? And what did the Dictator/Despit Laden UN do about it?
Over 5 Million have been estimated in the Mass Graves. But the number isn't the point unless you are attempting to demean the arguement through Liberal Relativism. A stark contrast of counting every fallen American Soldier with Bated Breath to try to ensure our failure.
Reagan did put his faith in Saddam. No thanks to that iddiott Carter for not supporting the Shaw. So again an iddiot Liberal messes up History and we're still suffering the consequences.
So Iran is a Democracy huh? That was a really stupid statement.
Some Stan country? I vaguely remember Something with the Russians? So what are you saying? You want us to meddle some places? But not others? And the Not others are the ones with the Mass Graves? This is like Hearding Cats. What did your Dictator Friends in the UN do in this situation? I'm sure they were helpful.
What is this? Wishy washy I seem to know enough to throw their names around these people were alright, these over here not so much Secular Society Saddam was alright. Some had wealth some didn't. I'm afraid of the Future. When they get their wealth back they may not like us. Geeesssss...Quote:
When Saddam was in power, Iraq was a reasonably stabel, educated, secular society. Some groups (most notably the Kurds) were not well off at all, and have clearly gained. Other groups have suffered considerably. The largest losers would be the Sunnis, who are more numerous than the Kurds, but less numerous than the Shiites. They had power, since Saddam was Sunni. The Shiites have gained some and lost some, but they have primarily gained. The country as a whole has suffered, as they have lost their wealth, lost their educated segment (there was a mass exodus of the educated during the times when they were being killed), and lost their infrastructure. That's a mixed bag. However, I feel that WE are worse off, as we have replaced a secular sunni country with a theistic shiite country located on the border of Iran. If it is stable, it is unlikely to be friendly towards us once they can afford not to be. If it is unstable, we will probably end up with somebody as bad as Saddam, but only after considerable bloodshed. If we have gained a thing for our expense, I don't see it.
Because you Liberals are such morons that you couldn't stand strong and not Politicise the war. You linguini spined '. You have blood on your hands.
But unlike you I have Faith in Free People to make better choices than Evil Dictators. Ohh yes, I saw all the Purple Fingers Because I watch Fox news. They just had elections not too long ago. I have Faith. Freedom took a huge hit due to all the Politicising you guys did. The Evil People are feeling spry thanks to you guys. Stark Contrast compared to the day we pulled Saddam out of that Hole. Caddaffi said here ya go I was working on this nuclear thing, but I'm afraid Bush will come after me so here ya go. Seria: Scared """"... Iran:Trembling. Lady Liberty was banging on that Bell!! Freedom was on the March!!! And you guys and your Politicising disgust me!!! What? We can't have an evil Dictator Disposed of? I mean who would the UN consist of if no Iddiot Dictators? What the heck is this? The Matrix, and we have to have a certain amount of Suffering?
This last Paragraph another long Bloviating all over the Place Statement. But I have a Cat i'm pretty good at hearding.
Neocon, Poorly implemented. Yea because Progress in Interrupted by Iddiot Liberals who think if we just talk it out we can all go to disney land together.
Iran is not a Democracy it is ran by the Mullahs. You know the Men behind the Curtain. The ones that determine which Puppet is going to win the election this time. I saw a lot of Iranians demonstrating and getting Killed by that Democracy Begging Lady Liberty to shine her light on them. To at least acknowledge their pleas for Freedom. There was Crickets Chirping in the White House. Not a Peep. Meddling in Israels affairs of settlement expansion. Crying Foul when a south american country disposed of a wanttobe Chaves. They could not Meddle with Iran and people crying for Freedom.
Establishment Clause? Catholic Persicution? Another Blame America Liberal Relativism for her Past Transgressions to demean and set we are no better than the Dictators yea yea I get it. We're the Evil ones.
Establishment Clause was because of King George declaring himself the Church, and all the Colonies were basically different Sects of Christianity. Masons+Catholics?
Liberals are Contemptable.Quote:
Though dripping with a feined contempt, you project a simplistic outcome that lacks dimension.
That's the biggest load of crap, the world is dangerous if you make enemies of everybody in it, which is what Bush certainly went some way towards.Quote:
More like how a Man treats a Child. Grow up the world is dangerous and you enablers aren't helping.
What you would like us to name some, right here you go !Quote:
I'm sorry who's been worse than Saddam?
Slobodan Milosovic - former Yugoslavia
Kim Jong Il - North Korea
Robert Mugabe - Zimbabwe
Omar al-Bashir - Sudan
Than Shwe - Burma (Myanmar)
5 Dictators right of the bat that are as bad or worse then Saddam, so why are we not invading them and sorting them out (apart from Milosovic which us lot in Europe did eventually sort out) !!!
I can guarantee you have no answer to that !!!!
Iraq was invaded because of Oil and convenience nothing more, none of this altruist crap about wanting to liberate the Iraqi people
It is also quite obvious from your post that you have absolutely no idea about the rest of the world and how it functions, if you think that just getting rid of Saddam will Fix Iraq then you show a clear lack of understanding of the Politics & religion involved in the middle east what so ever.
