US President Barack Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel Committee said he was awarded it for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples".
The committee highlighted Mr Obama's efforts to strengthen international bodies and promote nuclear disarmament.
There were a record 205 nominations for this year's prize. Zimbabwe's prime minister and a Chinese dissident had been among the favourites.
The laureate - chosen by a five-member committee - wins a gold medal, a diploma and 10m Swedish kronor ($1.4m).
"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," the Norwegian committee said in a statement. "His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."
Asked why the prize had been awarded to Mr Obama less than a year after he took office, Nobel committee head Thorbjoern Jagland said: "It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve".
"It is a clear signal that we want to advocate the same as he has done," he said. He specifically mentioned Mr Obama's work to strengthen international institutions and work towards a world free of nuclear arms.
The statement from the committee also said the US president had "created a new climate in international politics". "Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play," it said.
The committee added that the US was now playing a more constructive role in meeting "the great climatic challenges" facing the world, and that democracy and human rights would be strengthened.
What do you think of their decision to award Obama with the Peace Prize?
In my opinion it was way too premature. He hasn't really accomplished anything to warrant winning such a prestigious award. Perhaps he will be worthy of winning one in the future but it is premature to award it to him now. I'd like to highlight this quote from the article:
Asked why the prize had been awarded to Mr Obama less than a year after he took office, Nobel committee head Thorbjoern Jagland said: "It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve".
Are Nobel Peace Prizes awarded for accomplishments or intentions? I thought it was the former, but apparently I'm mistaken.
Yeah I totally agree with you on this. They are awarding him for his intentions and I also got stuck on that sentence where Jagland says they want to support what he is trying to achieve.
I think this was quite ridiculous to be honest. Seems like the nobel commitee are still star struck by the fact that a black man became the president of the USA and all the cheering around the world. This seems like such a swedish, politically correct thing to do. ugh
This is not new, the Nobel peace prize is often awarded in order to support people, not just because they achieved something. Generally though these people are dissidents in totalitarian countries, not heads of state, but this is not like it's them suddenly deciding to start giving it out as political support where before it was always a lifetime achievement award, imho.
Edit: That said, I do agree it's a bit weird to give it to someone only just in office, and it really would've made the award more deserved if they waited to see what he would actually do, rather then give it out just as a pat on the back and a go get em.
If a President is going to get the Nobel peace prize it should be in the 4th year of his presidency not his 1st.
Also doesn't he fully support the war in Afghanistan and want to increase troops there? I don't mean to troll with that question but it doesn't seem consistent with winning the Nobel peace prize.
On October 09 2009 19:39 Not_A_Notion wrote: If a President is going to get the Nobel peace prize it should be in the 4th year of his presidency not his 1st.
Also doesn't he fully support the war in Afghanistan and want to increase troops there? I don't mean to troll with that question but it doesn't seem consistent with winning the Nobel peace prize.
I don't think Afghanistan is going to get any more peaceful if U.S. troops withdraw.
No one except the norwegians seems to understand why they are giving obama the peace prize since this was decided in Oslo by the head chairman Thorbjørn Jagland and NOT BY SWEDEN..
On October 09 2009 19:39 Not_A_Notion wrote: If a President is going to get the Nobel peace prize it should be in the 4th year of his presidency not his 1st.
Also doesn't he fully support the war in Afghanistan and want to increase troops there? I don't mean to troll with that question but it doesn't seem consistent with winning the Nobel peace prize.
I don't think Afghanistan is going to get any more peaceful if U.S. troops withdraw.
Fair point, though he did support it from the start as he said throughout the campaign.It's not like he suddenly changed his mind to keep troops there because it would preserve the peace/diminish the chaos.
EDIT-* I would have chosen Morgan Tsvangirai in the blink of an eye.
EDIT2* Because he actually has gone through a lot in his 1st year (OK I'm a hypocrite)
"He specifically mentioned Mr Obama's work to strengthen international institutions and work towards a world free of nuclear arms" A person get an award named after a person who devoted his life to the development and production of explosives for his efforts to rid the world of certain explosives...funny
This should be taken to represent international support for Obama and his foreign policy. Nothing more. The Nobel prizes are often a bit bizarre. This at least makes some sense. Obama has been an international symbol of hope and peace for many.
way too early. giving him the peace prize for his vision of a more peaceful world is like giving the nobel's literature prize for an idea for a novel.
normally it would be good because obama getting the peace prize would make him more likely to succeed - but now it's so comically premature that it just ends up devaluing the prize.
I don't know whether to laugh or to be appalled. Granted, the Nobel Peace Prize has been a sick joke for some time, but this is unprecedented. For god's sake, what did he get it for? Being black?
The nobel peace prize is nothing for me nowadays. The prize has been given to further the commitee's idea of "good politics" way to often the last decades. And yeah, arafat got one, and stalin was nominated for one too. Al Gore was as bad imo. Only thing making me happy is the fact that it's all the norwegians' fault! j/k
They are trying too hard to give out the prize now. -_- God knows the world economy needs a ready injection of prize money, and as such, for their role in preventing the collapse of the world economy, I nominate the nobel peace prize committee for the award in 2010.
i understand that they want to support his intentions, but i think that their decision would hold more merit if they had waited til he at least had done something with his presidency, which he really hasn't. it hasn't even been a year. waiting a year or so would be more legitimate imo
What do you think of their decision to award Obama with the Peace Prize?
In my opinion it was way too premature. He hasn't really accomplished anything to warrant winning such a prestigious award. Perhaps he will be worthy of winning one in the future but it is premature to award it to him now. I'd like to highlight this quote from the article:
Asked why the prize had been awarded to Mr Obama less than a year after he took office, Nobel committee head Thorbjoern Jagland said: "It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve".
Exactly what I thought and giving him a Nobel Prize for support is like.. well at least I would not give someone an award who is still in power.
Al Gore won a Nobel Prize in 2007 also (not he alone but still), don't know if that was justified either..
This is either insane or genius; more likely genius.
The motivation seems accurate. The Peace Prize is frequently awarded to persons with prominent roles in ongoing peace efforts, and not only for past accomplishments. Obama's work to improve diplomatic relations is significant in itself, and in absolute terms, has probably done as much for world peace already as the work of many Peace Prize-worthy activists in less influential positions.
It's hard to overstate Bush's negative impact on the world. Even if you consider this an anti-prize for Bush, just restoring the status quo is an accomplishment; it didn't happen automatically. Obama also can't be blamed for the two wars he inherited from Bush. They don't exactly help his cause, but they're not much to hold against him either.
Agree with the fact that Obama has done nothing yet. Nobody(US included) has yet disassembled nuclear weapons so this is very premature.
The peace prize has lost it's value already, with Arafat, Kissinger and others. But one can think that it now has a different purpose, it represents support for a cause, it is no longer an achievement based award.
I like Obama fine, but this diminishes the meaning of getting a nobel peace prize. All he's done so far is become the first black president of the United States.
Then again, it's the Peace prize, which is ambiguous at best most of the time anyway. It's just I think of the word nobel and I think of great inventors. Annual awards are generally stupid.
Work is recognized in two ways: popular opinion and expert opinion. Popular opinion usually precedes expert opinion. A contrary expert opinion can be a tool for changing popular opinion. The Nobel Prize is usually awarded long after popular opinion and most expert opinions have been expressed so that it's easy to align with those opinions, but it's capable of having its own. Rather than wait 10 years to see how Obama's career pans out to make an easy choice, they're seizing a more useful role by opining on an active thing. While it goes against their normal method, it doesn't undermine the integrity of the award or their reasons for awarding it.
As far as I know, TL.net has no political experts. At best, we have people that have majored in political science and digest a lot of political media. Nobody is in a position to say that (1) "created a new climate in international politics" (2) "Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play" (3) "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples" are overstated. If his role in those things are not overstated, then they're perfectly excellent reasons to receive an award.
what has he even done? its all promises and this is fail
if swedish and norwegian politicians constantly have to brown-nose larger and more significant nations I really wish they'd pick a state that has at least ratified the kyoto protocol
On October 09 2009 23:03 Liquid`NonY wrote: Work is recognized in two ways: popular opinion and expert opinion. Popular opinion usually precedes expert opinion. A contrary expert opinion can be a tool for changing popular opinion. The Nobel Prize is usually awarded long after popular opinion and most expert opinions have been expressed so that it's easy to align with those opinions, but it's capable of having its own. Rather than wait 10 years to see how Obama's career pans out to make an easy choice, they're seizing a more useful role by opining on an active thing. While it goes against their normal method, it doesn't undermine the integrity of the award or their reasons for awarding it.
As far as I know, TL.net has no political experts. At best, we have people that have majored in political science and digest a lot of political media. Nobody is in a position to say that (1) "created a new climate in international politics" (2) "Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play" (3) "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples" are overstated. If his role in those things are not overstated, then they're perfectly excellent reasons to receive an award.
The body of work they're judging is 2-3 weeks worth of presidency. By sheer virtue of Bush not being able to seek a third term, #1 is filled by anyone who got nominated, since they couldn't possibly be as craptastic as him. I don't see how #2 was satisified then, or even now. And same with #3, that might only be partially applicable now, and it certainly wasn't two or three weeks into his term.
You don't need to be a 'political expert' to conclude that there's no way that anyone should be nominated with such a little body of work.
On October 09 2009 23:03 Liquid`NonY wrote: Work is recognized in two ways: popular opinion and expert opinion. Popular opinion usually precedes expert opinion. A contrary expert opinion can be a tool for changing popular opinion. The Nobel Prize is usually awarded long after popular opinion and most expert opinions have been expressed so that it's easy to align with those opinions, but it's capable of having its own. Rather than wait 10 years to see how Obama's career pans out to make an easy choice, they're seizing a more useful role by opining on an active thing. While it goes against their normal method, it doesn't undermine the integrity of the award or their reasons for awarding it.
As far as I know, TL.net has no political experts. At best, we have people that have majored in political science and digest a lot of political media. Nobody is in a position to say that (1) "created a new climate in international politics" (2) "Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play" (3) "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples" are overstated. If his role in those things are not overstated, then they're perfectly excellent reasons to receive an award.
He is the president of a nation in war with several other nations, USA is still the only nation that actually used a atombomb on humans to kill them and i don´t want to even know on what place USA comes compared to CO2 output. Sure it was not him doing all this but he still is representant of this nation. If he is able to fix all those problems, stopping the war down there, teach the americans how to behave with nature and trash and removing the atomweapons he could get the prize. Talking few weeks with some ppl does not make him a winner imidiatly. If you talk about diplomacy, the only one i could see there is Norway sucking up to big brother USA by giving him the prize
On October 09 2009 23:25 Pacifist wrote: Am I the only one who isn't outraged and is happy for Obama?
I'm with you. He has done everything they mention, some people don't see the importance in those actions. Signing a peace deal is the last brick, why shouldn't the first be valued highly? And if not him, then who's the better pick?
hey swedish brothers, why are you home in poor sweden and not over here living the norwegian dream like the 2 mill others? i can see two of them working the neighbours ceiling as we speak, they look so happy. : D
On October 09 2009 23:38 diggurd wrote: hey swedish brothers, why are you home in poor sweden and not over here living the norwegian dream like the 2 mill others? i can see two of them working the neighbours ceiling as we speak, they look so happy. : D
thats pretty much exactly what im doing >.< except ive an appartment in stockholm as well as tönsberg
On October 09 2009 22:41 Liquid`Drone wrote: al gore was a perfect winner. if you don't understand the connection between climate and peace, ask and I will answer.
Al Gore is the perfect scam artist. He deserves little more than a kick in the nuts for all the fearmongering he's done.
Hmmmmm, probably like 7 yrs too early.... and will probably lead to more hype and high expectations, which is something he hs yet to show. But we'll just have to wait and see
If i remember right, Hitler was a candidate for the nobel peace prize back in 39. He thought that after all jews died we'll all leave in peace and harmony and decided to go for that dream. He would have really deserved the prize.
Premature decision awarding a prize which at one point carried a lot of prestige with it. I could see Obama earning one at some point in his life, just not yet.
On October 09 2009 19:25 Velr wrote: Arafat has one.
If Arafat could get one, everyone can get one.
This. Nobel peace prize is a joke. They even gave one to Al Gore for making up a doomsday religion and guilting little kids for "wasting" resources on their own life.
Just a side note about the Nobel Peace Prize - The nomination deadline is Feb 1, Obama had only been in office about 3 weeks by then YET he has been given (unearned I feel) the Nobel Peace Prize - over other, more deserving people, who have actually done something.
I agree that this is way to early, but saying he has achieved nothing is a stretch. He has completely changed the tone of international diplomacy. Some quick examples
*He was one of few people to speak out against the war in Iraq from the get-go *When Russia invaded Georgia, the media and politicians flew into cold war mode. Obama said we needed to wait and gather all the facts, in which he was widely criticized for. It was later revealed that Georgia instigated the war. McCain, if president, would have probably dropped troops into Moscow *On week 1 of his presidency, he announced closing Gitmo, and personally reached out to middle eastern leaders to try to change the tone of our relationship. *He has been pushing Israel to freeze settlements, a key issue to a peace deal. * During the Iranian meltdown following the Iranian elections, most politicians would have utilized the events to take a strong public stance against Iran. Obama, in my belief in interest if uranium negotiations and security in Afghanistan, stayed out of it. At least publicly. *Currently, he is reviewing the strategy in Afghanistan. The population centric counter insurgency strategy that has been taking shape since his presidency, has been threatened by a fraudulent election and a severely corrupt government. This is an important step back, regardless of the end decision, as to not get stuck in our own momentum, as we did in Vietnam.
I would consider all of those things accomplishments, some more so than others, and some with more lasting effects than others. It is to early to win a prize, but to say Obama hasn't done anything is ignorant of our foreign policy and current international conflicts.
Wow this really surprised me.... I mean like others have said he just hasn't been in office that long. If I had been old enough to vote I would've voted for him and I'm glad he won (edit clarificatino: the US presidency) but this Nobel Peace Prize seems really weird and out of place. Has a standing president ever won one before? Much less during not only their first term but their first year in office.
ahhh..the nobel peace price has been a joke the past couple of outings..its more of popularity contest now. Obama hasn't done anything to receive it. A more likely candidate would of been Bill Clinton.
On October 10 2009 00:33 TeCh)PsylO wrote: I would consider all of those things accomplishments, some more so than others, and some with more lasting effects than others. It is to early to win a prize, but to say Obama hasn't done anything is ignorant of our foreign policy and current international conflicts.
Policy changes not accomplishments. Any new president is going to make a bunch of initial policy changes.
On October 10 2009 00:33 TeCh)PsylO wrote: I would consider all of those things accomplishments, some more so than others, and some with more lasting effects than others. It is to early to win a prize, but to say Obama hasn't done anything is ignorant of our foreign policy and current international conflicts.
Policy changes not accomplishments. Any new president is going to make a bunch of initial policy changes.
Policy changes in the interest of peace that have been widely welcomed around world. I am not making the argument that he deserves the thing yet, but the idea that he hasn't done anything in the interest to make peace is not correct.
On October 10 2009 00:33 TeCh)PsylO wrote: I would consider all of those things accomplishments, some more so than others, and some with more lasting effects than others. It is to early to win a prize, but to say Obama hasn't done anything is ignorant of our foreign policy and current international conflicts.
Policy changes not accomplishments. Any new president is going to make a bunch of initial policy changes.
Policy changes in the interest of peace that have been widely welcomed around world. I am not making the argument that he deserves the thing yet, but the idea that he hasn't done anything in the interest to make peace is not correct.
It is correct. He has plans to do these things, but nothing has actually happened yet. What nuclear weapons has he retired? What significant treaties has he signed?
He has an "outline", but he hasn't started the final draft. You can't turn the outline in for credit as the paper.
I think it's an incredibly brilliant political move, and if it works out it might even be remembered as like a modern-day Pope-crowning-the-emperor.
Think about it: a big part of Obama's foreign policy has centered around changing the image of America from that of a belligerent country to that of one that pushes for peaceful negotiations and such. Obviously he has not entirely lived up to that billing yet, but it's also tough to enact such a wide change in just a year. That said, this peace prize FORCES Obama to follow through on these acts. For a decent amount of time he'll be under intense scrutiny to live up to the award... if the award has any meaning to people. (Personally I'm cynical about the award, and I think people will forget he won it in two days, but...) If there's any sort of influence the Award (and the award-givers) wanted, this is it.
I'm almost certain Obama can't really be pleased about this. Now it's tough for him to do any sort of about-face on his stance on foreign policy, and there's a good chance he'll be held to even higher expectations because of it. This is NOT what he would have liked to wake up to.
On October 09 2009 23:38 diggurd wrote: hey swedish brothers, why are you home in poor sweden and not over here living the norwegian dream like the 2 mill others? i can see two of them working the neighbours ceiling as we speak, they look so happy. : D
thats pretty much exactly what im doing >.< except ive an appartment in stockholm as well as tönsberg
Swedes going to Norway to work are traitors and should not bother coming back...
OT: Rethorics should not be enough to score you the peace prize but on the other hand I'm not sure if there were any good contenders for the prize atm. Maybe the Human Rights Watch? They seem decent enough.
On October 09 2009 23:03 Liquid`NonY wrote: Work is recognized in two ways: popular opinion and expert opinion. Popular opinion usually precedes expert opinion. A contrary expert opinion can be a tool for changing popular opinion. The Nobel Prize is usually awarded long after popular opinion and most expert opinions have been expressed so that it's easy to align with those opinions, but it's capable of having its own. Rather than wait 10 years to see how Obama's career pans out to make an easy choice, they're seizing a more useful role by opining on an active thing. While it goes against their normal method, it doesn't undermine the integrity of the award or their reasons for awarding it.
