Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Just let somebody close to some of these pseudo moral high ground folks feel the sting of Allah’s whip…[/quote]

What if I’ve lost a family member to violence. Would it be reasonable to have had the perp waterboarded until he signed a confession?

Anyways, I brought it up because I suspect Obama’s campaign statements, about our use of torture, were reassuring for many who had seen the world’s mightiest super power take it’s first tentative steps on a dark and dangerous road. It most certainley would’ve made him a candidate. And for all my bitching about him, I’m thankful that he recognizes that this is one power Big Gub’ment (I think that’s the Gambit spelling) shouldn’t have.

122

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Just let somebody close to some of these pseudo moral high ground folks feel the sting of Allah’s whip…

What if I’ve lost a family member to violence. Would it be reasonable to have had the perp waterboarded until he signed a confession?[/quote]

Come on man. We’ve been over all this before. That’s not what I asked and it’s not what I’m talking about. You’re talking a crime against an individual. I’m talking about an attack on a country, but what if your family member would be alive today if the thumbscrews would have revealed such an attack beforehand? What if having lost said family member in such an attack you learn that those with knowledge of it were humanely spared “enhanced” techniques of gaining that information and had such “enhanced” techniques been used said family member would be here to debate this with us? Answer THAT question. Not wheter they work or whether some other way may also work, blah blah blah.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Anyways, I brought it up because I suspect Obama’s campaign statements, about our use of torture, were reassuring for many who had seen the world’s mightiest super power take it’s first tentative steps on a dark and dangerous road. It most certainley would’ve made him a candidate. And for all my bitching about him, I’m thankful that he recognizes that this is one power Big Gub’ment (I think that’s the Gambit spelling) shouldn’t have. [/quote]

This has nothing to do with big or small Gub’ment. It has to do with a willingness to match wills with a committed enemy hell bent on your extermination. Here’s a clue. In any human contest of any kind in which one side has rules and the other does not guess who wins every time?

123

I thought this thread was about Obama and the Nobel Prize.

Let me make another point. Some of you here, like a minority of Americans think Obama is ruining the USA yet you don’t have any substantive evidence to prove this except what you think will happen in the future. Sounds a lot like the Nobel Prize he just won to which you are arguing.

And he has brought people together look at his appeal globally and in the USA. You don’t think any idiot can cut taxes and say we’re gonna bomb North Korea 'cause ‘we are America and we don’t take shit’? The dude is trying to talk to people… Look at the last 100 years of human history. There has been no peace. By nature the Nobel peace prize isn’t for tangible peace its for the hope of peace because there never will be peace.

Lets do a little exercise. Everyone make a list of what needs to materialize for him to actually “deserve” the award. And next to each point make a quick reference to how it can be accomplished.

Btw, Yasser Arafat and Che Guevara rule…

124

I love how he talked to Iran, let us look or we will sanction you(an act of war). Nothing like hurting civilians to make liberals happy.

Such a peaceful guy.

125

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Lets do a little exercise. Everyone make a list of what needs to materialize for him to actually “deserve” the award. And next to each point make a quick reference to how it can be accomplished.[/quote]

Maybe actually have his Administration have a successful outcome with regard to negotiating or otherwise solving some serious problem in world or regional peace?

As for requiring me to provide the solution: When a prize is awarded to only a single person in the world, it’s reasonable to expect the solutions to be a little more than folk on the Internet are likely to come up with.

If the Nobel Peace Prize were not the laughingstock that it is, then we could compare it to say the Nobel Prizes for chemistry or for physics or for medicine. (Which by the way are NOT awarded by the same people or even group.)

Would you seriously think that a person in the general public ought to be able to specify the problem and solution suitable to win these Prizes?

I would agree though that a person in the public ought to be able to specify at least that a problem in chemistry or physics or medicine should have been solved in order to win. Not what the problem would be, but that there should have been something solved. That there should be an actual accomplishment of at least some kind in the field. That seems quite basic.

Why not just give the award to Bill and Ted?

