President Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

[GWV5903]

Yes, I do believe we should walk away from Afghanistan and Iraq lest we become like the USSR did.

We can co-exist with Muslims. However, Democracy and Sharia law can not co-exist. Only naive people believe that. For example, in both these countries, Sharia law is winning.

Also, Germany and Japan were not in half as bad conditions as Afghanistan and Iraq are. Japan only had what we bombed wrong which wasn't that much. Germany took a long time to recover only because it was divided. Afghanistan and Iraq need total reform.

These countries don't want leaders. They want people who make their law continue to stay in power. Why do you think the Afghanistan Constitution now is taking away woman right after woman right that we installed after we began to occupy? Do you not see the eroding of women's rights in both countries?

I am afraid it is, do you suggest that Obama is our modern day Chamberlain?

Well he could be. People forget that Chamberlain was VERY popular immediately after Munich. "peace in our time"

"peace in our time" what a great line.....problem we face though are countries like Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, etc.....

When I was much younger I believed that was all we needed, then Reagan brought down the Berlin Wall and I had hope we could get there, now we have another potential Chamberlain, maybe this is the cycle we have to go through......

Bush Sr. was president when the Berlin Wall fell.

Not Reagan.[/QUOTE]

Your short on knowledge, is that all your short on?

 

[DiveCon]

Also, Germany and Japan were not in half as bad conditions as Afghanistan and Iraq are. Japan only had what we bombed wrong which wasn't that much. Germany took a long time to recover only because it was divided. Afghanistan and Iraq need total reform.

are you ******* serious?
i guess you didnt hear much about the fire bombing of Dresden and Berlin and Tokyo and the rest of both of those countries
we practically bombed them into the ******* stone age
in Iraq there was still a lot of infrastructure unharmed from out bombing because we didnt just bomb everything
same for Ajghanistan
you either dont know the history of WWII or you have no clue the types of bombing that were done in the places being discussed

 

[Modbert]

are you ******* serious?
i guess you didnt hear much about the fire bombing of Dresden and Berlin and Tokyo and the rest of both of those countries
we practically bombed them into the ******* stone age
in Iraq there was still a lot of infrastructure unharmed from out bombing because we didnt just bomb everything
same for Ajghanistan
you either dont know the history of WWII or you have no clue the types of bombing that were done in the places being discussed

See Post #1057 of this thread.

I know certain parts of Japan were bombed back into the stone age obviously, but not as much as you seem to be saying.

 

[DiveCon]

are you ******* serious?
i guess you didnt hear much about the fire bombing of Dresden and Berlin and Tokyo and the rest of both of those countries
we practically bombed them into the ******* stone age
in Iraq there was still a lot of infrastructure unharmed from out bombing because we didnt just bomb everything
same for Ajghanistan
you either dont know the history of WWII or you have no clue the types of bombing that were done in the places being discussed

See Post #1057 of this thread.

I know certain parts of Japan were bombed back into the stone age obviously, but not as much as you seem to be saying.

you gotta be kidding
LOL
there were daily bombing runs on Japan
nearly every city and at that time they had a lot of housing that was made mostly out of paper

 

[DiveCon]

here is a source to help your education
The Strategic Bombing of Japan October 1944 - August 1945 - World War II Multimedia Database

 

[Modbert]

you gotta be kidding
LOL
there were daily bombing runs on Japan
nearly every city and at that time they had a lot of housing that was made mostly out of paper

I know there were daily bombing runs on Japan. I haven't actually looked at the amount of damage done yet in my researching history. Though I actually will be ironically for my term paper this semester for a class.

U.S. and Japan Relations (1937-1952)

Edit: Thanks for the link.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Once they learned Hitler committed suicide supposedly, he lost their respect. They saw him as this great leader who fought to the end. Ironically, if he had gone down being shot at, he would of been turned into a Martyr by many of the German people. Instead, he was a coward.

Although to be quite honest, I don't think the Soviets ever nabbed Hitler. I think he got away and that they didn't want to admit that he slipped through their fingers.

I disagree. They lost respect of Hitler much earlier than that. But they feared him and his regime. Their desire to live free did not get a chance to outweigh their fear of him before he killed himself and essentially ended the war. Therefore there was no real active resistance to speak of against the Nazi's within Germany. But I believe if the war had slogged on like WWI did, that eventually an attempt on Hitler's life would have succeeded, and, well....who knows from there.

Getting pretty deep into pure conjecture here. But bottom line is that IMO the German people did want democracy, and were ready for it by the end of the war. It wasn't just a light switch that got thrown when Hitler ate his gun.

Conjecture indeed!!!!

You seem to be under the impression that the public was privvy to all of the bad things happening in Germany during the war. Quite the opposite was happening I can assure you. The people were not prepared for the bombing raids and destruction of their country by Allied Air Forces. When it began happening Hitlers regime turned this to their advantage and still had complete control over the population right up until the Russians invaded German territory.

Why do you think I specifically put it in the timeframe of '43 and '44????

By then the German people had the ability to see the writing on the wall, no matter how much of a stranglehold the government had on the media. And many did see what was coming. Didn't really do anything about it, but they could see what was coming...

 

[RadiomanATL]

OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What kind of statement is this!!!! What school did you go to?

It's my opinion. Germany was worse than Afghanistan and Iraq. However, Japan wasn't. Afghanistan and Iraq were so bad after what we did that it has taken more then six years and people still don't have water and electricity.

A little backwards Dogbert.

We definitely bombed Japan and Germany a helluva more, and destroyed a helluva lot more than we have in Afghanistan and Iraq. Exponentially so. No such thing as smart bombs then. It wasn't unheard of to destroy an entire city just to hit one military target.

No. Whats holding back Afghanistan is that there wasn't much infrastructure before the war. Not that it was destroyed. It just wasn't there for the most part. So the populace sees no real need to "get on it" and make something that they did just fine without before.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I disagree. They lost respect of Hitler much earlier than that. But they feared him and his regime. Their desire to live free did not get a chance to outweigh their fear of him before he killed himself and essentially ended the war. Therefore there was no real active resistance to speak of against the Nazi's within Germany. But I believe if the war had slogged on like WWI did, that eventually an attempt on Hitler's life would have succeeded, and, well....who knows from there.

Getting pretty deep into pure conjecture here. But bottom line is that IMO the German people did want democracy, and were ready for it by the end of the war. It wasn't just a light switch that got thrown when Hitler ate his gun.

Conjecture indeed!!!!

You seem to be under the impression that the public was privvy to all of the bad things happening in Germany during the war. Quite the opposite was happening I can assure you. The people were not prepared for the bombing raids and destruction of their country by Allied Air Forces. When it began happening Hitlers regime turned this to their advantage and still had complete control over the population right up until the Russians invaded German territory.

Why do you think I specifically put it in the timeframe of '43 and '44????

By then the German people had the ability to see the writing on the wall, no matter how much of a stranglehold the government had on the media. And many did see what was coming. Didn't really do anything about it, but they could see what was coming...

I'm sorry...I saw no reference to '43 &'44. However I will stick by my original statement and the reason why I say this is that the German Army continued to fight until the last man up until the capture of the Reichstag. The battle for Berlin was fought by civilians who were infirmed, young and even women. That hardly sounds like a demoralized public who wanted Democracy. Yes...when U.S. troops arrived in recaptured European cities and towns they were greated as heros but there wasn't any reception for them in a single German city or town other than a bullet or a land mine.

 

[mudwhistle]

You figured out a way to agree with me but disagree.

He said women have no rights. So obviously he doesn't know what he's talking about and even you agree with me.

Then you said I didn't know what I was talking about but you said they have rights.

So in effect you should agree with me that he doesn't know what he's talking about....but instead you decided to be on his side.

I guess it all depends on who you want to side with on any issue whether it's right or wrong.

Glad you made that very clear to us.

The "rights" of women in Afghanistan are exactly what Coyote said. They are an illusion and rapidly going back to the level they were during the Taliban. They may exist on paper but when put into action, they falter. Women can have the right to run for public office, but might telling us how many women have been elected? Women have the right to go to school, but mind telling us how many graduate? It makes it tougher upon them when the majority of them are sold off or married off before the age of 16.

I know what I'm talking about. If you care to delude yourself that the women of Afghanistan have rights then so be it. However, don't try to peddle that to the rest of us here in reality. Why don't you go ask a woman in Afghanistan in front of her husband or male family members about whether she should have more freedom and be independent like women here in America. You can then relay us back her answer. Provided you aren't killed of course.

So in effect what you originally said was not true, to which I responded that you don't know what you're talking about.

You may know something but you keep exaggerating the facts.

I think your last post is close to being accurate and the one I responded to earlier was pretty much just something you made up.

You seem to have this habit of saying something that appears misinformed and then when someone sets you straight on the facts you claim you already knew it and almost totally change your response thus floating your argument so not to appear foolish.

 

[mudwhistle]

Kind of fit don't you think.

An annoying response to an annoying **** like yourself.

Coyote is an annoying ****? Since you were responding to Coyote and not me when you said that.

Or did you not remember that?

I remember...........I was just fishing to see which dipshit would bite first.....looking for the right person to respond and of course you did.

If the shoe fits....wear it.

By the way, Coyote is annoying but not to the level that you are. You're one of those sellect few I would love to meet in person.

 

[mudwhistle]

If you look at it the way I stated earlier, we fought two wars with the USSR. Korean War and the Vietnam War.

PLUS, we gave help to Osama Bin Laden and those in Afghanistan when they were fighting the USSR.

We were better off in continuing war with the USSR at their weakest point instead of just fighting proxy wars over the course of forty years and diplomacy dick waving over the last ten.

First of all, conflating Chinese communism to Soviet communism is not wise. There was more to those two wars than Soviet communism.

The fall of Soviet Union was more due to economic stress and had little to do with Viet Nam and Korea.

Now, with respect to Patton's idea to continue into the USSR, that would not have been bloodless in the least. The goal was to topple their communist regime. Granted, it did not happen immediately, but with just a couple of handfuls of deaths during the Cold War, Soviet Union fell.

I think the arms race coupled with their war in Afghanistan broke the Soviet economy and the country itself.

I think some of it had to do with the price of oil as well.

Course some folks wouldn't want you to be aware of that.

The USSR makes alot of their money from arms sales and from oil. They lost a war and people slowed down on buying their arms and started buying them elsewhere. Couple that with the tanking of oil prices.....with a weak Soviet economy it didn't take much.

 

[mudwhistle]

No, Viet Nam and Korea are wars in and of themselves. The Cold War gets its name because it is a cold war. (WTF?)

You claimed that the Viet Nam and Korean wars were proxy wars with USSR - not a single mention of Communist China. I found that quite odd and assumed you must be conflating the two and dumping them into the same basket. At least that's a relief that you have learned there is a difference.

I may of forgotten to mention Communist China but they were a part of it as well. I didn't learn in this thread there was a difference, I knew.

However, the Korean and Vietnam Wars were Proxy Wars. They would of never had gone as long as they did without the interference of outside forces.

We were actually fighting Chinese soldiers in Korea. Korea would have been over with in months but the Chinese feared an invasion so they flooded the north with hundreds of thousands of troops and nearly pushed us off the peninsula entirely.

In Vietnam we were fighting the NVA and the Vietcong. Vietnam was more of a battle against insurgency. We still had hundreds of thousand of troops involved on the ground. Korea was only different from other wars because our Congress refused to declare war thus dragging it out until it ended in a cease fire. Korea was the first war that we refused to officially acknowledge thus starting the trend that continues today.

A true proxy war was when we used the Northern Alliance to take out the Taliban after 9/11. We used a minimum of our own troops in that war. Iran is currently fighting a proxy war in Iraq and in Israel and did so in Somalia.

 

[mudwhistle]

If they did, all hell is about to break loose in Afghanistan!

Immie

PS: I think I am about to get in BIG trouble!

Watch as a hailstorm of insults barrage you for using logic.

Like there weren't any before.

 

[mudwhistle]

people fail to acknowledge that the prize committee may have received Obama's nomination by 1 FEB 09, but they are, in no way, constrained from considering all his accomplishments after that date and before the date that they announced their decision.

Good to see you old friend, but I don't think that is fair to say in the least. The fact of the matter is as I see it, that he should not have been nominated for the prize nor considered for it after 12 days in office.

My guess is that you have not seen my other posts, but I truly believe he might have been worthy of such an award at least one year later, but not so soon.

Regardless, I continue to pray for his success.

Immie

I think the timing is a little suspect.

He needed something to stop him from tanking in the polls and he's so lacking in self-confidence that he can't stand being laughed at.

So what better way to patch up his damaged image then to get a prize that should be reserved for someone that has accomplished great things.

 

[paperview]

people fail to acknowledge that the prize committee may have received Obama's nomination by 1 FEB 09, but they are, in no way, constrained from considering all his accomplishments after that date and before the date that they announced their decision.

Good to see you old friend, but I don't think that is fair to say in the least. The fact of the matter is as I see it, that he should not have been nominated for the prize nor considered for it after 12 days in office.

My guess is that you have not seen my other posts, but I truly believe he might have been worthy of such an award at least one year later, but not so soon.

Regardless, I continue to pray for his success.

Immie

I think the timing is a little suspect.

He needed something to stop him from tanking in the polls and he's so lacking in self-confidence that he can't stand being laughed at.

So what better way to patch up his damaged image then to get a prize that should be reserved for someone that has accomplished great things.

Now there is some airtight logic.

 

[mudwhistle]

President Obama won the award. It surprised even him. But clearly, the Nobel Prize Committee thought that, at this incredible moment in history, that Obama offered a vision of peace that they shared and that they believed could prevail. Who are we, as Americans, to be anything other than proud as hell that this presitigeous award has been given to our president and that such high hopes have been placed on his leadership and his vision?

I wonder why this in particular is an incredible moment in history.

He wasn't the first sitting president to receive the award.

The fact that his qualifications were nonexistent when he was nominated cheapens the award.

The only people that think this is a great thing seem to be starry-eyed misinformed Obamanites. Many people that still support him recognize this as a total sham.

 

[mudwhistle]

Good to see you old friend, but I don't think that is fair to say in the least. The fact of the matter is as I see it, that he should not have been nominated for the prize nor considered for it after 12 days in office.

My guess is that you have not seen my other posts, but I truly believe he might have been worthy of such an award at least one year later, but not so soon.

Regardless, I continue to pray for his success.

Immie

I think the timing is a little suspect.

He needed something to stop him from tanking in the polls and he's so lacking in self-confidence that he can't stand being laughed at.

So what better way to patch up his damaged image then to get a prize that should be reserved for someone that has accomplished great things.

Now there is some airtight logic.

Sorry, but one should ask the question 'Why now'.

When is this award normally awarded? Why did they choose to award it right after Obama fucked up in Denmark? What was the real purpose for this selection?

Why would they award a man who seems to live off of causing strife rather then bringing people together? A man who has divided this country even more then Bush.

His speeches seem to be geared toward offering peace to the world at the same time they cause us to fight among ourselves. I don't think a thing he's done has brought peace anywhere. There is no evidence of anything he's done has brought peace anywhere.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. If the Conservatives were not flooding the airwaves and the net with indignity, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, it would not be that big of a thing. You fellow have made it an event. LOL

 

[RadiomanATL]

LOL. If the Conservatives were not flooding the airwaves and the net with indignity, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, it would not be that big of a thing. You fellow have made it an event. LOL

Sure, that must be it. 'Cuz a prominent American and the leader of the freeworld winning one of the most prestigious awards in the world is SOOOOoooo not a news story.