As far as I know, TL.net has no political experts. At best, we have people that have majored in political science and digest a lot of political media. Nobody is in a position to say that (1) "created a new climate in international politics" (2) "Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play" (3) "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples" are overstated. If his role in those things are not overstated, then they're perfectly excellent reasons to receive an award.
The body of work they're judging is 2-3 weeks worth of presidency. By sheer virtue of Bush not being able to seek a third term, #1 is filled by anyone who got nominated, since they couldn't possibly be as craptastic as him. I don't see how #2 was satisified then, or even now. And same with #3, that might only be partially applicable now, and it certainly wasn't two or three weeks into his term.
You don't need to be a 'political expert' to conclude that there's no way that anyone should be nominated with such a little body of work.
Of course people conclude things that they have no sound argument supported by evidence for whether they're a political expert or not. Political discussion hardly ever proceeds scientifically so the conclusions have nothing to do with knowledge. There is simply no way for anyone here to know whether or not Obama deserved the award. Your reasoning for dismissing their claims about Obama's work is laughably far from infallible. Yeah, it's at the standard of popular political discussion, but I'm pointing out the fact that that standard is low.
fuck that. He hasn't done jack shit. He ran on the platform that he would withdraw troops first thing in office, but troops are still in Iraq AND Afghanistan, in fact afghanistan is kicking so much ass USA might have to do a troop surge again. Where the fuck is peace in any of that? Giving him the award because they like what he is TRYING to do is like giving me an A while i'm completing an exam beacuse they would like to encourage me to do well. What the fuck backwards logic is this?
Obama might be "an international symbol of hope and peace", but he is only that beacuse Bush fucked up so badly, and because he has good oratory skills and looks completely different. His name has been well marketed to the public, but he has yet to answer to even one of his promises made so far.
On October 10 2009 01:35 Railxp wrote:Giving him the award because they like what he is TRYING to do is like giving me an A while i'm completing an exam beacuse they would like to encourage me to do well. What the fuck backwards logic is this?
Ignoring your bizarre ragey wording...
IMO a better analogy would be telling everyone that you've been acing every test over the past semester so everyone should look to you for help in studying for the final exam... and the backdrop for this would be that you've been telling everyone the test will be a breeze.
On October 10 2009 01:35 Railxp wrote: fuck that. He hasn't done jack shit. He ran on the platform that he would withdraw troops first thing in office, but troops are still in Iraq AND Afghanistan, in fact afghanistan is kicking so much ass USA might have to do a troop surge again. Where the fuck is peace in any of that? Giving him the award because they like what he is TRYING to do is like giving me an A while i'm completing an exam beacuse they would like to encourage me to do well. What the fuck backwards logic is this?
Obama might be "an international symbol of hope and peace", but he is only that beacuse Bush fucked up so badly, and because he has good oratory skills and looks completely different. His name has been well marketed to the public, but he has yet to answer to even one of his promises made so far.
sometimes you have to lie to please the delusional
On October 10 2009 01:27 Liquid`NonY wrote: Rather than wait 10 years to see how Obama's career pans out to make an easy choice, they're seizing a more useful role by opining on an active thing. While it goes against their normal method, it doesn't undermine the integrity of the award or their reasons for awarding it.
Giving away a completely unwarranted award just makes a joke out of the award.
A man had fallen on hard times. He stood outside a convenience store debating whether to rob it. Suddenly, he received a text message from his daughter. “Thank you for being such a good person.” The man turned around and walked home.
On October 10 2009 02:08 Archerofaiur wrote: A man had fallen on hard times. He stood outside a convenience store debating whether to rob it. Suddenly, he received a text message from his daughter. “Thank you for being such a good person.” The man turned around and walked home.
Agreed. Very interesting move by the committee IMO, made the winner much more interesting to watch, heehee :p
The funny thing is, more people in the U.S. are probably gonna be more pissed that Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize than they were for Arafat.
There's a lot of irrational Obama-worship, but there's also a lot of irrational hate for the guy too. So many people want to see him fail and to bring him down.
Giving someone an award as a means of adding ethos to their political agenda has no place here. Utterly rediculous. Al Gore's was a joke, but at least he had done things before being awarded, even if they didn't promote peace or help the environment.
Giving globalist-pandering speeches in Germany and Egypt, saying that MAD is a bad thing, and having people over for a beer after insulting them are not enough to qualify someone to be one of the planet's premier contributors to world peace.
On October 10 2009 00:33 TeCh)PsylO wrote: I agree that this is way to early, but saying he has achieved nothing is a stretch. He has completely changed the tone of international diplomacy. Some quick examples
*He was one of few people to speak out against the war in Iraq from the get-go *When Russia invaded Georgia, the media and politicians flew into cold war mode. Obama said we needed to wait and gather all the facts, in which he was widely criticized for. It was later revealed that Georgia instigated the war. McCain, if president, would have probably dropped troops into Moscow *On week 1 of his presidency, he announced closing Gitmo, and personally reached out to middle eastern leaders to try to change the tone of our relationship. *He has been pushing Israel to freeze settlements, a key issue to a peace deal. * During the Iranian meltdown following the Iranian elections, most politicians would have utilized the events to take a strong public stance against Iran. Obama, in my belief in interest if uranium negotiations and security in Afghanistan, stayed out of it. At least publicly. *Currently, he is reviewing the strategy in Afghanistan. The population centric counter insurgency strategy that has been taking shape since his presidency, has been threatened by a fraudulent election and a severely corrupt government. This is an important step back, regardless of the end decision, as to not get stuck in our own momentum, as we did in Vietnam.
I would consider all of those things accomplishments, some more so than others, and some with more lasting effects than others. It is to early to win a prize, but to say Obama hasn't done anything is ignorant of our foreign policy and current international conflicts.
It almost says in the OP that Obama received the award in anticipation of his accomplishments, which the poster felt appropriate to bold as if it was the only significant sentiment or implication of the whole news item. But the article does also say that he's been changing the tone of international politics, and it seems few people have even asked what that means, or doubted whether it means nothing. Above post is appretiably informative imo.
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.
Only a US president could win the Nobel Peace prize while waging 2 wars in foreign countries that have around 90% of the casualties being civilian. The US calls it terrorism... but when they do it... its time for peace prizes? Anyone who thinks this isn't utter bullshit should go spend 2 weeks in Iraq and Afghanistan then come back and tell me how peaceful the commander in chief must be.
The Peace Prize should have gone to, and probably one day will go to, Greg Mortenson. There is not another person alive doing more to promote lasting peace in the world than this man.
On October 09 2009 23:27 Velr wrote: Well... The positive thing about this is.
probably even the last American will realise how hated Bush was in the rest of the world :p. This is kinda a price to the US-Voters ^^.
YEAH for voting bush 2 times here`s your "You are stupid" trophy ^^ I think it`s not a good idee to give out nobel prizes every year they should wait until someone does something really amazing but you can`t blame obama for this I mean he`s the "victim" and I guess he rather not recieve it cause now he got an even greater burden it`s like giving the award for best scorer at the start of the season and now he has to earn it ^^
If you have the power to stop war, and you don't, I do think thats relativant to winning the nobel peace prize, yes. Not to mention the continued funding for the occupation of Palistine.
This was a bad decision. The Nobel Prize in every other field recognizes the accomplishments of the awardee.
Already the Nobel Peace Prize is the most worthless of the Nobel awards because of the highly political nature in which it is awarded. To allow the award to be given based on "intentions" rather than accomplishments denies it of the last of its already shakey credibility.
It is much too soon to give Obama this award. There is still war in Iraq. The situation in Afghanistan has taken a turn for the worse. And the situation with Iran is highly unstable. Let's see how he handles these issues before we talk about whether or not he is worthy of any "Peace Prize," however much of a joke that prize may be.
On October 10 2009 03:01 cUrsOr wrote: Only a US president could win the Nobel Peace prize while waging 2 wars in foreign countries that have around 90% of the casualties being civilian. The US calls it terrorism... but when they do it... its time for peace prizes? Anyone who thinks this isn't utter bullshit should go spend 2 weeks in Iraq and Afghanistan then come back and tell me how peaceful the commander in chief must be.
He walked into these wars, not started them... This is about the silliest argument there is against Obama receiving the prize. Not to mention there is a significant difference in the 2 wars and why they were initiated. Personally I would like to have seen if he could make any sense out of the mess in Afghanistan or bring the next step in the peace process to Israel/Palestine, before receiving such an award.
On October 10 2009 03:11 cUrsOr wrote: If you have the power to stop war, and you don't, I do think thats relativant to winning the nobel peace prize, yes. Not to mention the continued funding for the occupation of Palistine.
Haha guess who will not stop to fight when Obama "stops" (you mean withdrawal, right?) the war? And the tone towards Israel has become a lot harsher recently, but whatever... Well it was still a bad move since it was obviously going to backfire. I'm really curious to see how this will be used to criticise Obama though ^^
As an Obama supporter, I agree that this was a bizarre and ridiculous choice.
On October 09 2009 Gideon Rachman, foreign affairs columnist for The Financial Times wrote: While it is OK to give school children prizes for 'effort' -- my kids get them all the time -- I think international statesmen should probably be held to a higher standard,
On October 10 2009 03:11 cUrsOr wrote: If you have the power to stop war, and you don't, I do think thats relativant to winning the nobel peace prize, yes. Not to mention the continued funding for the occupation of Palistine.
Against popular opinion, Obama, since his campaign, has pushed for a time table to get out of Iraq. As this article demonstrates, it is happening and is not just a matter of packing up and leaving.
Obama handled it well. He said all the right things in his speech.
Obama said he was not certain he had done enough to earn the award or deserved to be in the company of the "transformative figures" who received it before him.
"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."
On October 10 2009 03:21 Misrah wrote: this is such a terrible decision. God that man has done nothing, is doing noting, and will do nothing.
What a waste of a once prestigious award.
^I don't agree with this. By simply taking office after our horrible previous administration (we entered a war and an economic depression), he has improved our foreign relations (such as with Russia). He is currently actively trying to rid the world of nuclear arms, as well as provide what I believe to be a far better health care plan for our country. I am sure he will be able to accomplish at bare minimum these two important tasks in the future.
I love how rolling your tanks into, and bombing the shit out of, another country is something the commander in chief can do over a 2 week discussion period... but getting OUT obviously takes years and years.
The argument isn't weather he is slightly better than past presidents, the argument is weather or not the man deserves the nobel peace prize!!!
Hypothetically, in 3 years, 1 war is ended, we close Gitmo and Afghanistan is totally different... SURE he would deserve it. But he doesn't deserve it now.
While I don't think he deserved it, can anyone come up with some people who would have been good choices? I cannot think of anyone which is sad for a number of reasons.
LOL, the nobel peace prize has been a joke ever since they gave it to Arafat. This only further discredits the prize. Who ever gets to decide the winner must be retarded.
On October 10 2009 03:01 cUrsOr wrote: Only a US president could win the Nobel Peace prize while waging 2 wars in foreign countries that have around 90% of the casualties being civilian. The US calls it terrorism... but when they do it... its time for peace prizes? Anyone who thinks this isn't utter bullshit should go spend 2 weeks in Iraq and Afghanistan then come back and tell me how peaceful the commander in chief must be.
On October 10 2009 04:25 bburn wrote: While I don't think he deserved it, can anyone come up with some people who would have been good choices? I cannot think of anyone which is sad for a number of reasons.
While at a local beauty pageant, one of the contestants was asked what she would wish for if she had but one wish. Her response was, "world peace". I think she should have at least been in the running.
On October 10 2009 05:05 ghostWriter wrote: Obama has done nothing so far. Not really his fault, Congress is being very unsupportive, but he definitely doesn't deserve a peace prize.
I haven't followed much on the politics as of late, but doesn't he have a democratic house *and* senate? I can understand Republicans not being supportive, but it's hard for me to believe that congress, which is a majority of his political affiliation, isn't being supportive.
brbrbrb reading up on stuff before someone absolutely destroys my argument here.
On October 10 2009 02:15 Slow Motion wrote: The funny thing is, more people in the U.S. are probably gonna be more pissed that Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize than they were for Arafat.
There's a lot of irrational Obama-worship, but there's also a lot of irrational hate for the guy too. So many people want to see him fail and to bring him down.
Another possibility is that this has and will get much more media attention than arafats misdeeds and his nobel peace prize ever did. I bet many people are just completely ignorant of arafat.
On October 10 2009 02:15 Slow Motion wrote: The funny thing is, more people in the U.S. are probably gonna be more pissed that Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize than they were for Arafat.
There's a lot of irrational Obama-worship, but there's also a lot of irrational hate for the guy too. So many people want to see him fail and to bring him down.
Another possibility is that this has and will get much more media attention than arafats misdeeds and his nobel peace prize ever did. I bet many people are just completely ignorant of arafat.
On October 10 2009 05:29 BalliSLife wrote: Ok so if he's done nothing, what would you guys like him to do?
have to agree that the current flair in the air (no surprise since were in worldwide recession) is skepticism, and everyone in most discussions, whether in live or anonymously has resulted in bringing up mostly the negative points and arguing on that. No one to blame since the last 10 years has been basically a realization for many around the world how corrupt and fucked up things are. We currently live in a very dysfunctional world, plagued by environmental threats, religious threats, economic threats, so i think promoting something that can benefit us in the future is the best thing and most important thing at the moment.
On October 10 2009 05:08 BalliSLife wrote: rofl at the people who say he's done nothing
Name his accomplishments (not that I blame him, he hasn't even been in office for a year). But he definitely doesn't deserve the prize. Rather than fostering peace, he's currently contemplating whether or not to send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Giving the peace prize to Obama diminishes the accomplishments of all the people who actually deserved the peace prize. The committee that voted for it even admits that they were looking at Obama's promise, rather than his accomplishments. rofl at you.
On October 10 2009 05:09 Kaialynn wrote:
I haven't followed much on the politics as of late, but doesn't he have a democratic house *and* senate? I can understand Republicans not being supportive, but it's hard for me to believe that congress, which is a majority of his political affiliation, isn't being supportive.
brbrbrb reading up on stuff before someone absolutely destroys my argument here.[/QUOTE]
He has a super majority in the Senate and a majority in the House. 60 votes = if everyone votes on party lines, they can pretty much pass anything without any Republican support.
No, I believe that it's the right move and it was stupid for President Bush to send soldiers into Iraq (assuming that they should have been sent at all, which I don't believe is the case) without at least finishing the job in Afghanistan first. But sending soldiers doesn't exactly foster peace does it?
But the main point here is that there is absolutely no justification for Obama receiving this award.
On October 10 2009 05:56 ghostWriter wrote: No, I believe that it's a good move and it was stupid for President Bush to send soldiers into Iraq (assuming that they should have been sent at all, which I don't believe is the case) without finishing the job in Afghanistan first. But sending soldiers doesn't exactly foster peace does it?
But the main point here is that there is absolutely no justification for Obama receiving this award.
Not that I agree or care why or who gets peace prizes, other posters more knowledgeable than me have already posted a list of accomplishments and/or efforts by Obama that do make him at the very least, an admirable president.
And like others have side, the prize itself isn't a big a deal anymore -- but anything that touches Obama (including flies) gets into the media.
As for the war, just because Bush started it, doesn't mean we can just let that place go down the shitter. It's not an easy situation, and pulling out entirely is a really bad way to deal with it.
On October 10 2009 05:56 ghostWriter wrote: No, I believe that it's the right move and it was stupid for President Bush to send soldiers into Iraq (assuming that they should have been sent at all, which I don't believe is the case) without at least finishing the job in Afghanistan first. But sending soldiers doesn't exactly foster peace does it?
But the main point here is that there is absolutely no justification for Obama receiving this award.
the main point is that YOU believe theres no justification. or maybe you can send me your analysis by email (pdf format preferred) of this absolute ur talking about.
# Ordered the closing of Guantanamo Bay # Signed an executive order to close CIA secret prisons # Prohibited use of torture # Began easing tension with Cuba. # Developed the renewable energy projects on the waters of our Outer Continental Shelf that produce electricity from wind, wave, and ocean currents. # Announced new strategy to responsible address international nuclear proliferation. # Agreed to negotiation of a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia. # De-escalation of nuclear tension through re-purposing of missile defense prompting Russia to withdraw its missile plan.
Not sure how I feel about the first two but they don't really have anything to do with peace; torture has always been illegal and we should have rebuilt our relationship with Cuba years ago. Renewable energy projects have nothing to do with peace. Announcing a strategy and implementing one are two different beasts, not to mention the fact that no sane person would use nuclear weapons. The Cold War ended over a decade ago, dropping the number of weapons and stopping the proposed missile defense system is a moot point, since no one can use nuclear weapons without swift retaliation while making an enemy out of the entire world.
Take a look at the winners of the Nobel Prizes in Physiology/Medicine, Physics and Chemistry. These are actual accomplishments.
[QUOTE]On October 10 2009 03:13 Mortality wrote: This was a bad decision. The Nobel Prize in every other field recognizes the accomplishments of the awardee.
Already the Nobel Peace Prize is the most worthless of the Nobel awards because of the highly political nature in which it is awarded. To allow the award to be given based on "intentions" rather than accomplishments denies it of the last of its already shakey credibility.
I've been more outraged, it's just an award, whatever weight you decide to give it is entirely up to you. Personally, I would've liked someone with an unambigously uplifting story so I could feel warm and fuzzy
-He is prolonging the wars in the interest of a longer lasting peace, at some time in the future. But we can be sure he plans to end them. Usually surges are the best way to end wars. -He has ordered the closing of Gitmo, and despite his best efforts it remains open. (White House annonced on 9/27 that the January closing date will be delayed... darn) -He still funds Isreali occupation, but.. well thats not really his fault either. Just gotta keep doing it really. -Has announced he plans to seriously start considering reducing our nuclear weapon stockpiles very soon. He did sound very serious though. -Actually made torture illegal! Wow. Thats like making water wet. Considering we hung people at Nuremberg for it... we can be sure he is a hero for condemning it.
