Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kilkrazy wrote:One reason he got nominated was that there weren't many viable candidates anyway. Of course, the prize doesn't have to be given. I suspect Obama won it mainly for not being Bush, whose prestige was very low in Europe at that time.

If no one is worthy it shouldn't be given out. I agree with your second statement but would add that Obama's political positions during his 2008 campaigns were very favorably viewed in Europe.

That and the Nobel Prize Committee is so political biased in their handing out of all the Nobel awards, that Bush could have saved the world from nuclear holocaust, written the greatest novel of all time, and solved all questions about Relativity and they still wouldn't have given him anything for it.

LordofHats wrote:If no one is worthy it shouldn't be given out.

Join the committee, become the chair, and make your will a reality.

LordofHats wrote:That and the Nobel Prize Committee is so political biased in their handing out of all the Nobel awards

Are they required not to be? I don't believe their is any onus on them not to be. They aren't trying to get your vote and they don't need your money, they can just pick whomever they like by their own criteria, and something as ethereal as a political prize will often be based on political reasons.

Whatever you think of Bush, Obama or the Nobel Committee, Obama still did not solicit the nomination, and it's ridiculous to blame him for being nominated.

As for political bias, you need to understand a distinction between different kinds of biases.

1. The candidate is X wing so I am against him.

2. The candidate has got us into two unwanted foreign wars while putting an illegal tariff on our steel exports, so I am against him.

LordofHats wrote:
If no one is worthy it shouldn't be given out.

You cannot determine if anyone is worthy without a nomination process.

Also, I'm finding it difficult to think of prestigious award which is not given out due to the absence of a worthy recipient. Worth largely being subject to the whim of the judging committee, and generally being confined to the field of nominees during the selection period. For example, the Peace Prize is 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."

LordofHats wrote:
That and the Nobel Prize Committee is so political biased in their handing out of all the Nobel awards, that Bush could have saved the world from nuclear holocaust, written the greatest novel of all time, and solved all questions about Relativity and they still wouldn't have given him anything for it.

The Peace Prize, and its selection process are different from the other Nobels and their selection processes. The Peace Prize is politically biased because it is a political award, it has to be biased in that manner by nature, just as the other prizes are biased due to their own natures.

Indeed, all awards are biased by their nature, as they generally require the people determining recipients according to the criteria "Who is best?"

Are they required not to be? I don't believe their is any onus on them not to be. They aren't trying to get your vote and they don't need your money, they can just pick whomever they like by their own criteria, and something as ethereal as a political prize will often be based on political reasons.

Am I required to be forgiving of obvious political favoritism in the handing out of a very prestigious and well known award? Especially when said favoritism will sideline at times men and women of equal or even greater achievement because the NPC didn't like their bottom line?

My problem is with the NPC modeling and claiming themselves to be an objective body awarding people for merit. In fact, they are an extreme subjective body that at times awards individuals for purely political reasons regardless of their merit.

It's their prize. They can give it how they want. I am likewise free to call them out on obvious bias in the handing out of awards.

"...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."

And there are people who have gotten the award whom I would argue have done little to meet that definition. Al Gore for example got it for his work on climate change even though I'd argue he's done very little to actually advance it. I don't see Climate Change on that list. Nor do I see relief of the urban poor or civil rights both of which people have gotten the award for in the past. Obama certainly achieved none of these things at the time he got the award. The most recent winner got it for his advocacy of reform in China which actually caused a very small international incident and backlash from the Chinese government. Not really advancing "the fraternity between nations" there.

Kilkrazy wrote:Whatever you think of Bush, Obama or the Nobel Committee, Obama still did not solicit the nomination, and it's ridiculous to blame him for being nominated.

My comments were targeted at the of the NPC not Obama.

1. The candidate is X wing so I am against him.

2. The candidate has got us into two unwanted foreign wars while putting an illegal tariff on our steel exports, so I am against him.

I can't have both?

No.

LordofHats wrote:

Are they required not to be? I don't believe their is any onus on them not to be. They aren't trying to get your vote and they don't need your money, they can just pick whomever they like by their own criteria, and something as ethereal as a political prize will often be based on political reasons.

