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.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

At least she goddamn did something.

What, perform? So performing is something, unless its public speaking, then its nothing?

Again, considering he won the award aprox. 17 minutes after being sworn in, yea she did more.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I believe Obama should have accepted the Nobel Prize. Further that he was right to defend the war in Afghanistan, since it is intended to break a despotic and vile regime of suppression and was committed to with the endorsement of the United Nations.


I do believe the choice was somewhat premature, since he has only just arrived. I consider it an olive branch to the US from the rest of the world for ending a period of aggressive isolationism and a return to centre stage for US diplomacy and adjudication in the world events. Had Obama refused the Prize, no doubt the foam-mouthed critics, for whom he can do no right (see: Fateweaver etc) would have decried him as arrogant and aloof.

With the Nobel Prize we welcome back the USA to the centre of the world political arena and look forward to progressive and enlightened policy. Whilst once again the US proves it's self a place of democracy and the dreams of a generation ago becoming reality with a black president, I believe the Nobel folks chose Obama because he has committed himself to reintroducing the US to the rest of the world. I'm glad, it was getting difficult for the UK to remain friends with the US as things stood a few years ago and most other countries had already crossed the floor.

For the record, I agree with Ahtman on the subject of candidates, I was impressed with McCain's sincerity when I heard him speak and him having REAL combat experience made him an excellent choice to replace that draft dodging gakker richkid Bush. But the bitch he chose as his running mate made him unelectable, the terrifying ineptitude of that woman and the bizarre far right and racist elements that clung to her made him an impossible choice.

This whole post goes to show what I had always thought. Giving the NPP to Obama was simply a way for the committee to try and affect the politics of the U.S. It had nothing to do with peace, but was a political statement.

And I disagee that he was damned if he did and damned if didn't accept the prize. I for one would have appluaded him, if he declined it.
GG

Frazzled wrote:
Again, considering he won the award aprox. 17 minutes after being sworn in, yea she did more.

I had no idea you were such a fan of Beauty Shop.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:
This whole post goes to show what I had always thought. Giving the NPP to Obama was simply a way for the committee to try and affect the politics of the U.S. It had nothing to do with peace, but was a political statement.

That's all its ever been.

There seem to be some very deep seated misconceptions with respect to the nature of the Peace Prize.

dogma wrote:
That's all its ever been.

There seem to be some very deep seated misconceptions with respect to the nature of the Peace Prize.

Good point, I grew up thinking it actually meant something. Now it's just the equivalent to a brownie point, with 1 million dollars atached to it.

GG

generalgrog wrote:

dogma wrote:
That's all its ever been.

There seem to be some very deep seated misconceptions with respect to the nature of the Peace Prize.

Good point, I grew up thinking it actually meant something. Now it's just the equivalent to a brownie point, with 1 million dollars atached to it.

GG

Agreed, so did i.

generalgrog wrote:
Good point, I grew up thinking it actually meant something. Now it's just the equivalent to a brownie point, with 1 million dollars atached to it.

GG

It stills means something. Though the extent to which you value that meaning is tied directly to the extent that you value the opinion of 5 men appointed by the Norwegian parliament. In that sense its exactly like any other award that isn't directly attached to a contest.

dogma wrote:
It stills means something.

Is contradictory to this...

dogma wrote:
Though the extent to which you value that meaning is tied directly to the extent that you value the opinion of 5 men appointed by the Norwegian parliament.

I.E. it means nothing.

GG

generalgrog wrote:

dogma wrote:
It stills means something.

Is contradictory to this...

dogma wrote:
Though the extent to which you value that meaning is tied directly to the extent that you value the opinion of 5 men appointed by the Norwegian parliament.

I.E. it means nothing.

GG

That's not a contradiction. Receipt of the Peace Prize means that 5 men appointed by the Norwegian parliament believe that you deserve it more than any other candidate they considered. If you value that sort of thing, then the meaning will matter to you. If you don't value it, then it won't, but the meaning is not eliminated because you do not value it.

Anyway, I'd be interested to hear all about these awards which possess some kind of objective meaning.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I believe Obama should have accepted the Nobel Prize. Further that he was right to defend the war in Afghanistan, since it is intended to break a despotic and vile regime of suppression and was committed to with the endorsement of the United Nations.


I do believe the choice was somewhat premature, since he has only just arrived. I consider it an olive branch to the US from the rest of the world for ending a period of aggressive isolationism and a return to centre stage for US diplomacy and adjudication in the world events. Had Obama refused the Prize, no doubt the foam-mouthed critics, for whom he can do no right (see: Fateweaver etc) would have decried him as arrogant and aloof.

With the Nobel Prize we welcome back the USA to the centre of the world political arena and look forward to progressive and enlightened policy. Whilst once again the US proves it's self a place of democracy and the dreams of a generation ago becoming reality with a black president, I believe the Nobel folks chose Obama because he has committed himself to reintroducing the US to the rest of the world. I'm glad, it was getting difficult for the UK to remain friends with the US as things stood a few years ago and most other countries had already crossed the floor.

For the record, I agree with Ahtman on the subject of candidates, I was impressed with McCain's sincerity when I heard him speak and him having REAL combat experience made him an excellent choice to replace that draft dodging gakker richkid Bush. But the bitch he chose as his running mate made him unelectable, the terrifying ineptitude of that woman and the bizarre far right and racist elements that clung to her made him an impossible choice.

Nice blanket attack MGS but FYI had he turned it down I would have applauded him. He didn't deserve it in the first place IMO so why the hell would I bitch about him not accepting it?

But according to you MGS I hate everything about Obama, which I don't, I just hate most things.

But according to you MGS I hate everything about Obama, which I don't, I just hate most things.

Just everything you seem to ever mention about him, though I suppose you never did comment on his hair.

Tyyr wrote:
Of course not. You just admitted it, he's right. You cannot talk about peace without talking about military might to back it up. On top of that everyone is well aware of the surreal nature of giving the peace prize to a man commanding two wars right now. He had to address it, namely how war can serve the cause of peace. If he'd ignored that would have only compounded just how ridiculous the whole situation is. Talking about peace without acknowledging the need for violence at times is just delusional.

[pacifist]
Martin Luther King Jr. was very non-violent. He believed that people's hatred could be defeated by the capacity for people to suffer and love their enemies, and denounced the U.S. as the greatest perveyor of violence in the World. He got a national holiday.

Ghandi was a clever guy with crazy ideas about non-violence, and he lead India to independence from the British. He believed that Hitler could be defeated non-violently.

Leo Tolstoy (who I will admit seemed to fly from utter brilliance to madness) advocated complete and utter non-resistance (even for police).

Disagree with them if you will, but I don't think that it is fair call every advocate of complete non-violence delusional, insane or mentally deficient.

On topic: I mentioned this in another thread but not only is Obama a wartime president, he is the Commander-In-Chief of the largest military in the world that accounts for about half of the world's total military spending.

As for the righteousness of a 'just war' every war is just in the eyes of those who desire it for whatever reason.
[/pacifist]

ShumaGorath wrote:

But according to you MGS I hate everything about Obama, which I don't, I just hate most things.

Just everything you seem to ever mention about him, though I suppose you never did comment on his hair.

The fact he cannot run again after he wins a second term (which I doubt he will) is also what I like

Fateweaver wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

But according to you MGS I hate everything about Obama, which I don't, I just hate most things.

Just everything you seem to ever mention about him, though I suppose you never did comment on his hair.

The fact he cannot run again after he wins a second term (which I doubt he will) is also what I like

Excellent, so you criticise my post, then cement it's sentiment.

fething genius son, really...

It still doesn't count as hating him for everything. He does have some redeeming qualities.

Like the fact he is the new Savior; the fact he can spin a yarn better than anyone; the fact he associates with known anti-American men.