The fact that you have this fixation with calling anyone who has a more sensible opinion than your self a liberal is really quite funny, it is clear to me that you try and hide your ignorance of what is actually going on behind insults and basically just talking crap.
It would be also very nice if you could learn to structure a sentence to make your posts readable and resemble english.
This explains everything !!Quote:
I watch Fox news
Well said mate :thumb:
[QUOTE]
Slobodan Milosovic - former Yugoslavia
Kim Jong Il - North Korea
Robert Mugabe - Zimbabwe
Omar al-Bashir - Sudan
Than Shwe - Burma (Myanmar)
And your Dictator Buddies at the UN? What have they done to aleviate these issues?
Howabout sticking to the Issues instead of Trying to demean the Message?Quote:
It would be also very nice if you could learn to structure a sentence to make your posts readable and resemble english.
Cause you have nothing. You may be able to structure sentences but jibberish is jubberish no matter how well structured.
What does it explain? That I choose to get my Information from non approved sources? In a free country there are Approved Sources and Non Approved? Cause the Journalists at Fox actually do their Job? You would fit right in down in Venezuala with the Gov controlled media. Are you a Proud Communist? Or still in the Closet?Quote:
I watch Fox news
This explains everything !!
An Aussie of all people to condone the Enablers of Dictators and say America is the Problem not the Solution. What a sad time in History it is.Quote:
Well said mate
Dictator buddies ?? have you any idea what the UN does and who is part of the UN ?Quote:
And your Dictator Buddies at the UN? What have they done to aleviate these issues?
Also what has that got to do with anything ? you were the one saying that Saddam was the worst Dictator since Hitler, i have given you a list of 5 others at the very least equally as bad and most probably worse, so why invade iraq and not Sudan, Burma or North Korea ? you tell me !!!
Ok i will stick to this issues, will you ? will you actually reply to my points ?Quote:
How about sticking to the Issues instead of Trying to demean the Message?
Well that fact that you watch Fox News and seem to be a Fan says a lot actually. It has nothing to do with approved or non-approved sources, just your choice of news says a lot about you, particularly if you take any and i mean any single news provider as the truth and ignore other sources.Quote:
What does it explain?
again i refer to my previous comment, just because i don't agree with you i am apparently a communist. Do you accuse everyone who holds a world view that doesn't require us to be at war with most of the rest of the world a communist ?Quote:
Are you a Proud Communist? Or still in the Closet?
Erm he's Welsh actually but i suppose you wouldn't get the Vallysboy reference.Quote:
An Aussie of all people
You seem to be of the view that unless someone is in favour of going to war on Dictators they are communists or whatever other derogatory term you wish to use, and yet their have been dictators around for centuries.
Generally unless they are committing genocide or start to go to war with there neighbours the rest of the world rightly or wrongly tends to leave them alone.
Shaggy made the point earlier that in fact the US has supported a number of Dictators in the past when it has been in there interests in fact during the Iraq / Iran War the US provided Saddam with weapons & funds so that he could defeat Iran, your government has also funded other dictators including Gaddafi which is a bit hipocritical when you then decided that actually maybe we shouldnt have given them all that money after all and instead lets invade them and remove them.
I would most definitely prefer to live in a world without any dictators, but am old enough to have seen the mess we often make of invading countries and trying to enforce our democracy on them.
In Africa for instance where the British tried to bring democracy to a number of countries and take them out of there tribal system we tried to implement the idea of a ruling party and of the opposition, but one of the problems with this is that at the time the word and concept for opposition in many of these African countries was the same as Enemy. So whoever got in power would just try and kill the opposition / enemy.
This was just 1 example of the unintended consequence of our actions of interfering in countries that we don't understand.
The world is a very big and complex place often it takes more than the sledge hammer approach to fix major issues like Iraq.
Maybe if you listened a little more to other points of view instead of declaring us all communists
[QUOTE=tome10;3632183]I've gotta preserve that line, it is TOO classic.Quote:
You may be able to structure sentences but jibberish is jubberish no matter how well structured.
I would list the Pol Pot regime above any of the groups previously mentioned. Whether they were technically the worst is a bit hard to say. Burma might be in the running, as well. The 'stan I mentioned was Uzbekistan, and it really doesn't appear to match up in body count to the genocidal regimes listed, but is still probably worse than Iraq was. When we needed a base, though, we gave them a bundle of cash and turned a blind eye to the human rights abuses. After sufficient pressure from human rights organizations, the US offered a mild rebuke, and were summarily thrown out by the Uzbekistan government. We didn't invade, and the dictator is still in power, though we did make him slightly richer.
I have no problem with thwaping dictators. My objection is that the US ONLY thwaps dictators when they are A) Powerless, B) Unnecessary, and C) Posess something that we want. Political expediency has caused some horrific crimes at national, regional, and local levels in pretty much every part of the world. Still, political expediency, does have its purposes, and I don't object to it per se. What I object to is lying about it. We didn't go into Iraq as part of a noble crusade against dictators, we went there because some people in the leadership felt we had a long term strategic reason to do so.
