| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
lhasa
Joined: 26 Jan 2008
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
VanIslander
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:37 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
A good job handling objections, with a nice re-election political spin (of course, he has been u.s. prez for only less than a year):
| Quote: |
And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize - Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela - my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women - some known, some obscure to all but those they help - to be far more deserving of this honor than I.
But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by forty three other countries - including Norway - in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.
Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict - filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other. |
| Quote: |
I know there is nothing weak -nothing passive - nothing na�ve - in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.
But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism - it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
donducky
Joined: 02 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:39 pm Post subject: Wrong man for the prize |
|
|
I'd have given the prize to Charles Manson, or possibly O.J. Simpson.
These fine men actually stopped killing people. Obama is just getting started! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism - it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason. |
True. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thecount
Joined: 10 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism - it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason. |
True. |
Obama left Poland and the Czech Republic out to dry because he didn't have the peaches to stand up to Putin.
Of the five (5!!!) deadlines he issued to Iran, Iran has ignored the first four in succession, and is going for a fifth. This is AFTER we found their secret nuclear enrichment facility near Qom.
He can't even fight in a political capacity; he took a VERY backseat role in crafting policy and handed out the Health Care reform package entirely to Pelosi and Reid.
The only battle he seems willing to engage in is name-calling with Fox news and attacking our previous President's policies.
President Obama's problem is that now he has to live up to that ridiculous narrative his knuckle-dragging supporters campaigned on. It must have been jarring for him to enter office only to find out that the President cannot vote "present" when it matters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris_Dixon
Joined: 09 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thecount wrote: |
This is AFTER we found their secret nuclear enrichment facility near Qom.
. |
like those WMD's in Iraq? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChopChaeJoe
Joined: 05 Mar 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hoiw could a war with Iran possibly be in the best interests of world peace?
Imagine an Iran with nukes -- yep, that's pretty much the world we already live in, why make it worse? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lhasa
Joined: 26 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ChopChaeJoe wrote: |
Hoiw could a war with Iran possibly be in the best interests of world peace?
Imagine an Iran with nukes -- yep, that's pretty much the world we already live in, why make it worse? |
Iran has stated that the answer to the M/E crisis is to destroy Israel. "The main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime..." (Ahmadinejad).
If Iran acted on that threat then there would be a massive problem. So, I assume some people would argue that it would be best to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities before they get a chance to use them. Yes, this would start a war but it would avert nukes going off....at least for now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
youtuber
Joined: 13 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Obama's full of shitt. There is no way that the US will leave Afghan anytime soon with the deployment of 30,000 more troops.
I can understand the logic behind giving him the prize - to encourage peace. But the US has its grubby little hands in too many parts of the world - thus wishing for the US to be more peaceful is hopeless. There is way too much self-interest and greed in the US to have it any other way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChopChaeJoe
Joined: 05 Mar 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, if iran had nukes they could threaten to wage war with isreal, which is the case presently and has been for a long time. Some Iranians would believe it would be best to use them, as was the case of many Americans during the cold war with Russia. However should nukes be used they would no longer have a country to govern.
In the end though, all the nukes would accomplish is that an invasion would be too costly. I think that is the true fear of all these people who think we should attack iran -- do it now before we can't.
There are remarkably few just wars in mankind's history. WWII is the exception that proves the rule. Possibly a few colonial insurrections (i.e. the american revolution) as well. In the final analysis, if war can possibly be avoided it should be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thecount wrote: |
President Obama's problem is that now he has to live up to that ridiculous narrative his knuckle-dragging supporters campaigned on. It must have been jarring for him to enter office only to find out that the President cannot vote "present" when it matters. |
I don't usually go in for such partisan criticism of Obama, but I really liked this line.
| ChopChae wrote: |
There are remarkably few just wars in mankind's history. WWII is the exception that proves the rule. |
How does WWII prove the rule that there are few just wars? You may not be using that 'exception proves the rule' expression right.
| Obama wrote: |
| That is why I prohibited torture. |
A bald-faced lie. Torture still occurs at Bagram. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thecount
Joined: 10 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 12:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| like those WMD's in Iraq? |
Some quick facts:
WMD = Weapon of Mass Destruction.
Weapon of Mass Destruction = Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical weapon.
Poison gas = Chemical weapon
Saddam gassed the Kurds, killing tens of thousands in the largest chemical attack on civilians in history.
He used Mustard Gas, VX, Sarin, Tabun and Soman...and some people think Hydrogen Cyanide, as well.
So yes, Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction, PERIOD. Thousands dead is kind of a smoking gun.
All the people who say he didn't have WMD's are at best confused / ill-informed (they probably think a WMD can only be a nuke) and at worst willingly perpetuating a false narrative.
Also, unlike your (failed) analogy of nonexistent WMD's, the Qom facility is very real. Obama had information on it during the meeting of the security council, but didn't have the grapes to bring it up. He didn't want to "spoil the image of success" (Obama Administration quote, not mine).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/01/AR2009100104208.html
It seems the "image of success" takes precedence over hard progress. Not surprising when you consider that image is all this president campaigned on.
This is a man who won a Nobel for not being Bush. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChopChaeJoe
Joined: 05 Mar 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Those Kurds were gassed back under Bush I, weren't they? Ten years of a low-level air war under Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II showed that Saddam was a threat to no one but himself and the unfortunates within his borders. They likely have a harsher life today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChopChaeJoe
Joined: 05 Mar 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| ChopChae wrote: |
There are remarkably few just wars in mankind's history. WWII is the exception that proves the rule. |
How does WWII prove the rule that there are few just wars? You may not be using that 'exception proves the rule' expression right.
|
You mean rightly? I didn't follow the link, but because there are so few just wars, when comes around it points out, by comparison, that all of the others are not. That there is an exception shows that the rule is still in place. Or something like that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thecount
Joined: 10 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ChopChaeJoe wrote: |
| Those Kurds were gassed back under Bush I, weren't they? Ten years of a low-level air war under Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II showed that Saddam was a threat to no one but himself and the unfortunates within his borders. They likely have a harsher life today. |
They have NO life today.
They are dead. That's what happens when Hydrogen Cyanide meets people.
An argument that "that was a long time ago" proves what? Should we not worry about nuclear weapons, because the last time they were used on people was even LONGER ago?
I responded to an incorrect claim that Saddam had no WMDs. You respond with ambivalence regarding a dictator who used those WMDs on his neighbors and his own people.
Not only is the letter of your statement false (Saddam has killed thousands outside "his borders" on many occasions, the most famous of which was his attack of Kuwait.), but the sentiment of your statement is misplaced as well.
It is quite nearly a complicity with evil for one to be content with a man in power that not only has WMD's, but has proven willing and eager to use them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
