Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize
 

I'm not going to repost any of the many articles, as Im sure you've all heard by now that President Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples".

The guy gives a great speech, but what exactly has he accomplished to deserve a Nobel? Am I the only one who thinks this lowers the Nobel Prize to the level of "participation" trophies handed out to everyone who plays t-ball?

No, they did that when they gave Peace Prizes to Henry Kissinger and Yasser Arafat.

..

George W. Bush created terrorists. Don't try to revise history.

Like what, manufacturing more of them? Giving them their greatest recruiting tool since 1947? Fiddle-farting around in Mesopotamia instead of actually pursuing the terrorists (in Afghanistan) who -did- attack us? Spending us into the grave, just like Reagan tricked the Soviets into doing 20yrs ago? Puh-lease.

Ok...keeping things on topic:

Aside from being not Fmr. President Bush, what has President Obama accomplished since January that warrants a Nobel Prize? Granted, its not in Physics but surely something tangible must be accomplished to deserve it?

Also, do you think this puts any additional pressure on the guy to live up to the award?

while surprising, this is far from unprecedented.

The nobel peace prize commission often tries to seem current by recognizing emerging situations or actions, as opposed to giving the prize out as a lifetime achievement award. Hence the prizes for Kissinger and Arafat.

While certainly not deserving of anything, Obama's prize is far from the worst ever given. One look at what we know about Kissinger from FOIA requests and you can see how fucking evil that guy is.

I posted elsewhere that I work in Democratic politics and even *I* don't know anyone who thinks Obama deserves this.

Keep in mind though, Obama also had nothing to do with getting it. Someone else nominated him and the prize committee picked him without his input.

I think he handled it fairly well today though, acknowledging that he doesn't feel he deserves it and accepting the prize as a call to action for the future.

I'm with walt. They might as well as given McCain the presidency because he ran. This is a fucking joke. Of course, the entire nobel prize is bullshit anyway, regardless of your field.

1) Since they gave the award to Arafat, it is a meaningless award. Arafat spent 30 years blowing up Israeli children and gets a "peace" prize for going to (yet another) Israeli/Palestinian meeting.
2) Giving Obama this award is like giving someone an Oscar for a movie that was never made.
3) I bet a dollar that Obama gives the $1.4M prize to ACORN.

Gandhi was nominated five times and didn't win once.

I wouldn't take this too seriously.

T-ball bullshit - GO.

...

I always thought the Nobel was something like getting Saint'd... but lately it's been all... well, premature ejaculation.

The man hasn't done anything yet. If he deserves it for some world-changing feat later... sure. Right now? Get real.

Yes. Well put.

Truth is, the award says nothing about Obama. It says volumes about the Nobel committee.

Im inclined to agree. I assume Obama had no idea he was being awarded the Nobel and was kind of ambushed with it. It kind of put him in an awkward situation, though I believe he should have declined it on principle.

I'm looking forward to an explanation from the Nobel Committee now that everyone is asking "just what in the hell does it take to get one of these things".

Bingo.

Hmm... to the guy who hasn't stopped gitmo, torture, or 2 wars in the middle east, while saber rattling against Iran?

Obama just emailed me to clear things up..

Asinine in my opinion.

I'm willing to believe that Obama knew nothing about the nomination... but as it was said before he got this award for simply not being Bush. Regardless of the fact that his international policies are an exact match of Bush's (aside from the Missile Shield), regardless of the fact that 0 wars were ended, 0 instances of political corruption fixed, and 0 improvement to the economy... he's not Bush.

I wouldn't say that Obama and his admin have done *nothing* towards improving diplomacy in the world. I don't see how what he has done deserves this particular award but to say that he has done nothing is a stretch. My issue has more to do with lack of results than anything else. He's just put things in motion. Conversations are starting with Iran and North Korea that weren't happening one year ago. These are all steps in the right direction (i.e. diplomacy rather than you are either with us or you are against us, as the previous administration would have it).

