President George W. Bush, specifically through his monumentally stupid foreign policies, helped to both create and continue the environments that foster terrorism. What did he think would happen when he started bombing a nation overrun by warlords and radical Islam? What did he think would happen when he attacked and invaded one of the few Middle Easter countries which had kept the radical religious terrorists out? What the hell did he think would happen if he did the very thing the US has been doing for generations that creates terrorists, directly meddling in Middle Eastern affairs and killing many, many innocent civilians?

Between 1/1/98 and 9/10/01, there were 176 fatalities per month globally from terrorism on average. From 9/12/01-8/11/06, there were 444 fatalities per month globally from terrorism on average (and 195.5 per month were in Iraq alone). Between 1/1/98 and 9/10/01, there were 106 incidences of terrorism per month globally on average. From 9/12/01-8/11/06, there were 284 incidences of terrorism per month globally on average.
I wish you knew how funny statements like this are to people on the left. Every time you clumsily try to use this strawman, you show how incapable you are of comprehending what's really going on. "OMG, DEM LEFTARDS TINK NOBABA'S THE MESSIAH. HAR HAR!"

..

What's really funny is that the only people who attach the label "messiah" to Obama are the most ignorant vein of conservatards. Automatic membership to my "ignore" list. Pull yer head outa yer butt, then we'll talk; until then, you don't have anything remotely worth contributing to any discussion.

When you don't think before typing, your posts aren't worth the electricity it takes to flip those pixels on all our screens, let alone to spin the hard drive on the server to retrieve the text. Please think of the environment.

The Nobel voters probably thought President Obama needed some support after watching American TV where tea baggers and townhalls are calling him terrorist, nazi, communist, socialist as well as questioning his citizenship.:)

I would have voted for Pete Seeger.

But maybe with the Obama award, it will incite teachers (ya know those leftists who control the education system :eek: ) to force our kids to sing songs about Obama the peacemaker at the start of every school day.

And they proceed to give those people more ammunition :lol:

Way to go, Europe! :thumbsup:

What teachers? DC riffed a ton of 'em.

Are you high? Protect the world? And you're talking about others drinking the Kool Aid?

He had to be nominated before Feb 11, so seriously 2 weeks in office what did he do?

As others mentioned on a personal note since Arafat got his noble, I have lost all respect for the reward.

Rachel Maddow's piece on this was very interesting. She pointed out a pile of other winners who, technically speaking, hadn't DONE anything with tangible results, but instead were spearheading a movement. In other words, Obama's lack of a resume in terms of "he's done X, Y and Z" isn't unique among Nobel winners.

All that said, one can argue what exactly Obama has spearheaded. Maddow points out his call for global nuclear disarmament, his diplomacy-first foreign policy, etc., and that the prize is sometimes given to "add momentum" to someone's agenda.

This is going to be a bit awkward when a hellfire takes out a Pakistani wedding celebration.

Oh I wasn't aware you were part of the Norwegian Nobel Committee. Since we all know that information on nominees isn't released for 50 years after the award you must have been a part of the committee to have that information. That changes everything I fully apologize.

While the NOMINATION was done 11 days after he took office the VOTE was a couple of weeks ago. Besides, Obama had already changed the tone

This is such a fucking strawman and I'm so sick of seeing it. The 1994 award wasn't given solely to Arafat. It was given to Arafat, Rabin, and Peres after the Oslo Accords. Be as blindly partisan as you want but at the time they were working hard on achieving peace in that region. Yes it eventually fell apart but they were making real efforts at the time, not just paying lip service to international media.

I hear they had really great falafel at the Oslo Peace accords. That's probably why Arafat went - it was not for the purposes of peace.

Translation: I have nothing to intelligent to reply with so I'll just be snarky.

I don't feel he has done anything to deserve this. IMO he should have gracefully declined. All he has done so far is be the first non-white president in American history. He has "said" he wants to rid the world of nukes, but hasn't gotten rid of ours. He has "said" he wants to put an end to the war on terror, but has not changed a single thing from bush's foreign policy. I can't think of any initiatives he has started that are deserving of this prize.

I simply can't endure the scorn of such a scholar, so here is something intelligent to reply: Granted, I'm a big, fat, dummy so I had to pull it from Wikipedia:

Both sides blamed the other for the failure of the talks: the Palestinians claiming they were not offered enough, and the Israelis claiming that they could not reasonably offer more. According to The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East, "most of the criticism for [the] failure [of the 2000 Camp David Summit] was leveled at Arafat."[10]

Ehud Barak offered Arafat an eventual 91% of the West Bank, and all of the Gaza Strip, with Palestinian control over Eastern Jerusalem as the capital of the new Palestinian state; in addition, all refugees could apply for compensation of property from an international fund to which Israel would contribute along with other countries. The Palestinians wanted the immediate withdrawal of the Israelis from the occupied territories, and only subsequently the Palestinian authority would crush all Palestinian terror organizations. The Israeli response as stated by Shlomo Ben-Ami was "we can't accept the demand for a return to the borders of June 1967 as a pre-condition for the negotiation."[11]

