Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 106 to 116 of 116

Thread: Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

  1. #106
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    11,391
    Quote Originally Posted by henk4 View Post
    any objections?
    Not particularly, just a bit of nostalgia, hearkening back to the endless debates around the 2004 US presidential election. Oh, those were the days.

    Quote Originally Posted by jcp123 View Post
    Unfortunately, which side you are on will come down to politics for most folks, which is a sad for such an otherwise glistening accolade.
    Well, in this instance, yes. If the award was given as "encouragement" in the period of time between George W. Bush declaring that we (the US) planned to remove the WMDs from Iraq and discovering there were not, in fact, WMDs, I think we know where the opinions on UCP would fall. So which side you're on isn't a hard and fast judgement, unfortunately people with a bias (which is everyone whether you would like to believe that or not) tend to be incapable of being impartial in these matters.
    He came dancing across the water
    With his galleons and guns
    Looking for the new world
    In that palace in the sun
    On the shore lay Montezuma
    With his cocoa leaves and pearls

  2. #107
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Californian by nature, living in Teggsas.
    Posts
    4,130
    You're right in saying that everyine has some kind of bias. Which is why for years I have wondered why people keep fighting against the bias in news. News is a human product subject to the same biases as anything else of human origin; if there's a flaw, it's when reporters portray this bias as fact rather than as opinion. Bias should be embraced and acknowledged as part of the news, rather than shunned and put behind closed doors so that games can be played upon those who still believe news to be neutral. As I said, the Nobel Committee had to be aware they were leaving themselves open to attacks on a partisan/political front from the get-go.

    As for the WMD's, even Israel's Mossad, acknowledged as possibly the world's most effective and accurate intelligence force, said that Saddam possessed WMD's. That's believable considering his use of them agains the Kurds back in the day. It is my opinion, and nothing more than opinion and speculation, that Saddam, being no dummy himself, heard the US's drumbeats from afar, read the writing on the wall, and either sequestered them in neighboring Syria or else disposed of them post haste. Having said that, I believe in noninterventionalism (NOT the same as isolationism), and as such, don't believe Iraq should have been engaged in the first place.
    Last edited by jcp123; 10-15-2009 at 11:07 PM.
    An it harm none, do as ye will

    Approximately 79% of statistics are made up.

  3. #108
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    4,031
    Quote Originally Posted by jcp123 View Post

    As for the WMD's, even Israel's Mossad, acknowledged as possibly the world's most effective and accurate intelligence force, said that Saddam possessed WMD's. That's believable
    Good way to 'justify' an unwarantable invasion .. get your proxy nation (Israel, hardly an independant source) to validate the BS for you.

    AU Intelligence were privvy to much the same information as the US had (incuding decoding intel for the US) yet found pre-invasion that there was no credible evidence of WMDs, stockpiled or otherwise. However the US desired a 'manufactured' outcome to justify its outrageous mantra. There was no secret to the WMD lie then, or later, as was publically revealed hereabouts by AU intel sources pre-invasion and subsequent Govt inquiries etc.

  4. #109
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Californian by nature, living in Teggsas.
    Posts
    4,130
    Quote Originally Posted by nota View Post
    Good way to 'justify' an unwarantable invasion .. get your proxy nation (Israel, hardly an independant source) to validate the BS for you.

    AU Intelligence were privvy to much the same information as the US had (incuding decoding intel for the US) yet found pre-invasion that there was no credible evidence of WMDs, stockpiled or otherwise. However the US desired a 'manufactured' outcome to justify its outrageous mantra. There was no secret to the WMD lie then, or later, as was publically revealed hereabouts by AU intel sources pre-invasion and subsequent Govt inquiries etc.
    Like I said, as a non-interventionalist, I don't support our Iraq affaire, but I do uniquely trust Mossad to give intelligence that's most timely, accurate, and relevant. Saddam's use of WMD's agains the Kurds, as a proven use of WMD's, speaks usefully against the late Saddam Hussein. Still, if not for Mossad, I'd be inclined to join my more liberal collegues and calling the Iraq intelligence faulty and inadequate. Regardless of the Mossad, I don't think our invasion of Iraq to be our business. In a sense, an invaded Iraq creates a more unstable Middle East, speaking against Mossad's bias to take Saddam out; in a sense, they had more intelligence before our invasion, and I can't believe Mossad wouldn't have anticipated that.
    An it harm none, do as ye will

    Approximately 79% of statistics are made up.

  5. #110
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,329
    Quote Originally Posted by lightweight View Post
    I wasn't quoting.
    OK, then but why where you emphasizing the word: DIFFERENT. Diplomacy (multi- or bilateral) is per definition between different countries....and all countries involved in diplomacy do this in their own interest, understanding that if they don't engage, they are worse of. Yet, there was one world leader of a civilised country who sort of failed to understand this general principle in the recent past.
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams

  6. #111
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    1,163
    Quote Originally Posted by henk4 View Post
    OK, then but why where you emphasizing the word: DIFFERENT. Diplomacy (multi- or bilateral) is per definition between different countries....and all countries involved in diplomacy do this in their own interest, understanding that if they don't engage, they are worse of.
    I was elaborating on your comment:

    Obama deserves it (according to the Committe) BECAUSE the US position has improved internationally.
    The comment wasn't referring to relationships between countries, but rather to US alone.
    Minimising losses can maximise net gains

  7. #112
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,329
    Quote Originally Posted by lightweight View Post
    The comment wasn't referring to relationships between countries, but rather to US alone.
    I find that comment hard to grasp. Diplomacy can be between two countries (bilateral), the US being one of them, it can also be between a number of countries, whereby a joint (multilateral) initiative (in which the US is a partner) can foster relationships between a number countries.
    I think in both cases the diplomatic position of the US has been greatly strengthened.
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams

  8. #113
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wichita, Kansas USA
    Posts
    11,217
    Some of you have a very narrow view on what peace means. Peace does not always mean an instant end to all conflicts. A conflict with an end-goal that will, by nearly everyone's definition, provide a better and safer life for people in the world IS a peaceful action.

    Allowing the Holocaust to continue, without a conflict that ended it, would be peace by your definition. The same applies here. Would leaving the Taliban and Al Qaeda alone, in order to avoid conflict, provide an atmosphere of peace?
    I'm going to eat breakfast. And then I'm going to change the world.

  9. #114
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Wishing I was in Moscow, Idaho
    Posts
    2,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt View Post
    Some of you have a very narrow view on what peace means. Peace does not always mean an instant end to all conflicts. A conflict with an end-goal that will, by nearly everyone's definition, provide a better and safer life for people in the world IS a peaceful action.

    Allowing the Holocaust to continue, without a conflict that ended it, would be peace by your definition. The same applies here. Would leaving the Taliban and Al Qaeda alone, in order to avoid conflict, provide an atmosphere of peace?
    Or what about intervening in the whole darfur mess? I hear a lot of people demanding that as the worlds superpower we do something about it, and yet I can't see it going off very well.
    Big cities suck

    "Not putting miles on your Ferrari is like not having sex with your girlfriend so she'll be more desirable to her next boyfriend." -Napolis

  10. #115
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    └A & Connecticlump
    Posts
    5,367
    Congratulations Europe!
    "Kimi, can you improve on your [race] finish?"
    "No. My Finnish is fine; I am from Finland. Do you have any water?"

  11. #116
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    10,227
    Quote Originally Posted by f6fhellcat13 View Post
    Congratulations Europe!
    Boring.

    On another note, whatever happened to wwgkd? He was/is awesome.

    Burn the "Nobel" Prize in Economics.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •