![]() |
Quote:
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. Quote:
|
..
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
Way to go, Europe! :thumbsup: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
If you can find any. |
Quote:
---------- Post added at 11:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:56 AM ---------- Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
If not, he ought to put that first stone down. |
Quote:
Im not defending the company, or gore. But give me a fucking break with trying to equate that to kissinger. |
Quote:
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." Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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:. Quote:
|
I fail to see how the "past actions" vs "future actions" change anything w/ regards to the emolument issue.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:06 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project