I'm not sure that trying to come up with a Top 10 of Evil Regimes is necessarily productive. They've all done some pretty terrible things, and nobody's even mentioned Idi Amin, Hastings Banda, the guys in Rwanda... For more lasting effects than simply murder, look at apartheid-era South Africa or the Israelis. Nobody's blameless, and we're complicit in many of the atrocities that go on about the place.
We in the West tend to adopt first the tactic of bribery (if you seriously think Gadaffi was "terrified", you must be out of your mind. He knew the US couldn't get involved in another war on another continent, and he seized the opportunity to extract the maximum price for cooperation) and then the threats. We rarely try the dialogue; we tend to leave that to the UN, and then only because the Russians and the Chinese always do the opposite to the West as a matter of principle so there isn't a lot of choice.
But ultimately, the argument proposed by the likes of tome10 boils down to one question; what gives the US or anybody else the right to act unilaterally against another sovereign nation? That is warmongering pure and simple, no matter how you put it, and the flimsy evidence tossed in the air to persuade a sceptical public that it was all about self-defence just hasn't washed. I don't like the necessary politicking that goes on at the UN any more than the next man, particularly when nations such as Russia and China use poorer nations as bargaining chips to extract concessions in return for their abstention on the vote. But without the agreement of the international community as a whole, arbitrary action is simply dictatorship in another guise. After all, wasn't World War II about Lebensraum from a certain perspective? Defending a particular way of life. etc.
The only alternative is to act as the world's policeman all of the time, and I suspect that fewer people would have a problem with that if the policeman was even-handed and seen to dispense justice even when at its own detriment. But of course, that's never able to happen while politicians, who are accountable solely to their electorate, are in charge, and certainly not if they run the Policeman.
You guys are just too long winded for me. I've said my peace. I will close with this.
Unlike this Bubblegum Machine worthy Nobel Prize we actually care if the UN gets Demeaned.Quote:
But ultimately, the argument proposed by the likes of tome10 boils down to one question; what gives the US or anybody else the right to act unilaterally against another sovereign nation?
I am tired of the US being the Worlds Police trying to keep the UN Honest it is exhausting to see the rest of the civilized world allow Seria to be in the Human rights Council or all the other Aholes running around in those Hallways. I wish you guys would wake up kick all dictators out of the UN and let the Organization Live up to the Charter it was founded for. We don't want to act unilaterally, but when you enablers send wishy washy bloveating Liberals to the UN it gets Corrupt and Impotent. Then you cry foul when we do act unilaterally. What am I to say to that other than Iddiotts?
This is my rebuttal to a lot of the Bloveating reasons we went to war with Saddam since you guys all agree he was not that bad. The UN had 17 Resolutions to Disarm and whatever. All not just the US all Intelligence agencies thought he had WMD and the mere fact we had 2 buildings down 3000 Americans killed. Our Constitution that Bush swore an oath to Defend from all Enemies Foreign and Domestic. That ' was not going to be in power or live long enough to pass anything off to anyone. I know you Liberals would have Cried Foul if he hadn't went to war with someone. I remember all the Dems Bloveating leading up to the war, and then in the Middle of it Change sides. Disgusting! Aholes!
As far as not having any wmd I've heard reports of trucks escorted by Russian Diplomats and others of aircraft heading to Seria. Nobody lied to you iddiots. That's just you enablers Politicizing the War. Why did you never Mention the 17 resolutions? Because it didn't fit your Bash Bush mentality. That's the same crap our media pulls that's why Fox dominates. As far as it was for the Oil. Where is it? Last I checked I don't have any Barrels in my Back Yard, and it's kinda Expensive at the Pump. That's another Liberal Lie. If Bush Lied about anything it was that Iraq's Oil was going to Pay for the War. Iraq is Selling it and we are still footing the Bill for Rebuilding.
Frankly I don't have to Justify the war. He was a bad man and needed to go. Good Riddance, and you guys Crying Foul is absolutely Insane.
That's why I think it is Laughable you putting that List of other Dictators who you believe is Worse. Your such an Iddiott to even Spam my Rants with that Tripe. Like I said in my first Post. "Like you guys would approve of any Dictator being Removed".
Warmongering? There's already going to be a backlash due to another Carter in the Whithouse. These Liberals are proving to be a Insane Lot and honestly I think we are Waking up. I pity the fool who hits us again. We are Sick of Obama running around Apoligizing for us. He was not elected to Apologize for anything. I'm sorry that's just the way it is.
You want me to Apologize for Bush getting Rid of Saddam? Not a chance in '.
I asked if you were a Communist, because it seemed you were suggesting there is an Authorized Media Source and I shouldn't be watching anything else. Only people I know that have authorized Media Sources are Communist/Dictator Regimes, and to suggest such a thing should be going on in America is Blasphemy. But it seems our Media has committed itself to the Liberal Agenda, so I choose to watch Fox as is most of the Country. I find it disturbing that you would suggest me watch anyone other than Fox, as the others have proven themselves to be untrustworthy and Dishonest. So you sir may need to find other Sources. May I suggest a few Books as well? I'm sorry, you Liberals controlling the Media is Over.