Yeah, I can see some good things about him.

in imitation of Obama:
'let me make one thing perfectly clear *pause*'
I dont dislike (hate) Obama either, im mad at his choise of accepting the boobie prize. period.
i look at him much like i do any celebrity president, (like JFK) is very charismatic, and i do hope that he is able to accomplish his goals concerning 'A New World Order' concerning security for the world and finding a common launguage where muslims and the world can live in harmony. My beef is that he hasnt done a dang thing to earn the prize (yet) and he was given the Nobel for statements and not for accomplishments. we all are leary of political promises as so often they are simpley words that dont mean a thing. if Obama can produce the goods, fine, but in accepting a Nobel without having actually done anything, as smart as he is, just accomplishes 2 things in my mind. one that he understands that he hasnt earned a thing and accepted anyway (dont give the the malarky that he sees it as a challange) which makes him hypicritacal.
and 2 he really isnt the Baby jesus reborn that alot of americans seem to think he is.
We will see, if he earns the prize, but even the commity has owned up and said 'we hope obama lives up to out exspectations' so the nobel IMO has become a useless 1 mil giveaway, with only the cash being important, and obama looses points for promoting the nessity of war at a speach for a peace prize (witch IMO is not the place to hold such a talk). sure you can praise that its a speach that shows that hes not a bull gaker, but it has no place in that inviroment, and should have been made in a apropriate invironment away from the prize. I DONT CARE if its true, the only reason everyone is not up in arms about it is that its obama that made the speach, if bush had, Everyone would have cried foul. so because hes popular and charismatic he gets away from it? wow that alter of public opinion must also exist in the bubble of unreality. (no big surprise there.)

So you don't like Presidents. Cute.

@ Hawkins: Assuming that the committee responsible is obligated to hand out a peace prize annually then they had to pick someone. I recall reading that a representative said that this year was one where no major conflicts had been solved peacefully so Obama was selected as the next best thing: an individual likely to foster peace.

I think someone else pointed out that he could hardly deny the award. It would be an insult. I think he did the best thing by taking the award and publicly acknowledging that he is not the worthiest of recipients.

Hawkins wrote:
he really isnt the Baby jesus reborn that alot of americans seem to think he is.

There are Americans who think that he is the Antichrist or a Muslim. It goes both ways.

Also, I hate to be a grammar Nazi but spellcheck is your friend.

LOUD NOISES!



American politics have now been introduced.

Da Boss wrote:Statements like that make you look like a narrow minded prick, Frazzled.

Do not concur. The United States should not recognize the authority of kings. The fundamental concept of American law is the idea that all men are created equal. Monarchies are so far misaligned with this rationale that any association with them taints the purity of the movement. BHO bows to sultans and kneels before the font of public opinion. He has never suffered for his country or his beliefs. His competitor had five planes and most of an aircraft carrier destroyed underneath of him. He was held for years as a POW being tortured almost daily. He refused to break faith with his comrades and accept early release. And he did all of this because he believed that that the freedoms Americans enjoy were the unalienable right of every human. He fought and nearly died to secure the rights for people he did not even know- whom he had no kinship with. And Europe as a whole mocked him. The same parliament that decorates BHO for successfully taking advantage of his minority status vilified a man who rejected his own aristocratic background to fight for what he believed in, a fight that nearly killed him a half dozen times. Americans should be amused that such a body thinks their judgment is valued, or even considered.

/vomit.

Silverthorne wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Statements like that make you look like a narrow minded prick, Frazzled.

Do not concur. The United States should not recognize the authority of kings. The fundamental concept of American law is the idea that all men are created equal. Monarchies are so far misaligned with this rationale that any association with them taints the purity of the movement. BHO bows to sultans and kneels before the font of public opinion. He has never suffered for his country or his beliefs. His competitor had five planes and most of an aircraft carrier destroyed underneath of him. He was held for years as a POW being tortured almost daily. He refused to break faith with his comrades and accept early release. And he did all of this because he believed that that the freedoms Americans enjoy were the unalienable right of every human. He fought and nearly died to secure the rights for people he did not even know- whom he had no kinship with. And Europe as a whole mocked him. The same parliament that decorates BHO for successfully taking advantage of his minority status vilified a man who rejected his own aristocratic background to fight for what he believed in, a fight that nearly killed him a half dozen times. Americans should be amused that such a body thinks their judgment is valued, or even considered.

