|
Sanya12364 Posts
OMG. Further evidence that the Nobel Peace Prize is a joke.
And for those arguing about appeasement, the appeasement of the Soviet Union after World War II was about 30 times worse than of Germany by Chamberlain at Munich.
The only reason World War II became such a dire issue was because the French prepared to fight World War I again and didn't think the Germans would go through the forests and hills of the Ardennes.
|
On October 10 2009 15:55 TanGeng wrote: OMG. Further evidence that the Nobel Peace Prize is a joke.
And for those arguing about appeasement, the appeasement of the Soviet Union after World War II was about 30 times worse than of Germany by Chamberlain at Munich.
The only reason World War II became such a dire issue was because the French prepared to fight World War I again and didn't think the Germans would go through the forests and hills of the Ardennes.
...
|
Obama got the prize because they hated Bush. There is no other reason to select someone who has been in office under a year and has yet to stop any wars.
|
On October 10 2009 13:45 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 13:41 Kwark wrote: I believe in democracy, you should look it up sometime since you seem to be unaware you live in one. Actually, America is supposed to be a Confederacy. We were never meant to be a Democracy, nor are we. This is why we have laws. If we were a Democracy then the will of the Majority would be law. America shares nothing, or is supposed to share, nothing in common with the British idea of Government. Why do you think we had a revolution against Britain? Confederacy - A union of persons, parties, or states; a league.Of course, the War of Southern Independance destroyed that, now didn't it? Actually, the US is a democracy (a constitutional/regional democracy, if you want to be specific). Laws are in no way anti-democratic, they are anti-anarchic. The rule of majority is not democracy, it stamps out the rights of the minorities - the definition of the word democracy is "rule of the people", as in all of them. The US constitution and system of rule are based on a wide range of European and Native American philosophies and systems of rule, among them the British parliamentary system. The revolution against Britain was caused more by economic reasons than ideological ones. The civil war was a break in the confederacy, but in no way ended it, as all those states are still a part of the USA.
You did get the definition of the word confederacy right though.
|
I agree with OP. The only thing awarding him the prize accomplishes is to diminish the meaning of the prize itself and to also propagate the image that Obama is a pretty picture and a pretty idea that people prop up but with no real substance under him.
Bad call giving him the prize before he has done anything other than just run a campaign.
|
Really stupid person to give it to. He hasn't actually done anything yet.
|
United Kingdom2674 Posts
On October 10 2009 13:35 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 13:29 Kwark wrote: The history of the twentieth century is the history of the failure of appeasement and the tragedy of non intervention. I find it stunning that someone can look at the events, see the direct causes and not reach the logical conclusions.
How would you have seen the Japanese invasion of China resolved? They're in China, exploiting the vast natural resources, building up and training their army and testing biological weapons on civilians. America is currently their friend and business partner. How does this play out 100 years down the line? Wrong. Appeasement is intervention. Britain and France allowed Germany to annex the Anschluss. What are the people of the Anschluss going to do if the Countries around them GAVE them the Anschluss? The right to self-defense is inherent from birth to all of us. No one can give away another person or their property. Absurdity. The late 20th Century and the 21st Century will be the history of the failure of interventionism, just like the early 20th Century was the failure of interventionism. The people of China would overthrow their tyrannous occupiers. America did the same thing. Some people volunteered to come help us (Foreign Generals, etc.), and we openly accepted them. It would be no different in their context. Sure, the French helped at the end of the War, but by then we had won it anyways. We didn't go around to countries begging for their invasion of America to liberate us, did we?
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. That is very funny indeed. "Annex the Anschluss"?!? The "people of Anschluss"?!? Extraordinary ignorance for someone who speaks with such wild-eyed certainty.
|
United Kingdom2674 Posts
As for the Nobel award: well, given that Shimon Peres, Henry Kissinger and Woodrow Wilson all won the prize this is hardly the first time that the committee has dished it out to someone who stands in violation of the most basic principles on which the award is supposedly based.
|
Such a stupid decision on their part. It just shows that Nobel Peace Prize is given out just for the sake of being given out.
|
Nobel Peace Prize is a joke.
|
On October 10 2009 18:37 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: As for the Nobel award: well, given that Shimon Peres, Henry Kissinger and Woodrow Wilson all won the prize this is hardly the first time that the committee has dished it out to someone who stands in violation of the most basic principles on which the award is supposedly based. You must be talking about a different nobel prize winning Shimon Peres, because on a list of things done for peace, he was the person who twisted the arms of both the Israeli prime-minister and PLO leader and life-long terrorist into negotiating. He was the heart of the peace process, Rabin and Arafat wouldn't have done anything without him.