126

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Come on man. We’ve been over all this before. That’s not what I asked and it’s not what I’m talking about. You’re talking a crime against an individual. I’m talking about an attack on a country, but what if your family member would be alive today if the thumbscrews would have revealed such an attack beforehand? What if having lost said family member in such an attack you learn that those with knowledge of it were humanely spared “enhanced” techniques of gaining that information and had such “enhanced” techniques been used said family member would be here to debate this with us? Answer THAT question. Not wheter they work or whether some other way may also work, blah blah blah.[/quote]

Why would I give the goverment the authority to torture in order to spare my mother a possible death? Why not do it now? My mother isn’t any more dead if someone does it for Allah, or for what’s in her purse. I won’t grant my government the power to commit an evil act, in my name, praying to all that is holy that this one power, just this one, will never expand in scope and application.

I mean, aren’t we the ones that claim there’s nothing more permanent than a ‘temporary’ government power? Don’t we argue that these safety powers (nets) always expand far outside of their original intent? “A safety net for the neediest of the needy!” Then, bam! SS and Medicare threaten to overwhelm us, and public options and even single-payer are seriously considered. Why–if I could stomach the use torturing at all–wouldn’t I be convinced that, overtime, torture wouldn’t be applied to more than just the “neediest of the needy” situations?

If matching wills means becoming torturers, they’ve already won. They’ll turn us into exactly what they claim we are.

127

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
I thought this thread was about Obama and the Nobel Prize.

Let me make another point. Some of you here, like a minority of Americans think Obama is ruining the USA yet you don’t have any substantive evidence to prove this except what you think will happen in the future. Sounds a lot like the Nobel Prize he just won to which you are arguing.

And he has brought people together look at his appeal globally and in the USA. You don’t think any idiot can cut taxes and say we’re gonna bomb North Korea 'cause ‘we are America and we don’t take shit’? The dude is trying to talk to people… Look at the last 100 years of human history. There has been no peace. By nature the Nobel peace prize isn’t for tangible peace its for the hope of peace because there never will be peace.

Lets do a little exercise. Everyone make a list of what needs to materialize for him to actually “deserve” the award. And next to each point make a quick reference to how it can be accomplished.

Btw, Yasser Arafat and Che Guevara rule… [/quote]

Of course. They rule because they embody the “will to power” Nietzche discussed and because they descend from their lives of (usually) relative privilege (esp. Guevara) to give us peasants what we really need. Mao was an academic. Woodrow Wilson was an academic. Guevara was a bored rich kid. Ulyanov (Lenin) was born of privilege. Stalin came from a seminary. Ayers - academic married to a lawyer who pays his bills.

We should be grateful that our Betters - the intelligensia - know what’s good for us.

128

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
I thought this thread was about Obama and the Nobel Prize.

Let me make another point. Some of you here, like a minority of Americans think Obama is ruining the USA yet you don’t have any substantive evidence to prove this except what you think will happen in the future. Sounds a lot like the Nobel Prize he just won to which you are arguing.

And he has brought people together look at his appeal globally and in the USA. You don’t think any idiot can cut taxes and say we’re gonna bomb North Korea 'cause ‘we are America and we don’t take shit’? The dude is trying to talk to people… Look at the last 100 years of human history. There has been no peace. By nature the Nobel peace prize isn’t for tangible peace its for the hope of peace because there never will be peace.

Lets do a little exercise. Everyone make a list of what needs to materialize for him to actually “deserve” the award. And next to each point make a quick reference to how it can be accomplished.

Btw, Yasser Arafat and Che Guevara rule… [/quote]

Obama is expanding government and stuffing marxism down the throats of Americans. Who has he brought together? His universal health care plan is extremely devisive. Oh he is talking to people. Great, ohhh hes talking look at him talk woo hoo. Neville Chamberlin talked to people also. Let’s examine the peace prize criteria. 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. Now with that said, tell me how this man has accomplished this? He is sending more troops to afghanistan! I see why your avatar is kool-aid because you are drinking that shit.

129

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Come on man. We’ve been over all this before. That’s not what I asked and it’s not what I’m talking about. You’re talking a crime against an individual. I’m talking about an attack on a country, but what if your family member would be alive today if the thumbscrews would have revealed such an attack beforehand? What if having lost said family member in such an attack you learn that those with knowledge of it were humanely spared “enhanced” techniques of gaining that information and had such “enhanced” techniques been used said family member would be here to debate this with us? Answer THAT question. Not wheter they work or whether some other way may also work, blah blah blah.