Clinton blamed Arafat after the failure of the talks, stating, "I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace." [3] The failure to come to an agreement was widely attributed to Yasser Arafat, as he walked away from the table without making a concrete counter-offer and because Arafat did little to quell the series of Palestinian riots that began shortly after the summit.[10][12][13] Arafat was also accused of scuttling the talks by Nabil Amr, a former minister in the Palestinian Authority.[4]

In 2004, two books by American participants at the summit were published that placed the blame for the failure of the summit on Arafat. The books were The Missing Peace by longtime US Middle East envoy Dennis Ross and My Life by President Clinton. Clinton wrote that Arafat once complimented Clinton by telling him, "You are a great man." Clinton responded, "I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you made me one."[14][15]



This man had so many chances at "peace", but war was far too profitable. This award was not a call to action for Arafat and it will not be one for Obama. It will merely be used as International leverage for (what should be) domestic security issues.

So says the Monday Morning Seven Years Later Quarterback. What they did at that time was groundbreaking. They were making real efforts at the time and the Committee recognized them for it. I'm sorry they didn't have crystal ball to look a decade ahead to find out that it would eventually fall apart.

placing the blame for the failure of the camp david summit solely on Arafat is revisionist bullshit. But Im sure you know that, given how you've only quoted wikipedia selectively.

The Israelis did not want to give up military control of Palestine, and Palestinians would not accept a state without a military. The Israelis wanted to keep control of Palestinian airspace, and the Palestinians would not accept that.

In any case, the camp david accords took place in 2000, and the nobel was given in 1994.

I think the 30 years of Tel Aviv car bombs which Arafat orchestrated were far more "groundbreaking" than his trip to Oslo. Pardon the pun.

If you want to boil it down to black hat/white hat then have fun but both sides have done plenty over the years.

Uh, huh...and here we are back at the "you started it. did not. did too." argument. Tens of thousands dead, billions spent, awards given, nothing changed. What difference does it really make if you think Arafat should have gotten an award 15 years ago and I think he shouldn't. Fuck it, give him a grammy for his "Call to Prayer - Remix", as well.

This just in

President Barack Obama has just been awarded the 2010 Heisman Trophy. The season isn't over but he has watched a game on television.

It is ashamed the committee couldn't let the man have a chance to succeed or fail and reward him accordingly. When classics like Jimmy Carter, Al Gore , and those that have been previously mentioned are recipients of the award, there is little left to say other than that it is approaching TOTAL IRRELEVENCE! I throw those in because it isn't only conservatives that win the award with little or no merit.

Are you really trying to compare Al Gore and Jimmy Carter to Henry Kissinger?

While Al Gore may have done nothing, Kissinger actually did several things to subvert peace and spread torture and tyranny. Chile, East Timor, Argentina... Heck, Kissinger even advised the Argentinian generals that they should act fast with the "disappearances," since the American congress was in recess and as such it would be a while before they could vote sanctions.


Jimmy Carter, on the other hand, actually deserved the prize. Not only his anti war stance recently, but as president as well. For all his flaws, he signed the camp david accords, salt II, and so on.

yes... let's not forget that good old race-baiting anti semite Jimmy Carter. He and Yassir make great Nobel company.

Tell that to all the S. American Natives who have been unfortunate enough to find themselves standing athwart Mr. Gore's cronies at Occidental Petroleum.

If you can find any.

Yes, because owning shares in a company is EXACTLY the same thing as engineering several coups, encouraging torture, and pressuring people to look the other way at the issues of the disappeared in the dictatorships.

---------- Post added at 11:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:56 AM ----------

yes, because criticism of Israeli policies is the EXACT same thing as heading a terrorist organization, and the exact same thing as being anti-semite...

Oh I'm sorry, I got confused. Thought were talking about the Nobel Peace Prize. Didn't realize we were talking about the Flawless Human Being Award. Silly me.

The Peace Prize is for SPECIFIC THINGS the recipient did or stood for. It's not a vote for the recipient to be made a saint.

I'd like to nominate the messiah Obama for the Flawless Human Being Award.

When the company in question engineers coups, engages in torture (or hires Sandline or Executive Outcomes to do it for them) and pressures people into looking the other way at the issue of Disappeared Indians, yes, it is. A coup is a coup. Murder is murder. Torture is Torture. Disappearing is Disappearing. Full stop. And for someone like Mr. Gore, who has the entire collected body of human information at his hands via an innovation which he helped create, to be unaware that this is happening (because face it, that's how oil companies operate in S. America) in utterly incredible.

Either he didn't know, in which case he can best be described as a marginally-literate social isolate with zero common sense or investigative drive...
...or he -did- know, which yes, puts him right up there with that slime Kissinger.