-His best move, to date, is actually phsically haulting the construction of the "defense" systems in eastern Europe. This was welldone.
If he does end the wars, close Gitmo, stop funding war in Isreal, really dismantles weapons, and prosecutes those who tortured, I'd be screaming for him to get a peace prize. But, as the best quote here says, apparently the prize really does mean nothing. I guess I'm just dissappointed.
The headline certainly does look good for the US though.
On October 10 2009 06:49 GrandInquisitor wrote: at the awards ceremony:
Obama: I'm proud to accept— Kanye: Yo Obama I'm really happy for you but Morgan Tsvangirai had one of the best years of all time Obama: You are a jackass.
He has reached out to the Muslim world. He has reached out to Russia. He is willing to talk to his enemies. He takes responsibility on the climate change front. He wants to abolish nuclear weapons. He puts pressure on the Israelis to make peace and stop the settlements. That's the most ambitious peace agenda of anyone in the last decade
He really has to prove himself towards this award. He has not really done anything significant, he has just reached out towards things - never really grabbed anything. Time will tell, I still think he is a scam.
# Ordered the closing of Guantanamo Bay # Signed an executive order to close CIA secret prisons # Prohibited use of torture # Began easing tension with Cuba. # Developed the renewable energy projects on the waters of our Outer Continental Shelf that produce electricity from wind, wave, and ocean currents. # Announced new strategy to responsible address international nuclear proliferation. # Agreed to negotiation of a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia. # De-escalation of nuclear tension through re-purposing of missile defense prompting Russia to withdraw its missile plan.
Not sure how I feel about the first two but they don't really have anything to do with peace; torture has always been illegal and we should have rebuilt our relationship with Cuba years ago. Renewable energy projects have nothing to do with peace. Announcing a strategy and implementing one are two different beasts, not to mention the fact that no sane person would use nuclear weapons. The Cold War ended over a decade ago, dropping the number of weapons and stopping the proposed missile defense system is a moot point, since no one can use nuclear weapons without swift retaliation while making an enemy out of the entire world.
Take a look at the winners of the Nobel Prizes in Physiology/Medicine, Physics and Chemistry. These are actual accomplishments.
What? Taking steps towards stopping torture has nothing to do with peace? Any mentioned prohibition of torture would obviously mean torture by the U.S. outside of the U.S. which is obviously legal. That you should've done something about cuba years ago does not mean that you did do it, or that doing it now doesn't deserve credit since it's one example of change much desired for the world's most powerful nation run amuck. You're right, officially spoken moves don't necessarily at all mean that actual change is coming up behind it; but i still think it's a far cry from having done nothing. The cold war is over but that obviously wouldn't stop people all over the world from being made uncomfortable by the large presence of nukes on the planet, as people have been uncomfortable during and since the cold war. And it seems to me that the significance of missile defense programs is that as soon as someone figures out how to make themself significantly less vulnerable to nuclear counter-attack, the potential for them to take the initiative greatly increases, and tension with it. Could you imagine if someone with a thousand warheads ready to be launched, in turn did not have to worry about being nuked themself? What could the world do to stop them? It would be tricky to say the least.
Well it might be that the Nobel prize isnt necessarily only awarded based on past accomplishments, but also awarded as an incentive to the awardee to do more for world peace in the future. Since Obama is a leader of a fairly important country.
Maybe he will think twice about invading some other country in the future, since he is renowned for his peace helping efforts etc. I guess. Or maybe you guys are right and we norwegians just love to stroke his big black + Show Spoiler +
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.
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 11:08 alphafuzard wrote: 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....
wow. We are just going around and kicking ass in a bunch of different countries. And the people who think its bad are the "ignorant". Any idea what kind of hell we would raise if any other country did military operations in our country? I cant believe how easy it is to just apply different standards to different countries.
The main mix-up between Iraq and Afghanistan was when Iraq was started. These wars were going to be inherited by whoever took office, and he is contining to fight them much the same as his predecessor. "Surges" are a real good way to end a war.
edit: ^ Above me is wellsaid. Obama is CERTAINLY a better president that Bush. There is no debate, esepcailly for foreign policy. The debate is weather or not he deserved this award? Not yet.
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.
Yea because Cia gave them money and weapons during their war against the USSR. It means that they are free to have terrorist camps to train international jihadists. Sounds really rational >.<
On October 10 2009 11:33 BalliSLife wrote: Well taliban isn't good right? so sending troops make a lot of sense to stop those guys from blowing innocent people up
The US has "blown up" far more civilians in the last 10 years than Al-Quida and the Taliban combined. The US just says different things as it does it, so its okay.
On October 10 2009 11:33 BalliSLife wrote: Well taliban isn't good right? so sending troops make a lot of sense to stop those guys from blowing innocent people up
Did we send troops into Egypt, and Algeria when they were blowing them up? No. The people of Algeria and Egypt turned against these people and expelled and or executed them. Let the people of their own nation handle their own people. With thinking like yours, there is no more Sovereign Nations. America becomes the de-facto arbitar of what is good and bad, and as such, we have all rights to go into any Nation to enforce this good and bad dichotomy.
On the contrary. America has no right to invade any Sovereign Nation, unless we have a Declaration of War from Congress that is in line with Christian Just War Theory (Defense).
Libertarian scholar Murray Rothbard stated, "a just war exists when a people tries to ward off the threat of coercive domination by another people, or to overthrow an already-existing domination. A war is unjust, on the other hand, when a people try to impose domination on another people, or try to retain an already existing coercive rule over them."
Using this theory, what gives us the right to go there after defeating the enemy, to then impose our belief system on these people? Is it any different than the Taliban? Do you believe people have the right to Self-Determination? What if these people do not want Democracy? What if they don't want Capitalism? Why should we force them into doing such things? Do you believe that is just?
We have defeated Al-Qaeda. It's time to get out of there, and Iraq. Let these people rule themselves.
On October 10 2009 11:33 BalliSLife wrote: Well taliban isn't good right? so sending troops make a lot of sense to stop those guys from blowing innocent people up
The US has "blown up" far more civilians in the last 10 years than Al-Quida and the Taliban combined. The US just says different things as it does it, so its okay.
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.
On October 10 2009 11:08 alphafuzard wrote: 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....
edit: ^ Above me is wellsaid. Obama is CERTAINLY a better president that Bush. There is no debate, esepcailly for foreign policy. The debate is weather or not he deserved this award? Not yet.
I wouldn't say that. How is he better on Foreign Policy? It seems to me Obama has pacified the anti-war movement while continuing the same policies and expanding them. How is this "better"?
Secondly, abdicating American Sovereignty to ambiguous International Groups and Cabals isn't certaintly better whatsoever. The world isn't homogenous, and better yet, all people have the right to Self-Determination. Did I or you consent to give these groups just rule?
"over the last 10 years" thats the key. This includes shock and awe, the 9-11 attacks and all our wars in all countries. The fact that we are even arguing about how many civilians we kill in other countries is kinna saddening tho.
On October 10 2009 11:43 BalliSLife wrote: Where were you when bush waged war on Afghanistan and iraq anyway? as far as i'm concerned obama didn't even vote to go to war with them
What? You do know that Obama was a Senator, correct? Secondly, what does that have to do with current policies, that he is acting on and promoting?
On October 10 2009 11:08 alphafuzard wrote: 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....
edit: ^ Above me is wellsaid. Obama is CERTAINLY a better president that Bush. There is no debate, esepcailly for foreign policy. The debate is weather or not he deserved this award? Not yet.
I wouldn't say that. How is he better on Foreign Policy? It seems to me Obama has pacified the anti-war movement while continuing the same policies and expanding them. How is this "better"?
Secondly, abdicating American Sovereignty to ambiguous International Groups and Cabals isn't certaintly better whatsoever. The world isn't homogenous, and better yet, all people have the right to Self-Determination. Did I or you consent to give these groups just rule?
I totally agree with you. I meant our perception by the rest of the world. People seem to think the US is better now than they thought 5 years ago. Though we know perception isn't reality, and yes, it does tent to minimize the criticism we SHOULD be getting if people start thing we are the "good guys".
On October 10 2009 11:46 cUrsOr wrote: "over the last 10 years" thats the key. This includes shock and awe, the 9-11 attacks and all our wars in all countries. The fact that we are even arguing about how many civilians we kill in other countries is kinna saddening tho.
Ya well the total deaths estimated caused by the Invasion of Iraq, not just people we shot or bombed... but starvation etc... Im sure you saw the estimates... is at least 100,000.
This figure is AKA people that wouldnt have otherwise died. Direct and indirect results of the invasion. I believe the number was much higher but Im totally safe guessing it was 100,000.
On October 10 2009 11:46 cUrsOr wrote: "over the last 10 years" thats the key. This includes shock and awe, the 9-11 attacks and all our wars in all countries. The fact that we are even arguing about how many civilians we kill in other countries is kinna saddening tho.
erm what? The 9/11 attacks were committed by the Taliban, not the U.S. government, unless you're into all those conspiracy theories, unless you're into all those conspiracy theories, in which case discussion is moot. And what wars with what other countries pray tell?
On October 10 2009 11:46 cUrsOr wrote: "over the last 10 years" thats the key. This includes shock and awe, the 9-11 attacks and all our wars in all countries. The fact that we are even arguing about how many civilians we kill in other countries is kinna saddening tho.
erm what? The 9/11 attacks were committed by the Taliban, not the U.S. government, unless you're into all those conspiracy theories, unless you're into all those conspiracy theories, in which case discussion is moot. And what wars with what other countries pray tell?
Even if you don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job, there's even less proof that it was done by the "taliban."
On October 10 2009 11:43 BalliSLife wrote: Where were you when bush waged war on Afghanistan and iraq anyway? as far as i'm concerned obama didn't even vote to go to war with them
What? You do know that Obama was a Senator, correct? Secondly, what does that have to do with current policies, that he is acting on and promoting?
On October 10 2009 11:43 BalliSLife wrote: Where were you when bush waged war on Afghanistan and iraq anyway? as far as i'm concerned obama didn't even vote to go to war with them
What? You do know that Obama was a Senator, correct? Secondly, what does that have to do with current policies, that he is acting on and promoting?
That doesn't seem to stop him on his crusade for Cap and Trade, Public Healthcare, etc. Secondly, is Glenn Beck, or Barack Obama President? I see you are trying to deflect responsibility off the man who is directly responsible to others. If "the man" himself, is not responsible who is? That is to say, if the person making the decisions for the actions of the US is not responsible for those direct actions, who is?
Though it does look a bit off topic talking soley about the total effect of the wars. He did inherit them... in all fairness... he just isn't down-scaling them like I had hoped.
On October 10 2009 12:01 cUrsOr wrote: Though it does look a bit off topic talking soley about the total effect of the wars. He did inherit them... in all fairness... he just isn't down-scaling them like I had hoped.
if you're implying pulling out, that isn't exactly the best option....
On October 10 2009 11:46 cUrsOr wrote: "over the last 10 years" thats the key. This includes shock and awe, the 9-11 attacks and all our wars in all countries. The fact that we are even arguing about how many civilians we kill in other countries is kinna saddening tho.
erm what? The 9/11 attacks were committed by the Taliban, not the U.S. government, unless you're into all those conspiracy theories, unless you're into all those conspiracy theories, in which case discussion is moot. And what wars with what other countries pray tell?
Even if you don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job, there's even less proof that it was done by the "taliban."
The people they fund and train and shelter claimed responsibility. It's like when the IRA claim responsibility for a bombing people hold Sinn Fein responsible. They're the same organisation, just one the political wing and the other the militant one.
On October 10 2009 11:43 BalliSLife wrote: Where were you when bush waged war on Afghanistan and iraq anyway? as far as i'm concerned obama didn't even vote to go to war with them
What? You do know that Obama was a Senator, correct? Secondly, what does that have to do with current policies, that he is acting on and promoting?
That doesn't seem to stop him on his crusade for Cap and Trade, Public Healthcare, etc. Secondly, is Glenn Beck, or Barack Obama President? I see you are trying to deflect responsibility off the man who is directly responsible to others. If "the man" himself, is not responsible who is? That is to say, if the person making the decisions for the actions of the US is not responsible for those direct actions, who is?
Ya but you have people like glenn beck who compares hitler to obama and brainwashes everyone who watches his show. Just cause he is president it doesn't give him that much power over all these lobbyists that have the money to do whatever the f they want with country
On October 10 2009 12:01 cUrsOr wrote: Though it does look a bit off topic talking soley about the total effect of the wars. He did inherit them... in all fairness... he just isn't down-scaling them like I had hoped.
if you're implying pulling out, that isn't exactly the best option....
Why not? We pretty much dismantled Al-Qaeda. We were never supposed to, or at least shouldn't have, gone after the Taliban. Our goal was Al-Qaeda. Now look at the war. It is draining American coffers, killing American men and women for Nation-Building, which Gen. McChrsytal said would take decades, and, is showing signs of increasing. Also, it isn't exactly a positive thing in the Middle Eastern viewpoint. I wouldn't like French troops in Canada who are attacking countries adjacent to them. I also wouldn't like foreign troops on American soil. Look at Vietnam. 30 years after we pulled out, we trade with them, we talk to them, we travel there. It is peaceful. Commerce and Economics show's that open free trade tends to disincentivize any aggressive behavior.
If Al-Qaeda ends up attacking us again then either: 1) Declaration of War by Congress or 2) Marque and Reprisal
You can't have a War on Terrorism. Terrorism is an idea. You can only defeat idea's with other idea's, not by force. How do you think America spread it's liberalism (Classical Liberalism) throughout the world in the 19th century? Mostly, by the idea, being the example, showing people a better way. The places where we did force it, look at what happened. Japan ended up attacking us years later, and secondly, it was partially because we had Economic Sanctions against them; Oil Embargo. We need to trade and travel with everyone. Spread our views by peaceful means. Just means. Not at the end of a gun, that never works.
On October 10 2009 11:43 BalliSLife wrote: Where were you when bush waged war on Afghanistan and iraq anyway? as far as i'm concerned obama didn't even vote to go to war with them
What? You do know that Obama was a Senator, correct? Secondly, what does that have to do with current policies, that he is acting on and promoting?
That doesn't seem to stop him on his crusade for Cap and Trade, Public Healthcare, etc. Secondly, is Glenn Beck, or Barack Obama President? I see you are trying to deflect responsibility off the man who is directly responsible to others. If "the man" himself, is not responsible who is? That is to say, if the person making the decisions for the actions of the US is not responsible for those direct actions, who is?
Ya but you have people like glenn beck who compares hitler to obama and brainwashes everyone who watches his show. Just cause he is president it doesn't give him that much power over all these lobbyists that have the money to do whatever the f they want with country
Actually it does. The President has specific enumerated powers. The lobbyists do not. It just shows Obama has no principles. He goes where the money takes him. How is that conducive to a Peace Prize? All you have to do is pay him, or throw more money in that direction.
How many people watch Glenn Beck? A few million? There are 300+ million people in America. Obama is Totalitarian. I think comparison to others is moot, doesn't promote the problem in any positive way, and leads to more partisanry where there otherwise may not be. All you have to do is make the moral arguement, show how everything that pretty much takes place in America today is against everyone's will. Show how his policies are the same as Bush's, and show through history how his Economic policies have lead to turbulent economic periods, extended the problem, and in fact, increased the problem.
Debt Monetization is never good. Fiat money is never good. I'm surprised it lasted 38 years to be honest.
I'm aware you can't physical harm an ideal, I always thought the "War on Terror" was a term used to get people riled up anyways.
I guess I don't really know much about the war since I just read the news, but the situation in the middle east sounds pretty fragile and I'd think that pulling out would make the area more vulnerable. After we invaded Afghanistan the first time we shifted to Iraq a bit later, and then Al-Qaeda just came back after we left -- which is why we went back.
I'm not saying it is worth it, but I'm not sure if the rest of the world would like to see us just leave without really accomplishing much. Or have we? I never hear good news about the war.
According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."[
How about giving considering him after he actually acheives something? It's a bob on the nob, and nothing more.
Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right... Where did you study history again Aegraen?
On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote: Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right... Where did you study history again Aegraen?
i learned we had rough relationships with japan due to our presence in the phillipines and embargos on oil and such...
I'm aware you can't physical harm an ideal, I always thought the "War on Terror" was a term used to get people riled up anyways.
I guess I don't really know much about the war since I just read the news, but the situation in the middle east sounds pretty fragile and I'd think that pulling out would make the area more vulnerable. After we invaded Afghanistan the first time we shifted to Iraq a bit later, and then Al-Qaeda just came back after we left -- which is why we went back.
I'm not saying it is worth it, but I'm not sure if the rest of the world would like to see us just leave without really accomplishing much. Or have we? I never hear good news about the war.
The people of the Middle East for the most part rejected what Zarqiwi was trying to accomplish. It all started with Sayyid Qutb. Why do you think they were based in Afghanistan? All other Middle Eastern countries either expelled them, or executed them. Now, that America is there, imposing our beliefs, interfering with their Sovereignty, of course the people of the Middle East would be united against that. Just like Americans would be united if the same thing happened in our country or in adjacent countries. In fact, if you watch Powers of Nightmares it gives you a good picture of the conflict.
Iraq didn't attack us. Afghanistan didn't attack us. It's like if the IRA attacked America we wouldn't be fighting against Ireland, would we? Would we then go over there and tell the people of Ireland that you are now going to do this, this, and this. Do you think they wouldn't say, no, we don't want or believe in that? Do you think they may fight back?