This is frankly bizarre. Just when did 'Europe as a whole' mock McCain? I for one have a great deal of respect for him (other than his endorsement of the 'freedom of the internet Bill' fiasco, which I hope is just down to him being poorly advised). As for Obama 'taking advantage of his minority status'... erm what? So he's playing the race card? Perhaps he should, given the number of his opponent's supporters who chose to play it at their gatherings, especially towards the end of the campaign when clearly racist and hatemongering banners and rally calls were issued at the rallies (most especially the Palin ones mind you) and were not immediately decried by the representatives stood there. McCain committed political suicide with his choice of running mate, end of.

As to the US recognising the constitutional heads of state of other countries, all depends now doesn't it, if the US holds respect for those nations and populations the monarch represents. I for one would be pissed off if the president of the US chose to snub the Queen of the United Kingdom, especially as we continue to maintain active armed forces the world over in unilateral actions with the US. It would speak definitive volumes about the administration of the US if it's leader did not acknowledge our sovereign.

Again, welcome to the world stage Mr President, what a welcome breath of fresh air you are and God bless the United States, our ally in the defence of democracy, freedom, education and prosperity for the citizens of the world.

Albatross wrote:/vomit.

your gonna have to be more specific. theres more than one target here ya know.....

Silverthorne wrote:Do not concur. The United States should not recognize the authority of kings. The fundamental concept of American law is the idea that all men are created equal.

Yes, but the Queen isn't part of American law, she's part of UK law and they seem pretty happy with her. In Australia it's a cornerstone of our system that the executive is formed out of the legislative, to enact their will. Despite having a fundamentally different system to your own, our dignitaries still recognise the President of your country.

Monarchies are so far misaligned with this rationale that any association with them taints the purity of the movement. BHO bows to sultans and kneels before the font of public opinion. He has never suffered for his country or his beliefs. His competitor had five planes and most of an aircraft carrier destroyed underneath of him. He was held for years as a POW being tortured almost daily. He refused to break faith with his comrades and accept early release. And he did all of this because he believed that that the freedoms Americans enjoy were the unalienable right of every human. He fought and nearly died to secure the rights for people he did not even know- whom he had no kinship with. And Europe as a whole mocked him. The same parliament that decorates BHO for successfully taking advantage of his minority status vilified a man who rejected his own aristocratic background to fight for what he believed in, a fight that nearly killed him a half dozen times. Americans should be amused that such a body thinks their judgment is valued, or even considered.

The idea that man who served in the military is somehow more entitled to the Presidency is a really stupid, dangerous idea.

Of course it is! Good thing I didn't say anything like that. I'm noting how one person was as close to America has to aristocracy- you kind of have to be in the military to understand what a big deal the McCain family is- and refused to exploit that to improve his situation. Especially impressive considering his situation was solitary confinement in a cell sized so you could neither sit or stand. That to me is a far more American ideal than Mr. Obama, who did nothing but exploit his background for personal gain- first by making connections in Black Radicalism to assure choice jobs and education, and then by exploiting unjustified white guilt during the campaign.

Also, I was under the impression that Australia was hardly effected by the Queen at all. I understand that the Queen and the Governor General are both figureheads at the top of the Government, but when I lived in your country, I never got the impression that they wielded any significant political power. Obviously nations that have a figurehead Monarch for tradition's sake are not odious to the United States. If the people of some nation have chosen to institute a policy whereby they democratically limit the power of their monarch, that isn't really a true Monarchy is it? And therefore there is no problem.

The idea that anyone who opposes The Chosen One is a racist has been battered down the collective throats of America for way too long. Throughout the entire Tea Party movement, which in no way concerned with the fact that our Chief Executive is only half white, the immediate response of the MSM was to paint the protestors has violent, unhinged racist. Remember that famous picture they ran of a man holding a sign w/ a M4 carbine? And then it turned out that the picture had been cropped so that you couldn't see the man was black? The audacity of the media's efforts to portray anyone who opposed the President as racist was staggering. Especially considering how every single violent incident at these protests was started by liberals, and ended up with a conservative being hurt. The most famous of course being when A group of black men beat a single conservative black man for daring to question the anointed one. Of course, that was swept under the rug, since it didn't match the administration or the media's narrative. Gross.

