On October 10 2009 02:32 Luddite wrote: Guys: The Nobel Peace Prize is not awarded to recognize past accomplishments. That is not their goal. It's a symbol, used to promote peace efforts as best they can. In this case, they are throwing their support behind his plans for nuclear disarmament. Maybe that means that someone who did a lot in the past doesn't get recognized, but that's a small price to pay to increase the chance that Obama's plans for nuclear disarmament will succeed. One shiny medal doesn't matter- it's the peace that matters.
Bleh i only read 5 pages before i posted. Ah well atleast some other people share my thoughts
Don't get me wrong. I hope he does everything he talks about, I hope he does more. I think he can. I just don't wanna act like he has fixed a whole bunch of shit yet... this is not the case. I need some kind of award as an incentive though
In reacting to the news this morning that he had won the Nobel Peace Prize, the President struck a note of humility and recognized that the award was a nod to a vision of what is to come:
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Well, this is not how I expected to wake up this morning. After I received the news, Malia walked in and said, "Daddy, you won the Nobel Peace Prize, and it is Bo's birthday!" And then Sasha added, "Plus, we have a three-day weekend coming up." So it's good to have kids to keep things in perspective.
I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee. Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.
To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.
But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women, and all Americans, want to build -- a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents. And I know that throughout history, the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action -- a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.
These challenges can't be met by any one leader or any one nation. And that's why my administration has worked to establish a new era of engagement in which all nations must take responsibility for the world we seek. We cannot tolerate a world in which nuclear weapons spread to more nations and in which the terror of a nuclear holocaust endangers more people. And that's why we've begun to take concrete steps to pursue a world without nuclear weapons, because all nations have the right to pursue peaceful nuclear power, but all nations have the responsibility to demonstrate their peaceful intentions.
We cannot accept the growing threat posed by climate change, which could forever damage the world that we pass on to our children -- sowing conflict and famine; destroying coastlines and emptying cities. And that's why all nations must now accept their share of responsibility for transforming the way that we use energy.
We can't allow the differences between peoples to define the way that we see one another, and that's why we must pursue a new beginning among people of different faiths and races and religions; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect.
And we must all do our part to resolve those conflicts that have caused so much pain and hardship over so many years, and that effort must include an unwavering commitment that finally realizes that the rights of all Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace and security in nations of their own.
We can't accept a world in which more people are denied opportunity and dignity that all people yearn for -- the ability to get an education and make a decent living; the security that you won't have to live in fear of disease or violence without hope for the future.
And even as we strive to seek a world in which conflicts are resolved peacefully and prosperity is widely shared, we have to confront the world as we know it today. I am the Commander-in-Chief of a country that's responsible for ending a war and working in another theater to confront a ruthless adversary that directly threatens the American people and our allies. I'm also aware that we are dealing with the impact of a global economic crisis that has left millions of Americans looking for work. These are concerns that I confront every day on behalf of the American people.
Some of the work confronting us will not be completed during my presidency. Some, like the elimination of nuclear weapons, may not be completed in my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone. This award is not simply about the efforts of my administration -- it's about the courageous efforts of people around the world.
And that's why this award must be shared with everyone who strives for justice and dignity -- for the young woman who marches silently in the streets on behalf of her right to be heard even in the face of beatings and bullets; for the leader imprisoned in her own home because she refuses to abandon her commitment to democracy; for the soldier who sacrificed through tour after tour of duty on behalf of someone half a world away; and for all those men and women across the world who sacrifice their safety and their freedom and sometime their lives for the cause of peace.
That has always been the cause of America. That's why the world has always looked to America. And that's why I believe America will continue to lead.
Rewarding a peace prize for someone who continues the same policies of the former Administration. Partisan hackery. Guess who else is not Anti-War anymore? Code Pink. Laughable.
I'm not sure how many people know this, but Obama in his first 12 days, prior to the end of the application date for the Peace Prize ordered bombings within Pakistan and escalation therein. How does this promote peace? It seems to me the world has now taken words as louder than actions. What a farcical orwellian time we are living in. If any current politician should receive the Peace Prize it should be Dr. Ron Paul. His votes, and talks are aligned. Remove all foreign troops, all foreign bases, supports immediate withdrawals in all foreign nations, promotes non-interventionism, etc. His votes consistent with his words.
Obama says one thing and does another. Leading the fools to the fire.
Taliban touts ‘violence prize’ for Obama Terror group mocks peace award, citing troop boost in Afghanistan Reuters updated 8:47 a.m. ET Oct. 9, 2009 KABUL - Afghanistan's Taliban mocked the award of a Nobel Peace Prize to U.S. President Barack Obama on Friday, saying he should get a Nobel prize for violence instead.
Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said it was absurd to give a peace award to a man who had sent 21,000 extra troops to Afghanistan to escalate a war.
"The Nobel prize for peace? Obama should have won the 'Nobel Prize for escalating violence and killing civilians'," he told Reuters by telephone from an undisclosed location.
"When Obama replaced President Bush, the Afghan people thought that he would not follow in Bush's footsteps. Unfortunately, Obama actually even went one step further."
In awarding the Nobel Prize to Obama, the Norwegian Nobel Committee said he had "created a new climate in international politics" and praised his promotion of multi-lateral diplomacy and advocacy for arms control.
"For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman," it said.
Continuing strategy Obama ordered 21,000 extra troops to Afghanistan this year, continuing a strategy of dramatically ramping up forces that began in the final months of the presidency of his predecessor, George W. Bush.
There are now more than 100,000 Western troops in Afghanistan, two thirds of them American. In July, thousands of newly arrived U.S. Marines launched the biggest offensive of the eight-year-old war.