This isn't people who believe in what Al-Qaeda does. It's direct retaliation against American Foreign Policy. The thought we can spread our ideals at the end of a barrel. We caused this ourselves, through our Foreign Policy. We should have never interfered in the Soviet-Afghan war, we should have never interfered in Iranian policy (We brought the Shah to power). We should have never gone along 100% with whatever Israel does.
Are you fighting for pride, or are you fighting for a just reason?
Lastly, we never left Afghanistan. Sure, we had less troops in Afghanistan, but we never left there. Al-Qaeda is/was a nuissance, but it was never a serious threat to America. We should never give up any liberty, because of fear. Secondly, all those thwarted "Terrorist plots" weren't terrorist plots, and just about every single one has been thrown out of court. If you actually look into it, you'll see how blatantly mis-represented it is. You'll see, the reason the politicians on both sides, trump this up, is because fear gives them more power than they otherwise would have. Power is the name of the game.
On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote: Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right... Where did you study history again Aegraen?
Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US.
I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America?
On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote: Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right... Where did you study history again Aegraen?
i learned we had rough relationships with japan due to our presence in the phillipines and embargos on oil and such...
that was highschool, but iono.
Japan was an expansionist imperialistic power with dreams of racial superiority and a global empire. This was not caused by sanctions, it was caused by innate problems with Japanese culture. What it meant was that at some point Japan was going to try and kill millions of people around them. What needed to happen was the United States, Britain and France needed to collectively tell Japan that that shit wasn't on. Unfortunately at first people who believed what Aegraen believed had power in the United States and then by the time the United States realised what was up (after Japan invaded Manchuria) Britain and France were already distracted by Germany. The United States tried to intervene through sanctions because Japan was going batshit crazy, Japan didn't go batshit crazy because of sanctions.
There is actually some history to the area that precedes Pearl Harbour. I know Americans don't care about any of that stuff but Japan actually attacked Korea in 1910.
It seems to me like the Nobel Peace Prize is being used as a political tool to make the governments actions seem more "approved".
Before saying the president didn't do anything, you should consider that a president also has to appease the corporations who hold America by the balls(as well as all rival politicians). It's really hard to drastically change things without having a degree of autocratic power. it's not like Obama has some kind of magic touch or anything.
On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote: Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right... Where did you study history again Aegraen?
Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US.
I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America?
Where did you study your history Kwark?
Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you. And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool.
On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote: Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right... Where did you study history again Aegraen?
i learned we had rough relationships with japan due to our presence in the phillipines and embargos on oil and such...
that was highschool, but iono.
Japan was an expansionist imperialistic power with dreams of racial superiority and a global empire. This was not caused by sanctions, it was caused by innate problems with Japanese culture. What it meant was that at some point Japan was going to try and kill millions of people around them. What needed to happen was the United States, Britain and France needed to collectively tell Japan that that shit wasn't on. Unfortunately at first people who believed what Aegraen believed had power in the United States and then by the time the United States realised what was up (after Japan invaded Manchuria) Britain and France were already distracted by Germany. The United States tried to intervene through sanctions because Japan was going batshit crazy, Japan didn't go batshit crazy because of sanctions.
There is actually some history to the area that precedes Pearl Harbour. I know Americans don't care about any of that stuff but Japan actually attacked Korea in 1910.
It isn't the duty of America to police the world. It isn't our duty to defend other nations. Do you scream and yell at Switzerland? Why is it America's responsibility to enter the war on the behest of Manchuria?
America was directly attacked for the reasons I enumerated, and none other.
On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote: Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right... Where did you study history again Aegraen?
Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US.
I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America?
Where did you study your history Kwark?
Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you. And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool.
When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America?
You seem to think America's responsibility is the defense of other nations. I don't. America's responsibility is to America.
On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote: Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right... Where did you study history again Aegraen?
Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US.
I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America?
Where did you study your history Kwark?
Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you. And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool.
When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America?
Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it.
On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote: Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right... Where did you study history again Aegraen?
i learned we had rough relationships with japan due to our presence in the phillipines and embargos on oil and such...
that was highschool, but iono.
Japan was an expansionist imperialistic power with dreams of racial superiority and a global empire. This was not caused by sanctions, it was caused by innate problems with Japanese culture. What it meant was that at some point Japan was going to try and kill millions of people around them. What needed to happen was the United States, Britain and France needed to collectively tell Japan that that shit wasn't on. Unfortunately at first people who believed what Aegraen believed had power in the United States and then by the time the United States realised what was up (after Japan invaded Manchuria) Britain and France were already distracted by Germany. The United States tried to intervene through sanctions because Japan was going batshit crazy, Japan didn't go batshit crazy because of sanctions.
There is actually some history to the area that precedes Pearl Harbour. I know Americans don't care about any of that stuff but Japan actually attacked Korea in 1910.
Can I never have a conversation with someone from another country without having them take a shot at Americans?
Really, I was taught what you just said and this was information I was aware of. The sanctions against Japan were what made them retaliate -- there is nothing wrong in saying that, deciding to leave out the information you provided is just a way to shorten an online post.
no one is writing a book on here, well known facts are just considered as a given.
On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote: Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right... Where did you study history again Aegraen?
Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US.
I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America?
Where did you study your history Kwark?
Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you. And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool.
When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America?
Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it.
On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote: Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right... Where did you study history again Aegraen?
i learned we had rough relationships with japan due to our presence in the phillipines and embargos on oil and such...
that was highschool, but iono.
Japan was an expansionist imperialistic power with dreams of racial superiority and a global empire. This was not caused by sanctions, it was caused by innate problems with Japanese culture. What it meant was that at some point Japan was going to try and kill millions of people around them. What needed to happen was the United States, Britain and France needed to collectively tell Japan that that shit wasn't on. Unfortunately at first people who believed what Aegraen believed had power in the United States and then by the time the United States realised what was up (after Japan invaded Manchuria) Britain and France were already distracted by Germany. The United States tried to intervene through sanctions because Japan was going batshit crazy, Japan didn't go batshit crazy because of sanctions.
There is actually some history to the area that precedes Pearl Harbour. I know Americans don't care about any of that stuff but Japan actually attacked Korea in 1910.
Can I never have a conversation with someone from another country without having them take a shot at Americans?
Really, I was taught what you just said and this was information I was aware of. The sanctions against Japan were what made them retaliate -- there is nothing wrong in saying that, deciding to leave out the information you provided is just a way to shorten an online post.
no one is writing a book on here, well known facts are just considered as a given.
seems there was a misunderstanding.
Sorry, I inadvertently grouped you with Aegraen. I was attacking the view that America somehow started the conflict with Japan through interfering and sanctions when responsibility for the war lies solely with Japan being insane.
On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote: Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right... Where did you study history again Aegraen?
Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US.
I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America?
Where did you study your history Kwark?
Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you. And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool.
When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America?
Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it.
Why then did no country invade America when we were slaughtering the Indians? Do you think that another country had the right to invade another Sovereign country at the behest of the Indians? That, then, that country had the right to superimpose it's belief system on those people at the point of a gun?
Many nations, have caused many atrocities. Do you not believe that you can change other's ideals, by ideals themselves? America doesn't go prodding around killing our own population, anymore does it? Did it take a war to achieve that? Did it take a war to achieve that in other nations, in other time periods? No, and no.
Secondly, no Nation can afford what you advocate. We would be in many many countries. Burma/Myanmar, Sudan, Somalia, Congo, etc. It also wouldn't be advantageous, because you have to change their viewpoints, or else it'll happen all over again.
So, yes I'm against interventionism. The law of unintended consequences is imperative. Secondly, if you want to stop it, then volunteer your services and go fight over there for their rights. Why is it ok, to make it compulsory for everyone?
On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote: Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right... Where did you study history again Aegraen?
i learned we had rough relationships with japan due to our presence in the phillipines and embargos on oil and such...
that was highschool, but iono.
Japan was an expansionist imperialistic power with dreams of racial superiority and a global empire. This was not caused by sanctions, it was caused by innate problems with Japanese culture. What it meant was that at some point Japan was going to try and kill millions of people around them. What needed to happen was the United States, Britain and France needed to collectively tell Japan that that shit wasn't on. Unfortunately at first people who believed what Aegraen believed had power in the United States and then by the time the United States realised what was up (after Japan invaded Manchuria) Britain and France were already distracted by Germany. The United States tried to intervene through sanctions because Japan was going batshit crazy, Japan didn't go batshit crazy because of sanctions.
There is actually some history to the area that precedes Pearl Harbour. I know Americans don't care about any of that stuff but Japan actually attacked Korea in 1910.
Can I never have a conversation with someone from another country without having them take a shot at Americans?
Really, I was taught what you just said and this was information I was aware of. The sanctions against Japan were what made them retaliate -- there is nothing wrong in saying that, deciding to leave out the information you provided is just a way to shorten an online post.
no one is writing a book on here, well known facts are just considered as a given.
seems there was a misunderstanding.
Sorry, I inadvertently grouped you with Aegraen. I was attacking the view that America somehow started the conflict with Japan through interfering and sanctions when responsibility for the war lies solely with Japan being insane.
which means,
placing sanctions on an insane country will make them hostile towards you.
i don't think Aegraen is disagreeing with you, you guys are just being picky on what info you provide in your posts.
On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote: Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right... Where did you study history again Aegraen?
Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US.
I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America?
Where did you study your history Kwark?
Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you. And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool.
When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America?
Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it.
that's not a practical way of thinking.
Read the link below. That is the practical outcome of a Japanese military occupation. American oil was being used in the war effort against the Chinese people. The American economy was a silent partner in perhaps the worst atrocities mankind has ever committed until they refused and imposed sanctions. To say that sanctions were wrong and that as long as these things aren't happening to Americans they're okay is absurd. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote: Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right... Where did you study history again Aegraen?
i learned we had rough relationships with japan due to our presence in the phillipines and embargos on oil and such...
that was highschool, but iono.
Japan was an expansionist imperialistic power with dreams of racial superiority and a global empire. This was not caused by sanctions, it was caused by innate problems with Japanese culture. What it meant was that at some point Japan was going to try and kill millions of people around them. What needed to happen was the United States, Britain and France needed to collectively tell Japan that that shit wasn't on. Unfortunately at first people who believed what Aegraen believed had power in the United States and then by the time the United States realised what was up (after Japan invaded Manchuria) Britain and France were already distracted by Germany. The United States tried to intervene through sanctions because Japan was going batshit crazy, Japan didn't go batshit crazy because of sanctions.
There is actually some history to the area that precedes Pearl Harbour. I know Americans don't care about any of that stuff but Japan actually attacked Korea in 1910.
Can I never have a conversation with someone from another country without having them take a shot at Americans?
Really, I was taught what you just said and this was information I was aware of. The sanctions against Japan were what made them retaliate -- there is nothing wrong in saying that, deciding to leave out the information you provided is just a way to shorten an online post.
no one is writing a book on here, well known facts are just considered as a given.
seems there was a misunderstanding.
Sorry, I inadvertently grouped you with Aegraen. I was attacking the view that America somehow started the conflict with Japan through interfering and sanctions when responsibility for the war lies solely with Japan being insane.
which means,
placing sanctions on an insane country will make them hostile towards you.
i don't think Aegraen is disagreeing with you, you guys are just being picky on what info you provide in your posts.
Not placing sanctions upon them makes you a consenting partner to their insanity. When a guy is mowing down innocent civilians there comes a point where you should stop selling him bullets.
On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote: Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right... Where did you study history again Aegraen?
i learned we had rough relationships with japan due to our presence in the phillipines and embargos on oil and such...
that was highschool, but iono.
Japan was an expansionist imperialistic power with dreams of racial superiority and a global empire. This was not caused by sanctions, it was caused by innate problems with Japanese culture. What it meant was that at some point Japan was going to try and kill millions of people around them. What needed to happen was the United States, Britain and France needed to collectively tell Japan that that shit wasn't on. Unfortunately at first people who believed what Aegraen believed had power in the United States and then by the time the United States realised what was up (after Japan invaded Manchuria) Britain and France were already distracted by Germany. The United States tried to intervene through sanctions because Japan was going batshit crazy, Japan didn't go batshit crazy because of sanctions.
There is actually some history to the area that precedes Pearl Harbour. I know Americans don't care about any of that stuff but Japan actually attacked Korea in 1910.
Can I never have a conversation with someone from another country without having them take a shot at Americans?
Really, I was taught what you just said and this was information I was aware of. The sanctions against Japan were what made them retaliate -- there is nothing wrong in saying that, deciding to leave out the information you provided is just a way to shorten an online post.
no one is writing a book on here, well known facts are just considered as a given.
seems there was a misunderstanding.
Sorry, I inadvertently grouped you with Aegraen. I was attacking the view that America somehow started the conflict with Japan through interfering and sanctions when responsibility for the war lies solely with Japan being insane.
America, did start the conflict, with it's Foreign Policy. If we had a non-interventionist Foreign Policy Japan would have never attacked the United States. Why would Japan attack it's source of oil? It never would. Who do you know that would attack its trading partner?
On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote: Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right... Where did you study history again Aegraen?
i learned we had rough relationships with japan due to our presence in the phillipines and embargos on oil and such...
that was highschool, but iono.
Japan was an expansionist imperialistic power with dreams of racial superiority and a global empire. This was not caused by sanctions, it was caused by innate problems with Japanese culture. What it meant was that at some point Japan was going to try and kill millions of people around them. What needed to happen was the United States, Britain and France needed to collectively tell Japan that that shit wasn't on. Unfortunately at first people who believed what Aegraen believed had power in the United States and then by the time the United States realised what was up (after Japan invaded Manchuria) Britain and France were already distracted by Germany. The United States tried to intervene through sanctions because Japan was going batshit crazy, Japan didn't go batshit crazy because of sanctions.
There is actually some history to the area that precedes Pearl Harbour. I know Americans don't care about any of that stuff but Japan actually attacked Korea in 1910.
Can I never have a conversation with someone from another country without having them take a shot at Americans?
Really, I was taught what you just said and this was information I was aware of. The sanctions against Japan were what made them retaliate -- there is nothing wrong in saying that, deciding to leave out the information you provided is just a way to shorten an online post.
no one is writing a book on here, well known facts are just considered as a given.
seems there was a misunderstanding.
Sorry, I inadvertently grouped you with Aegraen. I was attacking the view that America somehow started the conflict with Japan through interfering and sanctions when responsibility for the war lies solely with Japan being insane.
which means,
placing sanctions on an insane country will make them hostile towards you.
i don't think Aegraen is disagreeing with you, you guys are just being picky on what info you provide in your posts.
Not placing sanctions upon them makes you a consenting partner to their insanity. When a guy is mowing down innocent civilians there comes a point where you should stop selling him bullets.
On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote: Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right... Where did you study history again Aegraen?
i learned we had rough relationships with japan due to our presence in the phillipines and embargos on oil and such...
that was highschool, but iono.
Japan was an expansionist imperialistic power with dreams of racial superiority and a global empire. This was not caused by sanctions, it was caused by innate problems with Japanese culture. What it meant was that at some point Japan was going to try and kill millions of people around them. What needed to happen was the United States, Britain and France needed to collectively tell Japan that that shit wasn't on. Unfortunately at first people who believed what Aegraen believed had power in the United States and then by the time the United States realised what was up (after Japan invaded Manchuria) Britain and France were already distracted by Germany. The United States tried to intervene through sanctions because Japan was going batshit crazy, Japan didn't go batshit crazy because of sanctions.
There is actually some history to the area that precedes Pearl Harbour. I know Americans don't care about any of that stuff but Japan actually attacked Korea in 1910.
Can I never have a conversation with someone from another country without having them take a shot at Americans?
Really, I was taught what you just said and this was information I was aware of. The sanctions against Japan were what made them retaliate -- there is nothing wrong in saying that, deciding to leave out the information you provided is just a way to shorten an online post.
no one is writing a book on here, well known facts are just considered as a given.
seems there was a misunderstanding.
Sorry, I inadvertently grouped you with Aegraen. I was attacking the view that America somehow started the conflict with Japan through interfering and sanctions when responsibility for the war lies solely with Japan being insane.
which means,
placing sanctions on an insane country will make them hostile towards you.
i don't think Aegraen is disagreeing with you, you guys are just being picky on what info you provide in your posts.
Not placing sanctions upon them makes you a consenting partner to their insanity. When a guy is mowing down innocent civilians there comes a point where you should stop selling him bullets.
On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote: Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right... Where did you study history again Aegraen?
Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US.
I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America?
Where did you study your history Kwark?
Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you. And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool.
When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America?
Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it.
Why then did no country invade America when we were slaughtering the Indians? Do you think that another country had the right to invade another Sovereign country at the behest of the Indians? That, then, that country had the right to superimpose it's belief system on those people at the point of a gun?
Many nations, have caused many atrocities. Do you not believe that you can change other's ideals, by ideals themselves? America doesn't go prodding around killing our own population, anymore does it? Did it take a war to achieve that? Did it take a war to achieve that in other nations, in other time periods? No, and no.
Secondly, no Nation can afford what you advocate. We would be in many many countries. Burma/Myanmar, Sudan, Somalia, Congo, etc. It also wouldn't be advantageous, because you have to change their viewpoints, or else it'll happen all over again.
So, yes I'm against interventionism. The law of unintended consequences is imperative. Secondly, if you want to stop it, then volunteer your services and go fight over there for their rights. Why is it ok, to make it compulsory for everyone?
Dude slaughtering the indians was how long ago? like 150 years ago? or 200?
On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote: Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right... Where did you study history again Aegraen?
Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US.
I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America?
Where did you study your history Kwark?
Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you. And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool.