What points? You seem stuck on the Dictator list. As I said in my first Post and other times. "Like you would approve of Removing any Dictator. This Liberal Tactic of pointing to other Dictators on a Map and say he was worse, look over here he was worse. We should have Invaded this guy. Freakin Rediculous. Who else did the UN have 17 Resolutions to disarm? Who else was giving 25,000 bucks to Suicide Bombers Families? Who else had Ties to Alqaeda? Don't you freakin Dare say he didn't! Yea Yea I know he was such a Beloved Citized of the World Community. Gags. Rediculous! Your Rediculous!Quote:
Ok i will stick to this issues, will you ? will you actually reply to my points ?
Yes, do you? Moron. A bunch of Corrupt Liberals responsible for the Oil for Food Scandal that only Fox reported on, an Incompetent Disarmament of Saddam, numerous other Scandals that only Fox or Nobody Reports. A bunch of US/Israil Bashing by Liberal/Marxist/Communist/Dictator Aholes. How is that for a sum? Why do you insist on asking such stupid questions? I'm not the one who thought Iran was a Democracy. Remember? Or that Catholic Persecution was responsible for the Establishment Clause. Seems you should stop worrying about Structure and More on Substance.Quote:
Dictator buddies ?? have you any idea what the UN does and who is part of the UN ?
Banda? Ai! Run!Quote:
Originally Posted by zaza
And with that, I believe I have just made the most obscure pun in the history of VBForums.
We sure are, but you joined us with this post, which is kind of cool.Quote:
Originally Posted by tome10
Anything but;)Quote:
I've said my peace.
It never will. The idea that it could enforce peace seems a little quaint. It was started as the cold war began, and was used as a means for the US and the USSR to talk...indirectly. It actually did serve as a means of arranging peace after the Six Days War and the Yom Kippur War, but once again it was mostly a means because it gave the US and USSR a platform to achieve their internal interests (supporting clients, in each case) without appearing to collaborate.Quote:
... the UN and let the Organization Live up to the Charter it was founded for.
Actually, we all agreed that he was bad, but technically you are correct, as we were agreeing that he was not as bad as the bar you set as "the worst dictator since Hitler".Quote:
This is my rebuttal to a lot of the Bloveating reasons we went to war with Saddam since you guys all agree he was not that bad.
How many Iraqis were involved in the 2 buildings down and 3000 Americans killed? Zero. How was Iraq involved with 9/11? It wasn't. Bush stated that there was no link. So who supplied most of the terrorists? Saudi Arabia. Did we attack them? Not a chance!!Quote:
All not just the US all Intelligence agencies thought he had WMD and the mere fact we had 2 buildings down 3000 Americans killed. Our Constitution that Bush swore an oath to Defend from all Enemies Foreign and Domestic.
Actually, according to our own WMD specialists, Iraq lacked the technology to stabilize WMD, which meant that the chemical agents they used would have gone inert around 1997 at the latest. One of the lead inspectors from Lawrence-Livermore discussed that point in a talk at the City Club of Cleveland. He stated that only a small set of countries (the leading beligerents in WWII, basically) had the technology to keep weapons grade chemicals stable.Quote:
As far as not having any wmd I've heard reports of trucks escorted by Russian Diplomats and others of aircraft heading to Seria.
Actually, it's both heavily and exhaustively documented, and should come as no surprise. Every wartime president (and probably every other president) has lied to the public at times. 'Honest' Abe has many, well documented, lies.Quote:
Nobody lied to you iddiots.
Yup, we hate the UN, but they passed 17 resolutions and we HAVE to act on them. Of course, we don't act on any resolutions they pass that we don't actually approve of.Quote:
Why did you never Mention the 17 resolutions?
Yeah, and it was such an effective, efficient, war, with no instability afterwards, that we were able to get right in there and rebuild an infrastructure that had never really been working (oddly, Iraq has never produced much oil, as they have been involved in wars or embargoes almost continually since oil was discovered there). Oh wait, I got it wrong. The war was a fiasco that led to extensive acts of sabotage both from people looting metal fixtures for scrap, as well as attempts to disrupt anyone from pumping oil.Quote:
As far as it was for the Oil. Where is it? Last I checked I don't have any Barrels in my Back Yard, and it's kinda Expensive at the Pump.
Hunh? Bush made the statement, so now it's a liberal lie?Quote:
That's another Liberal Lie. If Bush Lied about anything it was that Iraq's Oil was going to Pay for the War. Iraq is Selling it and we are still footing the Bill for Rebuilding.
You shouldn't be getting ANY news from the TV. They all suck royally.Quote:
I shouldn't be watching anything else.
Bush said he didn't. If you won't believe us, will you believe him?Quote:
Who else had Ties to Alqaeda? Don't you freakin Dare say he didn't!