Why would I give the goverment the authority to torture in order to spare my mother a possible death? Why not do it now? My mother isn’t any more dead if someone does it for Allah, or for what’s in her purse. I won’t grant my government the power to commit an evil act, in my name, praying to all that is holy that this one power, just this one, will never expand in scope and application.

I mean, aren’t we the ones that claim there’s nothing more permanent than a ‘temporary’ government power? Don’t we argue that these safety powers (nets) always expand far outside of their original intent? “A safety net for the neediest of the needy!” Then, bam! SS and Medicare threaten to overwhelm us, and public options and even single-payer are seriously considered. Why–if I could stomach the use torturing at all–wouldn’t I be convinced that, overtime, torture wouldn’t be applied to more than just the “neediest of the needy” situations?

This has nothing to do with big or small Gub’ment. It has to do with a willingness to match wills with a committed enemy hell bent on your extermination. Here’s a clue. In any human contest of any kind in which one side has rules and the other does not guess who wins every time?

If matching wills means becoming torturers, they’ve already one. They’ll turn us into exactly what they claim we are.
[/quote]

Look, you and I agree quite a bit, but you are out there on this one. We are talking about providing for the common defense, not wholly unconstitutional social programs. I am not in any way advocating torturing American citizens during the investigation of a criminal offense. I am talking about gaining intelligence from and about foreign enemies in war. There have already been extreme measures employed in every war we’ve ever been in.

Your mother (I am sorry about that BTW) is just as dead, yes, regardless of who’s hand it’s by, but you deftly sidestepped my question again. Forget about criminals and in house crime for a minute. WHAT IF torturing a non citizen enemy, either here or abroad, yielded information that prevented the building she would have been in on a given day from being bombed and by that action saved her life? The lives of all the other husbands, wives, sons and daughters who would also have been there that day. WHAT IF it’s a nuclear, biological or chemical weapon planned for Times Square on new years eve?

I’m sorry pal, NOT using whatever means necessary to prevent either of those is the height of immorality. I’m also betting you wouldn’t hesitate to kill somebody who attacked a loved one to save their life if it were in your power. I would. I wouldn’t like it, but I would do it. It is the pinnacle of convoluted rationalization to declare the taking of a man’s life moral yet causing him pain in the pursuit of the same justified end somehow evil. How can you not see that?

One more thing. This preposterous notion that our utilization of torture to thwart the murderous intentions of a mortal foreign enemy spells a victory for them must be dispelled forthwith. Here’s where you and I, actually a bunch of people here and I, part company forever. The mission defines morality, not the methods of violence. In other words, YES, the ends do absolutely in fact justify the means in war.

3 inch magnum buckshot center mass in the commission of a robbery is murder. In the course of self defense it is righteous. Islamic lunatics throwing acid in the face of a young woman in the enforcement of some ghoulish representation of God’s law is cold hearted brutality. Pouring water on somebody’s face to SAVE innocent American lives can only be equated to the practices of our enemies in a Micheal Moore film.

130

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
I thought this thread was about Obama and the Nobel Prize.

Let me make another point. Some of you here, like a minority of Americans think Obama is ruining the USA yet you don’t have any substantive evidence to prove this except what you think will happen in the future. Sounds a lot like the Nobel Prize he just won to which you are arguing.

And he has brought people together look at his appeal globally and in the USA. You don’t think any idiot can cut taxes and say we’re gonna bomb North Korea 'cause ‘we are America and we don’t take shit’? The dude is trying to talk to people… Look at the last 100 years of human history. There has been no peace. By nature the Nobel peace prize isn’t for tangible peace its for the hope of peace because there never will be peace.

Lets do a little exercise. Everyone make a list of what needs to materialize for him to actually “deserve” the award. And next to each point make a quick reference to how it can be accomplished.

Btw, Yasser Arafat and Che Guevara rule… [/quote]

Well, first, he has not succeeded in fucking up the country yet. The people have spoken loud and clear. Even with a representative majority, he cannot accomplish his intentions. Second, sometimes it is hard to detect sarcasm but if there is any seriousness to this statement “Btw, Yasser Arafat and Che Guevara rule…” then forgive me for being direct, but you are stupid. If you were being sarcastic, then I apologize for that. Those guys are murderers in cold blood. They were motivated by pure hate and guile. They deserve nothing but disdain.

