What Does this Nobel Prize Mean?

[txlonghorn]

Oh well....I can see already that regardless of how many times the word "accomplishments" is thrown out there that NO ONE is going to list those accomplishments garnered in the 12 DAYS between when he took office and when he was nominated. Guess I'll go do something productive like spend money!!!

By the way Nodog......I trust all is well with you and yours! If you are the nodog I've shared many enjoyable conversations with, it is truely good to talk with you again. If not, well it's very nice to make your aquaintance.....just incase...this is icemansdarlin.

HEY ICEMAN'S DARLIN' - Great to "see" you again. Always enjoy "mixing it up" with you. I hope things are going great for you.

The accomplishments I reffer to is the restoration of US prestige abroad. The accomplishment of putting the considerable weight of the United States of America behind a cooperative international peace.

What Obama hit the ground running to accomplish - and putting all the weight of his "leader of the free world" status behind - was to assure the world that the U.S. is NOT an agressor nation - we are a nation who will put our might behind cooperative efforts to achieve peace and security in the U.S. and abroad.

He's a politician and what do politicians do - mostly they make speeches. And he made speeches that inspired confidence a renewed committment to peace and the peace process. It appears he was very effective and that revival of international respect helps make the U.S. safer and more secure imho.

Many observers were shocked by the unexpected choice so early in the Obama presidency, which began less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline and has yet to yield concrete achievements in peacemaking.

Some around the world objected to the choice of Obama, who still oversees wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and has launched deadly counter-terror strikes in Pakistan and Somalia.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee countered that it was trying "to promote what he stands for and the positive processes that have started now." It lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen the U.S. role in combating climate change.

The peace prize was created partly to encourage ongoing peace efforts but Obama's efforts are at far earlier stages than past winners'. The Nobel committee acknowledged that they may not bear fruit at all.

Sounds like he's all talk and in opposition to much of the world's opinion, the NNC seems to be one of the only organizations that is willing to give his words more power than they potentially have. The even admitted that if they wait until the next prize selection, it may be too late to give recognition to his mantras.

 

[txlonghorn]

I'm missing a part of the puzzle. what makes you think we are safer and more secure? I see no indications of that. My ilk would like to know.

We're safer because Obama went to Egypt and prostrated himself at the altar of Islam. He demonstated that the US has the backbone of a marshmellow. Heck we're not even worth attacking anymore. We don't have any money because he done spent it all. He'll solve the Arab Israeli thing by getting rid of Israel. And we don't have any power because he is cutting defense spending.

I think he got the prize under affirmative action rules.

One quarter of the worlds population follows Islam. Obama has been recognized for offering a hand to the billion plus followers of Islam.
Perhaps the continued threats and degrading comments towards Islam is not the way to keep them from hating us.

Obama has managed to keep our country safe for a longer period than BOOOOOOSH did.

Congratulations to President Obama...the entire world is recognizing you for your efforts at diplomacy

Please explain...

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm missing a part of the puzzle. what makes you think we are safer and more secure? I see no indications of that. My ilk would like to know.

We're safer because Obama went to Egypt and prostrated himself at the altar of Islam. He demonstated that the US has the backbone of a marshmellow. Heck we're not even worth attacking anymore. We don't have any money because he done spent it all. He'll solve the Arab Israeli thing by getting rid of Israel. And we don't have any power because he is cutting defense spending.

I think he got the prize under affirmative action rules.

One quarter of the worlds population follows Islam. Obama has been recognized for offering a hand to the billion plus followers of Islam.
Perhaps the continued threats and degrading comments towards Islam is not the way to keep them from hating us.

Obama has managed to keep our country safe for a longer period than BOOOOOOSH did.

Congratulations to President Obama...the entire world is recognizing you for your efforts at diplomacy

Bush kept the country safe for over 7 years. Obama hasn't been in office 7 months. So your math is fuzzy, as usual.
As to Obama's reaching out to Muslims:

Washington -- President Bush September 17 spoke out strongly against Americans who have discriminated against Muslim Americans in the wake of the September 11 terrorist bombings in New York and Washington.

"Americans who mistreat Muslims should be ashamed," the president said in remarks at the Islamic Center in the nation's capital. "In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect."

The United States counts millions of Muslims amongst its citizens, Bush said, and they are making "an incredibly valuable contribution to our country."

"Muslims are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shop keepers, moms and dads, and they need to be treated with respect."

Bush said the "the face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war."