That's true, you didn't say it, I did. I have no idea what you mean by the last sentence there. You started getting a bit incoherent, but what's this about? Were you unaware of the anti-catholic activities in the early days of the US? The hangings, persecutions, and what not? There were anti- groups against a few protestant groups, as well, and these things led to the anti establishment clause being added to the Bill of Rights. How is that not substance? On the other hand, how is that structure? I guess it does add value;)Quote:
I'm not the one who thought Iran was a Democracy. Remember? Or that Catholic Persecution was responsible for the Establishment Clause. Seems you should stop worrying about Structure and More on Substance.
Aside from the pun, do you object to Iran being called a democracy because they elect their representatives? Technically, they are no more a democracy than the US is, as a true democracy would not have representatives, but that's unworkable above a village level.
I'm sorry, I don't care what Bush Said there were ties found. Like those 2 wouldn't get together at some time even if there weren't.Quote:
How many Iraqis were involved in the 2 buildings down and 3000 Americans killed? Zero. How was Iraq involved with 9/11? It wasn't. Bush stated that there was no link. So who supplied most of the terrorists? Saudi Arabia. Did we attack them? Not a chance!!
But since when do you believe our Intelligence? You guys are unbelievable. On one hand you Scorn the Intelligence, and on the other you praise it's accuracy.
Using your Logic why did we go to war with Hitler? He didn't attack us? Iraq was just a theater in the War on Terror. It was the possibility of him passing something off to Someone else. But you know that, your just being a good little Liberal.
They may have been from Saudi, but Saudi was not responsible.
I rephrase: If Bush Lied about anything, it was that Iraq's Oil was going to Pay for the War. Iraq is Selling it and we are still footing the Bill for Rebuilding.
I was aware of strife between the Colonies on Religious beliefs. To it's extent I don't know. So I suppose if I say the Establishment Clause was due to Colonies Practicing different sects, and some Colonies were Catholic. I suppose we are both correct. I am/was unaware of actual Bloodshed, but those guys Killed people they thought were witches. So I won't put it past them. Forgive me, I forgot the Point?Quote:
Were you unaware of the anti-catholic activities in the early days of the US?
We are a Democratic Republic. Iran is what? I don't know a Religious Oligarchy? I guess I'm at least a Village level. However due to Liberals subscribing to Big Government for the means of Solidifying their Power Base we are somewhere between an Oligarchy and well Oligarchy..
No my point was Saddam is not the worst dictator since Hitler, there are worse dictators that we leave well alone. Why do you think we went to war with Iraq but not Burma, Sudan, or any of the other world countries which have dictators ?Quote:
What points? You seem stuck on the Dictator list
That wasn't my point, just that it is ridiculous to suggest that we went to war because Saddam was a Dictator or that he was any more dangerous then a number of other countries, i was asking Tome10 to explain if this was the case why are we not fighting all the other dictators out there.Quote:
I'm not sure that trying to come up with a Top 10 of Evil Regimes is necessarily productive.
If you cant tell the difference between why we went to war with Afghanistan and Why we went to war with Iraq then that is very sad.Quote:
All not just the US all Intelligence agencies thought he had WMD and the mere fact we had 2 buildings down 3000 Americans killed
To even suggest the Iraq was involved with 9/11 is just plain wrong headed. Which country did the US go to war with in the immediate aftermath ? Iraq or Afghanistan. Listening to you, you would almost think that they are the same country.
Iraq has the 3rd largest oil reserves on the world, under Saddam that oil rarely found its way into the open market, now after the war it is opening up its oil fields to foreign companies.Quote:
As far as it was for the Oil Where is it?
It wasn't about going to Iraq to take there oil that is to simplistic way of looking at it, it was about 2 things; getting the Iraqi oil on to the open market, and ensuring that American and British companies got the contracts.
An what kind of statement is that, "Like those 2 wouldn't get together at some time" this just clearly shows your complete ignorance of the subject.Quote:
I'm sorry, I don't care what Bush Said there were ties found. Like those 2 wouldn't get together at some time even if there weren't.
I said nothing of the sort, i disparaged your choice of news because it is 1 eyed and not particularly accurate, and suggested that you might get a more balanced picture of the world if you looked past 1 news source.Quote:
I asked if you were a Communist, because it seemed you were suggesting there is an Authorized Media Source and I shouldn't be watching anything else. Only people I know that have authorized Media Sources are Communist/Dictator Regimes, and to suggest such a thing should be going on in America is Blasphemy.
I in no way implied that there was authorised/unauthorised news just that your choice of news wasn't particularly good. It was a critical comment nothing more.
What the hell has blasphemy got to do with it ?
Well because he started invading all his neighbouring countries mainly, even then America did not get involved in world war 2 until 2 or 3 years later after the attack on Pearl Harbour by the Japanese (Japan were allied with Germany in WWII in case you were unaware), until that point America had been officially neutral.Quote:
Using your Logic why did we go to war with Hitler?
To say America went to war with Hitler's Germany because he was a dictator again is just plain rubbish, they got involved after America was directly attacked.