Am I required to be forgiving of obvious political favoritism in the handing out of a very prestigious and well known award?

Your first problem is you act like their is something to forgive; there is no transgression here. The NPC is not beholden to you in any way shape or form, and they certainly aren't required to trade in their bias just to appease yours. You want to trade one for the other under the guise of 'objectivity', which if I go by your writing, is essentially just that you don't agree with their politics.

Ahtman wrote:Your first problem is you act like their is something to forgive; there is no transgression here. The NPC is not beholden to you in any way shape or form, and they certainly aren't required to trade in their bias just to appease yours. You want to trade one for the other under the guise of 'objectivity', which if I go by your writing, is essentially just that you don't agree with their politics.

How do you come to that conclusion from my post? I disagree with the award being used a tool of political agenda rather than being awarded for merit. I also fail to see how just because the NPC(s) are not beholden to me (they're really not beholden to anyone other than a dead man) somehow means I can't point criticism at them when I think that their selection process is biased.

I think that there are more objective ways that the Nobel Prizes can be award and that the awards should be as objective as possible. The NPC as they exist today are not in any way an objective body. I think that's something worthy of criticism.

I'm far more critical of the Prize for Literature than the Peace Prize. Do I have to shut and be quiet when there is a blatant favoritism of Sweedish authors and authors with no lasting literary impact and indeed at times authors no one outside of Sweeden or Europe has ever even heard of, including those who are members of the selection committee, in getting the Prize for Literature while ignoring much more famous and lasting authors?

Just because I disagree with the political views most members of the Nobel Academy have doesn't mean my criticism of them is politically based. Just because they aren't beholden to me or anyone else for that matter doesn't mean I can ridicule them.

LordofHats wrote:I disagree with the award being used a tool of political agenda rather than being awarded for merit.

See, you seem to still misunderstand the fundamental problem. It is a political award. There is no identifiable concrete metric. If they felt that by easing tension between the US and Europe by his mere presence, then President Obama qualifies. If they felt that giving him the award would lead to better relations and less violence in the Middle East overall it qualifies. This isn't a painting contest with some easily identifiable criteria.

LordofHats wrote: I also fail to see how just because the NPC(s) are not beholden to me (they're really not beholden to anyone other than a dead man) somehow means I can't point criticism at them when I think that their selection process is biased.

You fail to understand why your bias doesn't matter to people who actually are in the position to make decisions? I suppose it is because they don't care what you think. I'm not saying that they can't be criticized, i'm saying that your 'criticism' is so weak as to not really be criticism, but personal grievance because you don't like their choice.

LordofHats wrote:I think that there are more objective ways that the Nobel Prizes can be award and that the awards should be as objective as possible.

You don't explain why though. If they like something, why are they not allowed to award it? It is their award after all. They aren't telling you want to like. you are welcome to give awards to things you feel are worthy, nothing is stopping you.

LordofHats wrote:I'm far more critical of the Prize for Literature than the Peace Prize. Do I have to shut and be quiet when there is a blatant favoritism of Sweedish authors and authors with no lasting literary impact and indeed at times authors no one outside of Sweeden or Europe has ever even heard of, including those who are members of the selection committee, in getting the Prize for Literature while ignoring much more famous and lasting authors?

Again, it is their award. You are always welcome to disagree, but you act like this is some governing body with authority powers telling you what you should like. It isn't. Your argument still breaks down to essentially: Organization gives awards to things/people I don't like so therefore they must be wrong. That isn't very compelling. Their job isn't to follow your (seeminly muddled) idea of what objective is. And if you don't think politics is involved in even less ethereal things like economics and chemistry, you haven't spent that much time in academcs at the highest levels, or really just other humans.

Ahtman wrote:Again, it is their award.

So? How does this make them immune to criticism? You say that's not what you're saying yet I fail to see how it being their award is at all relevant to my disagreeing with the selection process. They don't have to listen to me (and they won't cause they probably think my name is too silly ).

If they felt that by easing tension between the US and Europe by his mere presence, then President Obama qualifies.