131

[quote]John S. wrote:
I love how he talked to Iran, let us look or we will sanction you(an act of war). Nothing like hurting civilians to make liberals happy.

Such a peaceful guy.[/quote]

He’s a fucking sucker…Iran is buying time to maneuver.

132

[quote]pat wrote:
John S. wrote:
I love how he talked to Iran, let us look or we will sanction you(an act of war). Nothing like hurting civilians to make liberals happy.

Such a peaceful guy.

He’s a fucking sucker…Iran is buying time to maneuver.[/quote]

Not only is he a sucker but he is going to destroy any chance of peace. Look what happened the last time we sanctioned the people in the middle east. We are still missing two towers because of it.

Iran having a nuke is hardly threatening to us. The only people they are a threat too is Israel and if Israel is threatened by them let Israel take care of the problem.

133

[quote]John S. wrote:
Look what happened the last time we sanctioned the people in the middle east. We are still missing two towers because of it.[/quote]

Yes, that’s why. If only not for that darned sanction.

134

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Come on man. We’ve been over all this before. That’s not what I asked and it’s not what I’m talking about. You’re talking a crime against an individual. I’m talking about an attack on a country, but what if your family member would be alive today if the thumbscrews would have revealed such an attack beforehand? What if having lost said family member in such an attack you learn that those with knowledge of it were humanely spared “enhanced” techniques of gaining that information and had such “enhanced” techniques been used said family member would be here to debate this with us? Answer THAT question. Not wheter they work or whether some other way may also work, blah blah blah.

Why would I give the goverment the authority to torture in order to spare my mother a possible death? Why not do it now? My mother isn’t any more dead if someone does it for Allah, or for what’s in her purse. I won’t grant my government the power to commit an evil act, in my name, praying to all that is holy that this one power, just this one, will never expand in scope and application.

I mean, aren’t we the ones that claim there’s nothing more permanent than a ‘temporary’ government power? Don’t we argue that these safety powers (nets) always expand far outside of their original intent? “A safety net for the neediest of the needy!” Then, bam! SS and Medicare threaten to overwhelm us, and public options and even single-payer are seriously considered. Why–if I could stomach the use torturing at all–wouldn’t I be convinced that, overtime, torture wouldn’t be applied to more than just the “neediest of the needy” situations?

This has nothing to do with big or small Gub’ment. It has to do with a willingness to match wills with a committed enemy hell bent on your extermination. Here’s a clue. In any human contest of any kind in which one side has rules and the other does not guess who wins every time?

If matching wills means becoming torturers, they’ve already one. They’ll turn us into exactly what they claim we are.

Look, you and I agree quite a bit, but you are out there on this one. We are talking about providing for the common defense, not wholly unconstitutional social programs. I am not in any way advocating torturing American citizens during the investigation of a criminal offense. I am talking about gaining intelligence from and about foreign enemies in war. There have already been extreme measures employed in every war we’ve ever been in.

Your mother (I am sorry about that BTW) is just as dead, yes, regardless of who’s hand it’s by, but you deftly sidestepped my question again. Forget about criminals and in house crime for a minute. WHAT IF torturing a non citizen enemy, either here or abroad, yielded information that prevented the building she would have been in on a given day from being bombed and by that action saved her life? The lives of all the other husbands, wives, sons and daughters who would also have been there that day. WHAT IF it’s a nuclear, biological or chemical weapon planned for Times Square on new years eve?

I’m sorry pal, NOT using whatever means necessary to prevent either of those is the height of immorality. I’m also betting you wouldn’t hesitate to kill somebody who attacked a loved one to save their life if it were in your power. I would. I wouldn’t like it, but I would do it. It is the pinnacle of convoluted rationalization to declare the taking of a man’s life moral yet causing him pain in the pursuit of the same justified end somehow evil. How can you not see that?