Quoting from the Koran, Bush said, "in the long run, evil in the extreme will be the end of those who do evil. For that they rejected the signs of Allah and held them up to ridicule."

A representative from the area's Muslim community, Imam Yusuf Saleem of the Muslim American Society, told the president that he and his fellow Muslims "are shocked and dismayed" by the terrorist attacks on the United States, especially since the attacks are associated "with a religion that has only peace as its ultimate aim."

He thanked president Bush for taking the time to come to the Islamic Center to talk with him and with other representative members of the Muslim American community.

"We are a part of the fabric of America. And we have contributed, as our president said, in so many ways," he said.

Where is his Nobel Prize??
Pres Bush certainly deserves one more. He liberated millions of people from the yoke of Saddam's tyrrany. He liberated millions of Afghans from the religious tyranny of the Taliban. He liberated Americans from the fear of terrorism.
Only idiot leftists will downplay all of this.

 

[Immanuel]

So many on this board seem to believe that America is "stronger" when we bully and bluster our way around the globe demanding our way at the point of a sword. But that "strength" is not strength at all. Because no matter how superior our military might - we could not stand alone against the entire world.

Our strength lies in our military might COUPLED with our friendships around the world. You can't live at peace with ONLY friendships and you can't live at peace with JUST military might. If you put all of your eggs in just one of these baskets, you will fail.

The fact that I value friendships as well as a potent military means I value a strong and secure America. Anyone who can't support BOTH - does not.

THAT is why people who do love America and who DO favor a strong and secure America should realize that what this award really means is that we are making good progress on at least 50% of the goal. No more - no less.

We hope we can be every bit as successful with the other 50% as well.

I know that it is to much to ask of the hyper-partisan zealots who appear to live and breathe for the sole purpose of tearing down Obama at any cost (even at the cost of our national security) to acknowledge this obvious truth. That's OK, keep whining about what a disgrace this award is and how it wasn't earned and hope and pray that you can convince yourself or others of the validity of your arguments. But do it secure in the knowledge that America is safer and more secure - in part - because of the international goodwill this award represents.

I agree with you especially on the might/friendships point.

However, I believe this award was at least one year too early. In my humble opinion, the whole thing cheapens the value of the prize.

Immie

 

[nodoginnafight]

So many on this board seem to believe that America is "stronger" when we bully and bluster our way around the globe demanding our way at the point of a sword. But that "strength" is not strength at all. Because no matter how superior our military might - we could not stand alone against the entire world.

Our strength lies in our military might COUPLED with our friendships around the world. You can't live at peace with ONLY friendships and you can't live at peace with JUST military might. If you put all of your eggs in just one of these baskets, you will fail.

The fact that I value friendships as well as a potent military means I value a strong and secure America. Anyone who can't support BOTH - does not.

THAT is why people who do love America and who DO favor a strong and secure America should realize that what this award really means is that we are making good progress on at least 50% of the goal. No more - no less.

We hope we can be every bit as successful with the other 50% as well.

I know that it is to much to ask of the hyper-partisan zealots who appear to live and breathe for the sole purpose of tearing down Obama at any cost (even at the cost of our national security) to acknowledge this obvious truth. That's OK, keep whining about what a disgrace this award is and how it wasn't earned and hope and pray that you can convince yourself or others of the validity of your arguments. But do it secure in the knowledge that America is safer and more secure - in part - because of the international goodwill this award represents.

While your no doubt proud that President Obama has gotten this reward and of course you have every right to feel that way. When people point out that this reward is somewhat premature and that is comming from the right and left not just from the right it does not make them in any way unamerican. In fact I will point out that a jury member when Jimmy Carter was rewarded the prize in 2002, told TAS that he "hopes this is a kick in the pants to the Bush Administration" and repeated the same statement when Al Gore was given the prize in 2007. So perhaps this is less about President Obama and the selection committee's happiness that George Bush is no longer in office. Even Lech Walesa a prize winner when asked about it, said the same thing, "it's too soon for him to receive a prize" . Again, this has nothing to to with Obama hatred and nothing to to do with his accomplishments at all.

And imho all you say underscores what I said about what his accomplishments have been and how those accomplishments contribute to a safer and more secure United States. No matter what the judging criteria was - or is - doesn't undermine those accomplishments or the results of these efforts in the least. The judging criteria may or may not meet my view or your view of what the standards SHOULD be - but they do not effect the way this award helps in how the United States is viewed around the world and how much cooperation we can gin up to support peace and security efforts here and abroad.

