2009 Nobel Peace Prize Winner: Barack Obama

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="GamerForca"] Are you saying they don't? :|GamerForca

The US spends more than all the NATO european nations put together. There is no way spain alone could possibly have an army capable of overseas military action.

It was enough of a threat for someone to want it removed from the Middle East.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="GamerForca"] Are you saying they don't? :|GamerForca

The US spends more than all the NATO european nations put together. There is no way spain alone could possibly have an army capable of overseas military action.

Read my statement again please. They cannot fight a war like that ALONE, they do not have the capabilities to do so. The only country that can perform such a widespread military operation is probably the US, the spanish will have a couple people one or two bases and what not, nothing like what the US has in the area. If you really believe Spain can conduct an overseas war with anyone you need to do some research.

Still disagree. We got more respect by invading Iraq? I'm sure very few people outside of the USA think that. It's like saying that the idiot beligerent middle school bully is respected.

Engrish_Major

I think a more accurate analogy of Bush is a gangster on the street, earning respect by bending the rules and killing people who get in his way. Respect out of fear doesn't leave a good reputation. It's hard for me to say that Bush's leadership did good for American history.

:|

This is cheap heat at best. At worst? That would lead to a ban if I said it and I'll leave it at that.

MarcusAntonius

"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy."

"We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat." -Osama bin Laden, 2004

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] The thing is, respect through violence is outdated thinking that will not keep the US safe. Terrorists do not fear death. They do not fear war. Like I said earlier, Bush did exactly what bin Laden wanted him to.fidosim

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]:|

This is cheap heat at best. At worst? That would lead to a ban if I said it and I'll leave it at that.

Engrish_Major

"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy."

"We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat." -Osama bin Laden, 2004

Yeah, and this relates to the discussion how?

so going to war solves everything? should we have gone to war after Oklahoma City? go to war WITH WHOM?! what are we fighting? point to the enemy and let's get him, fine, but do you have any idea how this has worked out in practice? war is over. we have insurgency and turmoil now, but war as you clearly fantasize about it no longer happens. there are no clear fronts when everywhere might be the battlefield, when the enemy hides, when the enemy fights itself, when everything is UNCLEAR. you simply deny the complexity of the various situations at hand with this inane and vague insistence on our confronting this enemy we're apparently avoiding out of cowardice.quiglythegreat

I think it was '82 Reagan got the hell out of Lebanon when it became clear that the price was not worth continued operations there. sometimes you need to fold if you're going to lose. but this is infinitely more complicated than that. you think that terrorists plan on killing us all? you think that they are out to murder us themselves? then you do not at all understand their motives, and that is dangerous. terrorism works mostly to antagonize. mostly, that's always been the point. random bombings are meant more to inspire fear and anger than to actually kill people (see for example the rockets aimed at nothing in particular in Israel coming from Hezbollah; they're not trying to kill Israelis so much as trying to piss them off). and this isn't because terrorists are stupid. it's because they want us to come into their nation and bomb their schools so that their countrymen join THEIR side, so that they may convert those not beyond redemption to the right cause, to bring them against the new Evil Empire. Islam right now is at a crossroads. the militant fundies are trying to convert all the other reasonable Muslims to their cause by inciting US to bomb the hell out of them. so it's not at all that we have to fight back. I would argue that it's absolutely in our best interest to not "fight back", to minimize fighting back, because by doing that, we play the game that the terrorists want us to. but you will probably dismiss this because you do not want to imagine a world with such unclear motives and objectives, you prefer to think of your enemies simply, right?quiglythegreat

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

Thesaurus.com says otherwise.

jazznate

Fear (n): a distressing emotion aroused by impending danger, evil, pain, etc., whether the threat is real or imagined; the feeling or condition of being afraid.

Respect (n): esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability

In what way are those the same? :?

Yes, there is a huge difference. People will listen to a criminal with a gun not out of respect but out of fear for their life. Take away the gun and there's no fear and nobody will pay him any attention. A respected man will have the ears of the people whether he has a gun or not.

Thesaurus, dude. They ARE synonymous.

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"]so going to war solves everything? should we have gone to war after Oklahoma City? go to war WITH WHOM?! what are we fighting? point to the enemy and let's get him, fine, but do you have any idea how this has worked out in practice? war is over. we have insurgency and turmoil now, but war as you clearly fantasize about it no longer happens. there are no clear fronts when everywhere might be the battlefield, when the enemy hides, when the enemy fights itself, when everything is UNCLEAR. you simply deny the complexity of the various situations at hand with this inane and vague insistence on our confronting this enemy we're apparently avoiding out of cowardice.fidosim

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="GamerForca"] Are you saying they don't? :|fidosim

You know it was Clinton who first authorized the CIA to apprehend Bin Laden? Clinton came within hours of actually killing Bin Laden when we launched 66 cruise missiles at his training camp in 1998. The CIA also planned to have Pakistani commandos apprehend him but the 1999 military coup prevented that. In 2000 (when clinton was still president) we almost got him again when operatives working for the CIA attacked a convoy he was travelling with but missed the car he was in. There was actually debate on whether or not Clinton was focusing too much on taking out Osama.

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"] I think it was '82 Reagan got the hell out of Lebanon when it became clear that the price was not worth continued operations there. sometimes you need to fold if you're going to lose. but this is infinitely more complicated than that. you think that terrorists plan on killing us all? you think that they are out to murder us themselves? then you do not at all understand their motives, and that is dangerous. terrorism works mostly to antagonize. mostly, that's always been the point. random bombings are meant more to inspire fear and anger than to actually kill people (see for example the rockets aimed at nothing in particular in Israel coming from Hezbollah; they're not trying to kill Israelis so much as trying to piss them off). and this isn't because terrorists are stupid. it's because they want us to come into their nation and bomb their schools so that their countrymen join THEIR side, so that they may convert those not beyond redemption to the right cause, to bring them against the new Evil Empire. Islam right now is at a crossroads. the militant fundies are trying to convert all the other reasonable Muslims to their cause by inciting US to bomb the hell out of them. so it's not at all that we have to fight back. I would argue that it's absolutely in our best interest to not "fight back", to minimize fighting back, because by doing that, we play the game that the terrorists want us to. but you will probably dismiss this because you do not want to imagine a world with such unclear motives and objectives, you prefer to think of your enemies simply, right?GamerForca

have other presidents won this award?

Yeah, and this relates to the discussion how?

has it occurred to you that's what they actually want? that these people we're fighting are not stupid? why do you think all these highly educated young men would kill themselves for a cause that the way you state it is clearly futile? because how you say it is simply not how it is. to begin with, experts cannot agree on what exactly the hell the Taliban is. and nevermind al Queda either. those terrorist organizations are highly amorphous and basically totally lacking any kind of central organization. and if you killed every single person who, with all relevant information magically granted to render such a verdict, was a part of any such organization as those you seem to want to be talking about, it would not matter; others would step in. if you kill one 'terrorist', two other people will join the cause, such is the way things are. this is not even close to an exclusively military problem and it's terrifying that people exist who think so.quiglythegreat

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

Yeah, and this relates to the discussion how?

Engrish_Major

So you really DO believe what you're saying?

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]:|

This is cheap heat at best. At worst? That would lead to a ban if I said it and I'll leave it at that.

Engrish_Major

"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy."

"We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat." -Osama bin Laden, 2004

It is a disturbing parallel.

Afghanistan was Russia's "Vietnam".

Now it looks like the terrorists are hoping that Republicans act up once again and force Obama into Afghanistan, where it could easily become Vietnam 2.0

I'm sure Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and everyone on Fox News is going to start portraying Obama as a coward to get their usual redneck viewership support and then force us into another war without a plan.

It's as if Bin Laden is using Republican Ego to screw up this country from thousands of miles away.

I hope Obama stays strong and find another way to get rid o the Taliban - like gaining the trust of Tribal leaders in the unoccupied parts of the country to rally together with Pakistan and fight back.

American has already lost too much fighting a useless war in Iraq. It's time to change the strategy for Afghanistan.

[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]FYI - after the bombings, the Spanish Socialist party won. They have not declared war on anyone. Since then, how many times have they been attacked? (Just something to think about per this discussion).jazznate

You know it was Clinton who first authorized the CIA to apprehend Bin Laden? Clinton came within hours of actually killing Bin Laden when we launched 66 cruise missiles at his training camp in 1998. The CIA also planned to have Pakistani commandos apprehend him but the 1999 military coup prevented that. In 2000 (when clinton was still president) we almost got him again when operatives working for the CIA attacked a convoy he was travelling with but missed the car he was in. There was actually debate on whether or not Clinton was focusing too much on taking out Osama.

Hmm I thought the administration deemed it unlawful and un-american do apprehend him with the method they were going to use?

So you really DO believe what you're saying?

MarcusAntonius

Is this some kind of joke? Serously, what has obama done that merrits a peace prize. Things are more violent in afganastan than they were when he took office, just as violent in iraq. Nothing else in the world is more peaceful. This is rediculous.

Some more intelligent opinions than you'll find on network news can be found here.

[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]FYI - after the bombings, the Spanish Socialist party won. They have not declared war on anyone. Since then, how many times have they been attacked? (Just something to think about per this discussion).jazznate

You know it was Clinton who first authorized the CIA to apprehend Bin Laden? Clinton came within hours of actually killing Bin Laden when we launched 66 cruise missiles at his training camp in 1998. The CIA also planned to have Pakistani commandos apprehend him but the 1999 military coup prevented that. In 2000 (when clinton was still president) we almost got him again when operatives working for the CIA attacked a convoy he was travelling with but missed the car he was in. There was actually debate on whether or not Clinton was focusing too much on taking out Osama.

[QUOTE="GamerForca"][QUOTE="Espada12"]

The US spends more than all the NATO european nations put together. There is no way spain alone could possibly have an army capable of overseas military action.

Read my statement again please. They cannot fight a war like that ALONE, they do not have the capabilities to do so. The only country that can perform such a widespread military operation is probably the US, the spanish will have a couple people one or two bases and what not, nothing like what the US has in the area. If you really believe Spain can conduct an overseas war with anyone you need to do some research.

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]:|

This is cheap heat at best. At worst? That would lead to a ban if I said it and I'll leave it at that.

"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy."

"We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat." -Osama bin Laden, 2004

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]So you really DO believe what you're saying?

Engrish_Major

I usually consult obscure "news" sources to boost my 'Net creds too.

what the **** ? Is all I have to say.

Tannerr33

On topic: Good, he must be doing something when others have claimed he's been doing nothing.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]:|

This is cheap heat at best. At worst? That would lead to a ban if I said it and I'll leave it at that.

Netherscourge

"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy."

"We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat." -Osama bin Laden, 2004

It is a disturbing parallel.

Afghanistan was Russia's "Vietnam".

Now it looks like the terrorists are hoping that Republicans act up once again and force Obama into Afghanistan, where it could easily become Vietnam 2.0

I'm sure Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and everyone on Fox News is going to start portraying Obama as a coward to get their usual redneck viewership support and then force us into another war without a plan.

It's as if Bin Laden is using Republican Ego to screw up this country from thousands of miles away.

I hope Obama stays strong and find another way to get rid o the Taliban - like gaining the trust of Tribal leaders in the unoccupied parts of the country to rally together with Pakistan and fight back.

American has already lost too much fighting a useless war in Iraq. It's time to change the strategy for Afghanistan.

I usually consult obscure "news" sources to boost my 'Net creds too.

Lol, they weren't alone. What I'm saying is that when they were attacked, they should've been pumping up their military might in Afghanistan to eliminate the terrorists, not getting the hell out of there. And come on, if Spain had their heart in it, they could've teaken Afghanistan without any help anyway. Spain has a fully modernized army, the Afghans weren't even close.GamerForca

The US currently has issues dealing with the occupation of Afghanistan so did the russians(who were actually pushed out) the spanish doesn't have near the military might of either so honestly they could not have taken the area.

[QUOTE="jazznate"]

[QUOTE="fidosim"] Let me throw this your way. In 1993, Bin Laden's network attacked the WTC. We didn't go to war with anyone. Then in 1998, our embassies in Nairobi were attacked by Bin Laden's network. We didn't go to war with anyone. Then in 2000, the USS Cole was bombed by Bin Laden's network. We didn't go to war with anyone.Espada12

You know it was Clinton who first authorized the CIA to apprehend Bin Laden? Clinton came within hours of actually killing Bin Laden when we launched 66 cruise missiles at his training camp in 1998. The CIA also planned to have Pakistani commandos apprehend him but the 1999 military coup prevented that. In 2000 (when clinton was still president) we almost got him again when operatives working for the CIA attacked a convoy he was travelling with but missed the car he was in. There was actually debate on whether or not Clinton was focusing too much on taking out Osama.

Hmm I thought the administration deemed it unlawful and un-american do apprehend him with the method they were going to use?

Possibly, but ya know, a military coup in the country you were working with has a way to **** up your plans. But Clinton did sign a directive to allow the CIA to apprehend him anyway so I don't think that the people against his methods really had much say in the end.

ok, ok, right, yes, of course they want to kill us, but they are not going to do it themselves. you don't understand this. this is the first stage. they acknowledge they can't do it by themselves; there are not yet enough people sympathetic to their aims. my point is that they are looking to antagonize us into antagonizing other people into supporting their cause. so 9/11 wasn't about killing a little less than 3,000 New Yorkers so much as it was about getting us to kill 100,000 Muslims who would leave behind angry neighbors.quiglythegreat

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

I usually consult obscure "news" sources to boost my 'Net creds too.

Engrish_Major

You're just tossing out quotes used out of their context. You can't compare Soviet Russia to America as far as Afghanistan goes. Oh, and the economic collapse didn't have anything to do with the wars. That's why I'm rolling my eyes at the irrational nonsense you're spewing. What other kind of response do you think you deserve? The terrorists won because we counter-attacked, oooookaaaaay. Using that logic, the Axis Powers emerged victorious from WWII because we spent lots of money to fight them too.

You're just tossing out quotes used out of their context. You can't compare Sovieet Russia to America. Oh, and the economic collapse didn't have anything to do with the wars. That's why I'm rolling my eyes at the irrational nonsense you're spewing. What other kind of response do you think you deserve? The terrorists won because we counter-attacked, oooookaaaaay. Using that logic, the Axis Powers emerged victorious from WWII because we spent lots of money to fight them too.

[QUOTE="GamerForca"]

Lol, they weren't alone. What I'm saying is that when they were attacked, they should've been pumping up their military might in Afghanistan to eliminate the terrorists, not getting the hell out of there. And come on, if Spain had their heart in it, they could've teaken Afghanistan without any help anyway. Spain has a fully modernized army, the Afghans weren't even close.

The US currently has issues dealing with the occupation of Afghanistan so did the russians(who were actually pushed out) the spanish doesn't have near the military might of either so honestly they could not have taken the area.

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]From bin Laden's own mouth:

"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy."

"We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat." -Osama bin Laden, 2004

fidosim

It is a disturbing parallel.

Afghanistan was Russia's "Vietnam".

Now it looks like the terrorists are hoping that Republicans act up once again and force Obama into Afghanistan, where it could easily become Vietnam 2.0

I'm sure Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and everyone on Fox News is going to start portraying Obama as a coward to get their usual redneck viewership support and then force us into another war without a plan.

It's as if Bin Laden is using Republican Ego to screw up this country from thousands of miles away.

I hope Obama stays strong and find another way to get rid o the Taliban - like gaining the trust of Tribal leaders in the unoccupied parts of the country to rally together with Pakistan and fight back.

American has already lost too much fighting a useless war in Iraq. It's time to change the strategy for Afghanistan.

Brute force won't win that battle though. I think Obama understands that and that's why he's hesitant with just sending more troops there. I agree, Afghanistan needs to be dealt with - as does the President.

But I do not think that you can just shoot up everyone wearing a turban to do it - which is basically how Bush and the Republicans and right-wingers like to approach things. Its just stupid and ignorant.

On ABC this morning, they showed a group of US soldiers who were trying to gain the trust of local tribal leaders around the country - much the same way the Taliban has been bullying tribal leaders to fight against us. Only the American soldiers offered to help rebuild their schools and protect their villagers in exhange for enemy positions and information. They sat down in a tent with tribal leader on a carpet in a big circle and discussed stuff like that.

That's how you win wars - you get the people of the country to rise up WITH you, not hide in a basement just waiting for the bombs to stop dropping.

When I see idiots like John McCain attacking the President for not immediately sending troops at the whim of the Generals over there without any plan, it makes me so mad. McCain should know better, being stuck in a cage as a prisoner in Vietnam. But no, even he is poisoned with stupid politics.

I shudder when I think where we would be if he was president right now.

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

You're just tossing out quotes used out of their context. You can't compare Sovieet Russia to America. Oh, and the economic collapse didn't have anything to do with the wars. That's why I'm rolling my eyes at the irrational nonsense you're spewing. What other kind of response do you think you deserve? The terrorists won because we counter-attacked, oooookaaaaay. Using that logic, the Axis Powers emerged victorious from WWII because we spent lots of money to fight them too.

Engrish_Major

:lol:

What trap? Oh, and I notice you only cite Bush as being the moron. Is Obama a moron for committing more troops as well? Is he a moron for continuing to turn us into a disdainful laughing stock, especially when he said during his campaign that he would attack Pakistan to pursue insurgents?