When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America?
Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it.
Why then did no country invade America when we were slaughtering the Indians? Do you think that another country had the right to invade another Sovereign country at the behest of the Indians? That, then, that country had the right to superimpose it's belief system on those people at the point of a gun?
Many nations, have caused many atrocities. Do you not believe that you can change other's ideals, by ideals themselves? America doesn't go prodding around killing our own population, anymore does it? Did it take a war to achieve that? Did it take a war to achieve that in other nations, in other time periods? No, and no.
Secondly, no Nation can afford what you advocate. We would be in many many countries. Burma/Myanmar, Sudan, Somalia, Congo, etc. It also wouldn't be advantageous, because you have to change their viewpoints, or else it'll happen all over again.
So, yes I'm against interventionism. The law of unintended consequences is imperative. Secondly, if you want to stop it, then volunteer your services and go fight over there for their rights. Why is it ok, to make it compulsory for everyone?
Dude slaughtering the indians was how long ago? like 150 years ago? or 200?
On October 10 2009 11:58 iloahz wrote: Nobel peace prize lost all of its credibility 2 decades ago when it awarded Dalai Lama. The Obama award is quite reasonable in comparison.
On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote: Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right... Where did you study history again Aegraen?
i learned we had rough relationships with japan due to our presence in the phillipines and embargos on oil and such...
that was highschool, but iono.
Japan was an expansionist imperialistic power with dreams of racial superiority and a global empire. This was not caused by sanctions, it was caused by innate problems with Japanese culture. What it meant was that at some point Japan was going to try and kill millions of people around them. What needed to happen was the United States, Britain and France needed to collectively tell Japan that that shit wasn't on. Unfortunately at first people who believed what Aegraen believed had power in the United States and then by the time the United States realised what was up (after Japan invaded Manchuria) Britain and France were already distracted by Germany. The United States tried to intervene through sanctions because Japan was going batshit crazy, Japan didn't go batshit crazy because of sanctions.
There is actually some history to the area that precedes Pearl Harbour. I know Americans don't care about any of that stuff but Japan actually attacked Korea in 1910.
Can I never have a conversation with someone from another country without having them take a shot at Americans?
Really, I was taught what you just said and this was information I was aware of. The sanctions against Japan were what made them retaliate -- there is nothing wrong in saying that, deciding to leave out the information you provided is just a way to shorten an online post.
no one is writing a book on here, well known facts are just considered as a given.
seems there was a misunderstanding.
Sorry, I inadvertently grouped you with Aegraen. I was attacking the view that America somehow started the conflict with Japan through interfering and sanctions when responsibility for the war lies solely with Japan being insane.
which means,
placing sanctions on an insane country will make them hostile towards you.
i don't think Aegraen is disagreeing with you, you guys are just being picky on what info you provide in your posts.
Not placing sanctions upon them makes you a consenting partner to their insanity. When a guy is mowing down innocent civilians there comes a point where you should stop selling him bullets.
but we did stop selling to them... 0_O
i'm so confused...
Which is good. I approve of this, although it happened much too late. My argument is with Aegraen.
On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote: Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right... Where did you study history again Aegraen?
i learned we had rough relationships with japan due to our presence in the phillipines and embargos on oil and such...
that was highschool, but iono.
Japan was an expansionist imperialistic power with dreams of racial superiority and a global empire. This was not caused by sanctions, it was caused by innate problems with Japanese culture. What it meant was that at some point Japan was going to try and kill millions of people around them. What needed to happen was the United States, Britain and France needed to collectively tell Japan that that shit wasn't on. Unfortunately at first people who believed what Aegraen believed had power in the United States and then by the time the United States realised what was up (after Japan invaded Manchuria) Britain and France were already distracted by Germany. The United States tried to intervene through sanctions because Japan was going batshit crazy, Japan didn't go batshit crazy because of sanctions.
There is actually some history to the area that precedes Pearl Harbour. I know Americans don't care about any of that stuff but Japan actually attacked Korea in 1910.
Can I never have a conversation with someone from another country without having them take a shot at Americans?
Really, I was taught what you just said and this was information I was aware of. The sanctions against Japan were what made them retaliate -- there is nothing wrong in saying that, deciding to leave out the information you provided is just a way to shorten an online post.
no one is writing a book on here, well known facts are just considered as a given.
seems there was a misunderstanding.
Sorry, I inadvertently grouped you with Aegraen. I was attacking the view that America somehow started the conflict with Japan through interfering and sanctions when responsibility for the war lies solely with Japan being insane.
which means,
placing sanctions on an insane country will make them hostile towards you.
i don't think Aegraen is disagreeing with you, you guys are just being picky on what info you provide in your posts.
Not placing sanctions upon them makes you a consenting partner to their insanity. When a guy is mowing down innocent civilians there comes a point where you should stop selling him bullets.
Yes, I'm against compulsory State coerced and forced action. If you don't agree with it, and want to stop it, then you go and volunteer your money, your time, your services. You don't say; Draft is on. You have to die for that other person, even if you don't agree with us.
On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote: Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right... Where did you study history again Aegraen?
Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US.
I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America?
Where did you study your history Kwark?
Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you. And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool.
When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America?
Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it.
So, yes I'm against interventionism. The law of unintended consequences is imperative. Secondly, if you want to stop it, then volunteer your services and go fight over there for their rights. Why is it ok, to make it compulsory for everyone?
The draft was repealed kind of awhile ago... I disagree with the rest of your post aswell, but I want to go to sleep Basically, there have been countless atrocities committed throughout the course of human history and citing these does not make it OK to continue. I don't agree with forcing ideas or ideologies onto other people, but when things like genocide and other humanitarian crimes are involved, I believe it is the responsibility of those capable to intervene for the sake of those who cannot defend themselves. edit: INSERT SPIDERMAN QUOTE "With great power comes great responsibility"
On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote: Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right... Where did you study history again Aegraen?
Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US.
I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America?
Where did you study your history Kwark?
Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you. And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool.
When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America?
Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it.
So, yes I'm against interventionism. The law of unintended consequences is imperative. Secondly, if you want to stop it, then volunteer your services and go fight over there for their rights. Why is it ok, to make it compulsory for everyone?
The draft was repealed kind of awhile ago... I disagree with the rest of your post aswell, but I want to go to sleep Basically, there have been countless atrocities committed throughout the course of human history and citing these does not make it OK to continue. I don't agree with forcing ideas or ideologies onto other people, but when things like genocide and other humanitarian crimes are involved, I believe it is the responsibility of those capable to intervene for the sake of those who cannot defend themselves.
Wrong. Draft isn't repelled. There is this thing all 18+ males are automatically enrolled in, called the Selective Service. They can call up the draft at any time and you would be forced to go.
So volunteer your time, your services, your money, and your life. All those who agree with you, if they so choose to, can do the same. People who don't agree, or don't want to, can choose not to. This isn't the case though. You are forced to pay taxes, to pay State compulsory requirements, etc.
On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote: Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right... Where did you study history again Aegraen?
Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US.
I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America?
Where did you study your history Kwark?
Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you. And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool.
When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America?
Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it.
Why then did no country invade America when we were slaughtering the Indians? Do you think that another country had the right to invade another Sovereign country at the behest of the Indians? That, then, that country had the right to superimpose it's belief system on those people at the point of a gun?
Many nations, have caused many atrocities. Do you not believe that you can change other's ideals, by ideals themselves? America doesn't go prodding around killing our own population, anymore does it? Did it take a war to achieve that? Did it take a war to achieve that in other nations, in other time periods? No, and no.
Secondly, no Nation can afford what you advocate. We would be in many many countries. Burma/Myanmar, Sudan, Somalia, Congo, etc. It also wouldn't be advantageous, because you have to change their viewpoints, or else it'll happen all over again.
So, yes I'm against interventionism. The law of unintended consequences is imperative. Secondly, if you want to stop it, then volunteer your services and go fight over there for their rights. Why is it ok, to make it compulsory for everyone?
Dude slaughtering the indians was how long ago? like 150 years ago? or 200?
that doesn't make it an invalid example
Ok how are other countries suppose to know that at that time?
On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote: Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right... Where did you study history again Aegraen?
Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US.
I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America?
Where did you study your history Kwark?
Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you. And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool.
When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America?
Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it.
So, yes I'm against interventionism. The law of unintended consequences is imperative. Secondly, if you want to stop it, then volunteer your services and go fight over there for their rights. Why is it ok, to make it compulsory for everyone?
The draft was repealed kind of awhile ago... I disagree with the rest of your post aswell, but I want to go to sleep Basically, there have been countless atrocities committed throughout the course of human history and citing these does not make it OK to continue. I don't agree with forcing ideas or ideologies onto other people, but when things like genocide and other humanitarian crimes are involved, I believe it is the responsibility of those capable to intervene for the sake of those who cannot defend themselves. edit: INSERT SPIDERMAN QUOTE "With great power comes great responsibility"
well that's playing as a god IMO, since our resources are limited.
On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote: Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right... Where did you study history again Aegraen?
Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US.
I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America?
Where did you study your history Kwark?
Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you. And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool.
When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America?
Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it.
Why then did no country invade America when we were slaughtering the Indians? Do you think that another country had the right to invade another Sovereign country at the behest of the Indians? That, then, that country had the right to superimpose it's belief system on those people at the point of a gun?
Many nations, have caused many atrocities. Do you not believe that you can change other's ideals, by ideals themselves? America doesn't go prodding around killing our own population, anymore does it? Did it take a war to achieve that? Did it take a war to achieve that in other nations, in other time periods? No, and no.
Secondly, no Nation can afford what you advocate. We would be in many many countries. Burma/Myanmar, Sudan, Somalia, Congo, etc. It also wouldn't be advantageous, because you have to change their viewpoints, or else it'll happen all over again.
So, yes I'm against interventionism. The law of unintended consequences is imperative. Secondly, if you want to stop it, then volunteer your services and go fight over there for their rights. Why is it ok, to make it compulsory for everyone?
Dude slaughtering the indians was how long ago? like 150 years ago? or 200?
that doesn't make it an invalid example
Ok how are other countries suppose to know that at that time?
they had a written language back than, and were capable of traveling.
Aegraen, I'd just like to clarify something. You're saying that if you were in charge in 1936 and you knew for a fact that the Japanese were using American oil to power an occupation allowing them to deliberately and systematically massacre innocent civilians you would continue to sell them oil because they're obviously homicidal and it's best not to piss off homicidal people. Right?
On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote: Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right... Where did you study history again Aegraen?
Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US.
I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America?
Where did you study your history Kwark?
Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you. And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool.
When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America?
Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it.
So, yes I'm against interventionism. The law of unintended consequences is imperative. Secondly, if you want to stop it, then volunteer your services and go fight over there for their rights. Why is it ok, to make it compulsory for everyone?
The draft was repealed kind of awhile ago... I disagree with the rest of your post aswell, but I want to go to sleep Basically, there have been countless atrocities committed throughout the course of human history and citing these does not make it OK to continue. I don't agree with forcing ideas or ideologies onto other people, but when things like genocide and other humanitarian crimes are involved, I believe it is the responsibility of those capable to intervene for the sake of those who cannot defend themselves. edit: INSERT SPIDERMAN QUOTE "With great power comes great responsibility"
well that's playing as a god IMO, since our resources are limited.
Obviously it's within the practical limitations of a countries power and resources which is why I ignored Aegraens retarded point about Switzerland earlier but like it or not, America is the sole superpower.
On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote: Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right... Where did you study history again Aegraen?
Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US.
I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America?
Where did you study your history Kwark?
Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you. And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool.
When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America?
Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it.
Why then did no country invade America when we were slaughtering the Indians? Do you think that another country had the right to invade another Sovereign country at the behest of the Indians? That, then, that country had the right to superimpose it's belief system on those people at the point of a gun?
Many nations, have caused many atrocities. Do you not believe that you can change other's ideals, by ideals themselves? America doesn't go prodding around killing our own population, anymore does it? Did it take a war to achieve that? Did it take a war to achieve that in other nations, in other time periods? No, and no.
Secondly, no Nation can afford what you advocate. We would be in many many countries. Burma/Myanmar, Sudan, Somalia, Congo, etc. It also wouldn't be advantageous, because you have to change their viewpoints, or else it'll happen all over again.
So, yes I'm against interventionism. The law of unintended consequences is imperative. Secondly, if you want to stop it, then volunteer your services and go fight over there for their rights. Why is it ok, to make it compulsory for everyone?
Dude slaughtering the indians was how long ago? like 150 years ago? or 200?
that doesn't make it an invalid example
Ok how are other countries suppose to know that at that time?
they had a written language back than, and were capable of traveling.
.....
And you really think they would travel ALL the over to stop america from fucking up the indians at that time?
On October 10 2009 13:02 Kwark wrote: Aegraen, I'd just like to clarify something. You're saying that if you were in charge in 1936 and you knew for a fact that the Japanese were using American oil to power an occupation allowing them to deliberately and systematically massacre innocent civilians you would continue to sell them oil because they're obviously homicidal and it's best not to piss off homicidal people. Right?
First, if I was President, I would repel, or at least try to, all laws and actions of the State in all matters of Economic Affairs. I'm not the CEO of Exxon, am I? Why do I have the power to tell and force someone else to not sell to someone else? Secondly, our embargo didn't stop them, did it?
It's not because "I'm not trying to piss off Homicidal people", it's because I believe in the individuals right to conduct commerce with whomever they choose. I have no right to tell you, or anyone what they can or cannot do with their private property. I believe in property rights, private property, Natural Law, etc. All that goes against everything you espouse.
If individual citizens, wanted to they could volunteer their time, services, life, and money. Why is it ok to make that compulsory?
Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US.
I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America?
Where did you study your history Kwark?
Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you. And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool.
When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America?
Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it.
Why then did no country invade America when we were slaughtering the Indians? Do you think that another country had the right to invade another Sovereign country at the behest of the Indians? That, then, that country had the right to superimpose it's belief system on those people at the point of a gun?
Many nations, have caused many atrocities. Do you not believe that you can change other's ideals, by ideals themselves? America doesn't go prodding around killing our own population, anymore does it? Did it take a war to achieve that? Did it take a war to achieve that in other nations, in other time periods? No, and no.
Secondly, no Nation can afford what you advocate. We would be in many many countries. Burma/Myanmar, Sudan, Somalia, Congo, etc. It also wouldn't be advantageous, because you have to change their viewpoints, or else it'll happen all over again.
So, yes I'm against interventionism. The law of unintended consequences is imperative. Secondly, if you want to stop it, then volunteer your services and go fight over there for their rights. Why is it ok, to make it compulsory for everyone?
Dude slaughtering the indians was how long ago? like 150 years ago? or 200?
that doesn't make it an invalid example
Ok how are other countries suppose to know that at that time?
they had a written language back than, and were capable of traveling.
.....
And you really think they would travel ALL the over to stop america from fucking up the indians at that time?
K i have nothing else to say
Are you this unedcuated? How do you think Britain controlled an entire colonized empire.
Other countries were well aware of what was happening, but it was pretty typical of that time period anyways. No one really cared about the natives -- they wanted to expand.
On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote: Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right... Where did you study history again Aegraen?
Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US.
I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America?
Where did you study your history Kwark?
Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you. And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool.
When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America?
Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it.
So, yes I'm against interventionism. The law of unintended consequences is imperative. Secondly, if you want to stop it, then volunteer your services and go fight over there for their rights. Why is it ok, to make it compulsory for everyone?
The draft was repealed kind of awhile ago... I disagree with the rest of your post aswell, but I want to go to sleep Basically, there have been countless atrocities committed throughout the course of human history and citing these does not make it OK to continue. I don't agree with forcing ideas or ideologies onto other people, but when things like genocide and other humanitarian crimes are involved, I believe it is the responsibility of those capable to intervene for the sake of those who cannot defend themselves. edit: INSERT SPIDERMAN QUOTE "With great power comes great responsibility"
well that's playing as a god IMO, since our resources are limited.
Obviously it's within the practical limitations of a countries power and resources which is why I ignored Aegraens retarded point about Switzerland earlier but like it or not, America is the sole superpower.
It's not retarded. You either believe that no country should conduct any association with a country that violates human rights, or you believe that a Country is sovereign and can conduct whatever it wants to with another Country based on their self-interests. It's called logic. You can't single out one entity and say thats wrong, while another entity is doing the same thing, and call that association of behavior retarded. You either follow it through to its logical conclusion or you become inconsistent. International "Law" would then be dictated by superpowers. You would have to follow our demands, or else. No longer would the law, be Natural Law, but rather dictated by the de-facto most powerful. What if that nation decided that not having public healthcare or socialized medicine was a humanitarian crisis? Does that now give them the right to invade a Sovereign Country?
On October 10 2009 13:02 Kwark wrote: Aegraen, I'd just like to clarify something. You're saying that if you were in charge in 1936 and you knew for a fact that the Japanese were using American oil to power an occupation allowing them to deliberately and systematically massacre innocent civilians you would continue to sell them oil because they're obviously homicidal and it's best not to piss off homicidal people. Right?
First, if I was President, I would repel, or at least try to, all laws and actions of the State in all matters of Economic Affairs. I'm not the CEO of Exxon, am I? Why do I have the power to tell and force someone else to not sell to someone else? Secondly, our embargo didn't stop them, did it?
It's not because "I'm not trying to piss off Homicidal people", it's because I believe in the individuals right to conduct commerce with whomever they choose. I have no right to tell you, or anyone what they can or cannot do with their private property. I believe in property rights, private property, Natural Law, etc. All that goes against everything you espouse.
If individual citizens, wanted to they could volunteer their time, services, life, and money. Why is it ok to make that compulsory?