Seems a little weak when there are people in the world doing more than being present. Especially if the supposed goal is world peace, not US-Europe bro-hood. Then again, the NPP has been accused of being Eurocentric (I personally would lay that against the Literature prize, but not the Peace prize imo).

This isn't a painting contest with some easily identifiable criteria.

I never claimed it is. I claimed that the award is not going out based on merit and I don't think it is. They can come up (and do) with silly justifications but that doesn't that's the actual reason.

Nobel wanted the Peace Prize to go to people striving for peace. Now, normally I call the NPC moronic cause it treats the word of Nobel like a 1920's fundamentalist would treat the word god, beyond reproach, but it would be nice if they paid a little less attention to punishing governments they don't like by giving awards to political rivals (or radicals) and a little more attention to people actually striving for world peace. Lots of the Laureate's deserve an award of some kind (don't get me wrong there), but a lot of them have done nothing beyond the boarders of their own nations since I started paying attention to the prize a few years ago.

Your argument still breaks down to essentially: Organization gives awards to things/people I don't like so therefore they must be wrong.

No. My position is "Organization gives award of merit to people who have not earned it and therefore they must be wrong." I like Muhummad Yunis. But he's done nothing to win a Nobel Peace Prize in my eye. Out of the people who have gotten a NPP in the last decade the only one who I think actually earned it is Martti Ahtisaari.

Their job isn't to follow your (seeminly muddled) idea of what objective is.

And this means I can't criticize them how? It isn't my neighbors maid's job to clean my floors but I can still point out to Bob that said maid missed a spot in his kitchen.

Your position seems to be that that what counts as an objective process isn't clear cut. I get that. I fail to see how that makes my criticism of giving an award to a man who has achieved nothing outside of 1 of 50 states, or to people who have done amazing work in their own countries but little beyond their own boarders makes my criticism weak. I obviously disagree with the recipients (quite often). Otherwise I'd be praising the objectivity and awesomeness of the judges. Sad fact is they aren't objective and they aren't awesome.

And if you don't think politics is involved in even less ethereal things like economics and chemistry, you haven't spent that much time in academcs at the highest levels, or really just other humans.

I know they are. I was watching the Wikiality episode of Colbert I think there's a lesson in there that extends beyond Wikipedia maybe. But in the case of the Nobel Prizes I pay little attention to them outside of the Peace Prize and the Prize for Literature, probably because Economics hurt my brain, and chemistry and physics because I find them boring...

Ahtman wrote:

LordofHats wrote:I think that there are more objective ways that the Nobel Prizes can be award and that the awards should be as objective as possible.

You don't explain why though. If they like something, why are they not allowed to award it? It is their award after all. They aren't telling you want to like. you are welcome to give awards to things you feel are worthy, nothing is stopping you.

I think what LordofHats is trying to say is that the Nobel Peace Prize typically carries with it a certain degree of prestiege and influence. Those who win are afforded a special place in history as recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize that others are denied simply due to the exclusivity and perception of excellence that is associated with the prize.

Being a laureate places one alongside previous winners like the Dalai Lama, Elie Wiesel, Mother Theresa and Martin Luthor King, Jr. Then again, it also places him among recipients such as Mandela, Arafat, Wilson, Al-Sadat and Gorbechev. So the prestiege of the award was already quite tarnished.

Ouze wrote:

Flashman wrote:On the one hand, pulling it out now would be a monumental waste of all the lives that have been lost so far...

By that rationale, we'd still be in Vietnam.

Yes, but you'd have probably won by now

LordofHats wrote:
And there are people who have gotten the award whom I would argue have done little to meet that definition. Al Gore for example got it for his work on climate change even though I'd argue he's done very little to actually advance it. I don't see Climate Change on that list. Nor do I see relief of the urban poor or civil rights both of which people have gotten the award for in the past. Obama certainly achieved none of these things at the time he got the award. The most recent winner got it for his advocacy of reform in China which actually caused a very small international incident and backlash from the Chinese government. Not really advancing "the fraternity between nations" there.