It helps us - period. If that help comes at the expense of any political positions or biases, so be it. It is still a good thing that helps us and helps make us stronger and more secure.

 

[WillowTree]

I'm missing a part of the puzzle. what makes you think we are safer and more secure? I see no indications of that. My ilk would like to know.

That was covered pretty extensively in my first post. Do I need to copy and paste that whole first post again - or will you scroll up a bit and read it?

so you cannot tell me?

 

[txlonghorn]

So many on this board seem to believe that America is "stronger" when we bully and bluster our way around the globe demanding our way at the point of a sword. But that "strength" is not strength at all. Because no matter how superior our military might - we could not stand alone against the entire world.

Our strength lies in our military might COUPLED with our friendships around the world. You can't live at peace with ONLY friendships and you can't live at peace with JUST military might. If you put all of your eggs in just one of these baskets, you will fail.

The fact that I value friendships as well as a potent military means I value a strong and secure America. Anyone who can't support BOTH - does not.

THAT is why people who do love America and who DO favor a strong and secure America should realize that what this award really means is that we are making good progress on at least 50% of the goal. No more - no less.

We hope we can be every bit as successful with the other 50% as well.

I know that it is to much to ask of the hyper-partisan zealots who appear to live and breathe for the sole purpose of tearing down Obama at any cost (even at the cost of our national security) to acknowledge this obvious truth. That's OK, keep whining about what a disgrace this award is and how it wasn't earned and hope and pray that you can convince yourself or others of the validity of your arguments. But do it secure in the knowledge that America is safer and more secure - in part - because of the international goodwill this award represents.

While your no doubt proud that President Obama has gotten this reward and of course you have every right to feel that way. When people point out that this reward is somewhat premature and that is comming from the right and left not just from the right it does not make them in any way unamerican. In fact I will point out that a jury member when Jimmy Carter was rewarded the prize in 2002, told TAS that he "hopes this is a kick in the pants to the Bush Administration" and repeated the same statement when Al Gore was given the prize in 2007. So perhaps this is less about President Obama and the selection committee's happiness that George Bush is no longer in office. Even Lech Walesa a prize winner when asked about it, said the same thing, "it's too soon for him to receive a prize" . Again, this has nothing to to with Obama hatred and nothing to to do with his accomplishments at all.

And imho all you say underscores what I said about what his accomplishments have been and how those accomplishments contribute to a safer and more secure United States. No matter what the judging criteria was - or is - doesn't undermine those accomplishments or the results of these efforts in the least. The judging criteria may or may not meet my view or your view of what the standards SHOULD be - but they do not effect the way this award helps in how the United States is viewed around the world and how much cooperation we can gin up to support peace and security efforts here and abroad.

It helps us - period. If that help comes at the expense of any political positions or biases, so be it. It is still a good thing that helps us and helps make us stronger and more secure.

You mean kinda like the Al Gore Nobel helped us? Thank God for that one. No telling where we would be if not for global pandering Al Gore.

 

[nodoginnafight]

So many on this board seem to believe that America is "stronger" when we bully and bluster our way around the globe demanding our way at the point of a sword. But that "strength" is not strength at all. Because no matter how superior our military might - we could not stand alone against the entire world.

Our strength lies in our military might COUPLED with our friendships around the world. You can't live at peace with ONLY friendships and you can't live at peace with JUST military might. If you put all of your eggs in just one of these baskets, you will fail.

The fact that I value friendships as well as a potent military means I value a strong and secure America. Anyone who can't support BOTH - does not.

THAT is why people who do love America and who DO favor a strong and secure America should realize that what this award really means is that we are making good progress on at least 50% of the goal. No more - no less.

We hope we can be every bit as successful with the other 50% as well.

I know that it is to much to ask of the hyper-partisan zealots who appear to live and breathe for the sole purpose of tearing down Obama at any cost (even at the cost of our national security) to acknowledge this obvious truth. That's OK, keep whining about what a disgrace this award is and how it wasn't earned and hope and pray that you can convince yourself or others of the validity of your arguments. But do it secure in the knowledge that America is safer and more secure - in part - because of the international goodwill this award represents.

I agree with you especially on the might/friendships point.

However, I believe this award was at least one year too early. In my humble opinion, the whole thing cheapens the value of the prize.

Immie

In terms what you or I or Navy or anyone else here thinks the criteria SHOULD be for awarding a Nobel Prize - you may be right.