Even though that peace process did not culminate in a long-term solution, the Palestinian people have their own government, police, laws, and so on due to his efforts, and would have had him to negotiate with if Arafat hadn't used suicide bombers as a negotiating tactic (which caused Peres's fall from political power).
|
well I heard the nomination was made when he was 10 days into his presidency...rofl, anyway, if Kissinger and Arafat get one you already know the prize is a bit meaningless...
|
he wins the nobel peace prize for? it means very little.
|
he set the plan in motion to withdraw from iraq , yet rattled sabres against pakistan and iran and is increasing troop numbers in afghanistan
i don't really see what is so peace friendly about the guy.to me he seems like bush-lite
|
United Kingdom2674 Posts
On October 10 2009 19:23 Kazius wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 18:37 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: As for the Nobel award: well, given that Shimon Peres, Henry Kissinger and Woodrow Wilson all won the prize this is hardly the first time that the committee has dished it out to someone who stands in violation of the most basic principles on which the award is supposedly based. You must be talking about a different nobel prize winning Shimon Peres, because on a list of things done for peace, he was the person who twisted the arms of both the Israeli prime-minister and PLO leader and life-long terrorist into negotiating. He was the heart of the peace process, Rabin and Arafat wouldn't have done anything without him.
Please spare me. I have debated the Israel/Palestine situation over and over again on this forum over many years and have no intention of doing it yet again. I will only point out that however one views Peres's involvement in the so-called peace process, and my own view is entirely different to your own I suspect, it would not even begin to outweigh his intimate involvement in many crimes against peace over such a long period such that his receiving the Nobel Peace Prize should destroy the credibility of those awarding it.
|
On October 10 2009 16:30 Kazius wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 13:45 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 13:41 Kwark wrote: I believe in democracy, you should look it up sometime since you seem to be unaware you live in one. Actually, America is supposed to be a Confederacy. We were never meant to be a Democracy, nor are we. This is why we have laws. If we were a Democracy then the will of the Majority would be law. America shares nothing, or is supposed to share, nothing in common with the British idea of Government. Why do you think we had a revolution against Britain? Confederacy - A union of persons, parties, or states; a league.Of course, the War of Southern Independance destroyed that, now didn't it? Actually, the US is a democracy (a constitutional/regional democracy, if you want to be specific). Laws are in no way anti-democratic, they are anti-anarchic. The rule of majority is not democracy, it stamps out the rights of the minorities - the definition of the word democracy is "rule of the people", as in all of them. The US constitution and system of rule are based on a wide range of European and Native American philosophies and systems of rule, among them the British parliamentary system. The revolution against Britain was caused more by economic reasons than ideological ones. The civil war was a break in the confederacy, but in no way ended it, as all those states are still a part of the USA. You did get the definition of the word confederacy right though.
America was initially supposed to be a confederacy.
Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation
The link takes you to the Wiki article about America's first attempt at a constitution. What we know today as the United States Constiution was a second attempt.
Even after we formed the current consitution, many people were strongly opposed to the idea of a powerful central government, and ideas about exactly how strong or weak it should be formed the major differences between the first two political parties: the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans, the latter of which later split into the two parties we know today.
Up until the American Civil War, we referred to ourselves not as "the United States," but as "these United States," in other words, power was supposed to be predominantly at the state level. The Civil War itself was not fought simply because of slavery, but because of state's rights. Slavery just happened to be one of the more significant bones of contention (and probably not for the reasons you might believe -- it really was at heart an economic struggle, far more so than it was a moral one; most northerners didn't see black people as equals either).
Our government, by the way, is typically considered to be a democratic republic.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Well the idea behind the Constitution was a more perfect union above and beyond what could be possible in the Articles of Confederations. In modern words, it would be called a permanent alliance of states. The federal government while stronger than that created by the Articles of Confederation still exemplified the idea of divided sovereignty.
In the 72 year run up to the Civil War, the federal government had already significantly overstepped the Constitution and violated its spirit. But the American Civil War and the resulting 14th Amendment, destroyed sovereignty of the states in a brutal bloodbath. The American government was always a democratic republic, but the founders were rightfully very pessimistic about it remaining a republic.
|
Is this a forum on the prize or a history class?
|
Today I logged on to TL.net and I saw this thread had grown to 300 replies. Inside, I knew it would be a clusterfuck.
I was correct.
|
On October 10 2009 23:20 Mortality wrote: Up until the American Civil War, we referred to ourselves not as "the United States," but as "these United States," in other words, power was supposed to be predominantly at the state level. The Civil War itself was not fought simply because of slavery, but because of state's rights. Slavery just happened to be one of the more significant bones of contention (and probably not for the reasons you might believe -- it really was at heart an economic struggle, far more so than it was a moral one; most northerners didn't see black people as equals either).
The South seceded because a president who, while he would not have interfered with slavery in the south anymore than Stephen Douglas, would have opposed the spread of slavery that the south had been fighting for in the territories. And do realize that the southern position was that owning a slave was a right no matter what a state government decided. They wished to extend slavery into the territories no matter what the territorial governments wanted.
states' rights my ass
If it were about "states' rights," the southern states would have rallied behind Stephen Douglas.
|
|
|
|
|
|