Actually, Obama did quite a bit of campaigning on the promotion of peace congresses in the form of diplomatic engagement, particularly given that, at the time, the US was one of the world's leading belligerents; both in terms of reality and foreign regard. His emphasis on diplomacy was one of the main things the GOP attacked him for, Cheney in particular. You'll also note that nations and states are very different things, and while the Chinese government did not like the selection, it is arguable that human rights advocates in China are promoting a sort of Chinese policy which would ingratiate that country with the West; human rights being a contentious issue between that groups of nation-states, and China. This line of reasoning applies to civil rights, relief of the urban poor, and really any other social cause deemed worthy by a the Western nation awarding the prize.

As for Mr. Gore, while An Inconvenient Truth is what he is most often remembered for, he also did a great deal of work on international climate change agreements, which again speaks to the fraternity between nations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:
I disagree with the award being used a tool of political agenda rather than being awarded for merit.

There is no distinction when the award is political in nature. Even the assumption that striving for fraternity amongst nations is deserving of reward is a political claim.

dogma wrote:Actually, Obama did quite a bit of campaigning on the promotion of peace congresses in the form of diplomatic engagement, particularly given that, at the time, the US was one of the world's leading belligerents; both in terms of reality and foreign regard.

And Obama was the only person doing so? Millions of people do that. Obama did nothing more than any of them at the time he received his NPP. The difference between Obama, and everyone else is that Obama was in a position to actually mean something. Too bad he hadn't had to time to do anything before getting the award.

"You'll also note that nations and states are very different things"

Now they are. Remember that back when Nobel established his criteria for the Peace Prize, 'nation' and 'state' were for all practical purposes the same word. Even today, typical usage finds the words used interchangeably even by people who should and probably do know they aren't the same thing.

This line of reasoning applies to civil rights, relief of the urban poor, and really any other social cause deemed worthy by a the Western nation awarding the prize.

Except the prize is for world peace. I don't see how banker doing a lot of great work to help the urban poor in Bangladesh is really advancing world peace (I doubt most people could even find Bangladesh on a map... It's like... near Australia... or something... that general area). Or how a woman in Kenya fighting for the rights of women in a country that really needs it helps solve problems elsewhere in the world.

There is no distinction when the award is political in nature.

I think there is when the judges give the award to someone who has not advanced world peace because giving the award to that person pushes their agenda (at least, they think it will push it).

The award being a political award is something I know. It is separate from my criticism that the award is not used to reward people who strive the achieve world peace but rather to push the political ideals of the NPC awarding it. If they want to do that they can. But I will criticism them for it so long as they maintain a facade of awarding people who strive for world peace while awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for other reasons.

LordofHats wrote:Otherwise I'd be praising the objectivity and awesomeness of the judges. Sad fact is they aren't objective and they aren't awesome.

Objective is a thing which people can be? I mean, I guess we might objectively be able to agree of the mass of an object, or the number of people who voted, or whether or not the formulation of a particular argument is valid. But when we start talking about who did the most to promote X where there is nt standard means of measuring promotion, and very frequently no standard means of measuring X, objectivity is impossible. So saying that a group of people giving an award based on nebulous principles is not objective is no real criticism, which leaves us with awesomeness, which is basically a determination of whether or not you agree with a choice that was made. In the case of a political award, this agreement is necessarily political, which seems strange given that you're arguing that political criteria are bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:
And Obama was the only person doing so? Millions of people do that. Obama did nothing more than any of them at the time he received his NPP. The difference between Obama, and everyone else is that Obama was in a position to actually mean something. Too bad he hadn't had to time to do anything before getting the award.

Yes, that is the difference, and it is a significant one when the word "most" is the determining variable. I don't see the issue.

LordofHats wrote:
"You'll also note that nations and states are very different things"

Now they are. Remember that back when Nobel established his criteria for the Peace Prize, 'nation' and 'state' were for all practical purposes the same word. Even today, typical usage finds the words used interchangeably even by people who should and probably do know they aren't the same thing.

Actually, the distinction between "nation" and "state" is very old, predating Nobel's time by about 200 years. Nobel would have been very familiar with the concept given the prevalence of non-national states (mostly imperial) during his life. If anything, the distinction has been weakened in the current time by the end of the imperial age.