It's not black and white. Obviously the embargo didn't trigger a Japanese retreat out of China, that doesn't mean it didn't damage their efforts to subjugate the Chinese people and ultimately it led to the end to Japanese atrocities in 1945. Like it or not, you'd have the power to impose sanctions and the knowledge that innocent people would be saved from terrible fates if you imposed them. I wonder how you could morally fail to intervene.
I too believe in freedom. The problem is that liberty is great in a world of sane rational individuals but in a world where there are insane, evil people they cannot be allowed to act with impunity.
On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote: Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right... Where did you study history again Aegraen?
Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US.
I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America?
Where did you study your history Kwark?
Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you. And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool.
When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America?
Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it.
So, yes I'm against interventionism. The law of unintended consequences is imperative. Secondly, if you want to stop it, then volunteer your services and go fight over there for their rights. Why is it ok, to make it compulsory for everyone?
The draft was repealed kind of awhile ago... I disagree with the rest of your post aswell, but I want to go to sleep Basically, there have been countless atrocities committed throughout the course of human history and citing these does not make it OK to continue. I don't agree with forcing ideas or ideologies onto other people, but when things like genocide and other humanitarian crimes are involved, I believe it is the responsibility of those capable to intervene for the sake of those who cannot defend themselves. edit: INSERT SPIDERMAN QUOTE "With great power comes great responsibility"
well that's playing as a god IMO, since our resources are limited.
Obviously it's within the practical limitations of a countries power and resources which is why I ignored Aegraens retarded point about Switzerland earlier but like it or not, America is the sole superpower.
It's not retarded. You either believe that no country should conduct any association with a country that violates human rights, or you believe that a Country is sovereign and can conduct whatever it wants to with another Country based on their self-interests. It's called logic. You can't single out one entity and say thats wrong, while another entity is doing the same thing, and call that association of behavior retarded. You either follow it through to its logical conclusion or you become inconsistent. International "Law" would then be dictated by superpowers. You would have to follow our demands, or else. No longer would the law, be Natural Law, but rather dictated by the de-facto most powerful. What if that nation decided that not having public healthcare or socialized medicine was a humanitarian crisis? Does that now give them the right to invade a Sovereign Country?
Obviously they measure their power against their self interest. A nation like Switzerland does not stand up to Nazi Germany because they have no power to do so and it would do great damage to their self interest. Conversely when Germany offers Britain favourable terms in 1941 Britain declines in spite of self interest because Britain believes it has the power to succeed. It's a judgment call, not a black and white law. Ideally every country would take a moral stance against human rights abuses but some are better able to take that stance than others. It's forgivable for a weak vulnerable country with everything to lose to be passive because they can justify it. It's not for a strong country with little to lose to do the same.
International law is dictated by superpowers and it is law of the most powerful. How are you not aware of this?
What if a nation decided the sea should be made of candy!?!? What then!?!?
On October 10 2009 13:02 Kwark wrote: Aegraen, I'd just like to clarify something. You're saying that if you were in charge in 1936 and you knew for a fact that the Japanese were using American oil to power an occupation allowing them to deliberately and systematically massacre innocent civilians you would continue to sell them oil because they're obviously homicidal and it's best not to piss off homicidal people. Right?
First, if I was President, I would repel, or at least try to, all laws and actions of the State in all matters of Economic Affairs. I'm not the CEO of Exxon, am I? Why do I have the power to tell and force someone else to not sell to someone else? Secondly, our embargo didn't stop them, did it?
It's not because "I'm not trying to piss off Homicidal people", it's because I believe in the individuals right to conduct commerce with whomever they choose. I have no right to tell you, or anyone what they can or cannot do with their private property. I believe in property rights, private property, Natural Law, etc. All that goes against everything you espouse.
If individual citizens, wanted to they could volunteer their time, services, life, and money. Why is it ok to make that compulsory?
It's not black and white. Obviously the embargo didn't trigger a Japanese retreat out of China, that doesn't mean it didn't damage their efforts to subjugate the Chinese people and ultimately it led to the end to Japanese atrocities in 1945. Like it or not, you'd have the power to impose sanctions and the knowledge that innocent people would be saved from terrible fates if you imposed them. I wonder how you could morally fail to intervene.
I too believe in freedom. The problem is that liberty is great in a world of sane rational individuals but in a world where there are insane, evil people they cannot be allowed to act with impunity.
Because it is immoral to protrude on private property rights. It is never moral to force another human being into an action they don't consent to. That is the moral position. No one is stopping people from voluntarily creating Militia's to come to the behest of persecuted peoples. It is no different than the hiring of a private security firm, in this case it would be all voluntary.
It is never right, no matter the ends, to justify the destruction of private property rights. Of compulsory forces.
Liberty is great no matter what. If we had liberty, then we could have self-defense. You are against self-defense. One of the reasons why atrocities are committed in the first place. Defenseless people are an invitation to the criminal.
Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US.
I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America?
Where did you study your history Kwark?
Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you. And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool.
When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America?
Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it.
So, yes I'm against interventionism. The law of unintended consequences is imperative. Secondly, if you want to stop it, then volunteer your services and go fight over there for their rights. Why is it ok, to make it compulsory for everyone?
The draft was repealed kind of awhile ago... I disagree with the rest of your post aswell, but I want to go to sleep Basically, there have been countless atrocities committed throughout the course of human history and citing these does not make it OK to continue. I don't agree with forcing ideas or ideologies onto other people, but when things like genocide and other humanitarian crimes are involved, I believe it is the responsibility of those capable to intervene for the sake of those who cannot defend themselves. edit: INSERT SPIDERMAN QUOTE "With great power comes great responsibility"
well that's playing as a god IMO, since our resources are limited.
Obviously it's within the practical limitations of a countries power and resources which is why I ignored Aegraens retarded point about Switzerland earlier but like it or not, America is the sole superpower.
It's not retarded. You either believe that no country should conduct any association with a country that violates human rights, or you believe that a Country is sovereign and can conduct whatever it wants to with another Country based on their self-interests. It's called logic. You can't single out one entity and say thats wrong, while another entity is doing the same thing, and call that association of behavior retarded. You either follow it through to its logical conclusion or you become inconsistent. International "Law" would then be dictated by superpowers. You would have to follow our demands, or else. No longer would the law, be Natural Law, but rather dictated by the de-facto most powerful. What if that nation decided that not having public healthcare or socialized medicine was a humanitarian crisis? Does that now give them the right to invade a Sovereign Country?
Obviously they measure their power against their self interest. A nation like Switzerland does not stand up to Nazi Germany because they have no power to do so and it would do great damage to their self interest. Conversely when Germany offers Britain favourable terms in 1941 Britain declines in spite of self interest because Britain believes it has the power to succeed. It's a judgment call, not a black and white law. Ideally every country would take a moral stance against human rights abuses but some are better able to take that stance than others. It's forgivable for a weak vulnerable country with everything to lose to be passive because they can justify it. It's not for a strong country with little to lose to do the same.
International law is dictated by superpowers and it is law of the most powerful. How are you not aware of this?
What if a nation decided the sea should be made of candy!?!? What then!?!?
Switzerland wasn't passive. They actively helped Nazi Germany via banking.
Tell that to the millions of wounded, and hundreds of thousands of dead Americans. They had little to lose. How fucking selfish and tyrannical that statement is. Sure, some volunteered, but many were drafted. It is never right for compulsory measures of any intent. Why is another person's life more valuable than any others?
On October 10 2009 13:02 Kwark wrote: Aegraen, I'd just like to clarify something. You're saying that if you were in charge in 1936 and you knew for a fact that the Japanese were using American oil to power an occupation allowing them to deliberately and systematically massacre innocent civilians you would continue to sell them oil because they're obviously homicidal and it's best not to piss off homicidal people. Right?
First, if I was President, I would repel, or at least try to, all laws and actions of the State in all matters of Economic Affairs. I'm not the CEO of Exxon, am I? Why do I have the power to tell and force someone else to not sell to someone else? Secondly, our embargo didn't stop them, did it?
It's not because "I'm not trying to piss off Homicidal people", it's because I believe in the individuals right to conduct commerce with whomever they choose. I have no right to tell you, or anyone what they can or cannot do with their private property. I believe in property rights, private property, Natural Law, etc. All that goes against everything you espouse.
If individual citizens, wanted to they could volunteer their time, services, life, and money. Why is it ok to make that compulsory?
It's not black and white. Obviously the embargo didn't trigger a Japanese retreat out of China, that doesn't mean it didn't damage their efforts to subjugate the Chinese people and ultimately it led to the end to Japanese atrocities in 1945. Like it or not, you'd have the power to impose sanctions and the knowledge that innocent people would be saved from terrible fates if you imposed them. I wonder how you could morally fail to intervene.
I too believe in freedom. The problem is that liberty is great in a world of sane rational individuals but in a world where there are insane, evil people they cannot be allowed to act with impunity.
Because it is immoral to protrude on private property rights. It is never moral to force another human being into an action they don't consent to. That is the moral position. No one is stopping people from voluntarily creating Militia's to come to the behest of persecuted peoples. It is no different than the hiring of a private security firm, in this case it would be all voluntary.
It is never right, no matter the ends, to justify the destruction of private property rights. Of compulsory forces.
Liberty is great no matter what. If we had liberty, then we could have self-defense. You are against self-defense. One of the reasons why atrocities are committed in the first place. Defenseless people are an invitation to the criminal.
These people were defenseless due to no fault of their own but rather due to a combination of historical factors over which they had no control. Either they would be tested on and killed like cattle or someone would champion their right to life. Fortunately for the conscience of humanity as a whole the world eventually stepped in and stopped it.
On October 10 2009 12:39 Kwark wrote: [quote] Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you. And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool.
When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America?
Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it.
So, yes I'm against interventionism. The law of unintended consequences is imperative. Secondly, if you want to stop it, then volunteer your services and go fight over there for their rights. Why is it ok, to make it compulsory for everyone?
The draft was repealed kind of awhile ago... I disagree with the rest of your post aswell, but I want to go to sleep Basically, there have been countless atrocities committed throughout the course of human history and citing these does not make it OK to continue. I don't agree with forcing ideas or ideologies onto other people, but when things like genocide and other humanitarian crimes are involved, I believe it is the responsibility of those capable to intervene for the sake of those who cannot defend themselves. edit: INSERT SPIDERMAN QUOTE "With great power comes great responsibility"
well that's playing as a god IMO, since our resources are limited.
Obviously it's within the practical limitations of a countries power and resources which is why I ignored Aegraens retarded point about Switzerland earlier but like it or not, America is the sole superpower.
It's not retarded. You either believe that no country should conduct any association with a country that violates human rights, or you believe that a Country is sovereign and can conduct whatever it wants to with another Country based on their self-interests. It's called logic. You can't single out one entity and say thats wrong, while another entity is doing the same thing, and call that association of behavior retarded. You either follow it through to its logical conclusion or you become inconsistent. International "Law" would then be dictated by superpowers. You would have to follow our demands, or else. No longer would the law, be Natural Law, but rather dictated by the de-facto most powerful. What if that nation decided that not having public healthcare or socialized medicine was a humanitarian crisis? Does that now give them the right to invade a Sovereign Country?
Obviously they measure their power against their self interest. A nation like Switzerland does not stand up to Nazi Germany because they have no power to do so and it would do great damage to their self interest. Conversely when Germany offers Britain favourable terms in 1941 Britain declines in spite of self interest because Britain believes it has the power to succeed. It's a judgment call, not a black and white law. Ideally every country would take a moral stance against human rights abuses but some are better able to take that stance than others. It's forgivable for a weak vulnerable country with everything to lose to be passive because they can justify it. It's not for a strong country with little to lose to do the same.
International law is dictated by superpowers and it is law of the most powerful. How are you not aware of this?
What if a nation decided the sea should be made of candy!?!? What then!?!?
Switzerland wasn't passive. They actively helped Nazi Germany via banking.
Tell that to the millions of wounded, and hundreds of thousands of dead Americans. They had little to lose. How fucking selfish and tyrannical that statement is. Sure, some volunteered, but many were drafted. It is never right for compulsory measures of any intent. Why is another person's life more valuable than any others?
Ultimately hundreds of thousands of dead isn't very many. Why is one soldiers life more valuable than 10 civilians saved?
When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America?
Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it.
So, yes I'm against interventionism. The law of unintended consequences is imperative. Secondly, if you want to stop it, then volunteer your services and go fight over there for their rights. Why is it ok, to make it compulsory for everyone?
The draft was repealed kind of awhile ago... I disagree with the rest of your post aswell, but I want to go to sleep Basically, there have been countless atrocities committed throughout the course of human history and citing these does not make it OK to continue. I don't agree with forcing ideas or ideologies onto other people, but when things like genocide and other humanitarian crimes are involved, I believe it is the responsibility of those capable to intervene for the sake of those who cannot defend themselves. edit: INSERT SPIDERMAN QUOTE "With great power comes great responsibility"
well that's playing as a god IMO, since our resources are limited.
Obviously it's within the practical limitations of a countries power and resources which is why I ignored Aegraens retarded point about Switzerland earlier but like it or not, America is the sole superpower.
It's not retarded. You either believe that no country should conduct any association with a country that violates human rights, or you believe that a Country is sovereign and can conduct whatever it wants to with another Country based on their self-interests. It's called logic. You can't single out one entity and say thats wrong, while another entity is doing the same thing, and call that association of behavior retarded. You either follow it through to its logical conclusion or you become inconsistent. International "Law" would then be dictated by superpowers. You would have to follow our demands, or else. No longer would the law, be Natural Law, but rather dictated by the de-facto most powerful. What if that nation decided that not having public healthcare or socialized medicine was a humanitarian crisis? Does that now give them the right to invade a Sovereign Country?
Obviously they measure their power against their self interest. A nation like Switzerland does not stand up to Nazi Germany because they have no power to do so and it would do great damage to their self interest. Conversely when Germany offers Britain favourable terms in 1941 Britain declines in spite of self interest because Britain believes it has the power to succeed. It's a judgment call, not a black and white law. Ideally every country would take a moral stance against human rights abuses but some are better able to take that stance than others. It's forgivable for a weak vulnerable country with everything to lose to be passive because they can justify it. It's not for a strong country with little to lose to do the same.
International law is dictated by superpowers and it is law of the most powerful. How are you not aware of this?
What if a nation decided the sea should be made of candy!?!? What then!?!?
Switzerland wasn't passive. They actively helped Nazi Germany via banking.
Tell that to the millions of wounded, and hundreds of thousands of dead Americans. They had little to lose. How fucking selfish and tyrannical that statement is. Sure, some volunteered, but many were drafted. It is never right for compulsory measures of any intent. Why is another person's life more valuable than any others?
Ultimately hundreds of thousands of dead isn't very many. Why is one soldiers life more valuable than 10 civilians saved?
No one's life is more valuable than anothers. I guess you missed the part about compulsory vs. voluntaryism? You are telling the people you make compulsory service that their life is inherently less valuable than anothers. They have no say whether or not to go. They are forced.
If you don't like it, get with other like minded invidividuals and do something about it. Don't force others. How hard is this to understand? Pool your resources, and do something! Don't make other's fight your conflicts for you.
PS: I'm hungry, so I'm going to go out and get something to eat, probably either Taco Bell or DiGiorno's. Leaning towards pizza. Will further this conversation when I get back. Suffice it to say, you might as well look up Anarcho-Capitalism and Non-interventionism, and that'll answer all your questions
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?
On October 10 2009 12:44 Kwark wrote: [quote] Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it.
So, yes I'm against interventionism. The law of unintended consequences is imperative. Secondly, if you want to stop it, then volunteer your services and go fight over there for their rights. Why is it ok, to make it compulsory for everyone?
The draft was repealed kind of awhile ago... I disagree with the rest of your post aswell, but I want to go to sleep Basically, there have been countless atrocities committed throughout the course of human history and citing these does not make it OK to continue. I don't agree with forcing ideas or ideologies onto other people, but when things like genocide and other humanitarian crimes are involved, I believe it is the responsibility of those capable to intervene for the sake of those who cannot defend themselves. edit: INSERT SPIDERMAN QUOTE "With great power comes great responsibility"
well that's playing as a god IMO, since our resources are limited.
Obviously it's within the practical limitations of a countries power and resources which is why I ignored Aegraens retarded point about Switzerland earlier but like it or not, America is the sole superpower.
It's not retarded. You either believe that no country should conduct any association with a country that violates human rights, or you believe that a Country is sovereign and can conduct whatever it wants to with another Country based on their self-interests. It's called logic. You can't single out one entity and say thats wrong, while another entity is doing the same thing, and call that association of behavior retarded. You either follow it through to its logical conclusion or you become inconsistent. International "Law" would then be dictated by superpowers. You would have to follow our demands, or else. No longer would the law, be Natural Law, but rather dictated by the de-facto most powerful. What if that nation decided that not having public healthcare or socialized medicine was a humanitarian crisis? Does that now give them the right to invade a Sovereign Country?
Obviously they measure their power against their self interest. A nation like Switzerland does not stand up to Nazi Germany because they have no power to do so and it would do great damage to their self interest. Conversely when Germany offers Britain favourable terms in 1941 Britain declines in spite of self interest because Britain believes it has the power to succeed. It's a judgment call, not a black and white law. Ideally every country would take a moral stance against human rights abuses but some are better able to take that stance than others. It's forgivable for a weak vulnerable country with everything to lose to be passive because they can justify it. It's not for a strong country with little to lose to do the same.
International law is dictated by superpowers and it is law of the most powerful. How are you not aware of this?
What if a nation decided the sea should be made of candy!?!? What then!?!?
Switzerland wasn't passive. They actively helped Nazi Germany via banking.
Tell that to the millions of wounded, and hundreds of thousands of dead Americans. They had little to lose. How fucking selfish and tyrannical that statement is. Sure, some volunteered, but many were drafted. It is never right for compulsory measures of any intent. Why is another person's life more valuable than any others?