I nominate The_Dunedan. If he lives by the standard he holds other people to, anyway.

If not, he ought to put that first stone down.

Again, because inheriting stock in a company like that is EXACTLY like giving the orders himself, right?

Im not defending the company, or gore. But give me a fucking break with trying to equate that to kissinger.

Well, I don't own stock in genocidally-inclined South American petrochemical concerns, so I suppose I'm off to a good start. However, I've got a lot of catching up to do if I'm gonna compete with Ghandi. You'll notice that my standards are actually fairly low, to wit;
1: Don't start wars.
1a: If you inherit a war, STOP the bloody thing.
2: Don't rape, rob, or assault people. If you inherit rapine, robbery, and assault, STOP IT. If you cannot stop it, DIVEST yourself. Really, this isn't hard, it's like not buying Fuji-brand film or only eating dolphin-free tuna.
2a: If someone is raping, robbing, or assaulting you, STOP them.
3: Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

These are actually pretty damned easy standards to live up to, contrary to your snide rejoinder. My morals are simple and easy to live with, and basically come back to a very wise saying from Meimonedes (I believe): "Whatever is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. This is the whole of the Torah. The rest is elaboration."

Give you a fucking break!? Give YOU a fucking break? Give the Indians a fucking break, they're the dead/dispossessed ones. To them, I'm sure the question of whether Gore is "as bad" as Kissinger is 103% moot. The point, for them, is their dead relatives and denuded, chemically-wasted homelands. Sounds awfully Cambodian to me.

Are you serious? Are you trying to lecture me on the impact of multinational corporations in Latin America? I know it very well, and first hand too. And your reading comprehension is at the level of a 6 year old if you think that my post was defending the company or minimizing the suffering.

And you are fucking kidding me if you think that inheriting stock on a company that did those things is as bad as ordering them, which was the issue from the start.

Inheriting it, no.

-Keeping- it, while deriving profits from it and doing nothing to at least attempt to stop these depradations? Keeping it while Occidental was doing those things? As I said, I'm more than willing to allow Mr Gore to plead ignorance. Given the things he's forgotten over the years, I find it somewhat believable. But barring that sort of total pig-ignorance (inexcusable on the part of a person holding stock in a company in that kind of industrry), hanging on to that sort of stock is like trading in blood diamonds. Perhaps I have a problem seeing such atrocities as an issue of scale; part of the difficulty with being what I describe as a charitable individualist is that you eventually come to see every tragedy in very individual, visceral terms. I have a truly difficult time seing much difference between The Somme, Cambodia, Liberia, and Amazon oil-piracy; the human tragedy on the -individual- level is still the same. People lose their families, their friends, their homelands, their balls and intestines and unborn children, and then swear vengeance and are either annihilated or begin the killing all over again. What else has the 20th Century shown us? This is why I believe that the only circumstance under which it is acceptable to use force is if aggressed upon: because once force is used you may have to take it to some truly aweful places, and if you don't you may not make it out the other side: it is only when someone initiates the use of force that they forfeit their absolute right to self-defense. On an -individual- level, the level of God-given, individual, unalienable and inviolate Rights, all atrocities are the same: the innocent die. I'm an historian by training, I can count casualties as well as anyone. But under every single last number in those long, long lists was an individual human being. And to -them-, none of this arguing over who was worse matters.

I'm unaware that Mr. Gore has ever divested himselfof his stock in Occidental. I will research further, and would appreciate your help in this matter. I doubt I'll ever have a terribly good opinion of Mr. Gore, but I like to think he best of people that I can, and I should like to be able to think a little better of him if possible.

I am not trying to relativize the suffering or the atrocities. I am pointing out the different levels of responsibility and culpability. Otherwise, everyone is just as culpable of everything, and that is a degree of relativism I can't support.

Coca-Cola hires hitmen to kill union leaders in Colombia. Is everyone who owns coke stock, or drinks coke, or sell their product as culpable for that as the leaders of coke in Colombia?

United Fruit, now Chiquita, organized as many if not more coups as Occidental petroleum. Is anyone who eats a banana, sells their product, or own their stock as culpable as the CEOs who actually organized the coups and ordered the massacres?

Im not saying that those who choose to support these companies are absolutely innocent. But they are far from being as responsible as the people who actually give the orders.

washingtonpost.com

Looks like Obama's award may run afoul of the constitution?

That, and maybe agency law, :lol:.

I fail to see how the "past actions" vs "future actions" change anything w/ regards to the emolument issue.

I'm sorry that is your narrow perspective. Jimmy's criticisms discount the right of Israeli sovereingty ... a Jewish state ... while Palestine is not a nation and does not seek coexistance based primarily on religous justification. He also claims that anti-Obama sentiment is driven by racism. This is completely unfounded and irresponsible language from an ex-President. Carter is a polarizer, not a healer.

I didn't think he was comparing Al Gore to Arafat. ZING!