But in terms of what this award can help us achieve in terms of international cooperation and goodwill in persuing the goal of a safer and more secure America - those criteria don't mean a thing.
I think it will help us and I welcome and celebrate that help in achieveing peace and security for us here at home and for others who crave peace and security abroad.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I'm missing a part of the puzzle. what makes you think we are safer and more secure? I see no indications of that. My ilk would like to know.

That was covered pretty extensively in my first post. Do I need to copy and paste that whole first post again - or will you scroll up a bit and read it?

so you cannot tell me?

It's been pasted and re-pasted about three or four times since your request - what do you want?

 

[nodoginnafight]

I'm sorry y'all - at the risk of ad naseum repetition I'm gonna paste this one more time for willow -

"So many on this board seem to believe that America is "stronger" when we bully and bluster our way around the globe demanding our way at the point of a sword. But that "strength" is not strength at all. Because no matter how superior our military might - we could not stand alone against the entire world.

Our strength lies in our military might COUPLED with our friendships around the world. You can't live at peace with ONLY friendships and you can't live at peace with JUST military might. If you put all of your eggs in just one of these baskets, you will fail.

The fact that I value friendships as well as a potent military means I value a strong and secure America. Anyone who can't support BOTH - does not.

THAT is why people who do love America and who DO favor a strong and secure America should realize that what this award really means is that we are making good progress on at least 50% of the goal. No more - no less.

We hope we can be every bit as successful with the other 50% as well."

 

[del]

what does it mean?

i think mister natural said it best-"it don't mean shit"

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm sorry y'all - at ther risk of ad naseum repetition I'm gonna paste this one more time for willow -

"So many on this board seem to believe that America is "stronger" when we bully and bluster our way around the globe demanding our way at the point of a sword. But that "strength" is not strength at all. Because no matter how superior our military might - we could not stand alone against the entire world.

Our strength lies in our military might COUPLED with our friendships around the world. You can't live at peace with ONLY friendships and you can't live at peace with JUST military might. If you put all of your eggs in just one of these baskets, you will fail.

The fact that I value friendships as well as a potent military means I value a strong and secure America. Anyone who can't support BOTH - does not.

THAT is why people who do love America and who DO favor a strong and secure America should realize that what this award really means is that we are making good progress on at least 50% of the goal. No more - no less.

We hope we can be every bit as successful with the other 50% as well."

Geezus what a noob.
Nations don't have friendships. Nations have interests. When those interests coincide then there is a diplomatic relationship. When those interests conflict then there is conflict. That rule is not overturned by one attractive TV star politician.
It is the interest of European nations to have a weak United States so world markets are open for their own businesses. Look how many French and German companies were working in Iraq under Saddam and are now in Iran. Obama facillitates all that. So he is the darling of the cyncial Euros. Bush fouled all that up. So they hate him.
It is economics and politics. It has nothing to do with friendship.

 

[VaYank5150]

Oh well....I can see already that regardless of how many times the word "accomplishments" is thrown out there that NO ONE is going to list those accomplishments garnered in the 12 DAYS between when he took office and when he was nominated. Guess I'll go do something productive like spend money!!!

By the way Nodog......I trust all is well with you and yours! If you are the nodog I've shared many enjoyable conversations with, it is truely good to talk with you again. If not, well it's very nice to make your aquaintance.....just incase...this is icemansdarlin.

Can you not read? Do you not know how to spell Google? Do we have to do all of your research for you?

The Nobel Committee lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation but recognized initiatives that have yet to bear fruit: reducing the world stock of nuclear arms, easing American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change.

 

[WillowTree]

That was covered pretty extensively in my first post. Do I need to copy and paste that whole first post again - or will you scroll up a bit and read it?

so you cannot tell me?

It's been pasted and re-pasted about three or four times since your request - what do you want?

I read the damn thing, it's your wish list and nothing else. There is absolutely no indication that we are safer and more secure. None.

 

[WillowTree]

I'm sorry y'all - at ther risk of ad naseum repetition I'm gonna paste this one more time for willow -

"So many on this board seem to believe that America is "stronger" when we bully and bluster our way around the globe demanding our way at the point of a sword. But that "strength" is not strength at all. Because no matter how superior our military might - we could not stand alone against the entire world.

Our strength lies in our military might COUPLED with our friendships around the world. You can't live at peace with ONLY friendships and you can't live at peace with JUST military might. If you put all of your eggs in just one of these baskets, you will fail.

The fact that I value friendships as well as a potent military means I value a strong and secure America. Anyone who can't support BOTH - does not.