I bet he wishes he could decline it. I would want to if I were him. But that's just gonna be a slap in the face to many. I'm still puzzled why they would give it him, but he didn't ask for it. He's kind of screwed either way he goes now.

That is fucking ridiculous and reeks of the attitudes of the Administration Obama replaced.

Rachael Maddow gave an excellent case for Obama today.

Rachel Maddow has made a very, very compelling case. I retract my silent doubts.

To keep in the same vein, I think it's more like a producer coming out and telling the country, "You know how sick you are of the dreck coming out of Hollywood today? Well, I'm going to make the greatest movie ever. It will have the plot and scope of Star Wars, the writing of Casablanca, and the acting talent and skill of The Godfather. It will transform how we think about movies."

Then a year after the movie was officially approved, despite only small steps in the lowest levels of production and no end to the dreck coming out of Hollywood, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences decides to give their "Best Picture" award to the producer simply for what they so hope to see.

There is very little positive in such an act. It increases expectations on the producer to come through on his vision, sooner rather than later, while also cheapening the overall value of the award.

The Nobel Peace Prize should be given for legitimate and honest acts to promote peace, like Theodore Roosevelt mediating an end to the Russo-Japanese War in 1905, not for the hope of what is still very unlikely to happen.

Really? Do tell. I voted for Obama and I believe he'll do things to better the nation, but I don't agree with this silly award. It's tainted.

And Rachel Maddow, the oh-so-agreeable talking head from the Not-FOX network? She's cute but she left out a lot about The Prize.

...

Maybe they should break the award into pieces like old coins and distribute the pieces to represent its real value in some cases: two bits.

As far as I know... Hope (TM) and Change (TM)... haven't happened yet.

This is actually very embarrassing. A week after losing the Olympics in his home city (I know it wasn't his fault, but it looks terrible on his record), his failure to get the healthcare reform passed when he wanted it, and now a peace prize when he hasn't done anything notable to promote peace other than some hot air.

I actually agree with Rush Limbaugh on this one. This will be used as leverage on the global stage to prevent Obama from furthering the wars in the middle east. How can the "peace" president, who ran on ending wars and now wins a peace prize, continue to kill people over seas? It will makes foreign entanglements look even worse than they already do.

I think this nails it. It wasn't the "Nobel War Prize" after all. American foreign policy dictated by foreigners...a very questionable concept.

Because Americans have demonstrated for decades that we're really, really good at choosing wars. :lol:

I didn't realize any of the other countries were any good, either.

It's only embarrassing to the right wing that continues to be out of touch with not only this country but the rest of the world.

And these are negatives? Maybe, just maybe killing people overseas and furthering wars in the middle east are bad things.

---------- Post added at 05:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:46 AM ----------

Ok, what did she leave out?

I thought she made a pretty good case, but I still think he won it for not being GWB.

I think Rachel Maddow made a very strong case. I think Obama himself has pointed out that he doesn't think he deserves it. I also think he has taken a good approach on this as well. A call to action is a decent thing to say.

What is wrong with conservatives in America?

Whoever figures it out deserves a Nobel Prize in Medicine.

I like Obama, and like most people wanted him to win the election and want him to succeed. He is a great speaker and I think he is tryng to the right thing domestically and has rehabilitated America internationally.

I wonder how some Afghan guy who's house gets blown up by an American or British bomb feels about this man getting a peace prize though.

"Fucking ridiculous" is going straight for the partisan rhetoric the instant someone happens to disagree with you. Lighten up, Francis.

Tell me, how is it fucking ridiculous to believe that President Obama should have declined the award? Here is a list of the other nominees that Obama beat out:

• Sima Samar, women’s rights activist in Afghanistan: “With dogged persistence and at great personal risk, she kept her schools and clinics open in Afghanistan even during the most repressive days of the Taliban regime, whose laws prohibited the education of girls past the age of eight. When the Taliban fell, Samar returned to Kabul and accepted the post of Minister for Women’s Affairs.”
  
• Ingrid Betancourt: French-Colombian ex-hostage held for six years.
  