Oh the premises I'm supposed to accept in your statements.:lol:

He's done nothing to deserve this. He's continued the Bush foreign policy. What a joke the Nobel Peace Prize has become. Gore and Obama? Dear lord, save us.

I can compare the US with Russia because we fell into the same trap. That makes much more sense than comparing WW2 to the current wars. I've stated before that the same mentality does not apply now as it did then. We not only fell for bin Ladens ploy once, but twice! Only a moron like Bush could take world solidarity and sympathy after 9-11 and turn us into a disdainful laughing stock around the world.Engrish_Major

:lol:

What trap? Oh, and I notice you only cite Bush as being the moron. Is Obama a moron for committing more troops as well? Is he a moron for continuing to turn us into a disdainful laughing stock, especially when he said during his campaign that he would attack Pakistan to pursue insurgents?

Oh the premises I'm supposed to accept in your statements.:lol:

The Soviets had to leave Afghanistan because they were suffering from severe economic and political problems at home, compounded by the fact that we were pumping money and armaments into the resistance effort. fidosim

Wow... just wow.... And still no Peace Prize for David Suzuki huh?Setsa

You want more outrage, look up who Al Gore beat out for the Prize.

http://www.irenasendler.org/

Brute force won't win that battle though. I think Obama understands that and that's why he's hesitant with just sending more troops there. I agree, Afghanistan needs to be dealt with - as does the President.

But I do not think that you can just shoot up everyone wearing a turban to do it - which is basically how Bush and the Republicans and right-wingers like to approach things. Its just stupid and ignorant.

On ABC this morning, they showed a group of US soldiers who were trying to gain the trust of local tribal leaders around the country - much the same way the Taliban has been bullying tribal leaders to fight against us. Only the American soldiers offered to help rebuild their schools and protect their villagers in exhange for enemy positions and information. They sat down in a tent with tribal leader on a carpet in a big circle and discussed stuff like that.

That's how you win wars - you get the people of the country to rise up WITH you, not hide in a basement just waiting for the bombs to stop dropping.

When I see idiots like John McCain attacking the President for not immediately sending troops at the whim of the Generals over there without any plan, it makes me so mad. McCain should know better, being stuck in a cage as a prisoner in Vietnam. But no, even he is poisoned with stupid politics.

I shudder when I think where we would be if he was president right now.

[QUOTE="fidosim"] The Soviets had to leave Afghanistan because they were suffering from severe economic and political problems at home, compounded by the fact that we were pumping money and armaments into the resistance effort. Engrish_Major

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]

Brute force won't win that battle though. I think Obama understands that and that's why he's hesitant with just sending more troops there. I agree, Afghanistan needs to be dealt with - as does the President.

But I do not think that you can just shoot up everyone wearing a turban to do it - which is basically how Bush and the Republicans and right-wingers like to approach things. Its just stupid and ignorant.

On ABC this morning, they showed a group of US soldiers who were trying to gain the trust of local tribal leaders around the country - much the same way the Taliban has been bullying tribal leaders to fight against us. Only the American soldiers offered to help rebuild their schools and protect their villagers in exhange for enemy positions and information. They sat down in a tent with tribal leader on a carpet in a big circle and discussed stuff like that.

That's how you win wars - you get the people of the country to rise up WITH you, not hide in a basement just waiting for the bombs to stop dropping.

When I see idiots like John McCain attacking the President for not immediately sending troops at the whim of the Generals over there without any plan, it makes me so mad. McCain should know better, being stuck in a cage as a prisoner in Vietnam. But no, even he is poisoned with stupid politics.

I shudder when I think where we would be if he was president right now.

fidosim

Except you know, the soldiers' friends and families back home.

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

:lol:

What trap? Oh, and I notice you only cite Bush as being the moron. Is Obama a moron for committing more troops as well? Is he a moron for continuing to turn us into a disdainful laughing stock, especially when he said during his campaign that he would attack Pakistan to pursue insurgents?

Oh the premises I'm supposed to accept in your statements.:lol:

Engrish_Major

Civil? You're making unsubstatiated statements. I counter said arguments, and you complain that I'm not being civil? And to boot you respond with a total cop out that isn't even based in reality. Obama said what he said during the election, which I suppose doesn't fit in with your vision of the world. The Obama Adminstration is Bush's third term. How the world feels about us? Have you not paid attention to recent events? The 2016 Olympics says hello.

I mean nothing personal, really I don't. But you cannot make such baseless statements and not expect some snickering.

By "economic and political problems" I don't mean a recession. fidosim