One more thing. This preposterous notion that our utilization of torture to thwart the murderous intentions of a mortal foreign enemy spells a victory for them must be dispelled forthwith. Here’s where you and I, actually a bunch of people here and I, part company forever. The mission defines morality, not the methods of violence. In other words, YES, the ends do absolutely in fact justify the means in war.

3 inch magnum buckshot center mass in the commission of a robbery is murder. In the course of self defense it is righteous. Islamic lunatics throwing acid in the face of a young woman in the enforcement of some ghoulish representation of God’s law is cold hearted brutality. Pouring water on somebody’s face to SAVE innocent American lives can only be equated to the practices of our enemies in a Micheal Moore film.[/quote]

I don’t have time to respond at the moment, but my mother is alive and well…

Didn’t realize that came off as me relating a true personal experience. Just thinking of myself in the situation out loud on the forum.

135

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
John S. wrote:
Look what happened the last time we sanctioned the people in the middle east. We are still missing two towers because of it.

Yes, that’s why. If only not for that darned sanction.

[/quote]

Their where many reason’s, but sanctions where a main reason. You don’t think they attacked because of our Freedoms do you?

Edit*

I do support the Afghan war, make no mistake about that. But we do have to look at it through there prospective too. The actions they took I believe is grounds for a complete destruction of their group, but why they took the actions is important too.

136

[quote]John S. wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
John S. wrote:
Look what happened the last time we sanctioned the people in the middle east. We are still missing two towers because of it.

Yes, that’s why. If only not for that darned sanction.

Their where many reason’s, but sanctions where a main reason. You don’t think they attacked because of our Freedoms do you?

Edit*

I do support the Afghan war, make no mistake about that. But we do have to look at it through there prospective too. The actions they took I believe is grounds for a complete destruction of their group, but why they took the actions is important too.[/quote]

They attacked you is because that’s what their magic book of Arab fairy tales tells them to do. Lose the pretensions of politics and socio-economic stifling. I was Islam, plain and simple. If it didn’t happen in 2001, it would have happened in 2002, or 2008, or 2014.

137

[quote]John S. wrote:
pat wrote:
John S. wrote:
I love how he talked to Iran, let us look or we will sanction you(an act of war). Nothing like hurting civilians to make liberals happy.

Such a peaceful guy.

He’s a fucking sucker…Iran is buying time to maneuver.

Not only is he a sucker but he is going to destroy any chance of peace. Look what happened the last time we sanctioned the people in the middle east. We are still missing two towers because of it.

Iran having a nuke is hardly threatening to us. The only people they are a threat too is Israel and if Israel is threatened by them let Israel take care of the problem.[/quote]

This is sensible. Let Israel take care of itself. We need to stop getting in to everybodys problems and focus on the homefront.

138

[quote]John S. wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
John S. wrote:
Look what happened the last time we sanctioned the people in the middle east. We are still missing two towers because of it.

Yes, that’s why. If only not for that darned sanction.

Their where many reason’s, but sanctions where a main reason. You don’t think they attacked because of our Freedoms do you?

Precisely how does your propaganda film (I think that is a fair description) support your claim that al-Qaeda’s attack on the World Trade Center was due to a US sanction?

And which sanction do you mean?

Didn’t Khalid Sheikh Mohammed previously organize or contribute to the organization of the attempted destruction of the WTC in 1993?

So why would you attribute a later sanction as the cause of their desire to do this?

Why don’t you believe their own claims that their religion teaches them to do this?

139

The middle east is a crazy place, while we look at them like Iraq and Iran they look at themselves as Sunni and Shiite but above all they view each other as Muslims. So our sanctions in Iraq and our intervention with that region is what caused the attacks.

You don’t have to believe this, I would like to hear why you think they attacked us.

I will end with this, It is not America’s job to police the world we have our own problems to deal with here.(see our economy crashing to the ground)

140

You decided, pretty much out of nowhere, to make an assertion as to the reason that the terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center, killing so many of the people in it.

I asked you to back it up, which seems reasonable enough given how major a claim that is. I haven’t seen your back up, beyond simply asserting it.

I know of no Obama bin Laden tape yet released, or any other al-Qaeda propaganda or statements, attributing their actions to the sanctions against Iraq. I know of precisely zero evidence for your claim, and it seems you don’t either, or by now likely you’d have provided the specific.