• Dr. Denis Mukwege: Doctor, founder and head of Panzi Hospital in Bukavu, Democratic Republic of Congo. He has dedicated his life to helping Congolese women and girls who are victims of gang rape and brutal sexual violence.
  
• Handicap International and Cluster Munition Coalition: “These organizations are recognized for their consistently serious efforts to clean up cluster bombs, also known as land mines. Innocent civilians are regularly killed worldwide because the unseen bombs explode when stepped upon.”
  
• Hu Jia, a human rights activist and an outspoken critic of the Chinese government, who was sentenced last year to a three-and-a-half-year prison term for ‘inciting subversion of state power.’
  
• Wei Jingsheng, who spent 17 years in Chinese prisons for urging reforms of China’s communist system. He now lives in the United State

Still think its "fucking ridiculous" to believe Obama should have declined the Nobel? Is he more deserving than any of the aforementioned people? He should have declined the award because honorable men don't take what isn't due to them.

I get that the Nobel prize doesnt really mean much anymore after Arafat and Kissinger. And I will give you this; the folks in the Maddow clip hadn't achieved much of anything when they recieved their Nobels. BUT....they had the balls to stand up and make a call for action which could have very possibly gotten them killed. Do you really want to use them as an example as to why President Obama is deserving of the medal when he has taken absolutely no personal risks and hasn't achieved anything?

Yo, Obama, I'm really happy for you, and I'mma let you finish, but Beyonce had one of the best claims to a Nobel Peace prize of all time. OF ALL TIME.

I lol'd.

I think Obama is a great president, but like many of the other members say, it seems a little bit premature.

I hope in the coming 3 years President Obama lives up to his reputation.

I voted for President Obama and truly wish to see him succeed in all the programs he's trying to move forward to help the USA and the World , in general.

But I gotta admit that I was totally surprised over him receiving The Nobel Peace Award and feel it's way too soon...unless those wars in the middle east are coming to a close within the next 4 to 9 months. I'd love to see the soldiers come home soon. It's no longer worth their sacrifices.

Period.

Our soldiers have done plenty and it IS TIME for us to leave. Let "them" police their own countries. Perhaps Pres. Obama got the award because it's become "wishful thinking" among all the Nobel voters involved.

Can I get a link for this please?

..

No, that's not the same logic at all.

Intelligence report: Iraq war breeding more terrorists | csmonitor.com

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!

So criticizing a series of policies is the same as denying the right to sovereignty?

---------- Post added at 12:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 PM ----------

did you even read this discussion?

Again, I can't agree with your narrow interpretation of such a complicated topic.

Carter's positions crticizing Israeli policies dealing with violence, including defence, prevention and punitive actions are mostly based on his bias challenging sovereignty issues. The challenges of outside aggression are rooted in religious bigotry toward jews, their right to exist, let alone their right to exist as a nation. Historically, Israel, a Jewish state (a post WWII nation created under the U.N. for the preservation and sanctuary of Jewish people), has accomodated diversity in the regard to Arabs, Christians, Muslims, etc. Carters influence in these matters have emboldened organizations like Hamas, who continue their attempts to erode Isaeli sovereignty and to what end? The sum of Carter's positions are frankly anti-Israeli. His unapologetic stances only fuel anti-semetic rhetoric and empower political hatred and violence. Cause hey, it's just good 'ole habitat for humaities, Nobel Prize winning, ex-prez Jimmy saying Isael is ultimately the aggressor and essentially has no right defend itself and protect its sovereignty. A position shared by the likes of Iran's leadership.

In the spirit of Nobel's award to Obama, perhaps the award should have gone to Ahmadinejad for potentially not really wanting to nuke Israel. It's just as ridiculous, but at least Ahmadinejad has an actual track record. Such an about-face would be truly notable. The Nobel award is more about unicorns and pop-culture than actual persons with amazing acts of selfless humanitarin acts.

(this should be taken to another thread)

deleted

Not really, what gave it away?:thumbsup:

The idiotic words you type.......