The United Nations says 1,500 civilians have died so far this year, with insurgents killing three times as many as Western and government forces.
The new commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, has asked for 40,000 more troops to implement an overhauled counter-insurgency strategy.
The White House is still deciding how to respond, and Obama has described himself as a skeptical audience for the case.
Well said Aegraen. This award just further reinforces the idea that War is Peace. If you say the right things, and your cause is worthy enough (eventual peace, or a more stable peace)... its actually okay to have wars and kill people. If you said the right things, a war could go on forever. You just need to talk lots about freedom and sacrifice etc.
On October 10 2009 11:00 Boblion wrote: You are hating Obama so much that you are quoting the talibans to voice your opinion. lol
On the contrary. I see the truth and voice it. How is escalating the war in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other countries anything remotely to do with Peace? I just thought it was hilarious that the Taliban are one of the only ones who have a sane voice in this matter. You support Obama no matter what, as long as he says what you want to hear, yet does the complete opposite?
If he withdrawals all our troops off foreign soil, then I'll support him in that endeavor. He doesn't want to do that though. Nor does anyone who belongs to the Council of Foreign Relations.
Only someone who is so partisan see's the truth as partisanry.
So much ignorance in this thread. I think people are mixing up the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war. Obama has consistently supported the Afghanistan war because it is the right one to be fighting. Someone mentioned increased bombings in Pakistan. This is because terrorists flee across the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and expect to be protected by international law, like in the Vietnam war, making it just as unwinable. Because of Obama's diplomatic pressure of Pakistan, they have allowed US forces to cross the border and fight on both sides, leveling the playing field. Also, it is important to note the shift in focus for the war in Afghanistan towards counter-insurgency, or the strategy of "winning hearts and minds".
Its too late to back out of Afghanistan. The country has been completely flattened, and stability must be regained before any kind of progress can be made towards the goal of building a peaceful nation. Backing out now would be far beyond irresponsibility.
On October 10 2009 09:24 eMbrace wrote: ^ obama is such a terrible president, flaunting his award around like that. god i hate this guy with a passion.
Did you even read the speech? The whole thing was about how the award was not about how great he was, but how it would take international cooperation to achieve the kind of peace I hope we all desire.
On October 10 2009 11:00 Boblion wrote: You are hating Obama so much that you are quoting the talibans to voice your opinion. lol
On the contrary. I see the truth and voice it. How is escalating the war in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other countries anything remotely to do with Peace? I just thought it was hilarious that the Taliban are one of the only ones who have a sane voice in this matter. You support Obama no matter what, as long as he says what you want to hear, yet does the complete opposite?
If he withdrawals all our troops off foreign soil, then I'll support him in that endeavor. He doesn't want to do that though. Nor does anyone who belongs to the Council of Foreign Relations.
Only someone who is so partisan see's the truth as partisanry.
AFAIK the US army is in Afghanistan to fight terrorism because Al Qaida camps were located here uh. Obama has already said that the main goal is to get decent Afghan army and police forces and several officers / nco are sent there for training. The US army won't stay more than needed.
That's quite different than the Iraq war which started for oil or the Vietnam war.
Have to love Aegraen he is in the intelligence field, the coast guard, earth can handle 30+ billion people with ease, and now the Taliban are the good guys.
On October 10 2009 11:00 Boblion wrote: You are hating Obama so much that you are quoting the talibans to voice your opinion. lol
On the contrary. I see the truth and voice it. How is escalating the war in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other countries anything remotely to do with Peace? I just thought it was hilarious that the Taliban are one of the only ones who have a sane voice in this matter. You support Obama no matter what, as long as he says what you want to hear, yet does the complete opposite?
If he withdrawals all our troops off foreign soil, then I'll support him in that endeavor. He doesn't want to do that though. Nor does anyone who belongs to the Council of Foreign Relations.
Only someone who is so partisan see's the truth as partisanry.
AFAIK the US army is in Afghanistan to fight terrorism because Al Qaida camps were located here uh. Obama has already said that the main goal is to get decent Afghan army and police forces and several officers / nco are sent there for training. The US army won't stay more than needed.
That's quite different than the Iraq war which started for oil or the Vietnam war.
Do you know that Obama has ordered more contract mercenaries to Iraq than Bush? Secondly, the Afghanistan War isn't a legal war. It was never declared a war by the Congress of the U.S. If anything, the Afghanistan War should have been handled like the Barbary Pirates. Letters of Marque and Reprissal. It isn't our duty to police the world, nation build, and fund other countries. We have pretty much dismantled Al-Qaeda (Which by the way, is the term for the organization that America gave to the group). Here is a good documentary that everyone here should watch if you think the situation in Afghanistan is meritorous for Peace. Secondly, Obama's policies are the EXACT same as Bush's. In many cases he is even escalating Bush's policies. The only difference is he speaks of Internationalism.
On October 10 2009 11:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Have to love Aegraen he is in the intelligence field, the coast guard, earth can handle 30+ billion people with ease, and now the Taliban are the good guys.
Only on TL.
If you study history, it becomes much easier to understand where the Taliban are coming from. Not saying I'm any kind of supporter, but its not like they do what they do for no reason. Separating people into "good guys" and "bad guys" is a close-minded notion.
On October 10 2009 11:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Have to love Aegraen he is in the intelligence field, the coast guard, earth can handle 30+ billion people with ease, and now the Taliban are the good guys.
Only on TL.
When did I say the Taliban are the good guys? Can you quote me on that please.
Besides I'm getting out when my tour is up, and I changed my Major to double major in Economics/Philosophy. You'll notice my political thoughts have changed somewhat since when I originally signed up to TL.
EPT