Do you know what an Oligarchy Is ?Quote:
Big Government for the means of Solidifying their Power Base we are somewhere between an Oligarchy and well Oligarchy
Obama did nothing concrete to win this award.
1) He has continued the war in Afghanistan.
2) He has not pulled troops out of Iraq.
3) He has not closed Guantanamo and relocated its prisoners to a federal civil prison cell on US soil.
4) He agreed with then president Bush during the decision to bail out the Banks before he was president.
5) He has continued the domestic spying program.
6) He has continued and even increased the massive spending from Bush's administration.
Bush is only truly hated by non-Americans. For he was the right president during 9/11. The Iraq war was a success, we captured Saddam. We removed the Taliban that was ambivalently providing cover for Bin Laden and Al Queda.
But notice how the destabilization and massive violence that took place in Iraq did not occur in Afghanistan.
If the media wanted to be accurate, the Iraq war ended in 2003 when Saddam was removed from power. The Iraqi Sunni and Shi ite war which occured shortly after was far more devestating and bloody - and the rest of the world unfairly blamed Bush and America for that, even while Bush was pushing Congress for troop surge funding to provide more security during those conflicts.
Let's see if the world blames Obama for the upcoming increase in violence in Afghanistan:
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/...or-us-in-2009/
Peace through Strength. Either we have to be strong, or the UN. If you say the UN won't then I suggest no more Jimmy Carter rehashes. Then again you Liberals can't figure out which team your on and keep siding with the Enemy. Gee thanks.Quote:
I've said my peace.
Anything but
I'm sorry, I don't believe your Liberal Tripe. I have explained the Conservative point of view. It was security reasons. If the oil contracts were the case we wouldn't have waited for 17 UN resolutions. We would have just went straight in during Gulf War 1.Quote:
It wasn't about going to Iraq to take there oil that is to simplistic way of looking at it, it was about 2 things; getting the Iraqi oil on to the open market, and ensuring that American and British companies got the contracts.
Maybe it was a Byproduct, but wasn't the Oil Contracts negociated by Iraqi's and didn't they go to France and someone else? So what we should get them for getting that Ahole out of there and freeing Iraq.
Your so off.... He was an Ahole making a Mockery of the UN and the world community and I'm sorry you miss him, but good riddance.
It is what it is. Did you not understand the Point? If you have Two people who Hate America that Badly, it is enevetable that they will make an aliance on the simple fact that the Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend. Why wait to be hit? We got hit all through the 90's as Clinton treated it as a Criminal matter to be investigated by the FBI. That didn't work. What do you Liberals want to do just let them Hit us? Just come on in and get your free attack on the US like a Dunking Booth kinda thing?Quote:
An what kind of statement is that, "Like those 2 wouldn't get together at some time" this just clearly shows your complete ignorance of the subject.
[QUOTE]
I said nothing of the sort, i disparaged your choice of news because it is 1 eyed and not particularly accurate, and suggested that you might get a more balanced picture of the world if you looked past 1 news source.
I'm sorry you don't think they are accurate. They report on things the Liberal Media would hide and not report on, and that may make you Cringe being a Liberal, but Citizens of a Nation should be Informed on the Issues, and not be Lemings.Quote:
I in no way implied that there was authorised/unauthorised news just that your choice of news wasn't particularly good. It was a critical comment nothing more.
no no, you didn't use your Logic... Your logic dictated we go to war with Japan and Leave Hitler to whatever he was doing in Europe. After all Hitler didn't Attack us Japan did.Quote:
Quote:
Using your Logic why did we go to war with Hitler?
Well because he started invading all his neighbouring countries mainly, even then America did not get involved in world war 2 until 2 or 3 years later after the attack on Pearl Harbour by the Japanese (Japan were allied with Germany in WWII in case you were unaware), until that point America had been officially neutral.
To say America went to war with Hitler's Germany because he was a dictator again is just plain rubbish, they got involved after America was directly attacked.
That's not what I said. I was just pointing to your logic. As explained in the last statement.Quote:
To say America went to war with Hitler's Germany because he was a dictator again is just plain rubbish, they got involved after America was directly attacked.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/colum...n/machan1.htmlQuote:
Do you know what an Oligarchy Is ?
Frankly, I'm quite tired of your smug Liberal Condescension. You are an iddiots Iddiot. You liberals Destroy everything you touch. School System is nothing more than an Indoctrination program. Your Social Engineering has all but Destroyed our Economy. And this man you guys somehow got elected is a straight up Marxist.
Surrounded by people who the FBI had to be rolling their Eyes during the Vetting Process. Who is writing the Speeches? That's the real president.. Move on? Soros? Appolo Aliance??? That Ivy leage Education has done nothing for his intelligence. Like the Ivy destroys buildings Liberalism is trying to Destroy America. This looks like Invasion of the BodySnatchers. Bunch of iddiots running around Destroying things.