LordofHats wrote:
Except the prize is for world peace. I don't see how banker doing a lot of great work to help the urban poor in Bangladesh is really advancing world peace (I doubt most people could even find Bangladesh on a map... It's like... near Australia... or something... that general area). Or how a woman in Kenya fighting for the rights of women in a country that really needs it helps solve problems elsewhere in the world.

No, the prize is not for world peace, that is not specified in the criteria and explains, at least to a degree, your confusion.

dogma wrote:Yes, that is the difference, and it is a significant one when the word "most" is the determining variable. I don't see the issue.

That Obama did nothing millions of other people don't do. What distinguishes him from them? He got his NPP because 1. He was famous. 2. His politics agree with the politics of the NPC awarding the prize. 3. He was running for president in Bush's aftermath.

Fostering the fraternity of nations, striving for peace, and military reduction never factored into his winning his NPP. Don't confuse me simply saying "world peace" with not know the criteria of the award. You said it already my memory isn't quite that bad I just don't feel like typing all that out words every time it needs to be mentioned when 'world peace' is a suitable substitute since we both know what the detailed criteria are.

LordofHats wrote:Actually, the distinction between "nation" and "state" is very old, predating Nobel's time by about 200 years. Nobel would have been very familiar with the concept given the prevalence of non-national states (mostly imperial) during his life.

What academics know to be true and what people think is true are very different things. To most European empires, the empire was the extension of the state of the nation. The typical populace would simply recognize and use these all as the same thing. Even in academics, people who weren't political scientists probably weren't aware of the difference (my professors certainly still don't outside of fields where the actual meaning of the words matter).

Nobel was a chemist and industrialist. Did he know of the distinction? idk. I'd lean towards not because barring actually knowing it's the most likely answer.

As a side note, I actually have always wondered what killed more people. Guns/munitions produced by Bofors. Or Dynamite. Be interesting to see the math on that one. I lean towards guns/munitions personally since BAE systems is still producing military hardware while Dynamite has largely fallen out of military use and has been for sometime now.

So, the long and the short of it is that no-one has a list of policies Obama should have followed that would have gotten us out of Afghanistan, but some people want to blame him anyway?

sebster wrote:So, the long and the short of it is that no-one has a list of policies Obama should have followed that would have gotten us out of Afghanistan, but some people want to blame him anyway?

Day 1: Call joint chiefs of staff, tell them "we're getting out of Afghanistan. You have 90 days to get everyone out."

Day 91: If there are any troops left in Afghanistan, fire joint chiefs of staff. Appoint some political lackeys to take their place.

Repeat as necessary.

Of course, Obama didn't actually want to get out of Afghanistan, so you have that to worry about.

biccat wrote:Day 1: Call joint chiefs of staff, tell them "we're getting out of Afghanistan. You have 90 days to get everyone out."

Day 91: If there are any troops left in Afghanistan, fire joint chiefs of staff. Appoint some political lackeys to take their place.

Repeat as necessary.

Of course, Obama didn't actually want to get out of Afghanistan, so you have that to worry about.

So, we've got 'declare victory and leave, damn the consequences, because the whole thing was a stupid idea in the first place'. So now the right wing appears to be attacking Obama for trying to salvage something from Bush's invasions and not just taking the cheap, political stunt of getting out and blaming the whole mess on the last guy. Which is just weird.

Meanwhile, there's an obvious and basic reason Afghanistan was invaded in the first place, because a bad government allowed terrorist training cells and these increased the chance of effective strikes around the world. Stopping that from happening again would be a good thing. So just declaring victory and leaving would be bad, as it would weclome a return to that situation.

And there appears to be no set of policies suggested by anyone that would see a good enough government left in control in Afghanistan, that could have seen the US withdraw by now.

biccat wrote:
Day 1: Call joint chiefs of staff, tell them "we're getting out of Afghanistan. You have 90 days to get everyone out."

Day 91: If there are any troops left in Afghanistan, fire joint chiefs of staff. Appoint some political lackeys to take their place.

Repeat as necessary.