Ultimately hundreds of thousands of dead isn't very many. Why is one soldiers life more valuable than 10 civilians saved?
If you don't like it, get with other like minded invidividuals and do something about it. Don't force others. How hard is this to understand? Pool your resources, and do something!
I don't like it so I get together with a bunch of other people who also think the role of the Government should be to intervene on my behalf and you know what, we do something. We make our voices heard and the politicians hear and they build it into their manifesto and then we vote for them. That's how we got here. You say that people should get together and enact change. They did that, the change was demanding that their leaders should enforce a ethical policy and they collectively voted to support it.
If you don't like that feel free to write a letter to your representative. If he disagrees feel free not to vote for him.
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?
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.
I'm not convinced that you know any history at all. The people of the Anschluss? Seriously? Germany annexed the Anschluss? Anschluss isn't a place, it's a word for what happened. I don't know why I bother arguing with you. You should just move to Anschluss with all the Anschlussicans and live there.
On October 10 2009 12:50 Aegraen wrote: [quote] So, yes I'm against interventionism. The law of unintended consequences is imperative. Secondly, if you want to stop it, then volunteer your services and go fight over there for their rights. Why is it ok, to make it compulsory for everyone?
The draft was repealed kind of awhile ago... I disagree with the rest of your post aswell, but I want to go to sleep Basically, there have been countless atrocities committed throughout the course of human history and citing these does not make it OK to continue. I don't agree with forcing ideas or ideologies onto other people, but when things like genocide and other humanitarian crimes are involved, I believe it is the responsibility of those capable to intervene for the sake of those who cannot defend themselves. edit: INSERT SPIDERMAN QUOTE "With great power comes great responsibility"
well that's playing as a god IMO, since our resources are limited.
Obviously it's within the practical limitations of a countries power and resources which is why I ignored Aegraens retarded point about Switzerland earlier but like it or not, America is the sole superpower.
It's not retarded. You either believe that no country should conduct any association with a country that violates human rights, or you believe that a Country is sovereign and can conduct whatever it wants to with another Country based on their self-interests. It's called logic. You can't single out one entity and say thats wrong, while another entity is doing the same thing, and call that association of behavior retarded. You either follow it through to its logical conclusion or you become inconsistent. International "Law" would then be dictated by superpowers. You would have to follow our demands, or else. No longer would the law, be Natural Law, but rather dictated by the de-facto most powerful. What if that nation decided that not having public healthcare or socialized medicine was a humanitarian crisis? Does that now give them the right to invade a Sovereign Country?
Obviously they measure their power against their self interest. A nation like Switzerland does not stand up to Nazi Germany because they have no power to do so and it would do great damage to their self interest. Conversely when Germany offers Britain favourable terms in 1941 Britain declines in spite of self interest because Britain believes it has the power to succeed. It's a judgment call, not a black and white law. Ideally every country would take a moral stance against human rights abuses but some are better able to take that stance than others. It's forgivable for a weak vulnerable country with everything to lose to be passive because they can justify it. It's not for a strong country with little to lose to do the same.
International law is dictated by superpowers and it is law of the most powerful. How are you not aware of this?
What if a nation decided the sea should be made of candy!?!? What then!?!?
Switzerland wasn't passive. They actively helped Nazi Germany via banking.
Tell that to the millions of wounded, and hundreds of thousands of dead Americans. They had little to lose. How fucking selfish and tyrannical that statement is. Sure, some volunteered, but many were drafted. It is never right for compulsory measures of any intent. Why is another person's life more valuable than any others?
Ultimately hundreds of thousands of dead isn't very many. Why is one soldiers life more valuable than 10 civilians saved?
If you don't like it, get with other like minded invidividuals and do something about it. Don't force others. How hard is this to understand? Pool your resources, and do something!
I don't like it so I get together with a bunch of other people who also think the role of the Government should be to intervene on my behalf and you know what, we do something. We make our voices heard and the politicians hear and they build it into their manifesto and then we vote for them. That's how we got here. You say that people should get together and enact change. They did that, the change was demanding that their leaders should enforce a ethical policy and they collectively voted to support it.
If you don't like that feel free to write a letter to your representative. If he disagrees feel free not to vote for him.
/sigh. I'm done. Obviously you feel its moral and just to make other people do compulsory actions forced via the State, brought about by the Majority. Awesome. No one, and this means no one, nor the majority, have the right to tell you, or I, what I cannot do with my own private property, or other such means.
I am an idividual, not a collective. I'm not a worker bee, I'm not a soldier bee, and the President or Head of State is not the Queen bee in a hive. We are not a hive. We are individuals, sovereignt entities, who have the right of self-determination and private property.
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.
I'm not convinced that you know any history at all. The people of the Anschluss? Seriously? Germany annexed the Anschluss? Anschluss isn't a place, it's a word for what happened. I don't know why I bother arguing with you.
You know what I meant; Austria. At least we see eye to eye on the latter. We obviously have poles apart different political ideologies.
On October 10 2009 13:35 Aegraen wrote: 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?
The native Americans called. They want to know how the overthrow of the evil invaders is going. What should I tell them?
Sometimes the people being oppressed don't win. Sometimes the oppressors just have too much of a resource advantage and change must come from outside.
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?
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.
Wow, that's pretty cool. In other news, you live in reality. And America is actually a democracy. Maybe you should write to your representative and tell him what's supposed to be. He might care about supposed a little more than I do.
On October 10 2009 13:45 Aegraen wrote: 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?
Also you and I will disagree a great deal on the causes of the declaration of Independence.
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.
Wow, that's pretty cool. In other news, you live in reality. And America is actually a democracy. Maybe you should write to your representative and tell him what's supposed to be. He might care about supposed a little more than I do.
I am, and I'm actively campaigning for those who believe in what I do. We are trying to work within the current system first. We also do not live in a Democracy. A Democracy is the rule of law by the Majority. We are, as of now, still a Republic, albeit just slightly. We were supposed to be, a Confederate Republic, that is, each State voluntarily joined the Union, and could voluntarily leave the Union. That was changed by Lincoln the tyrannous traitor that he was.
Perhaps you should look up people like:
Mary Ruwart Adam Kokesh Rand Paul Debra Medina Randy Brogdon Peter Schiff Ray Mcberry etc.
The will of the Majority is not something sacred, nor something that is worthwhile. I bet you rail against Prop-8, but that was the will of the majority. There's your-so-called wonderful Democracy at work. Taxation is another - will of the majority. Will of the majority is antithesis to liberty.
Don't worry, if things don't change, and change in a respectable manner sometime soon, you will see the second American Revolution, because tyranny in any form, must be fought against.
On October 10 2009 13:54 Aegraen wrote: Don't worry, if things don't change, and change in a respectable manner sometime soon, you will see the second American Revolution, because tyranny in any form, must be fought against.
Okay, well, feel free to not keep me informed how that goes. And feel free to stop posting about it too because as cute as your forays into the realms of fantasy can be, they're getting a little stale. By all means you can continue to hold your detestable world view and nobody on God's earth could stop you posting on subjects you don't understand (remember that progressive taxation episode) but if you could stick to the politics of the real world that'd be cool. You don't have to like the way things are but it'd be nice if you accepted reality and, you know, let reality into your arguments sometimes.
On October 10 2009 13:54 Aegraen wrote: Don't worry, if things don't change, and change in a respectable manner sometime soon, you will see the second American Revolution, because tyranny in any form, must be fought against.
Okay, well, feel free to not keep me informed how that goes. And feel free to stop posting about it too because as cute as your forays into the realms of fantasy can be, they're getting a little stale. By all means you can continue to hold your detestable world view and nobody on God's earth could stop you posting on subjects you don't understand (remember that progressive taxation episode) but if you could stick to the politics of the real world that'd be cool. You don't have to like the way things are but it'd be nice if you accepted reality and, you know, let reality into your arguments sometimes.
Be happy you aren't here to regret your ignorance when it happens.
It's mind boggling how some people still think public option is not the way to go, unless you want 44,000 americans to continue dying due to lack of healthcare then go ahead and oppose it.
Why was Aegraen banned? I know he and Kwark took this thread way off topic, but he was arguing in a completely reasonable manner - respectfully and without making gratuitous insults. Yet he's called ignorant and booted for having a strong viewpoint? Absurd.
On October 10 2009 14:20 BalliSLife wrote: It's mind boggling how some people still think public option is not the way to go, unless you want 44,000 americans to continue dying due to lack of healthcare then go ahead and oppose it.
Many people, myself included, think it would be a far greater tragedy for people to think it's okay to create universal healthcare at the expense of a few others. Additionally, it would be completely fiscally irresponsible at this point and create no incentive for doctors to work to their highest potential.
Anyway, unless we bring this topic back to Obama's winning of the Nobel Peace Prize, this thread's gonna get closed real quick.
On October 10 2009 14:49 SoLaR[i.C] wrote: Why was Aegraen banned? I know he and Kwark took this thread way off topic, but he was arguing in a completely reasonable manner - respectfully and without making gratuitous insults. Yet he's called ignorant and booted for having a strong viewpoint? Absurd.
On October 10 2009 14:20 BalliSLife wrote: It's mind boggling how some people still think public option is not the way to go, unless you want 44,000 americans to continue dying due to lack of healthcare then go ahead and oppose it.
Many people, myself included, think it would be a far greater tragedy for people to think it's okay to create universal healthcare at the expense of a few others. Additionally, it would be completely fiscally irresponsible at this point and create no incentive for doctors to work to their highest potential.
Anyway, unless we bring this topic back to Obama's winning of the Nobel Peace Prize, this thread's gonna get closed real quick.
Then you're ok with that many americans dying each year instead of everyone that wants public option to chip in for everyone else, what kinda democracy is this?
I think that health care is like any other good or service, in that it can be provided for a cost. If you can't afford it, then you have to either accept the charitable contributions and services of organizations willing to give it to you or go without.
I'm not going to go into further detail here because (1) it's not the proper thread (2) it'll just make you think I'm cold-hearted.
This is a heated topic. (odd to find it in one of my game's web page) However, we all live in this world so we all have something to say. I think for the most part we can all agree that the world has many reason for doing the things that it does. This one is a new, thats for sure. The thing is, the worlds changing. Don't know if it's for the better or the worst, but it is. I think in the U.S. there is a war on the horizon......... the young vs. the old. Yeah I said it.
For the better part of the last 100 years the US has done a lot to change the face of the world. I think for the worst but thats another story. Now that country is going though some changes. The number of people over the age of 60 in the U.S. is insane, on top of that the numbers growing each year. This people VARY much have a "different" way of seeing things. (Are kids are trying to kill us!!!!!) There still living in the past, the way the world was ran. You know the one that had two world wars, several "police actions", and all the other things like human right violations, and that allow genocide. The rest of us under the age of 30 have vary much a different way of looking at things. We want green energy, to get along with the rest of the world, (I want to get rid of cars) get the nuclear shit out of the world (Both power and weapons) and to change the way the world looks at us. So what happens here is watched.
I think that thats the tip of this funny looking ice burg. I think the goal of the prize is not to reward Obama for what he has done, but to point to what is wanted. By putting this on a current leader forces him to follow through with the promise that he has told the world. (like some guy how want in are pants) So look at like a gauntlet thrown down be the Nord's. Fix it or look like the worst nobel peace prize winner ever. So lets watch were it goes from here. And stop taring each other heads of over silly shit.
Note: not all people over the age of 60 are evil (just most) and not all people under the age of 30 are cool
On October 10 2009 15:27 TeCh)PsylO wrote: It is nice to debate about whether or not our president deserves a Nobel Peace prize, rather than debate about whether or not he is a war criminal.
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 13:41 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.
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.
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.
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...
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
On October 10 2009 16:22 Kazius wrote: 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.
Desmond Tutu got his prize 10 years before apartheid was abolished.
Ang San Suu Kiy is still in house arrest and Burma is still not democratic.
Woodrow Wilson's organisations could not prevent WW2.
I could go on.
You can make a legitimate argument as to why Obama perhaps didn't deserve the award, but the fact that he hasn't stopped any wars yet or hasn't fully achieved anything yet is not a good argument at all. The Nobel Prize is frequently used to express support of some cause. It's essentially to bring attention to, promote and endorse a cause which promotes peace.
That's why Obama got the award despite not having 'achieved anything yet'. Because of what the Nobel committee (and rest of the international community) hope he will continue to do. It's like "here, take this award: now please don't let us down!"
"Deserving" the award is beside the point. The point is to promote peace. Yeah, they used an award to help promote peace. Sneaky sneaky politics, but this is a good thing. Is he deserving? maybe, maybe not, but it doesn't matter because the prize was used in the right way. So what if he actually does or doesn't deserve it.
For the purpose of trying to create peace, Obama was the right person to give the award.
As many people have said, they want to support peace efforts, and Obama is the best candidate for actually changing something in the world.
On October 11 2009 04:16 Kaneh wrote: "Deserving" the award is beside the point. The point is to promote peace. Yeah, they used an award to help promote peace. Sneaky sneaky politics, but this is a good thing. Is he deserving? maybe, maybe not, but it doesn't matter because the prize was used in the right way. So what if he actually does or doesn't deserve it.
For the purpose of trying to create peace, Obama was the right person to give the award.
As many people have said, they want to support peace efforts, and Obama is the best candidate for actually changing something in the world.
I was a lot less supportive of Obama getting the award until I heard this argument. Of course there are people who have invested themselves more in the cause of peace, but Obama has the most leverage to work in that direction.
On October 11 2009 04:16 Kaneh wrote: "Deserving" the award is beside the point. The point is to promote peace. Yeah, they used an award to help promote peace. Sneaky sneaky politics, but this is a good thing. Is he deserving? maybe, maybe not, but it doesn't matter because the prize was used in the right way. So what if he actually does or doesn't deserve it.
For the purpose of trying to create peace, Obama was the right person to give the award.
As many people have said, they want to support peace efforts, and Obama is the best candidate for actually changing something in the world.
I was a lot less supportive of Obama getting the award until I heard this argument. Of course there are people who have invested themselves more in the cause of peace, but Obama has the most leverage to work in that direction.
Its more that giving him the peace prize makes it harder for Obama to make "unpeaceful" actions.
On October 11 2009 02:39 TanGeng wrote: 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.
I would argue that the Articles of Confederation had outright failed. I more or less agree with you though.
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.
There certainly were those who wanted slaves no matter what, period, but you're badly overgeneralizing those statements to all southerners.
And if you think the South would have rallied behind Stephen Douglas under any circumstances, you are incredibly mistaken. His ideas about popularity sovereignty being used to determine whether a state remain free or slave fanned the flames of conflict between North and South and alienated Douglas on both sides of the aisle. Breaking off from President Buchannon only bred more mistrust.
No, there's no way that they would have rallied behind him.
I should also mention a key point: the South was greatly afraid that as new states came into the union, they would be free states and vote with the free states accordingly. The South was steadily losing it's position of power and they were scared that with enough states choosing to be free, the union would force them into submission through legislation.
That's why saying that a vote for state's rights would have been a vote for Stephen Douglas is badly misguided.
On October 11 2009 04:16 Kaneh wrote: "Deserving" the award is beside the point. The point is to promote peace. Yeah, they used an award to help promote peace. Sneaky sneaky politics, but this is a good thing. Is he deserving? maybe, maybe not, but it doesn't matter because the prize was used in the right way. So what if he actually does or doesn't deserve it.
For the purpose of trying to create peace, Obama was the right person to give the award.
As many people have said, they want to support peace efforts, and Obama is the best candidate for actually changing something in the world.
I was a lot less supportive of Obama getting the award until I heard this argument. Of course there are people who have invested themselves more in the cause of peace, but Obama has the most leverage to work in that direction.
I disagree with this. Obama is the best candidate for "changing the world," but not through peaceful means. The U.S. is strongly pro-Israel and Obama is no different on this matter. How do you think he got so much election funding?
"Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel's security."
"The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race, and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its President denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.
But just as we are clear-eyed about the threat, we must be clear about the failure of today's policy. We knew, in 2002, that Iran supported terrorism. We knew Iran had an illicit nuclear program. We knew Iran posed a grave threat to Israel. But instead of pursuing a strategy to address this threat, we ignored it and instead invaded and occupied Iraq...."
You'd think that we are the Israeli States of America.
I do want to be clear that I don't think President Obama is alone in this. In this speech I linked to, Obama blasts Bush for invading Iraq stating:
"When I opposed the war, I warned that it would fan the flames of extremism in the Middle East. That is precisely what happened in Iran – the hardliners tightened their grip, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected President in 2005. And the United States and Israel are less secure."
But I want to be clear that it was originally Israeli intelligence information that initially sent the CIA on a wild goose chase trying to catch Saddam Hussein buying Uranium. In other words, I think that pressure from the Israeli government was one of the chief reasons President Bush took us into Iraq in the first place.
Let me again make a clarification: Israel is our ally. I am not writing this with the intention of sparking anti-Israeli sentiments on the forum. But I want to point out that we are heavily wedded to Israel and that the words and actions of our current President and our previous President both reflected this. I do think that Obama would like to resolve the conflict with Iran diplomatically, but he is going to have to step away from his pro-Israel position if he doesn't want the Iranians to feel alienated when he brings them to the table.
Right now, America is policing the world. And we can't do that if we play favorites. It's bad enough that we police the world at all, but people aren't going to like us if they think we're playing games with them.
On October 10 2009 02:08 Archerofaiur wrote: A man had fallen on hard times. He stood outside a convenience store debating whether to rob it. Suddenly, he received a text message from his daughter. “Thank you for being such a good person.” The man turned around and walked home.