As far as your Smug question Goes:
So the Authorized Media "Other than Fox". It's all about the Left and Far Left. If your a Moderate Conservative or just straight Conservative. You are Labeled as a Right Winger or Neocon. If your a Communist or or Straight up Marxist your labeled as a generally nice guy. I'm sorry... Wherever the media Says I should be I'm going to be way way the other direction. I'm frankly tired of you guys framing the Debate. I'm an American, and all that other stuff is UnAmerican.Quote:
[edit] Modern democracy as Oligarchy
Main article: Iron law of oligarchy
Some authors, such as Zulma Riley, Keith Riley, Mathew Marquess, and Robert Michels, believe that any political system eventually evolves into an oligarchy. This theory is called the "Iron Law of Oligarchy". According to this school of thought, modern democracies should be considered as oligarchies. In these systems, actual differences between viable political rivals are small, the oligarchic elite impose strict limits on what constitutes an 'acceptable' and 'respectable' political position, and politicians' careers depend heavily on unelected economic and media elites. Thus the popular phrase: there is only one political party, the 'incumbent' party.
Nemaroller, I agree with pretty much every point you made. Every point could be, and perhaps has been, made by both sides. Except for this statement. Of course, it would be kind of silly to point out that every public figure is truly hated by somebody, so ignoring that, was he the right president for 9/11? He was THE president during 9/11. I seriously doubt that anybody else would have done anything that would have prevented 9/11. However, I think that many would have done better afterwards. He hit the photo ops, which his father might have been too stiff to have handled well, but ANY articulate politician would have done at least as well. Politically, W was an idiot, and even he got the statements right. Clinton would have done better, Reagan would have done better, Obama would have done better, and even Nixon might have done better, yet W did well. Some softballs are so easy to hit that NOBODY can miss them.Quote:
Originally Posted by nemaroller
As for the wars, Afghanistan was botched. W stated the parameters for winning before it began. The first goal was capturing Osama. Remember W saying that he wouldn't attack Afghanistan if they would just hand over Osama? That goal failed, probably at Tora Bora, but the failure was strategic. The second goal was to catch Mullah Omar. That failed, as well. The third, if you could call it that, was to replace the Taliban with a stable government. Unfortunately, the last election showed that the person we pinned our hopes on, has turned out to be pretty bad. I think it was a good try, but it didn't work out. Our options now have been exposed as being rather unsavory.
As for Iraq, the goal was a stable, secular, democracy. Saddam had to be deposed along the way, but that was never more than the first step, and a foregone conclusion at that (the Iraqi army has never performed well against any reasonable opponent). At this point, I would say that the house of cards is standing, and we are slowly pulling our hands away watching to see if it will collapse. Any nascent democracy goes through that period where somebody challenges its right to exist (see Shays Rebellion). The answer is not yet known, except that any democratically elected government in Iraq is going to be Shiite. If it stays secular, we might be ok, but we have replaced the Sunni buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran with a Shiite government. There are so many ways that we can come to regret that. On the other hand, it may work in our favor regarding our relationship with the Saudiis.
Quote:
Obama did nothing concrete to win this award.
I believe that we have already discussed these points in previous posts so i will just concentrate on the last bit.Quote:
1) He has continued the war in Afghanistan.
2) He has not pulled troops out of Iraq.
3) He has not closed Guantanamo and relocated its prisoners to a federal civil prison cell on US soil.
4) He agreed with then president Bush during the decision to bail out the Banks before he was president.
5) He has continued the domestic spying program.
6) He has continued and even increased the massive spending from Bush's administration.
I think you know or should know that that is not true. He is certainly more hated around the world then in America but of course there are Americans that hate him, half the country voted against him during the election in which he won his second term.Quote:
Bush is only truly hated by non-Americans.
Of course i am sure there are also lots of Americans that like him to as the other half voted for him.
We certainly disagree on this but it is probably pointless arguing about itQuote:
he was the right president during 9/11
I would beg to differ, yes we caught Saddam that bit was a success but we have ended caught up in a stupid war that we didn't need to get involved in spending massive amounts of money in the process, and we still haven't managed to leave Iraq in Stable condition even now how many years later ??Quote:
The Iraq war was a success, we captured Saddam.
This is not my definition of success.
Removed the Taliban from where ?, the Taliban were never in Iraq, and we certainly haven't removed them from Afghanistan were they are currently more active then ever (just look at the recent attacks in Pakistan)Quote:
We removed the Taliban that was ambivalently providing cover for Bin Laden and Al Queda.
In fact our tactics of destroying poppy fields has in fact backfired on us, as all the farmers and villagers that used to derive there income from it have now gone across to the Taliban either by joining or by asking for protection.
You are kidding right, Afghanistan is far more dangerous than Iraq and the government there is in control of very little outside of a few major cities, the destabilisation there is still happening, also there have been more US & UK casualties in Afghanistan then IraqQuote:
But notice how the destabilization and massive violence that took place in Iraq did not occur in Afghanistan.