So you've given us a plan which gives the Joint Chiefs, and their replacements, all of whom would be nearing retirement age and more than capable of living out the remainder of their days in comfort, no incentive to accept an appointment to the position due to the logistical reality that comes with the safe withdrawal of troops from a combat engagement (which it has to be if we're defining Afghanistan and Iraq as wars). And that's before we start talking about Senate confirmation, and the political fodder such a policy would give to the GOP who have already tried to paint Obama as authoritarian.

LordofHats wrote:
That Obama did nothing millions of other people don't do. What distinguishes him from them? He got his NPP because 1. He was famous. 2. His politics agree with the politics of the NPC awarding the prize. 3. He was running for president in Bush's aftermath.

You keep asking what distinguished Obama from millions of people, and then listing entirely legitimate means of distinguishing him from millions of people. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish, but it looks to me like you simply don't like the NPP, which is fine, but you're not giving very good reasons for disliking it.

To address your list in specific:

1: All Nobel prize winners are famous in the fields in which they have done their work. It is very nearly a prerequisite for the prize. Fame does not come without qualification.

2: Of course his politics agreed with the NPC committee, he believed that nonviolent solutions to international problems were superior to violent ones. Had Bush advocated a similar set of positions, he might have been considered for the Prize. But, because his campaign involved being tough on defense, as per the GOP standard, and was not particularly related to international issues he was not likely to either take such a position, or be considered.

3: Yes, context is important. Without the reference point of Bush's foreign policy, Obama's pronouncement that diplomacy was superior would have been meaningless. The same is true of every single person who has ever won a Peace Prize, or any award for that matter. You cannot do something significant, or of note, without context to make the thing you have done of note. Nothing is intrinsically good or laudable.

You also seem to be ignoring that simply being a Presidential candidate who emphasized a more "peaceful" approach to foreign policy separates Obama from the millions of others who do the same. Just like being a Palestinian who says "I support Israel." is different from being an Israeli who says "I support Israel."

LordofHats wrote:
Fostering the fraternity of nations, striving for peace, and military reduction never factored into his winning his NPP. Don't confuse me simply saying "world peace" with not know the criteria of the award. You said it already my memory isn't quite that bad I just don't feel like typing all that out words every time it needs to be mentioned when 'world peace' is a suitable substitute since we both know what the detailed criteria are.

It isn't so much that you used short hand, but that many of your objections seem to turn on the belief in the literal truth of the shorthand you're using. For example, your use of Muhammad Yunus example ignores that he was recognized, along with Grameen Bank, for inventing/popularizing microcredit in developing nations, and for extending such credit to people outside the borders of Bangladesh; thereby fostering international fraternity.

LordofHats wrote:
What academics know to be true and what people think is true are very different things. To most European empires, the empire was the extension of the state of the nation. The typical populace would simply recognize and use these all as the same thing.

Unless you're claiming that the many Indian subjects of the British Raj were thought of as English, or even as British, that is not even close to true. I mean, even in the British isles there would have been clear national divisions amongst British subjects in terms of the Welsh, English, Scottish, and Irish. Then there's the issue of the German nation versus the states governing it (everyone feared a unified Germany), which would have been a topic of note during Nobel's life, where the political distinction between government and nation were laid in stark relief. The same is true of Italy, and to a lesser extent, France.

LordofHats wrote:
Even in academics, people who weren't political scientists probably weren't aware of the difference (my professors certainly still don't outside of fields where the actual meaning of the words matter).

Nobel was a chemist and industrialist. Did he know of the distinction? idk. I'd lean towards not because barring actually knowing it's the most likely answer.

The thing is during Nobel's life the distinction wasn't just academic, it was a fact of European life. You can still see this to some extent in the various independence movements in Britain, Spain, and a few others.

LordofHats wrote:
As a side note, I actually have always wondered what killed more people. Guns/munitions produced by Bofors. Or Dynamite. Be interesting to see the math on that one. I lean towards guns/munitions personally since BAE systems is still producing military hardware while Dynamite has largely fallen out of military use and has been for sometime now.