THAT is why people who do love America and who DO favor a strong and secure America should realize that what this award really means is that we are making good progress on at least 50% of the goal. No more - no less.

We hope we can be every bit as successful with the other 50% as well."

Geezus what a noob.
Nations don't have friendships. Nations have interests. When those interests coincide then there is a diplomatic relationship. When those interests conflict then there is conflict. That rule is not overturned by one attractive TV star politician.
It is the interest of European nations to have a weak United States so world markets are open for their own businesses. Look how many French and German companies were working in Iraq under Saddam and are now in Iran. Obama facillitates all that. So he is the darling of the cyncial Euros. Bush fouled all that up. So they hate him.
It is economics and politics. It has nothing to do with friendship.

absolutely correct. the leftist have pipe dreams if they think we have friends. we don't.

 

[Navy1960]

So many on this board seem to believe that America is "stronger" when we bully and bluster our way around the globe demanding our way at the point of a sword. But that "strength" is not strength at all. Because no matter how superior our military might - we could not stand alone against the entire world.

Our strength lies in our military might COUPLED with our friendships around the world. You can't live at peace with ONLY friendships and you can't live at peace with JUST military might. If you put all of your eggs in just one of these baskets, you will fail.

The fact that I value friendships as well as a potent military means I value a strong and secure America. Anyone who can't support BOTH - does not.

THAT is why people who do love America and who DO favor a strong and secure America should realize that what this award really means is that we are making good progress on at least 50% of the goal. No more - no less.

We hope we can be every bit as successful with the other 50% as well.

I know that it is to much to ask of the hyper-partisan zealots who appear to live and breathe for the sole purpose of tearing down Obama at any cost (even at the cost of our national security) to acknowledge this obvious truth. That's OK, keep whining about what a disgrace this award is and how it wasn't earned and hope and pray that you can convince yourself or others of the validity of your arguments. But do it secure in the knowledge that America is safer and more secure - in part - because of the international goodwill this award represents.

While your no doubt proud that President Obama has gotten this reward and of course you have every right to feel that way. When people point out that this reward is somewhat premature and that is comming from the right and left not just from the right it does not make them in any way unamerican. In fact I will point out that a jury member when Jimmy Carter was rewarded the prize in 2002, told TAS that he "hopes this is a kick in the pants to the Bush Administration" and repeated the same statement when Al Gore was given the prize in 2007. So perhaps this is less about President Obama and the selection committee's happiness that George Bush is no longer in office. Even Lech Walesa a prize winner when asked about it, said the same thing, "it's too soon for him to receive a prize" . Again, this has nothing to to with Obama hatred and nothing to to do with his accomplishments at all.

And imho all you say underscores what I said about what his accomplishments have been and how those accomplishments contribute to a safer and more secure United States. No matter what the judging criteria was - or is - doesn't undermine those accomplishments or the results of these efforts in the least. The judging criteria may or may not meet my view or your view of what the standards SHOULD be - but they do not effect the way this award helps in how the United States is viewed around the world and how much cooperation we can gin up to support peace and security efforts here and abroad.

It helps us - period. If that help comes at the expense of any political positions or biases, so be it. It is still a good thing that helps us and helps make us stronger and more secure.

Thought you would like to see a little of the World's reaction,

Gideon Rachman, a foreign affairs columnist for The Financial Times, wrote an online blog under the headline "What did Obama do to win the Nobel Peace Prize?"

"I am a genuine admirer of Obama. And I am very pleased that George W. Bush is no longer president. But I doubt that I am alone in wondering whether this award is slightly premature. It is hard to point to a single place where Obama's efforts have actually brought about peace - Gaza, Iran, Sri Lanka?

Hamas official Ahmed Yousef also congratulated Obama, "though it is early for him to be awarded this prize."

The winner of the 1983 Nobel Peace Prize, anti-communist Polish leader Lech Walesa, was quoted in The Wall Street Journal as expressing surprise.

"Who, Obama? So fast? Too fast -- he hasn't had the time to do anything yet," the paper's Web site quoted Walesa as saying.

Yet Hisham Qasim, Egyptian democracy and human rights activist, said he was "shocked" Obama won.

"He has achieved nothing. He's stumbling. He hasn't achieved any of his promises and nothing is working. He promised to close Guantanamo and now that's not going to happen, and the Arab-Israeli conflict looks like it's going to get very nasty."