What you are trying to say that this was a separate war ? , it was quite clearly part and parcel of the whole invasion. It would never have happened had we not gone to war with Iraq, and the Sunni and Shi ite's were not just fighting against each other they were quite clearly also fighting against the UK & US Forces.Quote:
the Iraq war ended in 2003 when Saddam was removed from power. The Iraqi Sunni and Shi ite war which occured shortly after was far more devestating and bloody
They blamed Bush & Blair for going to war based on dodgy intelligence in the first place. But actually as far as i am concerned (and most of the rest of the world) they are the same war and so yes Bush & Blair are to blame !Quote:
and the rest of the world unfairly blamed Bush and America for that
Once again you are very quick to tie Obama to War that he has inherited from Bush. If we hadn't gone to Iraq in the first place and actually stayed in Afghanistan and sorted it out in the first place maybe we would have these problems now.Quote:
Let's see if the world blames Obama for the upcoming increase in violence in Afghanistan:
Also if it is Obama's fault for us staying there, is Bush at fault for taking us there ? you cant have it both ways.
I actually am really quite interested in just why you are so anti Obama ? i can understand that if you a republican you are not going to be his biggest fan but he is still the president of your country right ?
Also as i have said before surely the time to judge someone on there record is after they have one not before, give the guy a term and see what he does over the 4 years, that will give a much clearer indication of whether he will be any good or not.
Afghanistan always has been and remains the big problem. If we can sort out Afghanistan then the whole region would become more stable, unfortunately we have spread our resources very thinly trying to conduct 2 wars at the same and and spent a lot of money. Also the general public's appetite for this war is falling by the day so whether we will be able to truly fix the issue i don't know.
nb - Nemarolla i have to say it is actually been quite fun arguing with you, at least you have a solid position and try and back it up with solid argument without just resorting to insults
My god that is too funny i cant even reply to this it just cracks me up !!!Quote:
Did you not understand the Point? If you have Two people who Hate America that Badly, it is enevetable that they will make an aliance on the simple fact that the Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend.
Do you know anything about World War II, Japan along with Italy were Germany's allies during the war, after the attack on Pearl Harbour America joined the war against the Axis (term used to describe the alliance of Germany, Japan & Italy and a number of other smaller nations)Quote:
no no, you didn't use your Logic... Your logic dictated we go to war with Japan and Leave Hitler to whatever he was doing in Europe. After all Hitler didn't Attack us Japan did.
So in effect yes America did end up going to war with Hitler's Germany due to the attack on pearl Harbour by Japan.
My point on this was that the reason that you went to War on Hitler is one of his allies attacked you, not because he was a dictator.
That's quite rich from you since your post are littered with Condescension and put downs.Quote:
Frankly, I'm quite tired of your smug Liberal Condescension
Well you still haven't; shown you know that it means just that you can copy a definition downQuote:
As far as your Smug question Goes:
Brilliant, just Brilliant that is the single best argument you have come up with yet !!Quote:
I'm an American, and all that other stuff is UnAmerican.
Man, I missed Tome10's latest. Bummer.
My first thought was this: Who just wrote that? The difference in language is so striking that I'd have to conclude that Tome10 is two different people. There were virtually no typos, almost no insults, and actual content. Tome, either you were drunk yesterday, or you're drunk today, or a different person wrote the last post.
The only two statements I would comment on would be these:
I have never been convinced that Osama really hates America. He needs an enemy because he leads a non-state organization. I would say that what actually gets his knickers in a knot is much closer to home. Attacks on America bring in the money and recruits, but his goal is imposing his form of Islamic fundamentalism in the Islamic states that he considers his home. He's not trying to overthrow America any more than Nasser was back in the late 60s. Instead, he is using enmity with America as a recruiting tool with the intention of overthrowing Pakistan, and any other Islamic states that he can get a solid foothold in. In that way, he hated Saddam FAR more than he hated America, because Saddam was inherently secular rather than Islamic. Saddam stood in his way, while America was nothing more than a means to an end.Quote:
If you have Two people who Hate America that Badly, it is enevetable that they will make an aliance on the simple fact that the Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend.
Second: What's this statement about?
There was WTC bombing #1 in 1993, where all involved were caught, convicted, and remain in prison. The other notable terrorist attacks in the US during the 90s were the Oklahoma City bombing and the Atlanta Olympics bombing. Both of those were conducted by white christian conservatives. You could possibly be refering to foreign attacks, such as the bombing of the USS Cole, and the embassy bombings in Africa, but that would be kind of silly, since once you open up that standard, then the level of attacks has gone UP since the attack on Iraq or Afghanistan, not down, which would suggest that Clinton had the better approach (though in fact either statement is based on a statistical falacy).Quote:
We got hit all through the 90's as Clinton treated it as a Criminal matter to be investigated by the FBI.
Aside from that, the WWII thing seems to be getting bollixed. It is my understanding that we declared war on Japan following the attack on Pearl Harbor, and Germany promptly declared war on us. We then returned the favor.
It's pointless anyways, as Roosevelt was clearly favoring Great Britain prior to the declaration of war. We sat out the first several years, but nobody doubted which side we supported.