Bofors, almost certainly. Even in the military dynamite was primarily used for demolition which tends to cause few casualties.

sebster wrote:So, we've got 'declare victory and leave, damn the consequences, because the whole thing was a stupid idea in the first place'. So now the right wing appears to be attacking Obama for trying to salvage something from Bush's invasions and not just taking the cheap, political stunt of getting out and blaming the whole mess on the last guy. Which is just weird.

No, not at all. You're the one who suggested that there's no way Obama could have gotten out of Afghanistan. I gave one option. Presumably, since he's the smrtest president EVAH! he could have thought of something.

If he wanted to, that is. Which he didn't. Remember that part?

sebster wrote:So, the long and the short of it is that no-one has a list of policies Obama should have followed that would have gotten us out of Afghanistan, but some people want to blame him anyway?

The question was, up to this point, "is he responsible", and sort of "could he have done so". You're stating no one asked "how could he have done so", and stating no one had an answer for that, but you're the first to ask that question.

The idea that he could tell the JCS that we need to get out of there in 90 days, make it happen, is politically unpalatable but not impossible by a longshot. He could, in fact, do so. I agree that 90 days might have been an unrealistic goal.

But what about 952 days? Is that unrealistic? In my opinion, it is not. In my opinion, nothing will change in Afghanistan whether we stay there another year or another 10 years. Their culture is not ours and we can't bomb people into democracy no matter how hard we try.

I know people will say, well, we wasted the lives of those who came before, but at some point you need to start thinking about wasting the lives of those yet to come.

As a side note, any discussion of these wars should probably be delineated into clearly marked discussions of either Iraq or Afghanistan, as they are very different places with very different goals. If the goal is to "promote democracy" in Iraq, I think that we should stay longer if need be because that goal actually can be achieved. If the goal in Afghanistan is to promote democracy, I think we should GTFO.

I know it's strange to say, because I felt the invasion of Afghanistan was justified and the invasion of Iraq was not, for me to endorse staying longer in Iraq if need be, but I think we accomplished the mission in Afghanistan a long time ago, assuming you define the mission as "remove the Al-Qaeda presence from the country.

I just woke up so sorry that rambled a bit.

sebster wrote:So, the long and the short of it is that no-one has a list of policies Obama should have followed that would have gotten us out of Afghanistan, but some people want to blame him anyway?

None of us said we'd do it so we would get elected. We are not beholden to his promises (lies), he is.

Unfortunately he found enough idiots to believe him and they made history.

I think the takeaway from this is that people are willing to trust the people they trust.

Which isn't surprising. Even if we had access to all the classified information on the situation in afghanistan, we dont' really have the skills or experience to make the call, absent relying on experts.

So, when the President announces decisions based on information he can't sure using analysis we almost surely wouldn't understand, some of it just comes down to trust. Liberals are going to trust Obama more than they trusted Bush. Conservatives are going to do the opposite. Moderates likely started out mildly trusting both, and then became disillusoined.

biccat wrote:

Day 1: Call joint chiefs of staff, tell them "we're getting out of Afghanistan. You have 90 days to get everyone out."

Day 91: If there are any troops left in Afghanistan, fire joint chiefs of staff. Appoint some political lackeys to take their place.

Repeat as necessary.

Of course, Obama didn't actually want to get out of Afghanistan, so you have that to worry about.

Definately the worst suggestion ive read all day.

........

Oh no hang on, one of my facebook friends just suggested that stapling my scrotum to my inside leg will help me improve my half marathon time, so its not quite the worst suggestion but its up there!

mattyrm wrote:
Oh no hang on, one of my facebook friends just suggested that stapling my scrotum to my inside leg will help me improve my half marathon time, so its not quite the worst suggestion but its up there!

So, you're not as dedicated to Marathon as you thought?

Battle Brother Ambrosius wrote:image macro suggesting repeat topic

I went all the way back to June before posting this, which is twice as long as I would need to have. Since there was no existing topic regarding Obama's responsibility for our current wars, I created one. Going forward, if you come across a thread that you consider repetitive, I suggest you simply move on instead of "contributing" spam to it.

Or just report it and let the mods decide.