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.
There certainly were those who wanted slaves no matter what, period, but you're badly overgeneralizing those statements to all southerners.
And if you think the South would have rallied behind Stephen Douglas under any circumstances, you are incredibly mistaken. His ideas about popularity sovereignty being used to determine whether a state remain free or slave fanned the flames of conflict between North and South and alienated Douglas on both sides of the aisle. Breaking off from President Buchannon only bred more mistrust.
No, there's no way that they would have rallied behind him.
I should also mention a key point: the South was greatly afraid that as new states came into the union, they would be free states and vote with the free states accordingly. The South was steadily losing it's position of power and they were scared that with enough states choosing to be free, the union would force them into submission through legislation.
That's why saying that a vote for state's rights would have been a vote for Stephen Douglas is badly misguided.
Popular sovereignty was the states' rights position. The fire-eaters disliked Douglas for that states' rights position; they were not fighting for states' rights.
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.
Woodrow Wilson O.o.... I mean I know he was a racist but his brainchild was the league of nations, the predecessor to the U.N; he sacrificed everything in order to achieve an international forum for peace. Sounds like he deserved the peace prize to me
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.
Woodrow Wilson O.o.... I mean I know he was a racist but his brainchild was the league of nations, the predecessor to the U.N; he sacrificed everything in order to achieve an international forum for peace. Sounds like he deserved the peace prize to me
Perhaps I am just a naive moralist but I would have thought that ordering the murderous and brutal invasion of Haiti, a terrible event which continues to affect that nation to this very day, might have disqualified him from receiving a peace prize. The occupation saw the "practically indiscriminate killing of natives" by the occupying US Marine force, not my words but those of marine general George Barnett. It is rather ironic that 1919, the very year in which Wilson received the award, Haiti saw the beginning of a citizen's revolt against the American occupation which cost the lives of 3,000 people, the overwhelming majority of them Haitian peasants.
On October 11 2009 14:26 Monstah-_- wrote: Wait what exactly did Obama do again lol?
I'm a democrat to just asking because he really didn't do anything to promote peace.
He's undertaken a lot to stop nuclear proliferation for one, bringing along Russia and China, recently signing a deal with Russia. If he keeps it going (which is what the Nobel committee want him to) we could see a huge reduction in nuclear stockpiles and avoid stuff like nukes getting into terrorist hands.
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.
Woodrow Wilson O.o.... I mean I know he was a racist but his brainchild was the league of nations, the predecessor to the U.N; he sacrificed everything in order to achieve an international forum for peace. Sounds like he deserved the peace prize to me
The stupidity of Woodrow Wilson in getting involved in World War I laid grounds for World War II? Perhaps it's just hindsight. Wilson was idealistic. People in Europe got caught up in that delusion right along with him and gave him the award.
But consider that until the Americans got involved, the war was a deadlock and that the delay in peace negotiations probably resulted in additional half a million casualties if not more. Wilson also convinced Russia to fight beyond its capacity and essentially giftwrapped that country to the Soviet Bolsheviks.
On October 11 2009 04:16 Kaneh wrote: "Deserving" the award is beside the point. The point is to promote peace. Yeah, they used an award to help promote peace. Sneaky sneaky politics, but this is a good thing. Is he deserving? maybe, maybe not, but it doesn't matter because the prize was used in the right way. So what if he actually does or doesn't deserve it.
For the purpose of trying to create peace, Obama was the right person to give the award.
As many people have said, they want to support peace efforts, and Obama is the best candidate for actually changing something in the world.
I was a lot less supportive of Obama getting the award until I heard this argument. Of course there are people who have invested themselves more in the cause of peace, but Obama has the most leverage to work in that direction.
Its more that giving him the peace prize makes it harder for Obama to make "unpeaceful" actions.
So now Nobel Peace Prize is being used as a strategic political tool. I think that pretty much defines cheap and meaningless.
On October 11 2009 23:15 TanGeng wrote: So now Nobel Peace Prize is being used as a strategic political tool. I think that pretty much defines cheap and meaningless.
Only if it doesn't have any influence. I would give the peace prize to Harvey Dent if it resulted in more peace.
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.
There certainly were those who wanted slaves no matter what, period, but you're badly overgeneralizing those statements to all southerners.
And if you think the South would have rallied behind Stephen Douglas under any circumstances, you are incredibly mistaken. His ideas about popularity sovereignty being used to determine whether a state remain free or slave fanned the flames of conflict between North and South and alienated Douglas on both sides of the aisle. Breaking off from President Buchannon only bred more mistrust.
No, there's no way that they would have rallied behind him.
I should also mention a key point: the South was greatly afraid that as new states came into the union, they would be free states and vote with the free states accordingly. The South was steadily losing it's position of power and they were scared that with enough states choosing to be free, the union would force them into submission through legislation.
That's why saying that a vote for state's rights would have been a vote for Stephen Douglas is badly misguided.
Popular sovereignty was the states' rights position. The fire-eaters disliked Douglas for that states' rights position; they were not fighting for states' rights.
Sigh. I hate having to repeat myself.
I should also mention a key point: the South was greatly afraid that as new states came into the union, they would be free states and vote with the free states accordingly. The South was steadily losing it's position of power and they were scared that with enough states choosing to be free, the union would force them into submission through legislation.
That's why saying that a vote for state's rights would have been a vote for Stephen Douglas is badly misguided.
Edit: the southern states were interested in protecting their rights as states. This is the point you seem to be missing. They wanted to continue preserving their way of life meanwhile the North was steadily getting bigger and importing immigrants by the truckloads to get bigger still.
I guess this furthers the decline in meaning of Noble Peace Prize as an award in recognition for achieving piece. This is akin to when I heard Al Gore winning one for raising awareness for global warming. ??? Becomes less and less like the other prizes in its family.
On October 10 2009 05:29 BalliSLife wrote: Ok so if he's done nothing, what would you guys like him to do?
Pull our troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq and let the free market cleanse the imbalances in the economy by letting the banksters fail.
Do you have a grasp on the war or economics in general?
Pulling our troops out of countries that are only safe to the degree that they are because we maintain a military presence is far from deserving of a "Peace Prize". And we let the New York Bank of the United States fail in 1930; there was no action from the Federal Reserve, panic ensued and we found ourselves in the midst of the Great Depression. Granted that wasn't the only reason leading to the Great Depression it was one of the most detrimental blows to our economy.
On October 12 2009 05:50 endGame wrote: And we let the New York Bank of the United States fail in 1930; there was no action from the Federal Reserve, panic ensued and we found ourselves in the midst of the Great Depression. Granted that wasn't the only reason leading to the Great Depression it was one of the most detrimental blows to our economy.
Do you realize how common it was for huge banks to fail before 1930. Just in the US, there were the Panic of 1907, the Panic of 1893, and the Panic of 1837. Earlier Panics include 1837, 1857, 1819. Funny how they just about happen every 20 years.
20 years is just about long enough for another generation of foolish bankers to over extend themselves with bad loans and another generation of foolish money savers to trust them. A panic wouldn't be so bad as what happened during the Great Depression. That required further coordinated foolishness including but not limited to bailing out failing companies, coordinated wage floors, trade wars, destroying crops, seizing gold, and getting companies to collude with one another.
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.
There certainly were those who wanted slaves no matter what, period, but you're badly overgeneralizing those statements to all southerners.
And if you think the South would have rallied behind Stephen Douglas under any circumstances, you are incredibly mistaken. His ideas about popularity sovereignty being used to determine whether a state remain free or slave fanned the flames of conflict between North and South and alienated Douglas on both sides of the aisle. Breaking off from President Buchannon only bred more mistrust.
No, there's no way that they would have rallied behind him.
I should also mention a key point: the South was greatly afraid that as new states came into the union, they would be free states and vote with the free states accordingly. The South was steadily losing it's position of power and they were scared that with enough states choosing to be free, the union would force them into submission through legislation.
That's why saying that a vote for state's rights would have been a vote for Stephen Douglas is badly misguided.
Popular sovereignty was the states' rights position. The fire-eaters disliked Douglas for that states' rights position; they were not fighting for states' rights.
Sigh. I hate having to repeat myself.
I should also mention a key point: the South was greatly afraid that as new states came into the union, they would be free states and vote with the free states accordingly. The South was steadily losing it's position of power and they were scared that with enough states choosing to be free, the union would force them into submission through legislation.
That's why saying that a vote for state's rights would have been a vote for Stephen Douglas is badly misguided.
Edit: the southern states were interested in protecting their rights as states. This is the point you seem to be missing. They wanted to continue preserving their way of life meanwhile the North was steadily getting bigger and importing immigrants by the truckloads to get bigger still.
The fire-eaters may have used language about "rights", but they seceded because they no longer possessed a stranglehold on the federal government with which they could force their will on the northern states who, except for a very small minority, had no intention of interfering with the institution of slavery as it existed in the south. It was not about their rights, and certainly not about the concept of "states' rights." it was about their continued power and control. In the run up to the civil war, southerners were responsible for the worst expansions of federal power, namely the fugitive slave law of 1850 and the Dred Scott decision.
but if you want to argue that the fugitive slave law of 1850 was a victory for "states' rights", then go ahead.
As a side note, I fucking hate the term "states' rights". Individuals have rights; states do not. As government entities, states have duties and powers that have been delegated to them, not rights.
On October 10 2009 05:29 BalliSLife wrote: Ok so if he's done nothing, what would you guys like him to do?
Pull our troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq and let the free market cleanse the imbalances in the economy by letting the banksters fail.
Do you have a grasp on the war or economics in general?
Pulling our troops out of countries that are only safe to the degree that they are because we maintain a military presence is far from deserving of a "Peace Prize". And we let the New York Bank of the United States fail in 1930; there was no action from the Federal Reserve, panic ensued and we found ourselves in the midst of the Great Depression. Granted that wasn't the only reason leading to the Great Depression it was one of the most detrimental blows to our economy.
Russian nuclear industry insiders told the BBC the process proposed would involve Iran sending its uranium to the IAEA, which would forward it to Russia for enriching.
The enriched uranium would then be returned to the IAEA and sent to France, which has the technology to add the "cell elements" needed for Iran's reactor, they said.
This process would enable Iran to obtain enough enriched uranium for its research reactor, but not enough to produce a weapon.
As a side note, I fucking hate the term "states' rights". Individuals have rights; states do not. As government entities, states have duties and powers that have been delegated to them, not rights.
Wrong.
Please go back and look up the definition of a legal right.
I think this is a very politically correct thing to do, which doesn't mean anything at all really. The Nobel price should be about actual accomplishments, not just the fact that a black man that europe adores was elected president after a hated president by the name of George Bush. I bet those norwegian guys are still star-struck with their annoying political correctness about Obama and how wooonderful he is.
It's a issue with both Sweden and Norway, people are too damn politically correct here and it would actually probably even be seen as rude in Norway if Obama didn't get the peace price. Denmark are different and more outspoken about many issues in general and finns have their own agenda.
As a side note, I fucking hate the term "states' rights". Individuals have rights; states do not. As government entities, states have duties and powers that have been delegated to them, not rights.
Wrong.
Please go back and look up the definition of a legal right.
Please go back and read the Constitution of the United States.
Whoa totally dug out from 10 days ago. But states do have powers that can be considered overriding "rights" over the federal government. The constitution should be viewed as a combination of a permanent alliance between sovereign states and a treaty for to facilitate commerce - no trade barriers and standardized minted money made out of gold or silver. That is what it was meant to be. It was a more restraint form of the European Union except for the fielding of a common military.
Under the arrangement of the Constitution, citizens were to report directly to their respective states for almost all matters. Their connection with the federal government should have been extremely minimal. The big exception was the collection of excise taxes on things like whiskey (whiskey rebellion) and import tariffs for merchants. Under that model, states had powers reserved to them and the right to exercise them overriding federal statutes. The ability to dissolve the union and for a state to secede from the union was part of the states' rights package.
Anyways "having powers" is a property of the governing body or figure and "having rights" is a property of the governed people or politic. Since Constitution creates a relationship of governance by the federal government over the states, the states can be safely consider to have rights in such an arrangement.
Not going to argue with you about southern states not respecting the limits of federalism. I think the world would be a much better place had New England seceded in the 1820's.
The early United States was more like a combination of the European Union and NATO. The states were united by a common currency and military but were decidedly separate. The idea that the United States was a country instead of a collection of states didn't come about until after the civil war.
I don't think he really knows what he's talking about.
The right of states was established in the 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Under the Articles of Confederation, our original intended form of government in case you have forgotten, there was not enough national unity for these United States to guarantee their sovereignty from Britain, and in fact many believed that the United States would fail and be reclaimed as a colony.
The fathers of the Consitution meant for this amendment to be a mildly weakened form of the following clause from the Articles of Confederation:
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
Notice the keyword: right. The founding fathers believed in a notion called state's rights.
Clearly you believe that the only kind of right is a "natural right." Unfortunately for you, the idea of a natural right is pure bullshit and is nothing more than a legal entitlement. The physical universe is an unthinking, unfeeling thing that does not bestow any entitlements on anyone and can, and does, take away your life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness perfectly well on its own. When the founding fathers spoke of "natural rights," they meant rights bestowed to all people by a higher power -- God. Now you're welcome to believe that there is a God and that he (or she) bestows rights upon you, that's your choice, but I think you should be aware of the argument you are making.
From my perspective as an agnostic, the only kind of right is a legal right. The states were expressly given the right of self-jurisdiction under the Bill of Rights and it takes a Constituitional Amendment to deny any state the right to do anything. That is in fact true even today, though with the power of central government today, no state is serious about stepping on toes to practice that right.
Furthermore, quit bashing the South so mindlessly. "Fire-breather," "fire-breather," dude, have you never heard of the word fear? Do you have any concept of how scared people can get of their way of life being brought into jeopardy? It's easy for you to tar and feather them, but that's because you can safely rest behind the military and economic might of the United States of America. We're the biggest bullies on the playground today, but we weren't always. Don't take for granted the fact that you've never had to seriously fight for anything in your life and probably never will.
I'm sorry that you're so brainwashed by modern propaganda that you cannot realize that the southerner's believed that their livelihood was in jeopardy. I'm sorry that you believe that they did everything they did purely because they were evil. But just because you believe they were evil doesn't make that true; they were no less human than you or I and they grew up into a way of life just as all people do and were afraid of what would happen if that way of life were to disappear, just as all humans are. There was a political and economic war going on between the North and South that was far more than just a product of Southerners wanting to "impose their will" on the North. That war evolved into the most bitter and gruesome blood bath in American history. Don't think for a second that the North was innocent in all of this. They did not have to march into the South.
Slavery is an ugly blotch on the fabric of American history, that's for sure, but to the South it was a way of life they could no longer see themselves living without, much in the same way that you would be scared of living in a world with technology taken away from you. The southerners wanted to guarantee that there would not be enough northern power to take away their rights as states.
When dealing with people, never make the mistake of getting overly fixated on ideology. In the end, it's all just bullshit anyway.
A world without natural rights would be horrible. It would be a step back about 800+ years to before Magna Carta. Absent natural rights, any form of despotism should be tolerated as part of the natural order. They can explained by individuals having only limited legal rights. Despotism and authoritarian policies are natural in such an environment.
But natural rights are only valid insofar the people are willing to assert those rights and demand redress of grievances, and in the case that such measures are insufficient to rebel and if necessary die to overthrow oppression. It's also apparent in the Bill of Rights where the many rights that it protects are consistently implied to preexist. Recognition of natural rights is an accumulation of wisdom from civil society. It is the optimal pattern through which large groups of people can coexist, cooperate, and thrive in concert. Or you can believe that it's endowed by a creator.
On October 22 2009 07:00 jalstar wrote: The early United States was more like a combination of the European Union and NATO. The states were united by a common currency and military but were decidedly separate. The idea that the United States was a country instead of a collection of states didn't come about until after the civil war.
I'd say the United States became a country after the Constitution... Well at the very least compare that to the Articles of Confederation.
Wait what? I look at the title. I look at the arguments in the last few posts. Where did this come from?
On October 10 2009 05:29 BalliSLife wrote: Ok so if he's done nothing, what would you guys like him to do?
Pull our troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq and let the free market cleanse the imbalances in the economy by letting the banksters fail.
Do you have a grasp on the war or economics in general?
Pulling our troops out of countries that are only safe to the degree that they are because we maintain a military presence is far from deserving of a "Peace Prize". And we let the New York Bank of the United States fail in 1930; there was no action from the Federal Reserve, panic ensued and we found ourselves in the midst of the Great Depression. Granted that wasn't the only reason leading to the Great Depression it was one of the most detrimental blows to our economy.
yeah Afghanistan is soooo safe only because american soldiers right man god could you be any more brainwashed?
Also the Great Depression was orchestrated by the marginal loan recall and the unfounded histeria that the banks had no funds causing mass withdrawal busting the banks.
This isnt at all like the 1929 depression, this was the government having their hands in F&F and having a secure bailout so they all profit like crazy... and they did.
But back on topic this is actually enraging, how in the fuck do these mother fuckers dare to give Obama the Nobel Prize, Al-Gore was ridiculous enough, but this is just a fucking insult to every single noble prize winner and the whole world.
If i were a nobel prize winner, id turn over my prize because this just rendered it totally worthless.
I just want to point out that the horrible decision to give this prize to Obama was made by Norwegians, not Swedes. They're ruining our prize
I'm living in Oslo temporarily and apparently I'll be home a from work a few hours later than usual because the Norwegian police spent a few hundred millions Norwegian kronor closing down roads and parts of the city. This whole ordeal is both impractical and embarrassing.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://apublicdefender.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/facepalm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://renovomedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Obama-Pitch.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/7939/obamanobel.jpg)