Praise and skepticism greet Obama's Nobel Peace Prize - CNN.com

While some nations have praised this reward, it can hardly be seen as an endorsement for any accomplishments to merit the prize. In fact you would be hard pressed to point to one single accomplishment other than the "inspiration" issue that President Obama has done to merit the prize. If " inspiration" is the new standard then as I have indicated in other postings that perhaps the jury need consider the Rolling Stones as they no doubt inspired many around the world. IMO this prize has put undue preasure on the Administration to accomplish goals that the Nobel committee thinks are important and not what the first duty of the President should be and thats the American people. While living in the world community is important , their needs are secondary to our own.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Well, since they have been handing out Nobel prizes for no apparent reasons these last few years, I'd just like to state:

It's about 1 degree warmer here than it was yesterday. I now declare global warming is a fact.

I "HOPE" that things "CHANGE" from yesterday, because yesterday our dog took a big giant shit on the concrete patio. And big giants shits on concrete patios are a pain in the ass to pick up. And no matter how much ya' "HOPE", ya' just can't "CHANGE" that fact!

And, just to show i'm willing to APPEASE my arab neighbors, I took a quick trip down to 7-11, bowed and then kissed the ring of the towelhead behind the counter.

Now, GIVE ME MY NOBEL PRIZE, DAMMIT!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

So many on this board seem to believe that America is "stronger" when we bully and bluster our way around the globe demanding our way at the point of a sword.

Yeah... and once again the forces of compassion come to misrepresent whatever issue is, at issue.

The US has not, does not, is Constitutionally against... 'bullying' anyone...

US Policy under GW Bush was not one of Bully and Bluster; it was a policy of 'you attacked us; you have no moral justification for doing so; we're going to defend our unalienable human rights and in so doing, DESTROY YOU and anyone that DEFENDS YOU.'

The US GWOT did not come to pass in a vacuum... it was a result of a very real, very painful, very expensive; in terms of human life and treasure, attack on the United States.

Where one tries to understand the reasons why, and uses that reasoning, WHAT EVER IT MAY BE, as a means to rationalize tolerating such, one undermines one's own rights and rejects the responsibility to defend that right. Where one turns from destroying those that attack you; where one fails to respond in certain, irrepresible, relentless terms in defense of one's rightfull entitlement to pursue the fulfillment of one's life, absent the coercion whoch threatens that right; one concedes to coercion and where one concedes to coercion, one sustains COERCION.

Americans do not sustain coercion; we recogize coercion for what it is; a threat to our human rights; whereupon, where such is advanced against us; we seek out, close with and destroy that threat, by what means is necessary to do so.

But that "strength" is not strength at all.

That strength is a false premise, thus it does not exist... as America doesn't engage in that which you've described.

Because no matter how superior our military might - we could not stand alone against the entire world.

Golly... then we must accept what the world demands, even where what the world demands is a threat to the US; a rejection of US interests and it's constitutional foundation...

Uh... WRONG. The fact is that where the world would mount a challenge to the US, that such represents a grave threat, is hardly a reason to capitulate... to the contrary, such is a reason to strike that enemy with unmitigated, irrepresible force and carry the battle to that enemy; without regard to it's apparent strength... until such time that that enemy is consumed; its desire to make war on America devoured... and it's means to do so rendered moot.

Our strength lies in our military might COUPLED with our friendships around the world.

Friendships which exist in spades, around the world; and have existed unabated throughout the US GWOT... and this without regard to the myths created by idiots such as yourself, to advance these little specious leftist screeds.

You can't live at peace with ONLY friendships and you can't live at peace with JUST military might. If you put all of your eggs in just one of these baskets, you will fail.

Wow... it's almost as if someone has suggested otherwise... that there was at some point, some policy which resembles that absolutely BASELESS premise.

The goal here is to project the abject DECEPTION that the GW Bush administration had such a foreign policy... despite the reality that such was never the case; that the US foreign policy during the Bush administration was to seek out diplomatic solutions... and the the invasions if Iraq and Afghanistan were a direct result of those respective governments REFUSING the vociferous dimplomatic efforts by that Administration.

 

[Jay Canuck]

Imho this "prize" means nothing and is just an empty gesture that will allow Obama to sell his next book in higher volume. Actions speak louder than words and up to now that is just about all we have heard from Obama and even though his rhetoric is positive and heartwarming it is just words.

 

[Si modo]

When the committee takes the prize out of the mouths of Chinese dissidents who have suffered for years in prison and years being tortured yet still continue to fight for human rights after all that, and give it to a politician who likely hasn't suffered a minute in his life and has been handsomely rewarded already?



It means nothing to me.