MGS- I should be more specific here, I'm sorry. I continually read things ripping open McCain in Der Speigel and Le Monde Diplomatique. I don't really read other continental journals since I barely have enough time to keep fully informed w/ US information, much less European. Additionally, the American media greatly played up European hatred for McCain, as it supported the candidate they had chosen to get elected.

I'm not seeing what you're seeing.

Silverthorne, I was not aware of any specific bias against McCain in the UK, it may be that certain of the continental media went against him in a big way, but then Bush had fallen out with those nations, most especially the French, so they would have backed anyone from the Democrats who was seen to not be GWB's 'inheritor'.

And I'll say it again for posterity, Palin was the factor dragging down opinion of McCain for us in the UK, every time she opened her mouth more offensive crap gushed out. Whether we like our politicians honest or smooth or whatever, we expect them to be erudite.

Just to clarify, my '/vomit' was directed at this nonsense:

Do not concur. The United States should not recognize the authority of kings. The fundamental concept of American law is the idea that all men are created equal. Monarchies are so far misaligned with this rationale that any association with them taints the purity of the movement. BHO bows to sultans and kneels before the font of public opinion. He has never suffered for his country or his beliefs. His competitor had five planes and most of an aircraft carrier destroyed underneath of him. He was held for years as a POW being tortured almost daily. He refused to break faith with his comrades and accept early release. And he did all of this because he believed that that the freedoms Americans enjoy were the unalienable right of every human. He fought and nearly died to secure the rights for people he did not even know- whom he had no kinship with. And Europe as a whole mocked him. The same parliament that decorates BHO for successfully taking advantage of his minority status vilified a man who rejected his own aristocratic background to fight for what he believed in, a fight that nearly killed him a half dozen times. Americans should be amused that such a body thinks their judgment is valued, or even considered.

Pathetic. So McCain being a veteran makes him a more suitable candidate for the presidency? Vietnam was not about 'freedom' - it was about American Imperialism. It doesn't diminish the efforts of McCain and people like him, but don't pretend the war was about 'freedom'. The word has been hijacked by the American right-wing - it is meaningless now. See 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' and 'Freedom Liquor' for more details.

Hawkins wrote:

Albatross wrote:/vomit.

your gonna have to be more specific. theres more than one target here ya know.....

I've got enough vomit for more than one poster here, don't worry, you'll get some too.

Vietnam was not about 'freedom' - it was about American Imperialism.

I think you need to read up on what the word imperialism means, the war wasn't about spreading freedom, and spreading democracy may have been a happy benefit, but it wasn't the focus. Despite those two things it was not about American imperialism. It was at best, an attempt at avoiding the creation of a hegemonic communist alliance, but to be imperialistic about a war you actually have to gain some sort of benefit beyond proactive national security.

Yeah i have to disagree, the UK were not against McCain, we were against Palin!

I think personally that McCain is a great man, im a military man myself and i have a great respect for him, especially after i read about how he did not take an early release from his POW status as the VC would not release the rest of the guys imprisoned with him. I genuinelly like, respect and admire the man, even though i dont agree with all of his political stances.

But Palin?! The woman was an absolute fething disgrace. I am truly stunned they were stupid enough to make her his VP.

Palin is disgusting. I can't believe the Republicans have rallied around her banner. I mean, as a state governor, she is an interesting sort of phenomenon, but I'd prefer that we left her out in a state with a smaller population than Austin, Texas. I have no idea why McCain picked her, it was such a daft move. I feel like Fred Thompson would have been a better choice. I have met Guliani and he's an idiot. At our commissioning (about 400 officers) he said "America's Military can do anything!" We sort of looked around thinking "This guy doesn't watch much of the news, I'm guessing".

MGS- these pale in comparion to the very real role Black Nationalism has in the Obama administration. Holder dismissed a case where the Black Panthers patrolled a polling sight w/ nightsticks, asking people their vote. Obama's campaign was started by a Weatherman convicted of a string a bombings targeted against white officers. The entire Van Jones and Rev. Wright debacles. To compare these to a few hicks in the sticks and you get to see the differences in scale here.